On 26/07/16 09:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:04:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Tradition, no more, no less. Could the Queen have stopped Blair from
going to war? In theory, perhaps, but in practice, no.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

That would all change, but from a purely practical POV, nothing would
appear to change. Life would continue just as before, although
obviously the lawyers and the establishment would try and raise all
sorts of spurious 'constitutional' obstacles, when in reality there
would be none. It would simply be a matter of 'just doing it'.

Of course, but that is not the reason to have a monarchy.

It represents an ultimate longstop on parliamentary executive powers.

It's never had to be used. Not since the demise of Cromwell. But its a
worthwhile insurance policy IMHO.




--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp