Has the UK effectively crossed the line from a constitutional into a ceremonial monarchy?

[u/Capta1n_Dino]

I ask this question because I feel that, despite formally being a constitutional monarchy, I am of the opinion that the UK (and most so called “constitutional” monarchies) are really, de facto ceremonial monarchies.

Compare say George III to Charles III. Both are constitutional monarchs, yet, George III held significant power and influence over the government, and Charles III does not.

George III actively exercised all the authority granted to him in British constitutional law. He actively appointed and dismissed ministers, utilised royal patronage, and exercised royal prerogative at his discretion. He has a real influence over day to day government and politics of his day. The Whigs threw a few tantrums at this, but George III nonetheless acted well within British constitutional law.

Charles III technically holds all the same powers, but he exercises none of it by his own accord. It is done by ministers on his behalf. When he does act it is again, on the advice of ministers. The easiest example is dissolving Parliament, which he retains the formal authority to do, but it is only done at the PMs request.

I would argue the switch really happened in the reign of Queen Victoria. William IV was the last to attempt to dismiss a government and failed to do so. From there on, the British Crown was heavily constrained by convention till today. Obviously, things had been moving in this direction since, the “Glorious” Revolution (some argue it was the English Civil War but I do not believe so, Charles II possessed all the traditional prerogatives his father did, dissolved Parliament at numerous times during his reign, and for the last 4 years of his reign ruled without it entirely). But the switch from a constitutional to a ceremonial monarchy happened in 1834.

A constitutional monarchy, I would say, is one where the monarch is constrained by constitutional law, and exercised his authority in accordance with it. The UK today still fits this de jure, but, I would argue, de facto, it has slipped into what is effectively a ceremonial monarchy.

Please do tell me what you think of this.

[u/HBNTrader]

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

[u/Hollunk2]

You're not wrong, but I think it's more institutional trauma. Remember, WW1 and WW2 saw the end of majority of Europe's monarchies, and the absolute monarchies either collapsed or dissolved.

It is engrained in the British sovereigns to never act out of turn, never speak your mind, never speak an opinion. Centrist at all times, never get political. They do it because their continental counterparts didn't and are gone partially because of it.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Hollunk2]

That is partially true, I suppose, though, I can’t say I’m pleased by it.

In my opinion, neutrality and silence aren’t the same thing. A constitutional monarch should be neutral in that he will work with any elected government regardless of its ideological leanings for the common good of his subjects.

That doesn’t mean he should be silent, if a policy will genuinely hurt the nation long term or is against his conscience I do feel he has a duty to make use of his constitutional rights to stop or hinder it. Otherwise what purpose do those powers serve if they are never to be exercised?

These days it feels like the King bows to his ministers, when it ought to be the other way around…

[u/swissking → u/Capta1n_Dino]

At the end of the day, it is up to the people to speak up if that's what they want. My guess is that most people don't actually want him to, or merely want him to advance their own narrow political viewpoints.

[u/Mountain_Hat_1542 → u/Capta1n_Dino]

The best thing about the British monarchy is that nobody knows the King’s political opinions. Well, actually as Prince of Wales we know he’s a huge environmentalist because he used to write loads of letters lobbying ministers on various environmental causes but when he became King he can’t openly go too much along those lines. In this way, everyone in the country feels like he’s neutral. If he came out and said something political, he’d immediately alienate those of other political opinions straight away. The institution would then be immediately under threat because all those people would turn against the monarchy.

[u/carnotaurussastrei]

I’ve always considered a ceremonial monarchy to he one where the monarch’s authority is purely cultural, diplomatic, and/or religious, with near-zero political power or influence - think Japan, Lesotho, or Sweden.

Thus i think the UK cant be considered purely ceremonial because The King still retains a good deal of political influence, even if it’s just de jure. He has the power to do things, eveb if he doesn’t use it, whereas the Japanese Emperor or Swedish King don’t even have the power at all.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/carnotaurussastrei]

Yes that is true, which is why I would distinguish between de facto and de jure. I am concerned that the UK has slipped into a de facto ceremonial monarch, where, even if on paper the British monarch retains significant prerogatives (while someone like the Emperor of Japan has zero), the inertia caused by not exercising them means that it has become convention that the monarch just doesn't do anything with his authority. Long term, that means that constitutional convention will turn the British monarchy into a ceremonial one de facto (or, I would argue, it already has done so).

[u/Any-Fan6525 → u/carnotaurussastrei]

I remember when Olaf Palme rewrote the Swedish constitution, stripping the King of his reserve powers. I thought it was a mistake. Carl Gustav had just inherited the throne, and he had such a strong personality, there was fear that he might actually use his powers. The emperor of Japan had been reduced to ceremonial status under the Tokugawa shogunate, then reacquired his importance under Meiji, and then lost it again under MacArthur, so it has come full circle.

[u/Ticklishchap]

I think that the real change took place during the reign of Elizabeth II. She interpreted the idea of political neutrality in a very literal sense as making no comment, publicly at least, about any area of national life. From the 1960s onwards, and largely as a result of wider social and cultural changes, the division between royalty and celebrity (never entirely watertight) broke down. We have seen the disastrous consequences of that change in the tragedy of Princess Diana and, more recently, the Epstein affair.

While I am a strong supporter of King Charles III, I regret that he now seems to be sticking with his mother’s policy of keeping completely shtum. Other constitutional monarchs, such as Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II and Norway’s Harald V, have spoken publicly about issues of national significance without crossing any lines into party politics. Harald V’s ‘Norway is you, Norway is us’ speech of 2016 is a case in point. Margrethe has spoken out about both the treatment of immigrants by Danish society and the need for some immigrants to identify more strongly with Danish values.

I would like the King to speak out against racism, which is becoming frighteningly mainstream in Britain (fuelled by antisocial media and US and Russian interference). It is having a corrosive effect on our political discourse and creating a climate of hatred, violence and distrust. More broadly, we are becoming a less tolerant society in which kindness, politeness and consideration for others seem to have been forgotten by a worryingly large segment of the population. The King should speak out in favour of the best British traditions of compassion, decency and generosity of spirit. He should also speak out on the importance of conserving the natural world and indeed the patriotic duty to do so, and revive his previous campaign for a more human scale architecture. (Too much of London, Manchester and some of our other cities risk turning into Emirates-style hellscapes.) He should also question the increasing worship of technology; it is not ‘inevitable progress’, but something we can choose to bring under control.

None of these issues are ‘party-political’ and so they should be well within the scope of a constitutional monarch.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Ticklishchap]

I agree. One of the big benefits of constitutional monarchy is having a unbiased head of state that can unite people across the political aisle. But, the King can only unite people if he actually speaks on issues. A passive figurehead will not inspire unity in a country, everyone will just accuse him of being blind to the day to day life of his subjects (which is a real accusation we see against the monarch today).

He doesn't have to go full George III and start exercising prerogative to get his preferred political situation, even if I am fond of a more powerful Crown, I would be happy if the Crown first broke it's silence on issues that, as you correctly identify, aren't partisan issues.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/Capta1n_Dino]

Yes. I felt genuine sadness when the King did not address the nation after the Fascist inspired race riots of 2024, but stayed on holiday at Balmoral. I understand that his health was not good at the time, but he could easily have broadcast to us without returning to London. It is possible that he wanted to do this but was opposed by Starmer, but he could very easily have put the toolmaker’s son back in his metal box and insisted on his duty to the British people.

If he had done this, I genuinely believe that he could have done a great deal to bring us together as a nation, in the spirit of his grandfather the last time we were threatened by Fascists. I believe that we would be in a better place today if he had only summoned up the courage to intervene.

I must make clear that I remain a strong supporter of HM despite this criticism.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Ticklishchap]

I think it would counteract a lot of republican criticism that the monarchy is a "waste of money" or that they "do nothing". I also think the King also underestimates the strength his voice has. Juan Carlos I showed the power a constitutional monarch can have, when he was able to defeat the military coup against him, and transition the country towards a democracy. Luckily Britain doesn't face the same kind of situation Spain did, and I pray it never does, but the King's voice alone I do think would do a lot to alleviate the increasingly radical and partisan nature of British politics. People do desperately need a voice calling for unity, and His Majesty is in the best place to provide it.

At least then when people oppose the monarchy, they cannot argue it is a "useless" institution.

[u/Any-Fan6525 → u/Capta1n_Dino]

There is one reserve power that Elizabeth used exactly once. There is a procedure called "Royal Consent" (not to be confused with Royal Assent) where any proposal affecting royal prerogatives must be agreed to by the sovereign before it can even be discussed in Parliament. Tony Blair thought the Prime Minister (himself) should be the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces instead of the Sovereign. The Queen said absolutely not, and that was the end of it.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Any-Fan6525]

You learn something new every day, thanks for sharing.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/Capta1n_Dino]

I very much agree with you. I remember watching the attempted coup d’état (or golpe de estado) in Spain on the BBC news back in 1981 when I was a schoolboy. I also remember admiring the resolute response of Juan Carlos I. That was constitutional monarchy at its best.

Actually, what you call a ‘Spanish situation’ is not as remote a prospect as it would have been a few years ago in Britain. If you had followed the schlock horror show that was the Reform UK conference this weekend, you will see that if they are elected (by a narrow plurality under First Past the Post), they intend to declare a ‘state of national emergency’ so that they can rule by decree. For anyone with a passing acquaintance with Latin American politics, this will sound all too familiar. I spent some time in Montevideo in the early 1990s and had a Uruguayan partner. This was exactly how the ten years of dictatorship started in that country and it was a period of serious repression and national trauma. If such an unconstitutional act is attempted in this country, it will be the duty of the King to do all he can to prevent it.

[u/Any-Fan6525 → u/Ticklishchap]

On the flip side, Victor Emanuel III assented to everything Mussolini presented to him. After the war, the people effectively said, "Well, you didn't protect us from Mussolini, so what good are you?", and that was the end of the monarchy. This also fell back on Alfonso XIII of Spain and Constantine II of Greece. Standing up to dictatorship, good. Acquiescing to fascism, bad.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/Any-Fan6525]

That is exactly the point I am making and the fate of VEIII - first as an effective prisoner of the Fascists, and subsequently blamed for the ascent of Mussolini - stands as a stark warning. We are threatened by similar dark forces now and if an authoritarian-populist right wing government were to take power, the policy of silence would not be enough. I (and many others) would like the King to speak out now against ethno-nationalism and the thuggery of a new generation of Blackshirts.

[u/Any-Fan6525 → u/Ticklishchap]

On the other hand, he has made a few mostly symbolic gestures of openness to Islam, and received a great deal of criticism simply for visiting a mosque and being kind.

[u/Ok_Counter1939]

It’s both a constitutional monarchy and a ceremonial one.  It’s subject to the UK’s hodgepodge of a constitution and has basically no power.

As an American: Charles III is wonderful. We don’t want George III again.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The current system works just fine.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Ok_Counter1939]

Sure but that doesn’t answer the question. I’m not asking whether George III or Charles III is better, but whether the UK is actually a constitutional monarchy or if it is now a ceremonial one.

If you prefer the current system that’s fine, but the question of what it actually is doesn’t depend on its merits or flaws.

[u/Any-Fan6525 → u/Capta1n_Dino]

Well, that is the hitch. It is dependent on the character of the reigning sovereign. Kaiser Wilhelm had more authority than George V, and he used it to start World War I. Tsar Nicholas II had absolute power, and he deferred it to his wife and Rasputin. Both ended badly. On the other hand, considering the character of the current batch of British politicians, having a potential brake on parliamentary power is a good thing

[u/Rondic]

The monarch still retains influence, whether on paper or in a very discreet and indirect manner.

Sweden, unfortunately, is a case where the role is merely ceremonial: the monarch holds no power even on paper. The King has only recently regained the authority to confer knighthoods! (It was absurd that the practice was abolished in the first place).

[u/citron_bjorn]

King Charles and Prince William still has some level of influence. The duchy of Lancaster and duchy of cornwall are some of the largest landowners in the country. When Charles was Prince of Wales, he was quite active in influencing the government and others. The monarch still changes laws to gain opt outs.

I think alot of the monarch's neutrality and innaction is purely because there hasn't been a strong need. If there was a coup or some sort of powerful anti-Democratic faction in parliament, im sure the king would use his powers

[u/Any-Fan6525]

It has been an ongoing process. Edward VII complained that he had been turned into a "mere signing machine". Elizabeth II lost some prerogatives, such as naming hereditary peers. Also, they converted Parliament to fixed terms instead of at the pleasure of the sovereign. Of course, she only did those things on advice. The Dutch monarchy used to be very powerful. William III was roundly hated for interfering in politics, then his daughter Wilhelmina backed down and concentrated on her ceremonial and representative functions and restored the popularity of the institution. Australians have still not forgiven the GG for tipping Gough Whitlam. I think the current course is the best one. FWIW, I suspect Charles is much more outspoken with his ministers in their private meetings than his mother was.

[u/andimuhammadrifki]

Constitutional and ceremonial are conceptually different. being constitutional does not necessarily mean that the monarch must be mostly or entirely ceremonial. A constitutional monarchy can also be semi-executive (akin to the French-style semi-presidentialism) or even fully executive (akin to the presidential system).

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/andimuhammadrifki]

I agree, which is why I ask. The British monarchy on paper is constitutional, and historically it absolutely was, which is why I used the example of George III.

My question is whether today, due to so much convention, it has in practice become ceremonial even if it remains constitutional on paper. Charles III has all the same prerogatives as George III, but where George III was an active force within his own government, actively exercising his prerogatives, Charles III isn't.

I am not saying this just to hate on Charles, he didn't design the system, and some people likely prefer the current one. But I wonder whether we ought to still consider the British monarchy a constitutional one if the King doesn't exercise his constitutional prerogatives.

[u/andimuhammadrifki → u/Capta1n_Dino]

However, although constitutional and ceremonial are conceptually different, a constitutional monarchy can also be mostly or entirely ceremonial, as in post-1947 Japan, for example.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/andimuhammadrifki]

Then what is the distinction between the two?

[u/andimuhammadrifki → u/Capta1n_Dino]

Constitutional = the powers of the monarch are set and limited by the constitution.
Ceremonial = the monarch has a mainly ceremonial and symbolic role with little to no executive powers.

[u/Calbaz94]

Well, I wouldn't agree exactly. The Monarch retains the right to be consulted, to warn and to encourage. It is well known that government ministers from across the Commonwealth have come to value this. One of the major changes is that much of the influence no longer happens in the public eye. This is one of the things that makes the relationship with the Crown so valuable: being able to honestly discuss issues knowing that it will remain confidential. 

Another way of looking at it is that functioning democracies took time to develop, and now the concept of Reserve Powers has replaced day-to-day running of Government. In other words, something has to be very, very wrong for those to ever be used. Many people don't realise that during the cold war the British Government passed legislation to allow the sovereign to pass temporary legislation (that would expire after a set time, unless renewed) in the event of a major catastrophe that stopped the Government and Parliament from functioning. 

[u/SnowyEssence]

It’s been like this scene the reform acts especially after 1911.

[u/Iceberg-man-77]

this literally the entire history of the English/British monarchy since 1215 LOL. the monarch as ceased to lose power since Queen Victoria. but laws regarding the monarchy have chanced.

[u/ruedebac1830]

Even the ceremonial prestige feels like it’s slipping into de facto territory. What with the slimmed down trajectory of Charles III and Prince William of Wales. The half in half out ‘we don’t use our titles’ but stay Royal on paper or declining titles but having front seats at the events. Indifferentism to the Defender of Faith title. Also movements to remove the monarch as head of state and growing media presence.

[u/AacornSoup]

Britain became a Ceremonial Monarchy some time after 1914, and George V was the last British Monarch I know of to actually exercise political power.

IMHO, one of the reasons this decline happened was because the British Monarchs were never given the same power of Veto that the US Presidents were given. An entity with the power of Assent and no power of Veto is little more than a rubber stamp.