-4

The USA requires that the president orders a (lawful) nuclear strike.

The United Kingdom requires that the Prime Minister orders a (lawful) nuclear strike, although the Chief of the Defence Staff could appeal to the monarch, who could rescind the order since the

... armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the king.

So the Prime Minister can launch a nuclear strike without the monarch's consent, but the monarch could (if asked) prevent a strike.

As of March 2023, fifteen Commonwealth realms recognize Charles III as their head of state.

Can the highest ranking military personnel of these countries also ask the monarch to stop a military attack sanctioned by the executive or legislature of their country?

Improve this question
13
  • Since they don't have nukes, the question could be more broadly asked if the King could stop any other military action initiated by those countries. I think the answer is mostly no, but you'd have to check each individual constitution etc.
    – time takes its toll
    Commented Mar 3, 2023 at 22:12
  • 5
    The question is purely hypothetical until any commonwealth country other than the U.K. has nuclear weapons. It doesn't have a well defined answer.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented Mar 3, 2023 at 23:37
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because there is no known commonwealth country besides the UK with nuclear weapons which means that this isn't a possibility until that happens.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 6:20
  • Can the UK king really effectively overrule a decision by the Prime Minister? I thought he is just there for ceremonial reasons, no real power.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 8:50
  • 1
    @Trilarion Almost every question about the UK's constitution ends up discussing theory and practice. In theory, the King has considerable powers. In practice, almost all of his powers are either directly delegated to the government, or are exercised by the King only on the "advice" of his ministers. But in an extreme crisis, it is possible (if unlikely) that the King could exercise these powers on his own.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 15:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The UK is generally considered to be a constitutional monarchy despite the absence of a clear-cut constitution. Various laws and rules take the place of a unified document with "constitution" in the title. There is the quip that the monarch has at most one try to defy the elected representatives in a major issue before that changes -- unless he has a majority of the people on his side.

You pointed to the loyalty which His Majesty's Government and the armed forces owe to the king. But UK constitutional theory talks about the king-in-parliament, or the queen-in-parliament, to recognize that for all the traditional loyalty to the individual monarch, in the end the elected representatives have to decide.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Also, isn't the king / queen being head of state of any commonwealth just titular?
    – sfxedit
    Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 8:33
  • 2
    @sfxedit Yes, but that's not the issue. This is about the 15 countries that have Charles as head of state. They are known as the Commonwealth Realms - as opposed to the Commonwealth, of which they form a subset. The other Commonwealth countries do not share a head of state.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 15:17

You must log in to answer this question.