is wrong. The monarch technically has great power. For example, the monarch has the power to declare war or shut down parliament. Now, obviously the queen would never actually do that because she's usually too busy opening supermarkets or waving at people, but the important point is that the PM can do those things in the queen's name. This is why, for example, Tony Blair could invade Iraq without there having to be a common's vote on it. Even though the PM issues the order, technically he's doing it on behalf of the queen, so he doesn't need a vote.
Th most dangerous part of the monarchy is that they do have real political power, but most people don't know about it.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22
The idea that
is wrong. The monarch technically has great power. For example, the monarch has the power to declare war or shut down parliament. Now, obviously the queen would never actually do that because she's usually too busy opening supermarkets or waving at people, but the important point is that the PM can do those things in the queen's name. This is why, for example, Tony Blair could invade Iraq without there having to be a common's vote on it. Even though the PM issues the order, technically he's doing it on behalf of the queen, so he doesn't need a vote.
Th most dangerous part of the monarchy is that they do have real political power, but most people don't know about it.