zlacker

King Harald V of Norway (born 1936) and Queen Margrete II (born 1940) are old enough to remember WW2. So is Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (born 1938, abdicated).

I think the grandparent comment’s author forgot to insert a “British” in front of monarch.

Edit:

> [Simeon II] is, along with the current Dalai Lama, one of only two living people who were heads of state from the time of World War II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

However, Elizabeth II did not become Queen until well after WW2.

(Removed erroneous statement about the Swedish king being old enough to remember WW2; he was born in 1946.)

>>vages+(OP)
I think you're picking hairs, given how much influence Nepal and Bulgaria have on the world stage, compared to QEII's 70 years as one of the most powerful heads of state on earth, probably the most powerful, given the duration.

>>gizajo+en
Tibet, not Nepal

>>vages+(OP)
> I think the grandparent comment’s author forgot to insert a “British” in front of monarch.

"she was the last British monarch to have any memory of WWII" is pretty weird too, though, since her father George VI was the only other monarch alive during WW2. I guess unless you also count her uncle Edward VIII who was alive throughout WW2 and had previously been a British monarch. If that counts then sure, she was the last of three British monarchs to remember WW2.

>>valara+Gs
kinda makes the point

>>thghti+G21
Ya, let’s not talk about the Nepali royals again. I’m still not sure what really happened when they imploded in 2004 or so.

>>gizajo+en
> one of the most powerful heads of state on earth

The British monarch is one of the least powerful heads of state on earth. The president of Barbados has more discretionary power.

>>unmole+0k1
Perhaps they meant "head of one of the most powerful states on earth"

>>unmole+0k1
Actually the British monarch has a lot of power, de jure, they just don't use it due to "tradition". They're the ones who appoint prime ministers, and they're the ones who dissolve parliament for new elections. Traditionally they do those things at the behest of others, but de jure it's their right. (Note: those two powers are the ones abused by Hindenburg in Weimar Germany to de facto appoint whomever as chancellor based on his power to dissolve the Bundestag if they disagreed with his choice)

>>sofixa+rj2
No. Royal prerogative is only exercised on advice of the prime minister, the cabinet or by the consent of parliament. Constitutional convention is not just tradition. And the fact that the constitution of the UK is uncodified doesn't mean the monarch has any de jure powers. Even the prorogation of parliament on advice of the prime minister was held to be unlawful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...