Non royal royal relatives and politics

Hello. We all know that the Royal Family does not speak of politics. And
they do not run for political office. But how far does that go, as far
as what Royal Family means?

g.koch-swahne...

Well, you have the excellent example in an other thread of a Spanish
subject who dabbles in politics, claiming to be both "l=E9gitime" and
"XX" in a friendly neighbouring country, despite being nobody at all in
his own .

No heir, no Highness, no Grandee, no legal standing whatsoever, just a
Se=F1or de Borb=F3n y Franco; a very junior member of his own House if at
all, 4 or 5 times excluded from the Spanish succession and cut of from
the House of France 261 years before his own birth...

Nothing happens.

Could Lord Frederick Windsor run for alderman?

Could George Windsor, commonly called Earl of St. Andrews
stand for parliament without causing a constitutional crisis?

Or Zara Phillips stand for election to the european parliament?

Legally, of course, they're commoners, but the first time they opened
their mouths and said anything controversial, like "legalise cannabis
now", I fear that the tabloids would have a field day and it would be
discussed in parliament.

Anybody know of any -legal- impediments?

mjcar...

There are none. Ian Liddell-Grainger, one of the great grandsons of
HRH the late Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, is currently an MP,
having stood in the Conservative interest. He is thus a
great-great-great grandson of Queen Victoria, and a third cousin once
removed to the Sovereign (they have a closer relationship - 2nd cousins
once removed - via the Earl of Athlone and Queen Mary, who were
siblings).

Additionally, since the 1999 reforms, the Lady Saltoun of Abernethy,
widow of HRH the Duke of Connaught's grandson, Alexander Ramsay of Mar,
has been elected a representative peer in the House of Lords (albeit
Her Ladyship sits as a cross-bench peer). Again, this has not caused
so much as a whiff of controversy.

It would be more controversial if a member of the Royal Family more
closely related to Her Majesty became politically active, because of
the increased risk that that individual may one day succeed to the
throne - and thus have his/her political impartiality called into
question - but there would be no legal bar per se.

Don Aitken...

There are none. The political neutrality of the *sovereign* is a
matter of binding constitutional convention; that of members of the RF
is merely a matter of custom, and fairly recent custom too, which any
of them could ignore if they felt strongly enough. Any who did so

Stan Brown...

It's not always apparent where "custom" leaves off and "binding
constitutional convention" begins. Sometimes it takes a century or
two to turn the former into the latter.

frederick...

The British sovereign has no "absolutely inalienable" rights. Only
Parliament is sovereign, and even its powers are recognised as having
at least some limits.

michael james...

If my memory is correct, it is the Monarch and Parliament, together.

frederick...

You've almost got it!

The British Parliament comprises, in no particular order: (1) the
Crown, (2) the House of Commons, and (3) the House of Lords.

Acts of Parliament are enacted jointly by the three, and require the
consent of each to pass into law, except for certain circumstances when
the Lords can be bypassed.

There are, of course, still some powers remaining to the Crown alone,
but there is nothing to prevent Parliament from removing any of them.

Stan Brown...

The Sovereign is _part_ of Parliament. No bill becomes law unless it
has the Royal Assent. However, this is a distinction without a
difference, since the constitution says that the Sovereign _must_
give the Royal Assent to any properly passed bill, regardless of its
contents.

frederick...

That may be open to question. IANACL*, but I would think that the
Sovereign would at least be bound to refuse assent on the advice of his
or her ministers. We're always reminded in this context that the last
time Royal Assent was refused was back in 1708 or so, but wasn't that
indeed because of the advice given to Queen Anne by her ministers?

Don Aitken...

It was. In view of that, it is a little odd that none of the
discussion of this power to be found in books of constitutional law,
as far as I have noticed, ever mentions the possibility. Of course, it
is not now likely to be necessary, since legislation is usually
brought into force by Commencement Order, and the government can
simply refrain from making such an order, then, in due course, repeal
the Act without it ever coming into force; this has happened quite a
few times in recent years.

Another issue is that when discussing the British constitution, we all
agree that it's largely based on convention and precedence, but then we
tend to assume that convention and precedence can only have been
established in the past, as if those past times had never been "now".

Don Aitken...

If I may pick a nit, the difference between "precedence" and
"precedent" is worth preserving, especially since both terms find
frequent use here.

frederick...

Well spotted. It was a momentary slip of the brain whilst
proof-reading!

What if, say, the Government decided on the verge of a general election
to push through a bill extending the life of Parliament indefinitely?
What if the Sovereign of the day decided to exert a little bit of
political backbone and refused assent? Clearly a constitutional crisis
would arise, but could it be said that the Sovereign had acted
unlawfully or outside the spirit of the constitution?

Alternatively, what if the Sovereign refused assent on the basis that a
bill was, indeed, not properly passed?

It's seemingly possible to argue anything in the world of "what if",
I'll grant you.

Don Aitken...

There are two generally accepted rules about constitutional
conventions. One is that, while they last, they are binding, in that
people act in accordance with them because they accpet that they are
*obliged* to do so. The other is that they can be changed merely by
doing things differently. Those with a keen eye for logic might spot a
contradiction here. In practice, either there is general agreement
that a convention should be changed (or ignored in a particular case)
or there isn't. If there isn't, a first-class crisis might indeed
result.

The other problem, of course, is that conventions may contradict each
other, as in the case of refusal of assent on advice. The sovereign
must act on advice *but* may no longer refuse assent. There is no rule
for determining which convention shall prevail.

So effectively, stripping away the "dignified" parts of the
constitution the House of Commons is supreme, though the Lords have
power to delay most types of bills for a while.

frederick...

More precisely than that, the Government is effectively supreme,
primarily due to the manner in which the electoral system operates.

* I am not a constitutional lawyer

would be likely to find themselves removed from the list of the
"working" RF and from among those who receive financial support from
the Monarch or the Civil List, but that is all.

julian126...

If Lady Sarah Chatto voted in a general election, it probably stands to
reason that many if not most of the Queen's relatives have done so also
in the past. I don't see why that in itself is something
extraordinary, however if it's custom and constitution that (nominally)
create impediments, then perhaps it should be changed to something
along the lines of what is permissible in Spain for instance, where the
immediate royal family has voted in their general elections. No doubt
the same is true in other existing Euro monarchies. However what I
really find farcical is that the pretence has to exist of being above
all issues when the heir to the British throne repeatedly states
positions or acts in a way that overtly infers them towards domestic
and foreign issues, which he may as well also vote on himself if he
*genuinely* believes in walking the walk as he talks the talk.