To Top

What are The Queen’s powers?

The Royal Prerogative are a set number of powers and privileges held by The Queen as part of the British constitution. Nowadays, a lot of these powers are exercised on Her Majesty’s behalf by ministers – things such as issuing or withdrawing passports that, without the Royal Prerogative, would require an act of parliament each time.

Over time, the prerogative powers have been used less and less though the important thing in our Constitutional Monarchy is that they still exist, they remain a means of protecting democracy in this country ensuring that no one can simply seize power.

Victorian constitutionalist Walter Bagehot defined The Queen’s rights as, the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ – but these rights are not the same as her powers, as we will now see.

The Queen’s prerogative powers vary and fall into different categories…

Political Powers

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

  • Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.
  • Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.
  • Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.
  • Appoint/Remove Ministers – Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.
  • Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.
  • Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.
  • Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

Judicial Powers

The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

  • Royal Pardon – The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.

Armed Forces

The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

  • Commander-in-Chief – The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
  • Commissioning of Officers – The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions (when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).
  • Disposition of the Forces – The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.


One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

  • Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.
  • Font of Honour – It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.

Miscellaneous Powers

Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

  • Control of Passports – The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative – this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.
  • Requisitioning of Ships – This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982.
  • Royalwatcher1

    Does the sovereign really use her power regarding honours ? We know that Garter/Thistle/Merit appointments are decided ony by her majesty, but I guess that the queen may turn down honours proposals, and that leakages aren`t supposed to happen.

    Is it true that the queen have developed a personally restrictive approach regarding the creation of hereditary titles ? The PM did nominate individuals for hereditary honours until the Harold Wilson era, then it stopped with a few exceptions during the Thatcher era. I`m surprised that Cameron hasn`t revived the herditary peerage, since he is a traditional tory politican. Maybe we get a couple of creations in his resignation honours list.

    • robert

      The last hereditary peerage granted was Harold Macmillan who was created Earl of Stockton. It used to be traditional to grant a peerage to long-serving prime ministers. The last baronetcy was granted to Denis Thatcher. It is highly unlikely that any new hereditary peers will be created, except for royal dukedoms. Although the PM makes recommendations for honours, the Queen exercises her right to give counsel and warning. All PMs, Tory and Labour, pay great attention to her opinions.

      • Rhys Firth

        When someone as sharp and observant as HM is reigns for as long as she has, anyone with a modicum of sense listens carefully when she warns or advises…
        She’s pretty much seen it all before, if not in the UK somewhere within her commonwealth, and knows what is likely to happen more than some short sighted johnny-come-lately politician with a bright idea.

        • kai mitchell

          cant be that sharp endorsing child rape and child rapiests for over 50 years

          • Hazel Simmons

            The Queen did no such thing! Like the rest of us (I assume you are referring to the Jimmy Saville et al that worked at the BBC?) she was not aware of it, the Queen would never endorse child rape. xx

          • Dez Davis

            Didn’t The Queen issue a Royal warrant for one of the Popes a few years ago? Something about a request to appear in her court due to the abetting of such criminals in the Catholic Church.

  • Sarah Perky

    Can the Queen claim any nation she want’s to?

    • Andreas Persson Fondell

      Yes, but only within the commonwealth. She could for example claim Canada and Australia among others.

      • David L

        What utter rubbish!!! The Queen cannot “claim” Canada or Australia or any other Commonwealth country. These countries are independent nations with democratically elected governments. The Queen is simply the titular head of state because those countries have CHOSEN to retain her in that “figurehead” role. They could remove her as head of state any time they choose.

        • Heather

          Actually in Australia we can’t remove her at will. It requires a constitutional change, and it takes a majority of voters in a majority of states to remove her as head of state, and a new constitution drawn up. A very long and arduous process. We have a Governor General for a reason. She or he acts on behalf of the queen for example, signing laws after consultation with the government.

          • kai mitchell

            so do it already , look what the twats done to us

          • DavidL

            So you have to go through the ritual of a constitutional change, but that simply means that you vote for a republic and the process is begun. I know what it entails but the essential point is that if a majority of Australians want to get rid of the Queen as Head of State, then it can happen. I am just saying that the Queen is not Queen of Australia through personal choice or because she forces herself upon you in that role. Change would been down to Australia, not the Queen.

          • This Is My Display Name

            You just contradicted yourself by saying that you can’t remove her at will, then describing how you can do exactly that.

            “At will” doesn’t quick or simple–it means that, should you desire it, you have the power to achieve it.

            An example of her not being removable at will (in this context, anyway) would be if the Queen herself was the sole deciding vote.

  • Chloe Howard

    Which part of it?

  • What about in business throughout the commonwealth- how much power is she entitled to?

    • Jeff

      Absolute power! She has the ability to rescind business licenses! Shire, it’s delegated to an authority writhin the government, but she can exercise her power, and it will not be challenged…. Ultimately, whoever controls the military has absolute power, and she controls the military, without question! Every military person in every Commonwealth realm pledges allegiance to the queen, not to the country!
      Anyone who believes the citizens live in a free country, with a “ceremonial monarchy” are nothing more than sheep in the herd.

      • Does she have the authority to order executions without due legal process or interfere in the distribution of private estate matters?

        • DavidL

          Of course not!!! She is not an absolute monarch – such as the Saudi King, only a constitutional monarch. She has no power to intervene in the law of the UK in such a way. The UK government abolished the death penalty in 1965. The queen cannot order executions – with or wthout due process (she couldn’t do so before the abolition either. Persons could only be sentenced to death by a judge after due process). What do you think this is, the Middle Ages? The last absolute monarch was probably Elizabeth I in the 16 Century. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

          • kai mitchell

            wrong!!!! go and use google

          • DavidL

            No, YOU are wrong. Although the Queen has certain powers she can only exercise them on the advice of the Government. And she has NO authority to break the law. She certainly cannot “order executions”. What a ridiculous idea. Nor has she the power to interfere with the distribution of private estate matters, as Christine Halasz-Lane asked above.

    • DavidL

      Don’t listen to Jeff. He is talking bull. I worked in the British Government for 40 years, so I do know a few things…The commonwealth nations are independent democracies. The queen does NOT run them or control them. Anyone who thinks she does has a thoroughly Hollywood idea of Royalty. Those countries have simply decided to retain the Queen as titular Head Of State. They could remove her as head of state any time they choose. The Queen does NOT issue or rescind business licences. That is the business of the government of the country concerned. As for the Queen being Head of the military, that is also an entirely misleading notion. Because the Queen is titular Head of State, the armed forces swear allegiance to her. BUT the directing of and issuing of orders too the armed forces are the business of the elected government officials (normally the Minister of Defence and his department) who give directions/orders to the military. The Queen has no direct involvement. “Jeff” is talking out of an orifice other than his mouth.

      • kai mitchell

        wrong!!! when a salute is given in any armed forces they are saluteing the queen, they are not saluteing the rank or the indvidual, and she is allowed to manipulate troops

        • DavidL

          As I said, the Queen is the titular head of the Armed Forces, but she does not in any way take part in the actual running of them. She could only declare war on the advice of Government Ministers. She could not do so of her own free will. She is a constitutional monarch, not an absolute monarch. She is NOT “allowed to manipulate troops”. The armed forces take their orders from the Government, not the Queen.

    • kai mitchell

      as much as she likes as she is free from any prosacuytion in any court what so ever, in other words she dose what the fuck she like with no rrecource, history tells thaat isnt that right Sir Savillie, ohh yeh she also has the right to dissolve parlement when she likes

  • Don Toniki

    I believe the HRH Queen Elizabeth the second is not the most powerful person in Britian But the World She is the Commander in Chief of all her Realms an we in NZ swear allegiance to the Queen not the Government.So All armed forces and police Fireman Air force Navy and other government officials are under her command.Although she has not exercised this authority she has this power.So stick that Ceremonial stuff a side and remember she rules.The biggest armies Navies Air Forces in the World.!!!!

    • James Kearney

      Well said.

    • Trivandrumite

      Lol. US, Russia, China, India, and Israel will all kick the Queens ass if she tries to go to war with any of them.

      • ddhcjd

        India is in the common wealth

        • ddhcjd

          plus uk are best friends with the usa

      • kai mitchell

        lets hope it dcomes soon

      • DavidL

        The Queen would not “decide to go to war” with anyone. She can only declare war on the advice of the Government. Where do you all get your ideas of the Queens authority from – Hollywood?

        • Slave of Queen-dom

          a slave like u wud never understand wht queen and freedom mean

        • Thomas

          She can declare war on who she wishes, the advice from government thing is a convention.

      • 211197gb

        The UK is a bigger player in the international community than India and Israel, they could also probably defeat either of them military wise, especially due to our huge ally links what with being a permanent member of the UN security council and our commonwealth. We also have a better nuclear deterrent than Israel. The queen is probably the second most powerful person after the US president due to her international influence.

    • DavidL

      Here we go again. Another idiot who actually thinks the Queen exercises actual power as Commander in Chief. It is a titular role. Yes, you swear allegiance to the Queen as the notional Commander in Chief, but in reality the Queen doesn’t actually “command” the Army, Navy and Air Force of the UK or any Commonwealth country, in the sense of giving out orders. That is the role of the Government. And the Queen can only declare war on another country on the advice of Government Ministers. Also, the Police and Fire Services are not “under her command”. Where did you get that idea. Police and Fire Chiefs are responsible responsible (in the UK, and I would think in NZ also) to their local authorities. The Queen has nothing to do with the running of the Police and Fire Services of NZ. Neither are Government Officials “under her command”. Some of them may be appointed “by the Queen” but, once again, that is nominal. She appoints (and removes) only on the advice of Government. Finally, as a constitutional, or figurehead, monarch she reigns, but she does NOT rule. You are thinking of absolute monarchs. The last one we had was Charles I, and the Government cut his head off in 1649…

      • Politiqo

        I think the point being made here is that she has officially the power to do so while the convention may be different.

        Not in all countries monarchs were stripped off their political powers only through convention. For instance after elections, the assignment of the prime minister and the formation of the cabinet are done through the parliament in Netherlands and Sweden, the kings in both countries legally depoliticized. Especially in Sweden the king is stripped off any kind of power you can think of even seromonially.

        But in the UK still on paper the Queen can dissolve the parliament as she wishes for any reason or no reason at all and does not have to assign the leader of the biggest party to form a cabinet. She can assign anyone she wants to. Probably if she did that a couple of times she’d be dethroned the next they, and prosecuted in the new formation so we don’t expect It anytime soon but the points is, she can do it if she wishes.

    • Pratik Purkayastha

      Well brother , the Queen has one and only title ‘Her Majesty’ (HM) . Those who tend to insult a head of state are being taught to do so by their head of family . It seems that this is the only lesson they ever got from their parents and teachers .

  • Neetesh Sahu

    I wish i was born in this family…..
    sure next time with the name prince Richard !!! Mark it..!!!

  • Jeff

    Her majesty retains ultimate power over the United Kingdom, and largely over the Commonwealth realms. You should note in this article, items such as judicial powers are described as “having been delegated to judges and commisoners”. What that means is, the queen has the authority and power, she just so chooses to delegate the day to day decision making to subordinates, such as judges.
    Not unlike a corporate CEO would delegate responsibility to management, yet could overrule the managers decision at any time.
    Make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, the UK is RULED by an absolute monarchy! The fact that the monarch chooses to allow the people a voice, through parliament does not mean anything with regards to absolute control. Heck, the prime minister is chosen by the queen, she chooses to select the prime minister with the most support, and the prime minister is well aware of this fact! If the queen wants something done, all she needs to do is send a private letter, and it wi be done, for the power she weilds is absolute and she will not be challenged, period!
    The only thing standing in the way of the queen, would be an all out revolt of the citizenry, not unlike the same risk as any other time in history. Placate the people just enough to prevent all out revolt, and she has nothing that stands between her, and absolute power!

  • Ted Martin

    The “Pardon” issue is used here in the states a lot by the President and governors. Often used actually.

  • Marc Dobine

    Damn the Queen have a lot on her plate and has more power then the President here in the 50 states he got.

    • Noa Crimes

      Sir, I do believe you need to learn proper grammar.

    • Matt

      you sound retarded.

      • Damien

        He might well be retarded, which would make you almost equal considering your emotional retardation. If that is the case then you are forgiven for being tragically insensitive.

        • Matt

          blah blah blah, not politically correct blah. I didn’t say this at a Special Olympics ceremony. It’s an internet thread, so why don’t you come down off your high horse and have your testosterone levels checked because you’re clearly missing a pair of vital organs.

          • Brent

            Testicles are not vital organs. Maybe you should want to take some human physiology classes again.

          • Matt

            they are if you’re a little b*tch

          • Henry

            Actually no they’re not dumbass. You’re not gonna die if you get your balls cut off but you will die if you get your heart cut out of lungs taken out. hence why THEY are vital organs. so “you’re a little bitch”

          • Jody Dayton Peace

            Of course they are vital. The meaning of life is to pass ones genetics on and hopefully improve them in the process.

          • your name

            well we found the meaning of life on an internet thread

          • Rick Weber

            Vital, in the medical sense, does not mean important. The word vital comes from the latin Vitae, or Vitalis, meaning life. Hence, vital organs are life supporting organs. Heart, Lungs, Liver, Kidneys, Brain, etc.

          • Jody Dayton Peace


            Firstly, this is not a thread about medical terminology. The word ‘vital’ is not only used in connection to describing organs that keep the individuals body alive.

            Secondly, as I pointed out, we are only ONE physical manifestation of the SAME LIFE force that came from our first ancestor. So, if you are able to actually open your limited mind a little, you may learn something you have never considered before. The meaning of life is to pass on the SAME LIFE energy in DNA that is in YOU. If you lose your nuts (sounds like you never had any) you fail and your DNA line fails (and hence the line of life that you carry fails). Your body is only ONE generation, the most recent, of a vehicle used to carry the life force that has lived long before your body. In terms of ensuring LIFE we must surely realize that the testicles are the most important organs. But sure, the individual body can live without them.

            Thirdly, you are a very boring and tedious person who knows very little but tries to sound smart by fussing over minor side issues.

          • Joe Momma

            Like your entire second paragraph?

          • Jody Dayton Peace

            Yes, you may. Lol…

          • Matt

            no shit sherlock.

          • Londons Most-Wanted

            If a man loses his testicles he will need hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for the rest of his life, otherwise he’ll get brittle bones and such like. Testicles are very important to guys they produce essential hormones.

          • David Pearce

            that’s thyroid’s job you idiot!

          • Rodney Copperbottom

            i literally just peed my pants. This was the funniest thing Ive ever read while study for a test.

          • Rick Weber

            “And such like.” – vital does not mean important in medical terminology.

          • Testicles are definitely vital organs. You seem to be the one who is uneducated. Lacking in testicles changes the way we think. Our psychological state depends on our level of hormones. People who lose the capacity to produce testosterone, among other hormones, change in an overwhelming way. If that’s not “vital”, I don’t know what is. If we reserve the pancreas to be a vital organ, then our testicles would definitely warrant the same right given the importance in shaping our personality. People commit suicide after the imbalance of hormones takes its toll on their state of mind.

          • Mash Draggin

            Well to many gun-swingers in modern society and in this thread, they aren’t vital or even important. Then there are those who consider them indispensable. Which are you?

          • jose

            uh actually they are they make reproduction of humans possible! So maybe you should go to physiology classes again!

          • Brent

            But you can live without them. So they are not vital. They are vital for reproduction, but not for living. So, what’s your point?

          • Rodney Copperbottom

            You cant just assume his gender. That is not politically correct. SMH Matt.

      • Hazel Simmons

        I would suggest you do not use the word retarded, it is not a word used in the UK as it is very insulting to those with learning impairments:-) xx
        Hazel Simmons

    • Kuvira

      In my time spent in the UNITED KINGDOM I learned that the idea of a royal family passing the title from one generation to the next was archaic and that Technology and innovation shoud be what drives the nation forward. IT was the pathetic rule of kings and queens that caused the United Kingdom to crumble into such incredible disarray andThere is no way you should it to slip back in the dark ages. We have created a new United Empire and we should continue to lead it into the future ourself!

      • StevieTheWevie

        You heard the man, let us declare war on countries that have the power to use nukes on us and countries that are protected by bigger countries which have nukes.

      • Angus Kirk

        You can’t learn an opinion. You form an opinion after you learn facts.

    • Part of the reason Congress declares war is because the Monarch could simply go to war with no check on royal prerogative.

  • Kathy

    The “important thing in your democracy” is that she retains her prerogative powers as a means of ensuring no one seizes power from your democracy? Hell, she has seized the power. And you all allow it. It’s not a democracy, it’s an oligarchy.

    • LucaP

      it’s a kingdom…


      • Slavery under queen

        nop, Queen-dom

        • 59MMaci

          LOL… good one!

    • DavidL

      No, you fundamentally misunderstand the “power” of the monarchy. Once we had absolute monarchs who ruled as of right. Henry VIII and Charles I come to mind. Monarchs who thought they were chosen by God, and ruled accordingly. That came to an end after the English Civil War, when the defeated Charles I was beheaded by Parliament. Since that time the power of monarchs has been drastically reduced to the point where nowadays (in fact, for the last 200 years and more) we have had constitutional monarchs who have no real power at all. The so called powers that the Queen has, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as Head of the Church of England (although not of the Church of Scotland, oddly), as the appointer of Prime Ministers and senior officials, etc., are only exercised on the advice of Government Ministers. Even the so-called power to veto Government Bills is essentially a myth, given that she is above politics. She has never, in her long reign, refused to sign a Bill. So tell me, how did she “seize the power”?

      • Thomas

        You are wrong though. At lot of people seems to think that con monarchy must mean that the monarch has no power compared to absolute monarchy, like there is nothing in between. Con monarchy in Britains case just means the monarch has certain limitations put upon them. The British monarchs from Charles II had a lot of power and used it, Victoria technically had a lot of power but chose not to use it and was largely uninterested in government affairs, even so, on occasions she used it if I remember right. Now as I said Victoria chose not to use her powers, so they still existed when Edward VII became king, a king who very much involved himself with government, but at this time, and thanks to Bagehot people had different expectations of their monarch. Queen Elizabeth technically retains these powers and can use them, and involve herself with government much more, though at this point the expectation has gone so far that if she actually did use them it would cause an uproar.

      • Mark Caruana

        What do you mean no real power…she has the power to pardon criminals and murderers, to pass or deny bills of law, to dissolve parliament, immunity from prosecution meaning yes she can legally go out and stab you to death is absolute monarchy , with such powers democracy cannot even co exist there is no democracy only what seems like democracy a joke really…as long as there are kings and queens with the absolute power of Gods

  • Yeremie

    In general who has more power a king or queen?

    • The reigning monarch holds the power, there is no difference. At present we have a Queen, there is no King.

      • 59MMaci

        You know what I find funny with that Monarch? That is, when that country has a King and is married to a woman, that woman gets the title of “Queen”, but when the woman becomes Queen, the man she is married to only gets the title of “Prince”… LMAO

        • Mike

          Because you can’t marry into the royal family and take a higher title than the bloodline. A King is a greater title than Queen, so if Prince Phillip were to be king he would have married the rightful air to the thrown and would surpass her in rank.

  • Nick

    Technically, what happened re Iraq is that a bill was put before the parliament that would essentially transfer power to declare war from the monarchy (exercised solely through the PM of the day) to the Parliament as a whole. On the advice of the PM (then Tony Blair), she refused to give her assent. The Bill had not been debated in Parliament, and had not been voted on. If it had gone to a vote, it probably would not have gotten up anyway (given the elected Government of the day did not support it). In the end, the Parliament voted to declare war anyway, although that vote was non-binding on the PM and the Crown.

    Essentially, if that Bill had gotten up, a vote of Parliament would be required for any declaration of war by the UK, as opposed to being an executive action. The US, France, Germany, etc all formally place the power to go to war in the hands of Parliament/Congress. Most commonwealth countries have it with the Crown, then with the national Governor-General, and then by convention the elected Head of Government, rather than the elected Parliament as a whole.

    • Anno1121

      No no no. The declerstion to go to war is held by congress. The application of the armed forces is held by the president.

  • DavidL

    I see Nick has ably answered your query re. Iraq. Regarding the alleged 32 other occasions when you say the Queen withheld consent, please name them. If not all, then at least some…Such events would have excited sufficient public interest that there would have been fairly prominent comment in the Press, and I can recall none…

    • Steve

      Really? There’s been a lot of it in the press! She has disallowed any legislation from being enacted if those proposed laws affected her own interests and that of her family. Yes she has allowed the EU to take control without the people being consulted.

      • Ian Schwarzenegger

        The last queen to block a law was Queen Anne. Hundreds of years ago. You have no clue what you are talking about.

  • Slave of Queen-dom

    Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

    wtf? is she god?

    • 65001

      The Courts are made by her power in times of old and are exercising the powers of the crown. The court cannot tell the Crown do pay or do anything as they would be using the Queens power to tell the Queen what to do. This is a legal concept named Sovereign Immunity and is in play. (Side note : America also has this same concept )

      • C

        But in America, if the president does something horribly wrong, Congress has the power to impeach the president, as in kick him out. This almost happened TWICE.

        • Dave Acklam

          3 times, technically.

          Clinton, Nixon, Andrew Johnson.

          Only 2 of the 3 resulted in formal proceedings: Nixon resigned before any action could be taken.

          • CPinSL

            Nixon was not impeached since he resigned BEFORE he could be impeached. By definition, impeachment is simply the Congressional hearings (trial) that can result in the removal from office.

            Only Johnson and Clinton were impeached (neither were removed from office).

          • This Is My Display Name

            They said “almost happened” not “did happen”.

            Nixon absolutely almost got impeached.

          • CPinSL

            Good point. He resigned after the Judicial Committee voted, but before the full Senate could take any action.

          • 59MMaci

            Actually only 1, Clinton was never technically impeached. He was “impeached” by the house of representatives, but he never got impeached from office. So his presidency doesn’t count as an impeachment.

            And Nixon’s resignation, although technically was a “forced resignation”, would be considered an impeachment since he had to leave the Oval Office. Nixon only “resigned” so that he could preserve his office legacy and not have an “impeachment” on his presidency record, But in my view point, that IS AN IMPEACHMENT.

          • Dave Acklam

            Impeachment is done by the House. It’s like an indictment.

            Trial & Conviction is by the Senate.

            So both Clinton & Andrew Johnson were impeached. Neither were convicted, and thus neither were removed.

            Nixon was never actually formally impeached – but the process was moving and that is what forced him out.

        • Matt

          but, the president is a person, a representative if you will. The concept of sovereignty means that the queen (being the crown) is not a mere person, but is the government itself. So applying that to the US would mean that the government itself has sovereign immunity, not the representatives that make it up. And actually, in america, it is the people who are the sovereigns and we technically delegate our sovereignty to the government.

        • thornyrose

          And hopefully for a third time again!

      • This Is My Display Name

        The POTUS has 0 freedom from civil litigation. So, no, if the above is true about the Queen having that freedom, America doesn’t have “this same concept”.

      • 59MMaci

        If this is true with what you say, then how come parliament was able to get the royal family, including the queen, to pay income taxes on the money they get from taxes that are paid to them from the public? Isn’t that using the “queen’s powers” against her?

        • Thomas

          They just asked her to. Her tax-paying is VOLUNTARY.

          • Hazel Simmons

            Exactly, unlike the idiot who asked the question who would never pay his taxes voluntary lol xx

          • Thomas

            I didn’t even bother to correct his other statement that the Queen gets taxpayers money, she doesn’t. Unless he considers the Crown estate to belong to the people and not the Queen. She also has private incomes obviously, most of what the Queen gets from the Crown Estate goes to all kinds of stuff not having to do with her.

            And no, most people probably wouldn’t pay voluntary taxes, though at least in my country (Sweden), people pay church tax voluntarily, so maybe I’m wrong to some extent. I guess whatever they are paying for have to matter.

    • Damien

      No, she’s the Queen and God is a fictional higher purpose to many who believe. Have some respect for the living, she’s fought your corner all of your life.

    • Londons Most-Wanted

      A lot of constitutional experts call BS on that. If she murdered someone she absolutely would be tried for it. There are no laws expressly forbidding it. She could even end up spending time at her own leisure presumably in Holloway Prison or similar.

    • Dez Davis

      I would imagine that her love of England would keep her from crime, it has been in her family blood lines for a very long time.

  • KWB

    So according to this article, the monarchy doesn’t have any real power except….in times of “crisis”. What would constitute crisis? A potential change in the status quo of the current constitution? A threat to the monarchy? Perhaps then, a Prime Minister who wants to get rid of the monarchy when perhaps members of his own and the other political parties are adamantly against doing so and perhaps with the people divided on the issue with some (of whichever side of the argument), threatening violence – or being said to threaten violence? The point is that it’s the body who holds the power at a time of crisis that has real power. And swearing allegiance to the Queen is not an empty platitude. It is something done by the armed forces when they are out risking their lives. That bond is affirmed day after day after day. I would bet that if the Queen decided to take on any elected Prime Minister, that there’s more than half a chance she would end up with the backing of the army.

  • Sir Alex Daniel Siegel

    Your mastjey the queen of England how do people getting really kinghted by the queen of England by letters thanks you for really kinghted me on the letter your mastjey the queen of England from yesterday right your mastjey the queen of the England I am going to continue to be a extra special gentlemen right grandmother I want to be a extra special gentlemen right grandmother I want to be a extra special gentlemen right grandmother Ations speeck louder than words right grandmother my name it is sir Alex Daniel Siegel right grandmother I am going to continue to be living up to my sir title right your mastjey the queen of England right grandmother I am going to continue to be living up to my British ilies America knighthood right your mastjey the queen of England I am going to continue to be living up to my cbe awards right your mastjey the queen of England right grandmother I am going to be continue to be keeping it up and up my special supper star kinghtley gentlemenley behavior right your mastjey the queen of England and right grandmother what rank do I have for a kinghtley gentlemen just like myself right your mastjey the queen of England because ms maerlen Morgan ms Andrea ricca that really kinghted me your mastjey the queen of England

    • Sir Alex Daniel Siegel

      Your mastjey the queen of England I am going to continue to be a extra special gentlemen your mastjey the queen of England because I am going to continue to be keeping it up and up my sir title right your mastjey the queen of England

  • Sir Alex Daniel Siegel

    Your mastjey the queen of England I would like to be really again and again from you your mastjey the queen of England right grandmother

    • Hazel Simmons

      Her Majesty is NOT and never has been the Queen of England, she is the Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth! Get your facts right as you only make yourself look incredibly stupid:-)

  • Sir Alex Daniel Siegel

    Your mastjey the queen of England I would like to be really kinghted by you your mastjey the queen of England again and again because I am going to continue to be keeping it up and up my sir title right your mastjey the queen of England

  • Jody Dayton Peace

    She has little formal power… but a lot of money… which also gives power.

    She should be arrested and tried for treason…

    • This Is My Display Name

      So having money is an act of treason now?

      Ok….Sure….Whatever you say.

      • Jody Dayton Peace

        Learn to read, bozo.

        I didn’t say that having a lot of money is treason, and you know it.

        She uses her wealth to commit treasonous acts, and it’s the treasonous acts which deserve being tried for treason.

        Are you ten years old, or did something heavy drop on your head..?

        • Chris Wolf

          I’ll bite. Setting aside that it nigh impossible for her to act against herself (the Crown), what has she done that you consider treasonous? Please give specific examples.

          • Jody Dayton Peace

            She supports flooding Britain with cheap labor from the third world, which is great for her and her rich friends to make money off of, but it drives up land prices making housing unaffordable for the rest, holds wages down, and wastes tax money in hand-outs. She has given the land away to non-natives and the results are rape, murder, and a much lower quality of life with a slow drift towards extinction for the natives.

            When she took the throne Britain had an empire where the sun never set. Now it is a fragment of what it was and is in the darkness. She supported all of the foolhardy policies that made it thus. On results, she is the worst monarch ever by far. It’s a gross insult to Elizabeth I that they share a name.

            Elizabeth II cares only about her dynasty. She cares nothing for the native peoples or anybody else. A monarch should be like a mother or father to their peoples. She is a parasite.

          • Mario Alberto Vázquez Rosas

            My god, man, you sure are an idiot. It’s the Queen fault the empire fell? No, it was because of the second world war that the nations of the Commonwealth were granted independence. You really think that the Queen is to blame when it was Neville Chamberlain the one that let Hitler gain power and refused to attack him in the begging of the war?

            And please, dial your fascism down, why don’t you. “Land to non-natives…” If those immigrants got those houses, in a country where they don’t know anyone and don’t talk the same language, don’t you think it was because they busted their asses up? The extinction of the natives, you say. That sounds just like Hitler.

          • Jody Dayton Peace


            You are the idiot.

            I never said it was only because of the queen that the empire fell. I don’t support empires anyway. The fall of the empire was only one part, a symptom, of the greater collapse of the power of Britain. Britain didn’t need an empire to do well. It was the practical bankrupting of Britain and the giving away of power to none Brits that has ruined Britain.

            The queen signed off and agreed with all of the policies that ruined Britain. That is a fact.

            WWII was a senseless war as it was based on trying to uphold the stupid and unfair Versailles Treaty which should have been torn up which would have averted war. Every serious scholar admits that. WWII broke Britain and ALL of Europe. And yet you claim the same old propagandist comic book stuff of attacking Germany being a clever idea and ‘we should have done it sooner’. So, you a war monger with no new ideas and you just follow the establishment. I guess you think the Iraq invasion was clever too.

            Please explain why you think it is wrong to not want the native people of the British Isles to be driven to extinction? You sound like Stalin with your mealy mouth weasel words.

        • This Is My Display Name

          I’d suggest taking your own advice.

          You said that she has power by virtue of having money, then went on to say that she should be arrested for treason.

          You said nothing about separate acts, and that jump very much implies that you felt that the act of having money was worthy of a treason charge.

          • Jody Dayton Peace

            If I say you have power because you have money, and you should be arrested for treason, and that you like cheese… then does that imply that you should be arrested for treason because you like cheese?

            Seriously… you are amazingly illogical.

            Everybody knows the queen has a lot of political power. Clearly if someone says she should be charged with treason it is for political reasons, not for having money.

          • This Is My Display Name

            “If I say you have power because you have money, and you should be arrested for treason, and that you like cheese… then does that imply that you should be arrested for treason because you like cheese?”

            No. That’s also not a good analogy because it’s not even close to what you said.

            A better analogy would be:

            “You have power, money, and you like cheese.

            You should be arrested for treason”

            That would, in fact, imply that having power, money, and liking cheese are all treasonous. And that’s exactly what you did here, minus the idiotic part about cheese.

            Otherwise, it’s just a massive non-sequitur, and you’d be in no position to call anyone else out for (what you perceive to be) poor logic.

          • Jody Dayton Peace

            Lol… you’re a funny lady…

  • Curious

    so if the armed forces swear allegiance to her in the event of a impossible civil war between the crown and parliament do they fight for her or parliament?

    • Ravi Singh

      For the Queen

    • This Is My Display Name

      Did you seriously just ask if they fight for the body that they took an oath for or another body?

      Perhaps you should look up the definition of “oath”.

      • Hazel Simmons

        LOL!!! xx

  • Kiri te Moananui

    yes I would like to fill in a royal prerogative application. I am a little dissolution-ed that the Governor General receives it first. Dont get on with the police in New Zealand much especially the Maaori ones.

  • David Pearce

    get rid of the human garbage in the UK for a start! stupid old cow!

  • Thomas

    The Queen has only used her veto when it regards to the royal family and her prerogatives, what she vetoed when it came to the Iraq war was that her government wanted to change it so that the power to authorize bombings would be switched from her to parliament, personally I think this would be good if Britains monarchy actually worked…now on the other hand her ministers get to use her royal prerogative….

  • Haduson

    So…the Monarch technically still has true power since she is in charge of who and when her armed forces go to war?

    And the power to dissolve parliament?

    I see that there are quite a few holes in the constitutional monarchy that do in fact make it possible, for the king or queen of their time to retake absolute power?

  • Hattie

    The Queen has been threatened to convert to Islam by Muslims in England. They refuse to assimilate. Why doesn’t she revoke their passports and visas and send them packing.

  • Dez Davis

    As an American I find comfort in the longevity of Englands democracy and your Queens Prerogative. Thanks for contributing to a peaceful world.

  • 1shot1kill

    Seems to me she is the only chance Britain has to remove Islam from its country . She needs to consult the Generals and take action I’m sure the rank and file soldiers are chomping at the bit to start rounding these parasites up and sending them away on ships. I can see this happening one day she will appear on tv and tell the citizenry stay in your home’s while the troops round them up

  • metrolivia

    Almost all of the above are carried out by someone else on her behalf. There are no constitutional powers as such…The Government does it all. Yes she creates peerages etc., but only on the recommendation of the Government…she cant give honours to anyone she doesnt know anyone. All the rest is purely traditional…we respect the Royals as we live in their Country, one of her jobs is to order executions..we dont have those…which really means signing a paper already decided by the government.In fact apart from giving peerages I dont really know when everything else isnt carried out on her behalf!! Even William has been known to Knight there!

  • Anon Y. Mous

    But what if every single testicle disappeared?

  • Philip Golden

    why the hell do Brits put up with this shit? so bizarre and backward

  • Ms Hurst

    I thought tjis was suppose to be comments about why England still has Royalty? So let’s summarize… England still has Royalty pretty much because they are chicken shit to boot them out of Buckingam Palace. They would rather continually pay them, the Prime Minister, and Parliament, because they got it like that.

    To sustain life you need viral organs that will continually pump blood and keep oxygen flowing, however there are other organs just as vital to keep the blood line going strong.

    Now that the two most important pieces of info I have ever needed to have answered have been, I can go out in the world, and be more productive!

  • Wow_Who_Would_Think

    The concept of royalty is archaic and only an indication of too many people’s complete lack of critical thinking skills. This is because “royalty” get income, status and passes for wrong doing that they did not earn.

    In reality, the British people are only paying the British royalty to entertain them – give them a “pony” show, a lot of money for nothing of substance in reality.

    It is also typical even with American “royalty” that they get the same perks as British royalty where they don’t go to prison for crimes that other people would have and get many other perks that they never would have otherwise. Examples are John McCain getting away with the aircraft carrier disaster that he caused because of a childish prank where if he wasn’t the son and grandson of an admiral, he would still be in prison. Another example is the Clinton’s ongoing scandals that they always seem to get a pass on like her Email and unauthorized server scandal and where they tried to steal over $200,000 worth of White House artifacts. Without being US Navy “royalty”, John McCain also never would have gotten into the US Naval Academy and also never would have graduated due to his obvious complete lack of discipline and lack of character.

    “Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.” from the article. This means that the Queen can be a complete despot, and can even get away with murder and she would still be queen, which really shows a lack of critical thinking skills that the Queen would not be held accountable if she ever did anything wrong – regardless. Hello! The Queen is only human. However, this is typical royalty BS that people who are celebrities in the USA, and therefore “royalty” or political party “royalty” also seem to enjoy where there are examples of how such “royalty” avoided prosecution where anyone else would have faced charges.

    The ongoing corruption of the British royal family, where one buried scandal/rumor is that Queen Victoria’s real father was not the King is another indication of why the institution of royalty is really just a joke and should go away. This scandal explains how hemophilia got into the British royal family, where Queen Victoria’s descendents married other royals throughout Europe, where the Queen married her cousin, Prince Philip. And seriously, on his own as a regular, non-royal, would completely homely Prince Charles with his lack of character ever been able to marry someone as attractive as Princess Diana? Plus, without the royal connections, what career would Prince Charles have held? He seems quite incompetent regardless. Therefore, the British are paying millions of pounds every year to a family that highly likely isn’t even as “royal” as everyone assumes that they are.

  • Jared

    Interesting discussion. I very much enjoy this discussion. What I think is being glossed over is that as the constitution is currently written, the Queen, as sovereign, as the person to whom soldiers, and police within the commonwealth swear oath of loyalty to, has a great amount of real power. I would point out that persons that fill the roles of soldier and police officer do, and are taught to value honor and that includes honoring their oaths. While a ruling British Monarch has not decided to exercise this power in recent times it doesn’t mean they couldn’t. The question that you should ask is: If an honorable soldier has sworn loyalty to a Monarch, will that soldier obey their Monarchs decree? Being honorable, and having already made an oath to do so, I would suspect most would do as their honor demands and obey the order. (To not obey the order, and still remain honorable, would not be trivial)

More in Insight

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 31,890 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2018 Royal Central, all rights reserved.