The monarch has no effective executive power in relation to politics. A constitutional monarch must accept the advice of ministers who in turn are responsible to Parliament for the advice they offer. There may still be room for some argument about whether or not a monarch must always accede to a Prime Minister’s request to dissolve Parliament. But the discretion a monarch might have in certain highly unusual circumstances would inevitably be heavily constrained. Likewise, any remaining discretion in deciding who to ask to form a government when a Prime Minister has resigned has been almost totally removed during the reign of the present monarch, though it is still possible to imagine circumstances where the role of the monarch might be regarded as controversial by sections of the media, even though it would almost certainly be straightforward if a little complicated to the monarch’s advisors.
This is not to say the monarch is without influence. Certainly the opportunity to talk privately with the Prime Minister regularly and at length, combined with access to a wide range of state papers give the monarch the opportunity to exert influence. The role of the monarch as ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ (an entirely non-statutory position) undoubtedly also provides opportunities for exerting influence based on wide experience and a personal knowledge of many leading statesmen.
It is sometimes argued that the monarch could assert the formal power still possessed by the Crown, for example to veto Bills hostile to the Christian faith presented to her by Parliament, or to dismiss public appointees who express such views. Some submissions to the Commission argued that the monarch should be encouraged to undertake such actions so as to keep faith with her Coronation Oath. Some would argue that such action might under God have surprising and perhaps welcome consequences. But the political reality is that such action could only lead to a constitutional crisis which would have been deliberately precipitated by the monarch, and the outcome of which would either lead to a climb-down by the monarch, or abdication, or even the end of the monarchy. Subjects and monarch alike may wish at times that we could engage in a dramatic gesture that would express more totally our Christian convictions. Some may be genuinely called by God to take such steps, but each must be persuaded fully in their own conscience about the right course of action. For many enduring the weariness of politics, living with the compromises inevitable in a fallen world, while seeking to influence the course of politics so that outcomes are better than they might otherwise be - for many this is seen as a more realistic path of discipleship.
The monarchy does, however, simply through its existence give shape to the constitution. This is most obvious in relation to the continued extensive use of Crown prerogative powers. These powers may be understood as historic powers of the Crown, which have never been dismantled, nor has their use been controlled by statute. They include the creation of peers; the award of honours; the making of many public appointments; many decisions about the organisation and management of central government, as well as the signing of Treaties or even the declaration of war. It is the Prime Minister that benefits most from this arrangement, which still “acts as a disguise” (the phrase used by Walter Bagehot in his seminal essay on the English Constitution, first published in 1867).
There is now a growing and lively debate about prerogative powers, but this is mainly focussed on the role of the Prime Minister. If prerogative powers were brought under direct statutory or parliamentary control, there is no reason why this process should affect the position of the monarch.
Keeping the Head of State separate from the Head of Government is widely supported. The former can provide an emphasis on the continuity and the unity within the life of the nations within the UK. The monarch can act as a focal point for national life and the loyalties of the entire population. Most (though not all) democratic countries do have separate heads of state and government. Where a monarchy does not exist, the method used to provide a head of state can be contentious, and the outcome by no means always effective in terms of the above role. The monarchy provides a head of state in a manner likely to be as satisfactory as any other method.
The Sovereign’s particular role in relation to the Church has adjusted in the past and can continue to do so. The next coronation service is likely to be very different from the last. We hope it will retain its fundamental character as an act of Christian worship, but it will clearly be more ecumenical and presumably more multi-faith in form. A new monarch may ask parliament to amend the Coronation Oath, the terms of which have been varied on several occasions in the past. The current heir to the throne has suggested that he would wish to be ‘defender of faith’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’. Though in practice the distinction may not be too meaningful, under the Act of Settlement the Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, but need not be an actual member of the Church (some in the past have not been). It would of course be for parliament to decide on these matters, just as it is for parliament to decide on the succession to the throne.
The next coronation will very likely include contributions from various denominational and other faith communities. The Church should be relaxed about this, as it should be about the continued use of the term ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England. Our hope is that the next monarch will be ready to give public expression to Christian faith, and continue to take a serious interest in the Church. But if the next monarch were to have little interest in Church matters, and no commitment to the Christian faith, or even hostility towards the faith, the Church arguably should simply get on with her business, without troubling the monarch about formal roles - or allowing the monarch to trouble the Church! The constitutional role of the Sovereign has not been and is not dependent upon personal behaviour. The Supreme Governor is sometimes mistakenly referred to as ‘the Head of the Church of England’. Care should be taken to avoid exaggerating the role. Keeping it in proper perspective is an antidote to over-excitement should the Supreme Governor collide in some way with the teaching or practice of the Church. Some contributors recommended the possibility of actually separating the inauguration ceremony for the Head of State from that of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England – or at least definitively ruling it out. The former option should perhaps not be discarded too lightly.
