Three Kings at War - Documentary

[TimM]

The conclusion reached was that King George V, personally, insisted upon the withdrawal of the British offer of asylum.   He confirmed his decision over breakfast with Queen Mary at 9.00a.m. on the 6th of April 1917.   Appeals fell on deaf ears.   His mind was closed.

The British Monarch was, as is now, just a figurehead, with no political power.   Therefore, he would have no authority to do this.  He could make suggestions, but it would fall to the PM and the Government to actually make, and then withdraw the offer.

[TimM]

Sorry about the double post.

[Kalafrana]

Tim

Not quite. Available evidence suggests that politicians in George V's time took the king's views seriously and usually gave effect to them.

Regards

Ann

[HerrKaiser]

Tim

Not quite. Available evidence suggests that politicians in George V's time took the king's views seriously and usually gave effect to them.

Regards

Ann

Quite true. George V had great "political" power in this regard, but not legal power.

[Превед]

Not quite. Available evidence suggests that politicians in George V's time took the king's views seriously and usually gave effect to them.

Especially the monarch's views on foreign affairs (diplomacy, military matters, protocol and honours, including treatmeant of former allied monarchs). These were considered the monarch's prerogatives in all European monarchies at the time. In Russia this meant that these were the fields that got the lion's share of the monarch's (autocratic) attention, or like in Britain, that these were the only fields where the monarch could act politically and the cabinet would yield to him. I don't think a West European cabinet would consider the king's views on education or social legislation with the same attention. (While in Russia they would wish he took more interest in such matters.)

Notice that the constitutional crises in all the three Scandinavian countries 1905-1920* centred on the kings' prerogatives on these fields. Other fields (where there was much more political change at the time) were uncontroversial.

The consular service in Norway in 1905 (an issue that broke the double union monarchy) and the honour system in Norway in 1913, the Courtyard Speech against defence cuts of Gustav V in 1914 and the Easter Crisis with Christian X's efforts to annex Flensborg in Denmark in 1920

[TimM]

Still if the British Government had gone ahead with the asylum offer, George V could not have done anything about it.  He could suggest, but not command.  The British Monarchy lost that power more than two centuries earlier.

[Превед]

Still if the British Government had gone ahead with the asylum offer, George V could not have done anything about it.  He could suggest, but not command.  The British Monarchy lost that power more than two centuries earlier.

Would / could the cabinet or the cabinet ministers in question consider stepping down? Wasn't that the gentlemanly thing to do back then? Stanley Baldwin threatened to resign if Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson, didn't he? Isn't there some constitutional principle that says that the Crown must never be voted down or put in an embarrassing position and that a cabinet should rather resign? Though in reality that would have meant revolution (if it was a majority government with support in parliament) something George V was trying to avoid by not granting asylum.)

[DNAgenie]

The UK Government at the time was headed by David Lloyd George, and he had no time at all for the King or the British nobility in general. King George V complained about a number of different aspects of government policy while Lloyd George was Prime Minister, all of which fell on deaf ears. Lloyd George was not a gentleman and he never did "the gentlemanly thing". If there had been a different Prime Minister and Cabinet the outcome could well have been different but there wasn't.

[TimM]

So if Lloyd George had decided to let them come to Britain, it would have happened?

[Kalafrana]

Lloyd George could have overruled the king had he wished to, but direct conflict over policy between monarch and ministers is to be avoided (in our constitutional tradition). It may have been convenient for Lloyd George as well. In any event, all the practical difficulties we have discussed on previous occasions may have meant that whatever plans were made, they did not succeed.

It is perfectly possible that in the end, the refusal of asylum in Britain did not make much difference, given the chaotic state of Russia at the time, and the fact that even before November 1917 the Provisional Government's control of the country was distinctly shaky.

Ann

[TimM]

Still, my point stands.  George V could not interfere with any decision the British Government made. 

Of course, Ann, like you said, the situation in Russia may have made it impossible either way.

[Превед]

Still, my point stands.  George V could not interfere with any decision the British Government made.

Yes, like Ann says the British (and other parliamentary constitutions) go into meltdown mode when the monarch goes against his own cabinet. (How different that is in the US!)
But it's interesting to consider the fine nuances between different levels of parliamentary government. One can very well imagine Queen Wilhelmina risking a constitutional crisis in order to do "the right thing" and grant Wilhelm II asylum, even though the Netherlands had parliamentary government ever since the Luxembourg Question in 1867. (Indeed there was a political crisis, with the Socialist Troelstra calling for a revolution and the abolition of the monarchy, just like in Germany.)

Ann, I have read that you are a constitutional jurist, what happens if the monarch, as the safeguard of the people's right to express their will independently of the political establishment, wants to dssolve parliament and call for new elections, but a prime minister, clinging to power and a dwindling majority, advices against it?

[Kalafrana]

Difficult one.

The last monarch to dissolve Parliament of his own volition was William IV (will need to look up the precise details as it is a while since I thought about it!). There is now a constitutional convention (a non-legal rule considered by those it affects to be binding) that the monarch only dissolves Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister. By convention, the monarch gives effect to the advice of ministers, and, equally, minsters avoid public conflict with the monarch. Stanley Baldwin could not legally have prevented the Duke of Windsor from marrying Wallis Simpson and seeking to remain king, but the king would have been going against the Prime Minister's advice and so triggered a constitutional crisis.

My feeling is that both sides would seek to avoid a direct conflict such as you postulate. There are suggestions that quite a few awkward issues are discussed at the Prime Minister's weekly audiences with the Queen (we don't know, because no one else is present and they are not minuted).

Ann

[Превед]

The last monarch to dissolve Parliament of his own volition was William IV (will need to look up the precise details as it is a while since I thought about it!).

Thanks! With you pointing me in the right direction I found the details here. Seems like there still is debate and that the issue hasn't been settled. It is interesting, with the regard to the medievality of the British constitution, that if the monarch was to exercize such a right she would have to exercize it "with the counsel of good and wise men" on a broad level, as there is no Supreme Court to give a final verdict.

[TimM]

Unlike Nicholas II, where basically what he said went, no questions asked.