A Political Science Guide to Britain’s Most Baffling Institution and Why Nobody Has Managed to Get Rid of It
The Crown: An Institution That Has Survived Everything Except a Decent Balance Sheet
The British monarchy is, by any rational analysis, an extraordinary thing. A hereditary head of state in a modern democracy. A sovereign whose constitutional powers are enormous on paper and almost entirely theoretical in practice. A family whose private lives are considered a matter of urgent national interest while their political influence is constitutionally required to be zero. A system of government that has survived revolution, abdication, two world wars, and a Netflix drama, and shows no sign of stopping.
Political scientists study it with the mixture of fascination and mild embarrassment one reserves for a relative who insists on wearing a top hat to the supermarket. It shouldn’t work. It does work. Nobody is entirely sure why.
Constitutional Role vs. Political Power: The Great Polite Fiction
The monarch’s constitutional position is theoretically vast. The Crown appoints the Prime Minister, opens Parliament, gives Royal Assent to legislation, deploys the armed forces, and signs treaties. Technically the King could refuse to sign a bill or dismiss a government. None of these things have happened since the early twentieth century, and attempting them would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis of such proportions that even the tabloids would struggle to find a royal angle.
The monarch reigns but does not rule. This is called constitutional monarchy — the trick of maintaining the symbolic authority of hereditary kingship while quietly vesting all actual power in elected politicians, who can then be blamed for everything. According to the Royal Family website, the King’s role includes “giving a focus for national identity.” What this means in practice is attending ceremonies and greeting foreign dignitaries with an expression suggesting one has spent decades practising the art of finding everyone genuinely interesting.
Royal Prerogative: The Executive Power That Belongs to Everyone and No One
Royal prerogative covers the residual executive powers of the Crown — declaring war, deploying troops, signing international treaties, and appointing ministers. The joke is that these powers are exercised not by the King but by the Prime Minister, acting in the Crown’s name, without any specific parliamentary authorisation. A Prime Minister can take Britain into a war or appoint an entire government without Parliament voting on any of it, because they have inherited powers Parliament never formally abolished — partly because abolishing them would require deciding what to replace them with, and that sounds like work.
The Institute for Government notes Parliament has curtailed prerogative powers over time, while leaving quite a few intact. The Iraq War was launched under royal prerogative. Article 50 was initially proposed under prerogative until the Supreme Court ruled Parliament must be consulted. The prerogative giveth and the judiciary occasionally taketh away.
The Privy Council: Britain’s Most Exclusive Dining Club With Accidental Constitutional Powers
The Privy Council is one of those British institutions that sounds made up until you look into it, at which point it sounds even more made up. Several hundred senior politicians, judges, bishops, and grandees appointed for life, sworn to a medieval oath of secrecy. In theory it advises the monarch. In practice it mostly meets as a quorum of three to rubber-stamp decisions already made by Cabinet. Its real power lies in Orders in Council — statutory instruments made in the Crown’s name without primary legislation. In 2004, Orders in Council were used to expel the Chagos Islanders from their homeland — an act the courts later ruled unlawful. The Privy Council Office maintains a website explaining its functions with the careful neutrality of an organisation aware it sounds faintly absurd.
Republican Arguments and the Persistent Failure of Republicans
Britain has republicans. They are politely ignored. Republic, the UK’s main anti-monarchy campaign group, has been making cogent arguments about democratic accountability and inherited privilege since 1983. These arguments have not resulted in a republic — either a tribute to the monarchy’s resilience or a damning assessment of Britain’s capacity for institutional self-examination, depending on your sympathies. The political science arguments for retaining the monarchy are surprisingly strong: it separates the ceremonial head of state from the political executive and provides continuity during political turbulence. The arguments against are equally strong: it embeds hereditary privilege at the apex of the constitution and requires an elaborate fiction about neutrality to maintain. Neither side is wrong, which is exactly the kind of outcome that makes the British constitution what it is.
King Charles III ascended to the throne in September 2022. He had spent the preceding decades developing strong views on architecture, homeopathy, and climate change — opinions he is now constitutionally required to keep almost entirely to himself.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigo!
The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the sovereign’s powers are largely ceremonial, exercised on ministerial advice. King Charles III acceded in September 2022 following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, whose reign from 1952 to 2022 was the longest in British history. Royal prerogative powers have faced increasing judicial scrutiny, most notably in the Miller cases of 2017 and 2019. The Privy Council retains the power to make Orders in Council. Republican sentiment exists but commands limited electoral support, with most polling showing a majority in favour of retaining the monarchy.
Alan Nafzger was born in Lubbock, Texas, the son Swiss immigrants. He grew up on a dairy in Windthorst, north central Texas. He earned degrees from Midwestern State University (B.A. 1985) and Texas State University (M.A. 1987). University College Dublin (Ph.D. 1991). Dr. Nafzger has entertained and educated young people in Texas colleges for 37 years. Nafzger is best known for his dark novels and experimental screenwriting. His best know scripts to date are Lenin’s Body, produced in Russia by A-Media and Sea and Sky produced in The Philippines in the Tagalog language. In 1986, Nafzger wrote the iconic feminist western novel, Gina of Quitaque. He currently lives in Holloway, North London. Contact: [email protected]
Prat.UK’s readers don’t just consume satire; they participate by sharing, citing, and seeing their own thoughts reflected with eloquence.
My mum’s been in London since the 50s. She recognizes every single word and that recognition is what most terrifies her about this piece.