How much power did the queen really have? Why do morons say she had zero authority and why do schizos say she was the most powerful woman on the planet?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
How much power did the queen really have?
The fact we know almost 0 about her political stances should tell you where she fell on that scale
what about australia in 1975
noooo you aren't supposed to remember when she actually did stuff
she didn't do anything there, she let the GG act on his own authority
yes and the GG is…cope
CIA
Unironically wouldn't the exact same thing have happened with an Elected President? Budget didn't pass so the Government had to call new elections, or else there would be a Government shutdown like in the USA.
What was the alternative to dissolving the government and having elections? I honestly don't know much about the Australian system, I'm just looking at this from the lenses of an American
She was a Machiavellian mastermind. She was merely pretending to be moronic.
it is notable that Elizabeth once said she was glad the United States broke away from the mother country and its lamentable class system--she could no more choose her life's course than Stuart the coal miner could.
When and where did she say this? I am genuinely curious.
Semi-related, but Andrew Carnegie was also a big proponent of British Republicanism and shilled for a unified Anglophone Republic
>The fact we know almost 0 about her political stances should tell you where she fell on that scale
She visited 117 countries multiple times, Israel was never one of them.
Thatcher thought that the Queen, if a commoner, would be the sort of person to vote for the SDP.
What is the SDP?
its short for NSDAP
'Social Democratic Party'. They were about in the 1980s constituted from moderator defectors from Labour.
The monarchy has had no actual executive power since the 17th century; after the civil war the king/queen was banned from attending sessions of Parliament.
If she wanted to dissolve parliament and march troops into the house of lords she could have done so. I don’t understand why everyone denies this.
Because fricking I could march troops into the house of lords and dissolve parliament if I could get them to do that, and I have no fricking more chances to convince the army to do that than the royals. That's rule of strength, not some written power she had.
cope, a charismatic well liked monarch could absolutely pull off a coup in the case of a crisis or corrupt and incompetent parliament. they have the legal authority. All it would take is the queen grabbing 50 loyal foot guards getting into parliament and taking everyone hostage, promise new elections or whatever
A charismatic general/ politician/ corner store owner could do it. Who the frick cares about what's legal or not once you got parliament on gunpoint.
>inb4 it'd be easier recognized abroad as legitimate
Literally would never happen under the global liberal democracy status quo.
it's way easier for the queen/king to convince HER soldiers she has an easier time convincing them
Please stop sucking wiener you sad clown
i accept your surrender
that’s nice anon but can you just admit she has the authority to do so
Ceremonial leader, complicit in the bad things Bongs did but nothing like sole or primary responsibility
What bad things?
didn't she and her family had Diana assassinated sorry I meant staged an accident?
she met with the PM once a week in private. every wednesday I think.
She has lots of theoretical power, but in practice she only has real, direct power over a small number of largely ceremonial things. Supremacy of Parliament has been the organizing principle of British government for over three hundred years. Attempts of exercise her theoretical power would result in more legal limits being put on the monarchy or its abolishment. Arguably her greatest power is that she can regularly talk to the people at the top who actually run things, and thus she has some influence on them.
She had zero hard power but could have had a significant amount of soft power if she wanted to use it. She had weekly meetings with the prime minister and was kept informed on everything the government was doing.
>How much power did the queen really have?
Listening to some recent interviews from some journalists and etc. critical of the monarchy, they seemed to say "more than you think," but much of it was rather informal.
>She had weekly meetings with the prime minister and was kept informed on everything the government was doing.
Yeah, she apparently paid a lot of attention to what was going on including "her" military and regularly met privately with senior military officials for briefings, which implies some level of influence (in addition to prime ministers). She was also, of course, cleared for high-level secrecy stuff.
The other thing is that the rest of the royal family is tied up in various businesses, "charities," foundations and organizations so the monarch is kind of like the hinge on which this plutocratic family and the sack of people hanging onto them keep going. Prince William is the president of the Football Assocation which is like the equivalent of Roger Goodell of the NFL in the U.S. or something.
If you're a
>Constitutional Monarchy
You don't really have a monarch, just a very expensive mascot.
>You don't really have a monarch, just a very expensive mascot.
republican heads of state are more expensive.
>can legally call new elections and veto any legislation and immune to any civil or criminal legal action or arrest
>has royal prerogative control of foreign affairs and the military.
There is nothing stopping a monarch from ordering the firing of nuclear weapons or the invasion of a country, they are restricted only by unwritten rules, convention and that soldiers might disobey orders
In theory the monarch has a lot of Judicial power.
When you a prosecuted for a crime it's the Crown, not the State that prosecutes you.
When you go to Prison you are held by the Crown.
All laws require Royal Assent from the Crown.
That is real power even if it is processed by convention.
?t=127
How bad would it be if the King dissolved parliament? No one can legally do anything about it right?
correct, afaik the next parliament could pass a law restricting the monarchs powers or amend the consitituon though, but in theory he could refuse to give royal assent the the former
It's a broader question of political science/philosophy than you may think at the first glance.
From purely legal perspective, the British monarch could rev the clock back to 1066 on all laws, reintegrate all commonwealth nations as integral part of the new British empire etc. etc.
However I think everyone who has any kind of political instinct will recognise that this is just an unworkable idea. The state is not just an idea that will disappear once you just enlighten the plebs and show them it's just a spook. The state is an organisation, it has cadres, clients and patrons. As such a monarch who would want to upset its operation would have to deal with an administrative rebellion except the resources it would have would be nill. In other words let's say Elizabeth says in 1966 that the last 900 years were a mistake, the British bureaucracy, would then pin their legitimacy on the parliament and say - no Liz, you're the mistake here, we'll just continue running things like we've used to and if you struggle too much, we'll get doctors to declare you insane. This is also strengthened by the education system, which instils values which would make such an attempt at legitimistic takeover appear immoral and therefore disagreeable - not only would the civil service get away with breaking the law, it would be hailed as heroes for doing so. In fact even far less drastic of an action would be similarly checked(perhaps less dramatically) - there's a reason she basically never really took a position on any political issue.
However it wasn't all that grim. A king or queen of the UK is one of very few royal titles that actually caries any kind of prestige, being treated seriously by her means you are a serious man in politics and this quickly builds a very special ability to network with the very most important people in the world. This does allow for a degree of control over the course of politics, not a lot, but still.
Likely more than most people will admit.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent