zlacker

> I saw a figurehead. Shaking hands and listening but what did she contribute? Definitely not morals or direction.

But that's her role -- as figurehead. The job is to be a symbol, not a leader. Leading is left to the democratically elected politicians, and for good reason. And it's not the new king's job to sway the PM. It's literally the opposite of his job.

And if you don't think she contributed morals? Her behavior was impeccable. She contributed morals leading by example.

>>crazyg+(OP)
Is the monarch just a figurehead, or a failsafe? I know nothing about UK politics, but sometimes I wonder if sovereign influence would re-emerge if democracy or society were to fail.

>>dvzk+so
Yes, the monarch is just figure head.

Charles II decided that his brother would be his heir.

Parliament decided otherwise and replaced James with William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Parliament rules supreme.

It’s why they ceremonially slam the door of the House of Commons in the face of Black Rod every State Opening of Parliament.

It’s a clear reminder of where power ultimately resides.

Our constitution looks “lumpy” because it’s evolved and not designed. Rather like the Common Law.

>>crazyg+(OP)
This has been repeated so many times on this thread. So may I ask specifically how she led by example?