I can’t understand it, as an American. I get that they don’t have much actual power but the fact remains that essentially the state is saying this particular family are literally your betters by birthright. How that doesn’t bother everyone is strange to me.
They don’t exercise much power outside of their ceremonial role but they still have a huge amount of power. Everything the UK government does requires royal assent. While only used ceremonially now, the government requires the Monarch’s permission to form in the first place and the PM is appointed by the Monarch. The Monarch has the power to unilaterally dismiss the PM and disband parliament. The last time a Monarch denied assent for a bill was in 1708 when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill. The last time a Monarch broke convention with the use of their powers was in 1834 when William IV dismissed the Whig PM and cabinet and appointed a conservative PM and cabinet to replace them. The last time breaking convention was publicly discussed was in 2013 to stop Brexit.
That doesn’t invalidate anything the person you responded to said. We definitely have our own political insanity to deal with in the US so it’s not like I’m saying we’re better but still, having a monarch in the 21st century is very strange to us. The fact that they don’t usually use the power they have is fine and all but if your system of government relies on the assumption that generations of people born into a royal dynasty lasting hundreds of years will never be assholes who abuse their power then that seems like a bet you’re bound to lose eventually.
They’re our betters simply because some dude, way back in the mists of time, decided he was going to be a leader, gave himself a fancy title and then his descendants bonked themselves (and probably most of their cousins) into a monarchy.
I can’t understand it, as an American. I get that they don’t have much actual power but the fact remains that essentially the state is saying this particular family are literally your betters by birthright. How that doesn’t bother everyone is strange to me.
They don’t exercise much power outside of their ceremonial role but they still have a huge amount of power. Everything the UK government does requires royal assent. While only used ceremonially now, the government requires the Monarch’s permission to form in the first place and the PM is appointed by the Monarch. The Monarch has the power to unilaterally dismiss the PM and disband parliament. The last time a Monarch denied assent for a bill was in 1708 when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill. The last time a Monarch broke convention with the use of their powers was in 1834 when William IV dismissed the Whig PM and cabinet and appointed a conservative PM and cabinet to replace them. The last time breaking convention was publicly discussed was in 2013 to stop Brexit.
That doesn’t invalidate anything the person you responded to said. We definitely have our own political insanity to deal with in the US so it’s not like I’m saying we’re better but still, having a monarch in the 21st century is very strange to us. The fact that they don’t usually use the power they have is fine and all but if your system of government relies on the assumption that generations of people born into a royal dynasty lasting hundreds of years will never be assholes who abuse their power then that seems like a bet you’re bound to lose eventually.
Who said it invalidated anything? I figure them still having so much power makes it worse than most people think.
They’re our betters simply because some dude, way back in the mists of time, decided he was going to be a leader, gave himself a fancy title and then his descendants bonked themselves (and probably most of their cousins) into a monarchy.
violently conquered a territory and kept hold of it with more violence.