When a British prime minister steps down, the nation's monarch assumes a distinctive constitutional responsibility that remains largely unchanged despite centuries of democratic evolution. King Charles III will soon undertake this process following Keir Starmer's decision to resign as Labour Party leader and head of government, welcoming what will be the fourth prime minister of his reign. This appointment power represents one of the crown's most significant surviving personal prerogatives—a formal authority that, while constrained by convention, vests considerable dignity in the sovereign's hands.
The monarch's role in selecting a new prime minister differs markedly from cabinet appointments or other governmental decisions, which typically require ministerial advice. In this instance, King Charles operates largely independently, unburdened by the need to seek or act upon recommendations from government officials. The sovereign possesses full discretion to choose whom to invite to form a government, a freedom that underscores the residual personal authority the monarchy retains within Britain's constitutional framework. This independence, however, is tempered by both constitutional practice and the practical requirement that any appointed premier must command sufficient support in Parliament to govern effectively.
The guiding principle underlying all such appointments is straightforward but fundamental: the new prime minister must be able to secure the confidence of the House of Commons. In contemporary British politics, this almost invariably means the leader of whichever party holds an outright majority of seats in Parliament. The sovereign cannot appoint someone lacking this parliamentary backing, regardless of personal preference or other considerations. This requirement ensures that the crown's formal appointment power remains subordinate to democratic principles and parliamentary supremacy—a balance carefully maintained through constitutional convention rather than written statute.
Although operating with considerable formal freedom, the monarch is expected to conduct himself with prudence when exercising this power. Constitutional practice permits King Charles to seek guidance from various quarters before making his decision: the outgoing prime minister may offer counsel, opposition leaders can be consulted, senior members of the Privy Council—the crown's advisory body—may be approached, and trusted advisers can be sounded out. This consultative tradition, while discretionary rather than mandatory, reflects the gravity with which the monarchy treats its remaining personal powers and demonstrates respect for democratic norms and parliamentary practice.
Starmer must first complete the formal ritual of resignation by meeting the king in person. Constitutional tradition demands this in-person audience, where the departing premier formally tenders his resignation to the sovereign. Only after this private meeting will the monarch invite the chosen successor—once Labour selects its new leader—to form a government in an identical face-to-face encounter. These audiences represent more than mere administrative formality; they constitute the constitutional moment when governmental authority formally passes from one individual to another under the sovereign's auspices. The outgoing premier and incoming premier thus bookend this transition through direct encounters with the crown.
When accepting the invitation to form a government, the incoming prime minister will become the fourth to serve under King Charles. His predecessors in this reign have been Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, and Starmer himself—a succession reflecting the political turbulence British governance has experienced in recent years. The acceptance is recorded in the Court Circular, the official daily record of royal engagements, which will note that the new prime minister "kissed hands" on appointment. This ancient ceremonial phrase masks the modern reality of the gesture: incoming male prime ministers typically bow, while female prime ministers may curtsy if they choose, followed by a gentle brush of the monarch's hand with the lips rather than an actual kiss.
The ceremonial aspects of appointment contain their own historical humour and instructive moments. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair vividly recalled in his autobiography how, before his audience following Labour's 1997 landslide victory, a palace official discreetly informed him that the phrase "kissing hands" did not literally mean kissing the monarch's hands. During the actual ceremony, Blair recounted with characteristic candour how he stumbled on a piece of carpet and practically fell upon the Queen's hands, prompting her to observe that he seemed remarkably "enthusiastic." Decades later, in 2010, David Cameron approached the late Queen differently, taking her hand but neither kissing it nor kneeling before being formally asked whether he could form a government.
The technical act of kissing hands as part of the formal ceremony has evolved considerably. Nowadays, the actual kissing of hands typically occurs later during a Privy Council meeting, where the new prime minister swears or affirms an oath as First Lord of the Treasury and where new Privy Counsellors undertake their own ceremonial obligations. The in-person meeting with the sovereign remains the crucial constitutional moment, but its ceremonial elements have been refined and adapted across successive reigns to reflect changing customs and sensibilities.
Once appointed, the prime minister enters into a weekly ritual of private audience with the monarch, held each Wednesday following Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament. These confidential meetings provide the sovereign with a regular window into governmental affairs and allow the prime minister direct access to the crown's counsel. Although King Charles must maintain scrupulous political neutrality on all substantive matters of policy and partisan controversy, he is constitutionally entitled to advise and warn his ministers when he deems it necessary. This power—to counsel without commanding—represents the essence of the modern constitutional monarchy: the sovereign reigns but does not rule, yet retains the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.
For Malaysian readers and observers across Southeast Asia, Britain's appointment process illustrates how constitutional monarchies navigate the tension between hereditary authority and democratic governance. The system depends entirely on conventions and mutual respect rather than legal compulsion; the king could theoretically appoint someone unable to command Parliament, yet no monarch has done so in modern times. This restraint exemplifies how constitutional traditions—unwritten rules accepted through long practice—can be more binding than formal legislation. The British model demonstrates that a functioning democracy can accommodate an active, dignified monarchy provided both institutions respect their proper spheres and acknowledge the supremacy of parliamentary will.
