zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. bell-c+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-09-08 19:50:57
In the context of the modern British crown, the "ruling" is far more ceremonial than substantive. Similar for most other surviving European royal families.
replies(2): >>k__+Z2 >>pedroc+hj
2. k__+Z2[view] [source] 2022-09-08 20:04:06
>>bell-c+(OP)
I had the impression royality is a bigger deal in the UK than in the rest of the world.
replies(2): >>foldr+8d >>yung_s+za7
◧◩
3. foldr+8d[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-08 20:50:23
>>k__+Z2
“The rest of the world” is casting pretty wide net. Was the Queen a more hands-on monarch than Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud?
replies(1): >>k__+kp
4. pedroc+hj[view] [source] 2022-09-08 21:25:06
>>bell-c+(OP)
The idea that the UK monarchy is largely ceremonial and just a boon for tourism is an incredibly prevalent idea but apparently just good PR. We've learned the monarchy has extensively interfered with the UK's parliament legislative process and done so covertly:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

replies(1): >>baq+7g1
◧◩◪
5. k__+kp[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-08 22:03:49
>>foldr+8d
Right.

I meant, in constitutional monarchies.

◧◩
6. baq+7g1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-09 06:26:06
>>pedroc+hj
covert lobbying is modus operandi of any democracy. whenever you write to somebody you elected, you're covertly influencing the legislative process...
◧◩
7. yung_s+za7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-11 11:15:00
>>k__+Z2
Technically the monarch has the power to veto laws that they disagree with instead of signing them in the UK, but in practice that hasn't happened since the 18th century.
[go to top]