Could the Queen of England legally revolt?

[ricket]

Im just wondering, this may sound weird, but could the queen of England actually take over and start running things again? What if one day, she was just like "SCREW THIS, IM THE QUEEN" and just completely takes control. We all know that right now she is a figure head, and doesnt really do anything. But doesnt she *legally* have the authority to revoke any and all decision making to everyone but herself? Does she have any sort of legal foundation for this in the UK? Mega? Im not talking about the whole world or anything, but just domestic control of the country.

[Tron]

Re: Could the Queen of England legally revolt?

Im just wondering, this may sound weird, but could the queen of England actually take over and start running things again? What if one day, she was just like "SCREW THIS, IM THE QUEEN" and just completely takes control. We all know that right now she is a figure head, and doesnt really do anything. But doesnt she *legally* have the authority to revoke any and all decision making to everyone but herself? Does she have any sort of legal foundation for this in the UK? Mega? Im not talking about the whole world or anything, but just domestic control of the country.

of course.

[*T*]

Re: Could the Queen of England legally revolt?

That would effectively be a revolution. Her Majesty's powers have been limited since the English civil war. Although we do not have a single written constitution, the law is fairly clear. Parliament is sovereign. Only some European law is higher.
[Caveat:I am not a lawyer.]

From Wikipedia:

Constitutional monarchy is another key principle, summed up in the maxim that "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule" and the often-quoted saying that the monarch acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. This principle can be traced back to the Restoration, and was most famously articulated by the Victorian writer Walter Bagehot. On very rare occasions, the monarch does play an active role in politics: for example, in deciding which party leader to ask to form a government when an election has produced a hung Parliament, as in February 1974.

Royal Prerogative
The royal prerogative is the collective name for a collection of powers belonging to the Sovereign which have no statutory basis. In practice, by convention, most of the prerogatives are now directly exercised by ministers, or at any rate on the advice of ministers.
The precise extent of the royal prerogative has never formally been delineated, but it includes the following powers:
The power to make war and peace
The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament
The power to regulate the Civil Service
The power to ratify treaties
The power to issue passports
The most important prerogative still personally exercised by the Sovereign is considered to be the appointment and dismissal of Prime Ministers. The last time this reserve prerogative was exercised by the monarch without reference to the Cabinet was with the appointment of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in February 1974, despite his party not having a majority in the House of Commons. Queen Elizabeth II exercised her prerogative after extensive consultation with the Privy Council.
The Royal Prerogative is not unlimited; this was established in the Case of Proclamations (1611), which confirmed that no new prerogative can be created and that Parliament can abolish individual prerogatives.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Could the Queen of England legally revolt?

It would seem that if the monarch can dismiss Parliament at will, Parliament is not the sovereign.

Am I not interpreting this correctly?

Besides, sovereignty as a legal concept is irrelevant. The only laws that matter are those the people will follow. If the people accept the authority of the Queen, she is sovereign.