> In the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, England and a whole pile of other countries the royal families are pretty well entrenched.
But in most of those places royalty is at best the nominal chief executive, with few if any factual power.
But in most of those places royalty is at best the nominal chief executive, with few if any factual power.
Certainly all European monarchies are constitutional:
So too, the entire united Kingdom is owned by the Queen, by a right of conquest from William the conqueror in 1066.
The queen can declare war, the judiciary derives power from the Crown, etcetera etcetera. Of course in practice things are much more sensible, but legally, all power rests with the monarch. She can not create new powers, but the powers she does have can be given or taken away.
Also, the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. It does have an unwritten constitution, so it is indeed a constitutional monarchy, but that kind of deals with the rule of law, conventions which are not binding, etcetera. There are some legal restrictions, for example the queen can not make law without the assent of Parliament, she can not dismiss judges, it of course is not an absolute monarchy. However, legally all power derives from her, thus, she has all the powers.
When King Baudouin of Belgium refused to sign the abortion bill in 1990 (for religious reasons), the Government declared him 'temporarily unable to reign' for a day, and signed it for him.
It would be an interesting time though, I wonder if it will ever come to pass.