Does the Queen have the power to revoke a nation's independency when it was previously under British rule?

Question

Does the Queen have the power to revoke a nation's independency when it was previously under British rule?

Answer 1

No-once independent and recognized by UN member countries-the country enjoys its own soverneity under international law.The Queen cannot under advice from the PM revoke a country's independence-unless position as in Rhodesia-unilateral declaration of independence.

Answer 2

The Queen can not act on her own;her government,the Prime Minister and Parliament,must tell her what they want done and she gives her consent.But I don't think that Queen and Government can revoke another nation's independence.This sounds like an act that would lead to war.

Answer 3

The Queen has no power over a country that was "previously" under British rule.  That word, "previously", means that they are independent of Britain and the Queen.

The Queen really has very little power at all.  She just represents the country and such.

Answer 4

no once independent she can not reclaim her throne there however most places that were fomally of the british empire are now part of the commonwealth of which the queen is the head of state

Answer 5

no, but wouldnt it be cool if one is trying it with those rowdy upstarts in the american colony?

Answer 6

No.   We have a constitutional monarchy

Answer 7

No, is the simple answer.  And if you are thinking that the Queen can revoke the Independence of such as Zimbabwe, then dream on.  It's not possible and as far as I know there's no legal precedent for such action.

What HM QE2 has done, is in the following links. . . .

Revoke Sir Robert’s knighthood as well : The Zimbabwe Times13 Jun 2008 ... Now, it’s up to the Queen of England to ask for her Knighthood back from Sir Robert, ... You can write loads about revoking that knighthood, ...

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=436

An American university revokes Mugabe’s honorary degree - Opinions ...Following recommendations from her government, the Queen revoked Mugabe’s honorary ... not to recognise Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? a) Yes b) No c) Can't Say ...

http://www.sundaystandard.info/news/news...

South Africa P.I.G.: Loss of Knighthood "blessing in disguise."Knighthood did not bring independence to Zimbabwe and to Africa. ... the decision by Queen Elizabeth to revoke President Robert Mugabe's knighthood. ...

http://www.southafrica-pig.blogspot.com/...

Answer 8

The Queen has no political power at all. She could not even choose her own successor if she wanted to. A number of people think that she could name William her successor. Only parliament can change the line of successsion.

------------------

  The rules of succession were changed since WWII in Denmark and Sweden. They were changed in Denmark to permit female succession. There were no ruling Queens permitted by law until the current Queen. In Sweden they were changed so that males did not have higher priority. Princess Victoria was initially not going to be Queen when her younger brother was born. Parliament changed the law after the fact.

Answer 9

The Queen has no power. She is a symbol of a country, like a flag. Because of her long time as Queen, she is able to advise Ministers -- she is a living history book. They will listen out of courtesy. But they don't have to take her advice.  A government--"Her Majesty's Government"-- does all things that government does -- raise taxes, spend money, promote officers, grant honours, declare war, send people to prison... in her name. But it's like saying "God Bless You" to somebody who sneezes. Merely a formality.

Answer 10

In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen has no power, and lots of authority. Her Majesty asks the leader of the party with a working majority to form a Government (hence Her Majesty's Government). She authorises them to exercise power.

You seem to completely misunderstand the relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth.

If a country decides it doesn't want to be part of the Commonwealth (e.g. the Irish Republic), then it goes its own way.

Gibraltar, and the Falklands, which are ruled by a Governor on behalf of the Queen, regularly express a very strong democratic preference to continue their relationship with Britain.

If anyone decided to change their constitution, and stop having the Queen as titular head of state (as Australia almost did), that is their choice. This is perfectly consistent with membership of the Commonwealth (India, Pakistan, etc.).

The Queen is only Head of State if you prefer her to any constitutional alternative. Many countries have decided that, Constitutionally speaking, she still has alot to offer.