6th Dec 2009

Spokesperson Graham Smith said today:

“While everyone has a right to a certain level of privacy the Queen cannot expect the media to dance to her tune. The media are not there to act as promoters of the royals.”

“The Windsors routinely use the media when it suits them, to promote their activities and their personal lives. Our press is awash with positive stories about the personal lives of the Windsors. The palace should not be the ones dictating where the line should be drawn.”

“Given the high level of secrecy already surrounding the monarchy the press must be allowed to pursue stories and take photos if there is genuine news value or public interest.”

“There have been a number of photos taken of Windsors apparently hitting or killing animals, highly questionable actions that the public have a right to know about. If people who claim a god-given right to head our nation are falling out of night clubs then clearly there is a public interest.”

“The Windsors cannot have it both ways. If they demand privacy then they must submit to accountability, transparency and scrutiny.”

It’s perhaps the most fundamental myth of the whole monarchy/republic debate – the Queen has no power.

The first response to has to be: yes she has. She has the power to appoint the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament and withhold royal assent. Make no mistake, these are real powers. If the Queen chose to exercise them against the advice of the government, she would be perfectly entitled to do so.

The power to appoint the Prime Minister is particularly relevant right now, given the likelihood of a hung Parliament. The Queen’s decision in such a situation would change the course of British political history, yet we are not allowed to know how she would make it.

Monarchists usually respond to this by saying “no monarch would ever use these powers”. Some suggest that in the event that the Queen (or the next King Charles) did, there would be a revolution – but they never explain exactly how this would happen. This is a truly bizarre basis for a system of government: we’ll give you these important powers – powers absolutely fundamental to Parliamentary democracy – as long as you promise never to use them. Hardly a solid foundation on which to base a constitutional settlement.

Then you have what may be called the power of influence. The Queen has a constitutional right to be consulted by, and to advise and warn, her government. The most public demonstration of this right is her weekly audience with the Prime Minister. We know it happens, but we will never be allowed to know what is said. We will never know if she has ever “warned” a Prime Minister not to put forward legislation that she personally disagrees with.

But as we often say at Republic, it’s not just the power that the monarch exercises personally that’s the problem – it’s also the great swathes of power that the monarchy hands to the Prime Minister.

Take the royal prerogative powers. These powers once belonged to the monarch, but are now exercised by the executive. They give the Prime Minister the power to make treaties and declare war  – amongst many other things - without having to go before Parliament. Making treaties and declaring war - hardly uncontroversial acts.

Then there is the Privy Council. Originally an advisory council for the monarch, the Privy Council is now another means by which the Prime Minister of the day can make decisions without the inconvenience of a Parliamentary vote.

Finally – and perhaps most significantly – there is the strange construct of the Crown-in-Parliament. The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is essentially a monarchical one. It states that absolute power must reside centrally, in one place – and must be kept away from the people. It gives Parliament the power to pass any law it likes, literally any law. Notions of liberties or rights are alien to this system, of which the monarchy is the lynchpin.

Given the power which the monarchy holds, gives to others or keeps from us it’s pretty disconcerting to note that our head of state is less accountable than the Mayor of Southend.