来源：《卫报》
日期：2021年2月12日
In Britain the Queen is supposed to act on the advice of her government. The monarch, it is said, merely signs the laws that ministers bring her. The process is conducted in the manner of a magician, with ceremony shielding the public so they fail to realise what is going on. The Guardian this week pulled back the curtain and let the daylight in. The truth is that the government often acts on the advice of the Queen.
在英国，女王应该按照政府的建议行事。据说，君主只是签署了大臣们送到她面前的法律。这个过程就像变魔术，仪式遮住了公众的视线，使他们无法知道发生了什么。《卫报》本周拉开了帷幕，让阳光照进来。事实是，政府经常按照女王的建议行事。
Under our unwritten constitution, the monarch does have the power to withhold royal assent to a bill. It’s never been used. The Queen, wrote the Victorian thinker Walter Bagehot, “must sign her own death-warrant” if parliament sends her a law to that effect. Yet documents in the National Archives reveal that Her Majesty managed, in secret, to get laws changed – for her personal interest – before they were introduced. The Guardian found four instances between 1968 and 1982 where the palace had lobbied to get the law altered. In 1973 the Queen’s lawyers intervened to allow her to hide her private wealth from the public.
根据我们不成文的宪法，君主有权拒绝给予法案御准。只是从未被行使过。维多利亚时代的思想家沃尔特·白芝浩曾写道，如果议会向女王递交了一份判女王死刑的执行令，女王“必须自己亲自签署批准它”。然而，国家档案馆的文件显示，女王陛下在法律出台之前，为了她的个人利益，曾秘密地做到修改法律。《卫报》发现，1968年至1982年间，白金汉宫曾四次游说修改法律。1973年，女王的律师介入此事，允许她向公众隐瞒自己的私人财富。
The royal family clearly has significant power to influence the government behind closed doors before final decisions in parliament are made. The device used to do this is Queen’s consent. Today it permits bills which have a direct impact on the Queen’s remaining powers or private interests to be submitted for her formal consent. Without this, laws cannot be made. In practice the Queen does not need to reject the formal advice of her ministers because she has adjusted her counsel, through secret negotiations, before it is formally given.
在议会做出最终决定之前，王室显然在幕后对政府有很大的影响力。用来施加影响的手段是利用女王首肯权。今天，凡是直接影响女王剩余权力或个人利益的法案，都需要提交女王获得正式首肯。不经过这一步，法律就无法制定。实际上，女王不需要拒绝大臣们的正式建议，因为在法律正式获得首肯之前，她已经通过秘密谈判调整了自己的意见。
Who is the head of state does matter. Inheritance is not the right way to choose one. We understand the appeal of the Queen in an age of political populism. But the medicine for this pain is for meaningful checks on, and proper accountability of, the government. Paul Evans, a former Commons clerk, says that the bigger prize would be to subject the powers of the crown – such as waging war and dissolving parliament - to the democratically elected legislature.
谁是国家元首确实很重要。继承并不是选择国家元首的正确方式。我们理解女王在政治民粹主义时代的吸引力。但治疗民粹的良药是对政府进行有意义的检查和适当的问责。前下议院书记员保罗埃文斯表示，更大的目标是将君主的权力——例如发动战争和解散议会——交给民选的立法机构。
It is clear that an old and mysterious convention affords a level of protection to the personal financial interests of the sovereign that no private citizen could dream of. This gives rise to a significant conflict of interest and ultimately damages the standing of the monarchy. Britain, at a minimum, should constitutionally operate with a higher degree of transparency. The monarch could then lobby ministers openly and her dealings be subject to freedom of information laws. Locking away royal correspondence for beyond the lifetime of the monarch does not inspire confidence in how Britain works.
显然，一种古老而神秘的惯例为君主的个人经济利益提供了某种程度的保护，这是普通公民所无法想象的。这引起了重大的利益冲突，并最终损害了君主制的名声。从宪法上讲，英国至少应该以更高的透明度来运作。然后，女王可以公开游说大臣，她的交易将受到信息自由法的约束。把王室通信封存起来，直到君主去世，这并不能激发人们对英国如何运作的信心。