Royal prerogative is defined in various ways, for Blackstone it is defined as “above all other persons and outside the ordinary course of the common law in right of his royal dignity.” [1]; for Dicey it meant “the residue of discretionary or arbitrary power legally left in the hands of the crown”[2]. However, Blackstone's is considered the preferred choice of definition as it only means powers that could belong exclusively to the crown and no one else has prerogative powers. The royal prerogative originates from the protected settlement revered in the 1688 Bill of Rights, which exchanged with ministers certain rights that had previously been the private preserve of the monarch. It did not override the prerogative, but allowed Parliament to find a way to adjust, override or place a specific right on the statutory balance. It would therefore never again be sufficient for the Crown (or its ministers) to invoke the privilege of legitimizing their activities. It would need to be demonstrated that such a power exists in customary law and, to the point, that it was not affected by the enactment. The prerogative could be "influenced" in two ways: a power could be revoked, or the law could give the Crown an elective reason to act, on which it would then have to depend while the statutory power remained in place. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It is therefore known that prerogative is inherent in the legal attributes recognized unambiguously by common law; this includes all special rights, powers, privileges and immunities belonging to the crown. Furthermore, there is a difference between powers that remain personal to the sovereign and those that exercise the powers but in the name of the sovereign. The government holds the following prerogatives: appointment and dismissal of ministers, civil and military officials, some judges, bishops and deans of the Church of England. Important prerogatives such as the prerogative of mercy (to stop a criminal prosecution under indictment), prerogatives related to foreign affairs, and control and disposition of the armed forces on behalf of the monarch's position as commander-in-chief. Within the scope of royal prerogatives, the government can announce war and send military forces abroad without the support or consent of Parliament. Be that as it may, the government agreed to a parliamentary vote before the Iraq war in 2003[4]. In this sense, the need has arisen for the government to reliably seek Parliament's approval when moving into future conflicts. The ability to send troops into armed conflicts is one of the persistent royal prerogatives, i.e. powers that are received from the Crown rather than being established by parliament. There is no confidential parliamentary strategy that formally requires the government to seek authorization before making a military move. The Prime Minister and Cabinet hold the constitutional right to choose when and where to approve these military actions. The condition of the constitution and its connection with royal prerogatives have been continually in flux; as is known, the real salient points of the relationship between crown and parliament were set in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which limited the use of prerogatives. However, during the 19th century, the part of parliament related to royal power the prerogative was never addressed again. Prerogative rights were part of the British constitution and parliament was considered to participate in the use of these rights as the monarch was nevertheless a member of the governing body. This was underlined by the way in which the activity of these rights was transferred from the ruler to the official, who.