Log in | Sign up

The word “theoretically” is doing a lot of lifting in that video. He said that the Queen is in important political figure, but that’s incorrect. The monarchy in the UK survives by being apolitical and they all know that the day they start meddling in politics is the day when the royal family loses its one remaining role in the UK - ceremony. Their long standing popularity comes from the pomp and circumstance, and if they get mixed up in politics, they’ll become deeply unpopular, just like everyone else who tells the British people what to do does in the end.

All the real power went in the civil war and the glorious revolution. Parliament decides who is the monarch. If the king went rogue, he’d be gone before you can say “that’s not what we were looking for in the role of ceremonial figurehead.”

“The Crown” actually includes, quite as a matter of law, the government and specifically the prime minister.

So all the stuff about signing laws isn’t real power. It’s not about whether it becomes law, it’s about when it becomes law.

The King is The Sovereign, but he is not sovereign, Parliament is sovereign.

He embodies British power, but he doesn’t wield it.

The king has no real power. Real power lies with the prime minister since previous kings with the same name and the Glorious Revolution. He’s a figurehead.

Wild topic change there!

So when will democrats drop gun control

Nearly every legislative session, iirc. More permanently, probably when school shootings stop for good.

Today, Pakistan, tomorrow, USA. You might be sceptical today, but if you think it really couldn’t happen in America, you haven’t been paying nearly enough attention.