4 ms·

> so whilst she has never exercised her powers to cancel Govt, she has the legal authority to do this. Yeah, my point was more on the lines of, she doesn't use

> so whilst she has never exercised her powers to cancel Govt, she has the legal authority to do this. Yeah, my point was more on the lines of, she doesn't use that power, making her a ceremonial head unlike the other two. I think this is one of those things, where if she does exercise her power even for cancelling a resolution passed by the commons, it would immediately lead to public outcry. It might even mean eventually throwing away the monarchy. Even for something major as Brexit, we don't know what she thought of it, there was an outfit she wore that was speculated to show her support of the EU, but I remember that was it. > British Monarchy as an entity is worth about £70billion Does this come from the assets they hold? As far as I remember, they don't own some of those outright. They get a share of the revenue those things make.

3pt14159 5y ago
No, the Monarchy does use its power. It has in Canada multiple times. Anyway, not going to keep debating this. Wealth is something that can be reasoned about when an individual doesn't have serious security concerns and when an individual doesn't have meaningful coercive power through use of force. But a billionaire in a new communist state isn't really a billionaire any more than a despotic dictator is since they can't really retain the wealth absent ongoing action and so much of the assets under their command belong to the state. I'll put it another way, if Russia has a democratic uprising like Ukraine did, who will own Putin's giant mansion. It's obviously not Putin. Real billionaires can move the vast majority of their assets out of a country without anyone seriously putting up a fight.