When was the last time the British Monarchy had or used any real power?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Well...Which British Monarch was the last to wield any real executive power?

[Platypus]

Representatives of the crown, state Governors and the Commonwealth G-G, have weilded power a few times. Most recently in the aftermath of the last Tasmanian election, when the Governor basically forced together the ALP and Greens in a governing coalition.

[The Mikado]

A very, very hard question, as a good deal of royal power has to do with royal influence.  I suppose if you were looking at it from a literal standpoint, you could say George IV, but denying Victoria's informal influence on the political process.

EDIT:  I assume you meant really blatant, obvious powers like appointing/firing cabinet ministers and such. 

[Hatman]

GG Michaelle Jean used her power to prorogue Parliament 2 years ago.

[Sibboleth]

George V played a minor role in the establishment of the National Government, but that was an influence issue rather than the use of 'real power' (whatever that is). It is certainly interesting to note that representatives of the crown are much more likely to use their theoretical powers than the monarch is here; the Whitlam dismissal would not have been possible in Britain, and in the aftermath of the General Election the people with power pushing for a quick coalition deal were the current generation of Sir Humphrey's, rather than people from the palace.

[??????????]

George V played a minor role in the establishment of the National Government, but that was an influence issue rather than the use of 'real power' (whatever that is). It is certainly interesting to note that representatives of the crown are much more likely to use their theoretical powers than the monarch is here; the Whitlam dismissal would not have been possible in Britain, and in the aftermath of the General Election the people with power pushing for a quick coalition deal were the current generation of Sir Humphrey's, rather than people from the palace.

Could the Queen force her hand back in the game if she wanted to?

[Sibboleth]

Could the Queen force her hand back in the game if she wanted to?

No; convention makes it impossible.

[Senator Kalwejt]

Could the Queen force her hand back in the game if she wanted to?

No; convention makes it impossible.

Don't f**k with the Parliament

[Senator Ben]

Probably Victoria, in terms of real influence.

[Јas]

Depends. Some possibilities...
Anne's refusal to sign the Scottish Militia Bill, 1708
William IV's dismissal of Melbourne, 1834
George V's deal with Asquith on Liberal peers, 1910

[Vasall des Midas]

George V played a minor role in the establishment of the National Government, but that was an influence issue rather than the use of 'real power' (whatever that is). It is certainly interesting to note that representatives of the crown are much more likely to use their theoretical powers than the monarch is here; the Whitlam dismissal would not have been possible in Britain, and in the aftermath of the General Election the people with power pushing for a quick coalition deal were the current generation of Sir Humphrey's, rather than people from the palace.

Could the Queen force her hand back in the game if she wanted to?

She might try that. If she wants her country to become a Republic.

[J. J.]

I would say, quite clearly, in 1911.  The King, George V, committed to creating enough peers to pass the Parliament Act.  He could have said no.

[Χahar]

The current monarch has on one occasion personally selected the Prime Minister.

[J. J.]

The current monarch has on one occasion personally selected the Prime Minister.

True, but on the advice of the previous prime minister.

[Χahar]

The current monarch has on one occasion personally selected the Prime Minister.

True, but on the advice of the previous prime minister.

Not in the typical sense of "advice". The prior prime minister's adivce was not in that case binding.

[dialectical fetishist]

George V was the last to threaten to use any real power.

Last one really was Anne though.

[J. J.]

The current monarch has on one occasion personally selected the Prime Minister.

True, but on the advice of the previous prime minister.

Not in the typical sense of "advice". The prior prime minister's adivce was not in that case binding.

Well, legally, none of any prime minister's advice is binding.  This was somewhat analogous to asking the leader of a party, with a clear majority, to form a government, and the leader does, without putting himself in it.

One suggestion that I have read would a prime minister's questionable use nuclear weapons.  One former defense chief indicated that he would appeal a questionable order to the Queen.

 

[Senator Kalwejt]

The current monarch has on one occasion personally selected the Prime Minister.

Douglas-Home?

[Vasall des Midas]

I would say, quite clearly, in 1911.  The King, George V, committed to creating enough peers to pass the Parliament Act.  He could have said no.

If he had wanted Britain to become a Republic.

[J. J.]

I would say, quite clearly, in 1911.  The King, George V, committed to creating enough peers to pass the Parliament Act.  He could have said no.

If he had wanted Britain to become a Republic.

The budget has been passed.  England would not have been a republic.

[So the Heroes Fall]

If the Queen did try to force her hand Parliament could always use the Belgian loophole, declare her unfit to serve and appoint the PM regent. Becoming a Republic would end a lot of tourism dollars which I don't think anyone would want to have happen.

[ag]

George V played a minor role in the establishment of the National Government, but that was an influence issue rather than the use of 'real power' (whatever that is). It is certainly interesting to note that representatives of the crown are much more likely to use their theoretical powers than the monarch is here; the Whitlam dismissal would not have been possible in Britain, and in the aftermath of the General Election the people with power pushing for a quick coalition deal were the current generation of Sir Humphrey's, rather than people from the palace.

Could the Queen force her hand back in the game if she wanted to?

She might try that. If she wants her country to become a Republic.

Mostly, you are right. But there could be circumstances, where that would not be the case. She, probably, can't be the first one to violate the constitutional conventions, but if an unpopular Parliament were to do this first, her role would not be negligible. For instance, if an unpopular radical PM were to try to indefinitely postpone elections beyond the conventional 5-year term (even passing an appropriate law through the Parliament),  I could imagine the Queen refusing to go along and the Monarchy only being strengthened after the ensuing rucus . So, her passive role as a constitutional guarantor is not to be entirely dismissed, though, of course, in practice its exercise remains far from the actual political equilibrium.

[dialectical fetishist]

If the Queen did try to force her hand Parliament could always use the Belgian loophole, declare her unfit to serve and appoint the PM regent. Becoming a Republic would end a lot of tourism dollars which I don't think anyone would want to have happen.

France hasn't had a monarchy for quite a while now and it doesn't seem to deter tourists from going to Versailles.

[J. J.]

If the Queen did try to force her hand Parliament could always use the Belgian loophole, declare her unfit to serve and appoint the PM regent. Becoming a Republic would end a lot of tourism dollars which I don't think anyone would want to have happen.

I doubt that a PM would ever be appointed regent.  While they could change statute there is a "Regency Statute."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937

[Јas]

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills - grauniad

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

...

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

...

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.