ext_42482 ([identity profile] oedipamaas49.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] danohu 2008-03-12 02:41 pm (UTC)

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.

You're right about Godwin's law, though.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting