Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975

A royal, much like a religious leader, should NEVER have the ability to intervene of interfere with the actual civil government.
Parades and tourism, fine,,, but no unelected person should ever have actual power. The same goes for first ladies, I hate that they always have a “cause” and seem to wield actual power.


16 posted on 05/07/2015 1:46:26 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: DesertRhino

You’re entitled to that opinion. But the reason the Queen does have these powers is to intervene in an emergency. They are a fundamental break on the idea that a government can violate constitutional law.

The powers exist only to be used to resolve crisis situations - and in the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth, that is how it has worked in practice. It’s made the countries with this system of government among the most politically stable in the world.

If the Monarch was going around abusing these powers, these nations would rapidly become Republics - and that’s the control the other way around. It creates a real balance of powers.


19 posted on 05/07/2015 1:51:11 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson