4 ms·

I think you're picking hairs, given how much influence Nepal and Bulgaria have on the world stage, compared to QEII's 70 years as one of the most powerful heads

I think you're picking hairs, given how much influence Nepal and Bulgaria have on the world stage, compared to QEII's 70 years as one of the most powerful heads of state on earth, probably the most powerful, given the duration.

valarauko 4y ago
Tibet, not Nepal
- thghtihadanacct 4y ago
  kinda makes the point
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Ya, let’s not talk about the Nepali royals again. I’m still not sure what really happened when they imploded in 2004 or so.
unmole 4y ago
> one of the most powerful heads of state on earth The British monarch is one of the least powerful heads of state on earth. The president of Barbados has more discretionary power.
- whoooooo123 4y ago
  Perhaps they meant "head of one of the most powerful states on earth"
- sofixa 4y ago
  Actually the British monarch has a lot of power, de jure, they just don't use it due to "tradition". They're the ones who appoint prime ministers, and they're the ones who dissolve parliament for new elections. Traditionally they do those things at the behest of others, but de jure it's their right. (Note: those two powers are the ones abused by Hindenburg in Weimar Germany to de facto appoint whomever as chancellor based on his power to dissolve the Bundestag if they disagreed with his choice)
  - unmole 4y ago
    No. Royal prerogative is only exercised on advice of the prime minister, the cabinet or by the consent of parliament. Constitutional convention is not just tradition. And the fact that the constitution of the UK is uncodified doesn't mean the monarch has any de jure powers. Even the prorogation of parliament on advice of the prime minister was held to be unlawful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

4 ms·

I think you're picking hairs, given how much influence Nepal and Bulgaria have on the world stage, compared to QEII's 70 years as one of the most powerful heads

by gizajob 4y ago

valarauko 4y ago
Tibet, not Nepal
- thghtihadanacct 4y ago
  kinda makes the point
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Ya, let’s not talk about the Nepali royals again. I’m still not sure what really happened when they imploded in 2004 or so.
unmole 4y ago
> one of the most powerful heads of state on earth The British monarch is one of the least powerful heads of state on earth. The president of Barbados has more discretionary power.
- whoooooo123 4y ago
  Perhaps they meant "head of one of the most powerful states on earth"
- sofixa 4y ago
  Actually the British monarch has a lot of power, de jure, they just don't use it due to "tradition". They're the ones who appoint prime ministers, and they're the ones who dissolve parliament for new elections. Traditionally they do those things at the behest of others, but de jure it's their right. (Note: those two powers are the ones abused by Hindenburg in Weimar Germany to de facto appoint whomever as chancellor based on his power to dissolve the Bundestag if they disagreed with his choice)
  - unmole 4y ago
    No. Royal prerogative is only exercised on advice of the prime minister, the cabinet or by the consent of parliament. Constitutional convention is not just tradition. And the fact that the constitution of the UK is uncodified doesn't mean the monarch has any de jure powers. Even the prorogation of parliament on advice of the prime minister was held to be unlawful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...