At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)
Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce.
There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...
Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana...
As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939."
Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4...
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68.
Command of naval and military forces.
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why.
I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor.
In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.
Turns out that people who hate fun (Puritans) are even less popular than a King who keeps starting wars, so Parliament installed a replacement King.
Refusal of Royal Assent has happened since then, and not caused similar responses, though (in England; parts of British North America are…a different story; no regicide of course, but the monarchy itself was replaced.)
Most recently Assent was withheld from a law passed in Scotland, on the advice of the British government. This conflict makes sense, the Scottish Parliament is necessarily subsidiary, and this was basically a Culture War law, in my opinion the Scottish were on the right side of history, but it's not astonishing that (as conceived when the Scottish Parliament was set up) the British parliament could say "No".
Before that the last time assent (as opposed to consent) was refused in 1708 is genuinely interesting. It was used because of unfortunate timing. Parliament said OK, those Scots seem useful, we don't fully trust them but we need more armed men and nobody doubts they can fight, so here's a law arming the Scottish. And then, with the Bill passed but Assent not yet granted, they received news of a French Fleet landing in Scotland. Suddenly giving arms to the Scottish seemed less clever as who knows if they'd be on France's side. So Mary was told (by the Government) to withhold Assent from that bill.
Probably not if, as was the case the last time it happened (in 1708), it was because of what was perceived as a radical change of relevant circumstance in between the law being passed and the expected date of royal assent.
(Of course, refusal of royal assent to colonial laws in North America did happen after that, without that reason, and did cause, or at least contribute to, a revolution in those colonies.)
That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable
Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
If you're genuinely interested, you can learn more about the Royal Prerogative and prerogative powers here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03...
No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.
I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508
I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one.
Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.