zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
Winston Churchill (1951–55)

Anthony Eden (1955–57)

Harold Macmillan (1957–63)

Alec Douglas-Home (1963–64)

Harold Wilson (1964–70)

Edward Heath (1970–74)

Harold Wilson (1974–76)

James Callaghan (1976–79)

Margaret Thatcher (1979–90)

John Major (1990–97)

Tony Blair (1997–07)

Gordon Brown (2007–10)

David Cameron (2010–16)

Theresa May (2016–19)

Boris Johnson (2019–22)

Liz Truss (2022 (two days ago) - current)

Quite the reign! Can't help but feel a bit sad really.

>>simons+94
Put another way, her Prime Ministers saw the world from 1874 - 2022, nearly 150 years.

>>Terret+Z9
> her Prime Ministers

I suspect that you don't realize how bizarre this phrasing is for the vast majority of the world.

>>huhten+Ng
That is not true.

There are many countries in the world who run different system of governments, and many as doing it quite successfully.

>>amache+Ny
What is not true?

That phrase implies that she had PMs subservient to her. That's not how the UK monarchy is generally explained, at least not outside of the UK.

>>huhten+yN
Under her reign it was Her Majesty’s government and she took an active role in it that wasn’t publicly visible. Laws did not take effect without her assent, and the government formed with her permission which was asked for.

Under Charles III’s reign, it will be His Majesty’s government; how actively he takes an interest in its affairs will be on him, but at a minimum laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments.

That’s the system of the United Kingdom. It never stopped being a Kingdom, people just chose to view the late Queen as ceremonial because it was a convenient way to square the Throne with democratic ideals, but it really isn’t all that ceremonial. The reason the customs held fast is because Queen Elizabeth II worked to make the system work. A different sort of Queen may have sparked a constitutional crisis or two by now and there’s no guarantee she would have necessarily lost to the Commons.

>>SllX+g41
laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments

Wait, you mean to tell me the King can veto laws in the UK? I thought you guys figured this loophole out? Who controls the military?

>>jesusc+yF1
The British Armed Forces are also know as "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" (now His Majesty's). The official head of the armed forces is the monarch and that's who they swear their allegiance to. However, there is a long standing constitutional convention that the executive authority is given to the Prime Minister by "royal perogative". So technically the monarch, but in reality it's the Prime Minister.

If the monarch tried to actually do something significant with that power I imagine the law would be changed pretty quickly.

This is why working royals generally have various military titles and positions, because the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It's also why the monarch dresses in military regalia for various military events.