zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
Time to end on a high? Shall we just abandon this whole monarchy thing and time to flip over to a republic and leave the much revered queen as the last ever monarch of the UK?

Seems like Scotland is going to go independent, and if Scotland do Wales will only be a matter of time so may as well just can it now?

>>mattlo+N7
Yes! Let's push this as hard as possible. Monarchies are an affront to all Enlightenment ideals and belong in the history books.

>>david9+Z8
Are they?

Elizabeth nor Charles are claiming devine right. They are a unfiying vestige of times past, providing as she did a human constant, an embodiment of the Commonwealth.

So long as their heredity isn't overtly providing them the ability or write or enforce law, it does not seem an affront to democracy.

>>unethi+9a
The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.

While Elizabeth has CHOSEN to not use these powers much, any future monarch can. Just look at the U.S. in the last 6 years to see what happens when a country relies more on historical norms rather than law.

>>kahrl+oc
Really, that's not true and hasn't been since 1688.

She held the power of royal prerogative but couldn't ever exercise it because Parliament retains the right to dismiss and choose a new monarch anytime they like.

The issue of royal prerogative was settled in the Glorious Revolution when Parliament decided it didn't like the King, James II and just selected a new one.

Every year we remind the monarch at the State Opening of Parliament that they can't ever use their royal prerogative.

The monarch might have influence but ultimate power rests with Parliament.