3 ms·
Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many here would trust monarchs or anyone
by argv_empty 16y ago
Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many here would trust monarchs or anyone else not to use their power.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- socksy 16y agoSure, technically the monarchy have power. But the reason they don't use it is because it would be taken away from them if they used it...
- alextgordon 16y agoWell, not always. There's really two situations where the power can be used in practice. Firstly, if the government supports the actions of the monarch (although you could argue that this isn't much of a power). More importantly, if there's no government to remove them. The monarch could have the power to resolve a disputed government, or to appoint a government in the absence of one. It's also important to remember that monarchs are often rich, connected people, so even if they can't use their official powers, they may have influence in other ways.
- arethuza 16y agoFYI Edward VIII was pretty much forced to step down in the 1930s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis Maybe not the best of reasons (his choice of partner), but it does demonstrate that they aren't immovable.
- cromulent 16y agoThe Queen of Australia's representative dismissed the Prime Minister in 1975. That power has not been removed.
- ErrantX 16y agoIn practical terms there is no power; it is just tradition. But your point is sound; from my observation US culture isn't suited for a monarch.