4 ms·
Functionally zero. In theory, the monarch has power, but it is never exerted, because they know that if it was exerted a) it would be ignored, and b) they’d imm
by HL33tibCe7 4y ago
Functionally zero. In theory, the monarch has power, but it is never exerted, because they know that if it was exerted a) it would be ignored, and b) they’d immediately be overthrown.
They act as a head of state in the same way that e.g: Germany has a President.
Noble ranks like Duke and Baron are also completely irrelevant to governance.
Lords _are_ relevant, on the other hand. They form the House of Lords, which plays a role as (simplifying) a check on the power of the House of Commons.
- bombcar 4y agoIt is not entirely clear they’d be immediately overthrown - in the right situation it could spark a civil war.
- nly 4y agoWhich isn't necessarily a bad thing?
- cpleppert 4y agoPractically, the UK Monarch (or Japanese emperor) has no discretionary political power at all. Republican Parliamentary systems usually leave some discretionary power to the head of state in either emergencies or for the purpose choosing a party to attempt to form a government. Hereditary Lords (i.e. the noble aristocracy in the UK) have almost no political power. The ninety or so still in the House of Lords are elected by fellow members of the House of Lords. The remainder (600+) of the peers are appointed by the party in power in the commons.