Changes

The Queen's executive powers are limited by the constitution, and her role in the politics of the nation is largely ceremonial. The monarch is required to be politically neutral, while retaining the right "to be consulted, to advise and to warn" government ministers. Her powers, known as the "Royal prerogative" (to enact legislation, to declare war, to sign treaties and to award honours) are exercised instead by the government of the day. The Queen's greatest right is "the right to rule": the people of Britain are not ''citizens'', but ''subjects'' of the queen. The Queen is required to remain – publicly – politically neutral, and accepts the decisions made by the democratically elected government of the UK. Although she signs her name to every Act of Parliament before it can become law, no monarch has defied Parliament - and by extension the people - by refusing to sign an Act since Queen Anne did so in 1708.<ref>{{cite news|title=King Charles III: Could the King or Queen refuse to give royal assent?|first=Reiss|last=Smith|date=May 10, 2017|work=Daily Express|url=http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/802763/royal-assent-refuse-reserved-King-Charles-III-Queen|location=London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> The Queen has the right to vote in elections, but she chooses not to exercise this right, a principle adopted by all royals of the Windsor household. The Queen is advised by the [[Privy Council]].  

The Queen's executive powers are limited by the constitution, and her role in the politics of the nation is largely ceremonial. The monarch is required to be politically neutral, while retaining the right "to be consulted, to advise and to warn" government ministers. Her powers, known as the "Royal prerogative" (to enact legislation, to declare war, to sign treaties and to award honours) are exercised instead by the government of the day. The Queen's greatest right is "the right to rule": the people of Britain are not ''citizens'', but ''subjects'' of the queen. The Queen is required to remain – publicly – politically neutral, and accepts the decisions made by the democratically elected government of the UK. Although she signs her name to every Act of Parliament before it can become law, no monarch has defied Parliament - and by extension the people - by refusing to sign an Act since Queen Anne did so in 1708.<ref>{{cite news|title=King Charles III: Could the King or Queen refuse to give royal assent?|first=Reiss|last=Smith|date=May 10, 2017|work=Daily Express|url=http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/802763/royal-assent-refuse-reserved-King-Charles-III-Queen|location=London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> The Queen has the right to vote in elections, but she chooses not to exercise this right, a principle adopted by all royals of the Windsor household. The Queen is advised by the [[Privy Council]].  

===Royal assent===

===Royal assent===

The Queen, being an apolitical figure by precedent, does not veto or refuse to sign bills passed by Parliament in order not to interfere with the will of the people. Thus, she signed the bill for legalizing [[abortion]], for [[same-sex marriage]] and for [[Primogeniture|absolute primogeniture]] to replace male-preference primogeniture. Critics believe she should refuse to sign certain legislation.{{fact}}

The Queen, being an apolitical figure by precedent, does not veto or refuse to sign bills passed by Parliament in order not to interfere with the will of the people. Thus, she signed the bill for legalizing [[abortion]], for [[same-sex "marriage"]] and for [[Primogeniture|absolute primogeniture]] to replace male-preference primogeniture. Some critics believe she should refuse to sign certain legislation.  

In 2014, the stage play ''King Charles III'', written by playwright Mike Bartlett in [[Iambic pentameter|blank verse]], addressed this issue of "royal conscience".<ref>{{cite news |last=Billington |first=Michael |date=April 11, 2014 |title=King Charles III – a flawed premise but royally entertaining |url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/apr/11/king-charles-3-flawed-premise-royally-entertaining |work=The Guardian |location=London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> The play is set in the near future, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne by [[Prince Charles|The Prince of Wales]] as King Charles III. When asked to give royal assent to a bill which will give the government greater powers to "gag" the media — and also make it effectively impossible for the media to report on government corruption and abuse of power — Charles refuses.<ref>{{cite news |last=Curtis |first=Nick |date=3 April, 2014|title=What would happen if Prince Charles was made king? |url=http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/theatre/what-would-happen-if-prince-charles-was-made-king-9234812.html |work=London Evening Standard|location= London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> When the government counters by saying it will create a new law which will remove the necessity for royal assent, Charles responds by dissolving Parliament — a parallel to his forebear [[Charles I]], who, in the 17th century, disagreed with Parliament about the royal prerogative and the king's right to rule as an [[Monarchy|absolute monarch]], governing according to his personal conscience rather than accepting the democratic will of the people. For Charles I, this led to the the [[Eleven Years Tyranny]] and the [[English Civil War]], and ultimately he was executed — for [[Treason|high treason]] — by beheading in 1649.

In 2014, the stage play ''King Charles III'', written by playwright Mike Bartlett in [[Iambic pentameter|blank verse]], addressed this issue of "royal conscience".<ref>{{cite news |last=Billington |first=Michael |date=April 11, 2014 |title=King Charles III – a flawed premise but royally entertaining |url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/apr/11/king-charles-3-flawed-premise-royally-entertaining |work=The Guardian |location=London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> The play is set in the near future, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne by [[Prince Charles|The Prince of Wales]] as King Charles III. When asked to give royal assent to a bill which will give the government greater powers to "gag" the media — and also make it effectively impossible for the media to report on government corruption and abuse of power — Charles refuses.<ref>{{cite news |last=Curtis |first=Nick |date=3 April, 2014|title=What would happen if Prince Charles was made king? |url=http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/theatre/what-would-happen-if-prince-charles-was-made-king-9234812.html |work=London Evening Standard|location= London|accessdate=August 26, 2017}}</ref> When the government counters by saying it will create a new law which will remove the necessity for royal assent, Charles responds by dissolving Parliament — a parallel to his forebear [[Charles I]], who, in the 17th century, disagreed with Parliament about the royal prerogative and the king's right to rule as an [[Monarchy|absolute monarch]], governing according to his personal conscience rather than accepting the democratic will of the people. For Charles I, this led to the the [[Eleven Years Tyranny]] and the [[English Civil War]], and ultimately he was executed — for [[Treason|high treason]] — by beheading in 1649.