[ranko]

Calling an election is now back in the hands of the government (not parliament) since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; a PM can ask the monarch to call an election without having to get the agreement of parliament. Neither the current nor next PM (whoever they end up being) is likely to do this if the polling numbers are anything to go by, of course. I think the only other way an election can be called is if the government loses a vote of no confidence.

[evgen]

Technically speaking, King Charles III does not actually need to PM to ask in order to dismiss parliament and force a new election. Given that Charles I and Charles II both dismissed parliament maybe Charles III will grow a pair and do the same. It is somewhat ironic that while dismissing parliament caused the downfall of the monarchy for Charles I is it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.

[martopix]

This is a typical misunderstanding of British politics. In theory the King is supposed to have power on a range of things, but there are very clearly set constitutional conventions that mean he does not. These are now so powerful that not even the "theory" is able to supersede them. This was found out the hard way by Boris Johnson when he tried to prorogue (suspend) Parliament using the Royal Prerogative. The supreme court cancelled his 'advice to the Queen' very quickly and restored Parliament.

Yes it's confusing and it would be better to write down a constitution reflecting how things actually are, but that's how it is.

[cm2187]

The other way round. If he gets out of his limited role and engages into politics, it will be the end of monarchy.

[bb123]

I seriously doubt that interfering in politics would do the monarchy any favours whatsoever. Constitutional issues aside the intersection of conservative and royalist is famously large. Why would he piss off the people most likely to support him?

[frereubu]

I think the idea that the king would buy time for the monarchy by doing that is highly speculative. I very much doubt anyone knows what would happen given that the atmosphere is so febrile and it hasn't happened in centuries.

[vbezhenar]

Is it only me who thinks it's crazy that in modern world some guy with birth right have the authority over entire western country?

So much for democracy.

[voisin]

> it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.

Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?

[nailer]

Exactly. Queen Elizabeth sacked the Australian PM in 1978.

[kranke155]

I doubt that’s going to happen in the modern era?