What stops it being true is 800-odd years of British history (the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Act of Succession, Petition of Rights, etc, etc, etc). And no, she can't just ignore them - Elizabeth wouldn't be queen if her ancestors hadn't agreed to them.
As for the powers you mention: she certainly doesn't have the right to meddle with the judiciary (see: bill of rights, act of succession). Yes, she could theoretically dissolve parliament and appoint ministers - but they'd have to make do without tax or an army.
And in reality, there is no way she would - or could - do that. If she tried to claim more privileges than she has, she'd either get properly deposed or start a civil war. The monarchy (fortunately) has neither a monopoly on violence, nor the consent of the country to do more than perform her limited functions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:41 pm (UTC)As for the powers you mention: she certainly doesn't have the right to meddle with the judiciary (see: bill of rights, act of succession). Yes, she could theoretically dissolve parliament and appoint ministers - but they'd have to make do without tax or an army.
And in reality, there is no way she would - or could - do that. If she tried to claim more privileges than she has, she'd either get properly deposed or start a civil war. The monarchy (fortunately) has neither a monopoly on violence, nor the consent of the country to do more than perform her limited functions.
You're right about Godwin's law, though.