British Parliment question

[Minnesota]

We are watching British House of Commons on CSPAN. It is very entertaining .

When did the power end with the Royal Family and switch to the parliment?

And what are the two big gold things on the table that they dual at?

Thanks
S-

[maxi29]

There's no really simple answer to this, as there has been a gradual swing from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy over the centuries but the most significant change was probably the Bill of Rights of 1689; this set out that parliament was the supreme body and limited the extent of the monarch's powers.
Read about the Bill here.
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html

[jake-the-peg]

This is the site for the houses of parliament  there are quite a few interesting history and procedural documents here

http://www.parliament.uk/works/works.cfm#Hist 

I think the two gold items you are referring to are actually one - the mace.  This is the symbol of parliaments authority and sits in front of the speaker - It's been man-handled by a few politicians in it's time when they got carried away.

There are several important dates in the transfer of power from the crown

Before 1066 Anglo-Saxons had a primative system of moots or regional parliaments - that all stopped when the Normans invaded

1215 - King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta which established the principal that the king was subject to the law lke anybody else

1341 first Parliament of commons and lords with the first speaker 35 years later

1641 - Civil war after King Charles tries to rule without parliament and is tried and executed 8 years later for doing so.

1660 - King Charles' son (also Charles) allowed back but suject to pariaments approval

1689 -  Above mentioned bill of rights

1707 - Queen Anne becomes the last monach to veto a bill in parliament - although the monarchy still has this power attempting to use it would probably bring down the monarchy

[jno]

The Queen is also queen of Australia, and sacked (or rather her representative the governor-general did) the elected prime minister of Australia as recently as 1975. So it can be hard to say exactly what she can and cannot do and get away with. Britain does not have a written constitution defining the rights and powers of different people.

[jno]

PS - Minnesota, I guess from your name you're American - well, that sounds like the sort of high-handed royal behaviour that prompted the American Revolution. The Aussies were much more meek about it. Happy Independence Day!

[jake-the-peg]

Well the point remains the Queen did not sack Whitlam, rather Sir John Kerr did and even then it was because of a constitutional stalemate between the upper and lower houses. Had the Queen done this I think Australia would be a republic now.

When people say there is no written constitution, it actually means there is no specific document that says this is the constitution. There are many written laws such as the royal marriages act and the parliament act etc. which form part of constituitonal law

As I recall there was an interesting case in Belgium where the king refused to sign the abortion bill into law due to his personal religous convictions. An arrangement was reached whereby he was declared unable to reign and the bill was signed into law by parliament - he was then declared fit to rule the following day.

I doubt that would be constitutionally legal in the UK though.  

[Peter Pedant]

Hi every-bardy!

Jno's point about kerr sacking whitlam turned on the legal point that the Q's representative had more power than the Q herself [or else he couldnt have done it] and this was upheld later in the Australian courts. IF anyone can give me a law report ref I would be grateful.

The parallel with the Belgian case is that George V intimated that he didnt want to sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact (or treaty of brest-litovsk or wherever) in 1920 because the bolsheviks would be signing it and he did not wish to treat with his cousins' murderers and Lloyd george said OK  I will sign it. George V did not realise that at the time he was giving up all treaty signing duties. Since there is still some discussion about when the King signs a treaty it immediately becomes incorporated into English Law, you will see he relinquished an important duty....

[reportmonkey]

Also worth mentioning is the rebellion of Simon De Montfort during the reign of Henry III.  It was actully him that called the first parliament in 1258 at Oxford.  Though many critics lable him as self serving and ambitious many maintain that his vision of a wider 'community of the realm' in which peasants could bring to book their lords (Something unthinkable in Medieval England) laid the foundations for the modern parliament.  Though Simon was eventually killed in battle his vision was continued by Henry III son, Edward I who was a supporter of the De Montfort Cause before switching to his Fathers Side.

Also worth mentioning is the way in which the monarchy worked in Medieval England.  Prior to 1066, England had a string of Saxon and Danish Kings who were appointed by a council of wise men (usually influential earls or wealthy landowners) called the Witan.

Since much of the Kings power rested with his nobles providing him support and fealty his authority was limited.  See The relationship of Edward the Confessor with Earl Godwine (The authority of the King was significantly reduced in this period because he did not have the support of the Saxon Nobles). 

After 1066 William I had a similar problem.  He had promised his Knights with land and titles in England, much of these stolen from the Saxons.  These barons swore fealty to the king but ultimately provided the kings army and held much greater power.  The ability for Barons to bring a tyrannical king to justice was a hotly debated point right up until the Civil War when Charles I was executed.  

Ultimate power never rested with the Royal Family alone, its always been limited by those who are most wealthy and hold the most land, be that the nobles or the Church.