3 ms·
Put another way, her Prime Ministers saw the world from 1874 - 2022, nearly 150 years.
by Terretta 4y ago
Put another way, her Prime Ministers saw the world from 1874 - 2022, nearly 150 years.
- ddlatham 4y agoAnd counting!
- huhtenberg 4y ago> her Prime Ministers I suspect that you don't realize how bizarre this phrasing is for the vast majority of the world.
- telotortium 4y agoWhy? Constitutionally the Prime Minister is just the "first" minister to the monarch. These days, of course, the monarch defers all governance to the Prime Minister, but the origin of the role is as an advisor of sorts to the monarch. It shouldn't sound any worse than saying Merrick Garland is Joe Biden's Attorney General.
- amachefe 4y agoThat is not true. There are many countries in the world who run different system of governments, and many as doing it quite successfully.
- huhtenberg 4y agoWhat is not true? That phrase implies that she had PMs subservient to her. That's not how the UK monarchy is generally explained, at least not outside of the UK.
- flumpcakes 4y agoShe is the head of state. The UK isn't the only country she is head of state either. She has the power to dissolve UK government.
- SllX 4y agoUnder her reign it was Her Majesty’s government and she took an active role in it that wasn’t publicly visible. Laws did not take effect without her assent, and the government formed with her permission which was asked for. Under Charles III’s reign, it will be His Majesty’s government; how actively he takes an interest in its affairs will be on him, but at a minimum laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments. That’s the system of the United Kingdom. It never stopped being a Kingdom, people just chose to view the late Queen as ceremonial because it was a convenient way to square the Throne with democratic ideals, but it really isn’t all that ceremonial. The reason the customs held fast is because Queen Elizabeth II worked to make the system work. A different sort of Queen may have sparked a constitutional crisis or two by now and there’s no guarantee she would have necessarily lost to the Commons.
- jesuscript 4y agolaws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments Wait, you mean to tell me the King can veto laws in the UK? I thought you guys figured this loophole out? Who controls the military?
- alichapman 4y agoYes but the last time a monarch vetoed a law was in 1707, and that was only because parliament asked Queen Anne to veto the law. In reality, if King Charles started vetoing then after a short constitutional crisis, parliament would basically just change the rules of the game to say that the monarch no longer has the power to veto laws.
- jesuscript 4y agoWouldn’t the loophole still be if one house of the parliament co-opts King, essentially simulating American democracy where you have a Republican King and Republican Party in power allowing the Republicans to veto laws and stop monarchy reform in parliament?
- 4y ago
- renewiltord 4y agoWell, they were her PMs as much as these guys are my Presidents.
- swarnie 4y agoWhat's more bizarre is passing actual executive power backwards and forwards between a few families and their billionaire friends. The royal family is little more then a Kabuki act at this point, no reason to throw out tradition on a whim.