Jonathon van Maren, in his article “Europe’s Pro-Life Royals,” criticises the late Queen Elizabeth II for not vetoing the UK Abortion Bill (1967).
This is to misunderstand the nature of the British constitution. It also makes the common mistake of assuming that all constitutional monarchies have the same, one-size-fits-all constitution.
Under the British constitution, the Monarch does not have a discretionary veto power over Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The so-called “Royal Assent” is exercised on the “advice” of the relevant minister. The Monarch, under the constitution, is obliged to follow that “advice.” In this context the word “advice” is a legal fiction. It is not true “advice”. It is, in effect, an “order” but the polite fiction that it is “advice” is maintained in deference to the Royal dignity.
This has been the basis of the British constitution ever since the Revolution of 1688, when Parliament was effectively made superior to the Monarch. Some may point to the fact that some sovereigns have subsequently been “advised” by ministers to refuse Royal Assent, the last monarch to do so being Queen Anne in 1708. Once again, she did so on the advice of ministers, who feared that their Scottish Militia Bill—the Bill in question—might be rapidly weaponised against the government. They therefore “advised” (i.e. required) the Queen to scotch it at the last minute rather than go through the lengthy process of Parliamentary repeal of the Bill after it had become law.
Whether ministers still have this power is an open question debated by legal experts. It arose recently in the context of the first ministry of Prime Minister Boris Johnson from July to December 2019. His minority government feared that a Bill might be passed in the House of Commons preventing Brexit, contrary to the recent referendum result. In the end, no such Bill was initiated but there was a fierce debate among lawyers and academics whether a government could still “advise” (i.e. require) the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent to a Bill that had passed both Houses of Parliament, as had happened in 1708.
In exceptional cases, constitutional experts tend to agree that, where the government of the day tries to abolish elections and democracy, for example through a Bill extending the life of a Parliament indefinitely, then provided the “advice” of the Opposition is sought and taken, “Royal Assent” can be refused, against the advice of ministers, so as to prevent a dictatorship. This is considered the only exception to the rule that the Monarch must always obey the “advice” of ministers. However, it is a vital exception since it would prevent the abolition of democracy.
Obviously, then, the British Monarch cannot be blamed for failing to exercise a discretionary power that, under the constitution, she does not have. The blame for the Abortion Act 1967 lies with the elected government, not with the Queen.
If King Charles III attempted to seize a discretionary veto power, the courts or Parliament would simply rule that he had failed.
Moreover, such an attempt to seize power would be a coup d’etat and thus immoral even if the aim were to achieve some good. St Paul teaches us (Rom 3.8) that we may not do evil that good may come of it.
Moreover, it obviously cannot be right for the person at the apex of the constitution to attempt to rupture what he has solemnly sworn to uphold.
Conversely, merely obeying ministerial “advice” to certify that a Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament is not immoral. It does not represent approval of the contents of that Bill.
These British constitutional provisions are very different from those obtaining in Belgium or Liechtenstein.
In Belgium, Article 93 of the constitution allows the BelgianParliament to declare that the King is “unable to govern” and to take over his role until they wish to reinstate him. That is what happened with King Baudouin.
In the Principality of Liechtenstein, Prince Alois von und zu Liechtenstein (as regent for his father, Prince Hans-Adam II) has very extensive executive powers, including the power to refuse assent to legislation under Article 65 of the constitution.
The British Monarch has no such powers.
All three monarchs obeyed their own constitutions, just as they should.
In fact, the Queen’s position is no different from that of most non-executive republican presidents. The Irish President, under Article 13.3.2 of the Irish Constitution, has no power of veto, no matter how immoral an Irish Bill may be.
Furthermore, Prince Alois did not use his powers to veto that country’s same sex marriage law. He had the power, but did not use it. The Queen had no such power and so could not use it.
In 2014, King Phillippe of Belgium signed into law the “right” of Belgian minors to choose euthanasia. Although it is doubtful that a Belgian monarch has any power to veto a Bill, he could still step down for a day, under Article 93, as King Baudouin did. The Queen could neither step down for a day nor veto a Bill, having neither power.
Who, then, should be criticised?
Conversely, the U.S. President, who does have a veto power, can and should be criticised for not vetoing the huge raft of immoral legislation that has scarred America.
Likewise, the author of immoral legislation in Canada has been its government, not the Queen.
May I recommend a recent book, to which I contributed four chapters, which deals with the subject in some detail? It is entitled A Defence of Monarchy: Catholics under a Protestant King.
Our late Queen was a model head of state and such criticism of her is simply misguided.
In Defense of Queen Elizabeth II
Photo by Museums of History New South Wales on Unsplash
Jonathon van Maren, in his article “Europe’s Pro-Life Royals,” criticises the late Queen Elizabeth II for not vetoing the UK Abortion Bill (1967).
This is to misunderstand the nature of the British constitution. It also makes the common mistake of assuming that all constitutional monarchies have the same, one-size-fits-all constitution.
Under the British constitution, the Monarch does not have a discretionary veto power over Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The so-called “Royal Assent” is exercised on the “advice” of the relevant minister. The Monarch, under the constitution, is obliged to follow that “advice.” In this context the word “advice” is a legal fiction. It is not true “advice”. It is, in effect, an “order” but the polite fiction that it is “advice” is maintained in deference to the Royal dignity.
This has been the basis of the British constitution ever since the Revolution of 1688, when Parliament was effectively made superior to the Monarch. Some may point to the fact that some sovereigns have subsequently been “advised” by ministers to refuse Royal Assent, the last monarch to do so being Queen Anne in 1708. Once again, she did so on the advice of ministers, who feared that their Scottish Militia Bill—the Bill in question—might be rapidly weaponised against the government. They therefore “advised” (i.e. required) the Queen to scotch it at the last minute rather than go through the lengthy process of Parliamentary repeal of the Bill after it had become law.
Whether ministers still have this power is an open question debated by legal experts. It arose recently in the context of the first ministry of Prime Minister Boris Johnson from July to December 2019. His minority government feared that a Bill might be passed in the House of Commons preventing Brexit, contrary to the recent referendum result. In the end, no such Bill was initiated but there was a fierce debate among lawyers and academics whether a government could still “advise” (i.e. require) the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent to a Bill that had passed both Houses of Parliament, as had happened in 1708.
In exceptional cases, constitutional experts tend to agree that, where the government of the day tries to abolish elections and democracy, for example through a Bill extending the life of a Parliament indefinitely, then provided the “advice” of the Opposition is sought and taken, “Royal Assent” can be refused, against the advice of ministers, so as to prevent a dictatorship. This is considered the only exception to the rule that the Monarch must always obey the “advice” of ministers. However, it is a vital exception since it would prevent the abolition of democracy.
Obviously, then, the British Monarch cannot be blamed for failing to exercise a discretionary power that, under the constitution, she does not have. The blame for the Abortion Act 1967 lies with the elected government, not with the Queen.
If King Charles III attempted to seize a discretionary veto power, the courts or Parliament would simply rule that he had failed.
Moreover, such an attempt to seize power would be a coup d’etat and thus immoral even if the aim were to achieve some good. St Paul teaches us (Rom 3.8) that we may not do evil that good may come of it.
Moreover, it obviously cannot be right for the person at the apex of the constitution to attempt to rupture what he has solemnly sworn to uphold.
Conversely, merely obeying ministerial “advice” to certify that a Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament is not immoral. It does not represent approval of the contents of that Bill.
These British constitutional provisions are very different from those obtaining in Belgium or Liechtenstein.
In Belgium, Article 93 of the constitution allows the BelgianParliament to declare that the King is “unable to govern” and to take over his role until they wish to reinstate him. That is what happened with King Baudouin.
In the Principality of Liechtenstein, Prince Alois von und zu Liechtenstein (as regent for his father, Prince Hans-Adam II) has very extensive executive powers, including the power to refuse assent to legislation under Article 65 of the constitution.
The British Monarch has no such powers.
All three monarchs obeyed their own constitutions, just as they should.
In fact, the Queen’s position is no different from that of most non-executive republican presidents. The Irish President, under Article 13.3.2 of the Irish Constitution, has no power of veto, no matter how immoral an Irish Bill may be.
Furthermore, Prince Alois did not use his powers to veto that country’s same sex marriage law. He had the power, but did not use it. The Queen had no such power and so could not use it.
In 2014, King Phillippe of Belgium signed into law the “right” of Belgian minors to choose euthanasia. Although it is doubtful that a Belgian monarch has any power to veto a Bill, he could still step down for a day, under Article 93, as King Baudouin did. The Queen could neither step down for a day nor veto a Bill, having neither power.
Who, then, should be criticised?
Conversely, the U.S. President, who does have a veto power, can and should be criticised for not vetoing the huge raft of immoral legislation that has scarred America.
Likewise, the author of immoral legislation in Canada has been its government, not the Queen.
May I recommend a recent book, to which I contributed four chapters, which deals with the subject in some detail? It is entitled A Defence of Monarchy: Catholics under a Protestant King.
Our late Queen was a model head of state and such criticism of her is simply misguided.
READ NEXT
Brussels Opens Path to ‘Fiscal Fascism’
Bad News for Brussels Elites: Europeans are Going to Demand What Trump Delivers to Americans
The Enterprise State