Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
Britain has certainly done a lot of really horrendous things. No doubt about that.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to details of British government. Has the monarchy still been much of a relevant influence in the actions of government during the decades of her rule? I kind of thought that she was basically a figurehead for the UK as well. Did she have any real power during any period of her reign?
Really, I just don't know what the queen actually did all the time and what influence she actually had over government. She has always presented as a person who was just decent and not driving any particular political or national agenda, but my point of view is pretty ignorant on what her actual role was.
|
She has/had absolute power though. I'm not sure that this is the place to get into this (seems a little wrong), but the monarch literally signs off on every law and advises and guides the government. To really stoke the fires, a man who cheated on his wife and divorced her is now head of the Church of England...interesting times. There are those wo want to play the "loveable granny" card for the Queen and I do definitely understand that. But you can't really absolve the royals of all blame for all of the terrible things. Part of that power is that they had it to wield and didn't, or worse they went along with it.
And as far as Alberta, things could be pretty interesting here. If Danielle Smith wins and pushes her sovereignty act through and the Lt. Gov decides not to give this royal assent, people will soon realise the power that comes in those roles. You might think that's great because the sovereignty act is stupid, and I personally would agree. But the truth is, that's where things could get really sticky as far as the power and unelected people making those kinds of decisions.