5

Erskine May states the following:

The Crown is hereditary, subject, however, to special limitations by Parliament; and the King or Queen has always enjoyed, by prescription, custom and law, the chief place in Parliament and the sole executive power. The right of succession and the prerogatives of the Crown itself are, however, subject to limitations and change by legislative process with the consent and authority of the Sovereign; and in the exercise of the prerogatives and powers of the Crown the Sovereign now, by constitutional convention, depends on the advice of Ministers of the Crown, who continue to serve in that capacity only so long as they retain the confidence of Parliament.

What is considered to be "advice of Ministers of the Crown"? Is there a specific Minister or subset of Ministers to which this refers, or does it refer to the collective, perhaps through the passing of legislation to grant "permission" for the use of such powers?

Improve this question
4

The prime minister

Advice is a thing in constitutional monarchies like the U.K. where the monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) is told by an executive (the prime minister in the U.K.) what to do. In England’s case, the Queen can technically refuse it, but that would have terrible implications and almost certainly never happen.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not England (which doesn't have its own government), so "England" should be replaced with "the UK" in this answer.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Oct 3 '19 at 8:54
  • 1
    Thanks for the answer! Erskine May also makes reference in a some places to the "advice of the Privy Council" (such as here and here) - is there no distinction between these two forms of advice?
    – VortixDev
    Oct 3 '19 at 12:27
  • 1
    @VortixDev notionally, the Privy council is a wider body containing various figures from the "great and the good" (Including members of her Majesty's loyal opposition), with cabinet ministers its executive body. In practice it would be the leadership party in power deciding both cases. The reason Eskine May uses that language is that's what the law in question says. Note that it was written in 1867, which is several iterations back in terms of the party (and class) systems in the UK.
    – origimbo
    Oct 3 '19 at 17:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .