Could the Queen have prevented war?

Question

If the Queen is commander-in-chief of the armies of the commonwealth

armies ,and all war documents need to be signed by her,then couldn't she have prevented Britain's role in all of that Iraq fiasco???

Answer 1

Theoretically yes she could've but it was Parliaments decision which she wouldn't want to step over. Anyway they can overturn it. She did exactly what she was supposed to do. She let the government run as a constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchy. She's keeping her boundaries.

Answer 2

she could though have declared war had Tony Blair been defeated in parliament. Mr. Blair has said that he would have asked HM The Queen to use the Royal Prerogative, powers which include declaring war and creating peers. It was famously almost used in the constitutional crisis of 1908, when on the Prime Minister's advice the King agreed to create sufficient Liberal peers if the Conservative dominated House of Lords refused to pass the budget.

Answer 3

If only she could.The Queen's signature is like a rubber-stamp.She doesn't hold the political power and can only to what the elected government says;her role is as cermonial head-of-state and advisor.The Prime Minister and his government are responsible for the day-to-day workings of the government and they can choose to follow the Queen's advice or not.

In order for the Queen to over-ride the Prime Minister,she'd need the support of the majority of Parliament.

Answer 4

No... to do this would go against the government and she doesn't have the power to overthrow government anymore UNFORTUNATELY.

nobody in Britain really wanted this war in the first place and MILLIONS of people actively protested against the government and they - being labour - did not listen because they're more interested in other countries rather than their own.

if the Queen was able to stop it she would first of needed to get every member of the British society out protesting just to make point number one.

More power to the monarchy I say to stop the government dictating against its own public just because its what they want!

Answer 5

As much as it might have been better had the Queen been "in charge",no,the Queen has no power to prevent,start or to stop a war.Sadly,not even within her own family.

Answer 6

No, she couldn't. The Queen is only a figurehead and has no real political power.

Answer 7

She absolutely could have done. As the Monarch she still holds the power to dissolve Parliament. However it is likely to not be a popular decision to do that.

If the Queen or the monarch at any time opposed Parliament that strongly, she/they can dissmiss the PM and dissolve parliament. Assuming Absolute power over the Domain. And revoking constitutional monarchy in favour of absolute monarchy.

So again, yes, she could have done.

Answer 8

the queen is no more than a rubber stamp, she only has a say on changes to the law which are passed for royal assent by the house of lords. other than that there isnt much she can do. we have seen PM's particularly blair and thatcher acting in a presidential manner, not even consulting parliament on some decisions. the queen is not allowed to interfere with parliament. however it is the queen that technically asks the future PM to form a government, she could of course just not ask and rule herself. the PM however can simply change the system by which parliament is formed and even revoke the queens powers. parliament poses a far greater threat to the PM than the queen, because MP's do not want to lose their seat in the house of lords along with their £66,000 a year salary.  

Answer 9

I don't think so. She doesn't have any political power, which I think she should have some. Iraq is not a fiasco since we are obviously winning now.

Answer 10

The only political power that a constitutional monarch has is "advice and consent".  Indeed, the Queen could have counseled the Prime Minister not to undertake this action, but according to custom, Royalty doesn't comment on politics publically.  

Answer 11

The last time a British monarch gave an outright 'no' to a prime minister was in George III's reign.

However, a  determined monarch could bring about a constitutional crisis by publicly declaring opposition, or, even more dramatically, by dismissing a Prime Minister, which is theoretically possible.  Whether this would have seemed a practical option would have depended on the Palace's estimate of the likely outcome of the general election to which such a course of action would probably lead.

If the will to do so had been there, the Queen could have made it politically impossible for Blair to commit British forces to war.

However, she did not - now did she?