4 ms·

How often do those monarchs make use of that power and to what extend? Does it have negative impact on normal people?

sandgiant 5y ago
Last time in Denmark was in 1920 [1]. It almost abolished the monarchy at the time. Since then no other monarch have dared interfere with politics. Today all political interactions are purely ceremonial. The monarchy is still part of the power elite, and of ceremonial importance in domestic and international relations, but they have no direct power over political decisions or elections. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark#Easter_Crisis_of_1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark#Easter_...
lozenge 5y ago
I can think of a few recent examples. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the Governor General (granted power by the Queen) dismissed the Prime Minister. In 2019, when the British PM suspended Parliament - a provision that would not exist without a Monarchy, as it was technically done by the Queen on the PM s advice. This was later ruled illegal but there was no way to right the wrong. Recently, Queen's Consent was exposed as a secret process where laws are changed in secret before coming to Parliament to gain the Queen's approval. One example being that the Queen can hire without complying with laws against race discrimination. She also has exceptions from environmental and COVID legislation. Checking Wikipedia, it looks like Queens Consent was withheld in 1990 preventing debate of reforming the House of Lords. Probably the world's least democratic legislative chamber of any democracy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- n4r9 5y ago
  The 1975 and 2019 cases are dubious, since they are the personal actions of elected individuals (directly or indirectly). The governor general is elected at the advice of ministers and is not a hereditary post. Queen's Consent is a better argument, although worth noting that it's more like "I don't have to follow your laws" rather than "I get to change your laws".

Last time in Denmark was in 1920 [1]. It almost abolished the monarchy at the time. Since then no other monarch have dared interfere with politics. Today all political interactions are purely ceremonial. The monarchy is still part of the power elite, and of ceremonial importance in domestic and international relations, but they have no direct power over political decisions or elections. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark#Easter_Crisis_of_1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark#Easter_...

lozenge 5y ago

I can think of a few recent examples. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the Governor General (granted power by the Queen) dismissed the Prime Minister. In 2019, when the British PM suspended Parliament - a provision that would not exist without a Monarchy, as it was technically done by the Queen on the PM s advice. This was later ruled illegal but there was no way to right the wrong. Recently, Queen's Consent was exposed as a secret process where laws are changed in secret before coming to Parliament to gain the Queen's approval. One example being that the Queen can hire without complying with laws against race discrimination. She also has exceptions from environmental and COVID legislation. Checking Wikipedia, it looks like Queens Consent was withheld in 1990 preventing debate of reforming the House of Lords. Probably the world's least democratic legislative chamber of any democracy.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
n4r9 5y ago
The 1975 and 2019 cases are dubious, since they are the personal actions of elected individuals (directly or indirectly). The governor general is elected at the advice of ministers and is not a hereditary post. Queen's Consent is a better argument, although worth noting that it's more like "I don't have to follow your laws" rather than "I get to change your laws".