American Reacts to What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?

Hello! I'm an American on a quest to learn more about history, geography and the universe in general. In this video I learn more about how much power the Queen of England still has. Honestly, I was kind of shocked at what I found out! If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe!
Follow me for a behind-the-scenes look of my learning journey:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Link to original video: • What Powers Does the Q...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#queen #royalfamily #england #americanreacts #reaction

[@SoGal_YT]

Let me know what you think about the monarchy! A little PSA: whenever a video gets into the realm of politics, it's easy for people to get offended. Please don't take any of my thoughts the wrong way (as some have on my previous videos) - no disrespect intended towards my friends across the pond ✌️I enjoy learning more about Britain and hearing your perspectives on things. Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT

[@jolan_tru]

She teeeeeeeehnically still has Dominion over the Commonwealth. But in practice if HM the QEII actually tried to, say, claim a city or an area of Australia for the use of the British Crown, the Australian government would likely tell her to jog-on. Plus, the British government would likely "quietly advise" her not to exercise her authority over the Commonwealth, as it would likely just inspire countries to leave the Commonwealth.

[@jolan_tru]

Personally, I think the Royals are a good investment in the UK. The President costs the US about $1.5 billion a year. The Royals cost us about £20 million.

[@jolan_tru]

She's still technically part of the legal process too, but again, it's the elected parliament that has the real authority.

[@ghughesarch]

@@jolan_tru she doesn't have dominion over the whole Commonwealth, member states of which can leave at will. But she is still Queen of the Commonwealth Realms (Aus, Canada, NZ, various Caribbean islands) and has a similar level of theoretical power in those specific cases.

[@jnicholas-windsoramyisrael46]

Absolutely adore Her Gracious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II & Our Royal Family. The United Kingdom is all about History, traditions etc & our Monarch & Royal Family are the Core of it all. I’ve always been a Loyal & humble subject & proud 😊✊🏻

[@iz723]

I def trust the queen with these powers over any elected official

[@alexanderharris5022]

She had a 90% approval rating in 2012 and it presently sits around 81%. Basically we want a leader who listens to experts and only acts when it is necessary to do so.

[@rodden1953]

@@alexanderharris5022 Not with younger people she hasnt kzbin.info/www/bejne/d520oYKOp9-Li5o

[@alexanderharris5022]

@@rodden1953 I’m well aware of the Monarchy thank you. Flaws and benefits. And at 23 I’m still considered young. Frankly, the benefits of Her Majesty outweigh the issues she poses by quite some considerable margin. Without her we’d have strained relations with every commonwealth nation rather than positive or indifferent, a trade embargo with America and we’d never have been ALLOWED in the European Union to begin with due to our non-compliance with human rights OF WHICH the crown has pushed demands on the government to adhere to. The Queen is and always will be an immense asset to this country. It is a pity her Heir Apparent is likely going to be the death of the monarchy.

[@jwadaow]

@@alexanderharris5022 Non-compliance with human rights? Have you seen inside a French prison? Hegemonic powers like Britain and the US created the concept of universal rights, it's an atlanticist idea that they can use as a stick to beat other countries and could do especially during the cold war. Despite this it was no problem flying detainees to North Africa to torture them. When Josep Borrell Visited Russia recently, they showed him a video of European police dealing with demonstrations. Including the demonstrations in Catalonia. That including criticism of rigged elections no longer carry any weight in light of how western countries actually act in contrast to their words. Governments are cynical and hypocritical and all countries are playing by the same rules. That is why they all use the same methods.

[@alexanderharris5022]

@@jwadaow The EU and UN created various additions to human rights since the British started the notion after WWII to help create stability in Europe. By the formation of the European Market, later the European Union, certain rights were added that the British didn’t formally recognise. This resulted in pressure during the 70’s and 80’s from the EU to at least COMPLY with those rights even if we didn’t recognise them. The Queen applied pressure to the government on behalf of the Commonwealth to have Britain acknowledge some of those rights. At great cost to her family I might add, as some of those rights gave more freedom to the press, which previously was only covered by Freedom of Expression. Britain HAS failed to adhere to certain human rights in the past that we created or were created by organisations we wished to join and be a part of. The most famous being the Freedom to Privacy, which after WWII our government neglected to add to the British Bill of Rights, enabling the government to spy on anyone within U.K. borders without need for warrant or evidence that they had committed a crime. While I do not deny that in the past Human Rights have been used to whip other countries into a western ideology, that does not negate the fact that without our Queen we wouldn’t have some of the freedoms we do in the U.K.

[@edcjohnson9795]

Having a Monarchy has worked out well for the last thousand years, if it's not broke why fix it.

[@wbertie2604]

It didn't work well during the 17th century. That's why the Restoration was under strict conditions, and then when James II went off-message the Dutch invaded/invited to invade, subject to even more strict conditions. And there were numerous periods of excess, civil wars, etc. The last 250 years have been unusual - no civil war.

[@briantitchener4829]

@@wbertie2604 Those Dutch were actually distant relatives of the English royal family who were welcomed because of their Protestant standing. William of Orange co-ruled with his wife Mary in 1688.

[@wbertie2604]

@@briantitchener4829 King George and the Kaiser were cousins, but the bombs being dropped by Zeppelins and Gothas weren't exactly friendly. Being related doesn't make it not an invasion, even if some of the population is in favour!

[@johnwalker6736]

You are absolutely spot on with that,Ed………….things could always be better,but then they could also be a million times worse,!

[@nigelpilgrim4232]

Probably 2,000 years !!! So we would like to keep it & not want out side interests & interference of foreign peoples & powers trying to change our culture , which we have enough of !!!!

[@craigmccullough7333]

It's not the power that the Queen has that is important, it's the power she denies to others.

[@helenwood8482]

Exactly.

[@Galantus1964]

that is very very well put...

[@ianprince1698]

it means that a president is not head of state

[@brontewcat]

I think you need to check the conventions and laws of the British constitution to understand how far from reality your statement is.

[@ericevans4040]

@@brontewcat Briton or indeed the UK does not have a written constitution

[@ptd450]

The Queen has done nearly seventy years of service and most of us Brits love her

[@georgejob7544]

I,m 75 years of age this year, saw HM the Queen visit just after the Coronation, I was 7 years of age!! Waving my Union flag as her car passed, I still revere our Queen! I am Scottish and fervently loyal to our Queen Elizabeth...

[@joestrutter180]

Anyone born into Royality has to do service. You act like she came from nothing and done great things

[@joestrutter180]

@Aiden Cox You are brainwashed, you would die for a woman who was born into extreme wealth. In winter time when pensioners who served the country have to choose between eating or heating does the Queen and her very wealthy family put her hand in her pocket to help? Not a chance. They live in extreme luxury and pay absolutely no taxes. You love the Queen because you were brought up to love her and get absolutely nothing in return.

[@joestrutter180]

@Aiden Cox You say the Queen brings in alot of money to the country? Through tourism? That money is a drop in the ocean compared to the taxes the Royals don't pay. I'd die for my family but I would never die for someone who was born into extreme wealth and does nothing to help veterans who served the country and now struggle to eat and heat their homes when winter comes

[@joestrutter180]

@Aiden Cox I work and pay my taxes, I serve my family as they come before anyone. Her son Prince Andrew gets protected for his scumbag actions because he is a Royal

[@MegaBoilermaker]

You could also consider the Queen as a "safety backstop" against the potential excesses of politicians as she still controls (and is respected by) the military.

[@LiveFromLondon2]

that is a point often overlooked. Were the country to be in a deep enough crisis, the military fights for queen and country, not prime minister.

[@nigelhamilton815]

Our Queen is so popular in the UK being a " subject " of her maj is not an issue for most of us.

[@seraphinaaizen6278]

I think that Royalists tend to vastly overstate how "happy" everyone is to be the subject of an inbred mutant who was born into a position of power. And I think that anti-royalists like me perhaps overstate how many people hate the concept. I suspect that the majority of people are relatively ambivalent towards the Queen, and don't especially care whether the royal family continue to exist or not.

[@sirdigbychickencaesar71]

We dont really have a problem with the whole subjects thing because it used in an endearing way, and she very clearly has our best interest at heart. The fact that she has all that power is actually more comforting to me because I see the monarch as the last line of defense against a corrupt political party taking full control of the country and creating a dictatorship.

[@aegroenewald5207]

I agree with you!

[@Tiger89Lilly]

It's actual a legal term too. Subject basically you don't have a choice if you live in Britain or the commonwealth you don't have a choice the Queen reigns over you therefore you are a subject whether you like it or not.

[@mummywilford]

Our queen has earned the respect of her subjects, she drove and fixed trucks and ambulances during ww2 and has continued to ensure her people come first even before her only family at times. She is an amazing woman full of strength and prefers to talk with other countries than start wars this gets her respect and us brits pride

[@rogers1892]

I don't object to being one of the Queens Subjects! I quite like the term!

[@readingfcdec]

i do. I'm not her subject. I don't live in a dictatorship

[@wbertie2604]

That all changed in 1983. It's almost 40 years since anyone in the UK has been a subject of the Queen.

[@yandnat1656]

@@readingfcdec dictators don't have subjects dumass!

[@noelighedo4923]

@@readingfcdec d8ctators don't have subjects tho?😂 might wanna know wat you're talking about before speaking

[@McDonald_Mando]

Yeah subjects isn’t really insulting. We get that it’s ceremonial and it’s on par with calling her our queen.

[@McDonald_Mando]

Just for the record I’m completely fine recognising her as my monarch. Great person and worthy of the title

[@TeamChaosYugi]

It's like American citizens being a politicians "constituents." It just is what it is, no need to call it anything different.

[@frenzwilliamuyguangco605]

Hear hear my friend. God save the Queen.👑

[@unholywolf1945]

The last monarch that really tried to use his power in the ways you seem to fear lost his head

[@mrb.5610]

James II was just kicked out and replaced by William of Orange. But that was due to his religion more than anything else.

[@frankie7529]

@@mrb.5610 yes there’s no going back to Catholicism

[@helenwood8482]

Wrong. He died protecting our rights from a usurper who tried to use those powers.

[@postie48]

@@helenwood8482 WTF - read some history.

[@KolibriMert]

I don't mind being called a subject, that's kinda what we are so I'll let it be.

[@TheHopperUK]

Yeah I agree - it's a factual word, not an impication of anything.

[@DS9TREK]

We're not subjects. That legal status ended in 1983 after the British Nationality Act 1981 gave all Brits citizenship.

[@DS9TREK]

@@TheHopperUK it's a word but it's not factual. British subject was a legal status that was abolished almost 40 years ago. It's like saying it's factual they we're peasants because peasants was a legal status that used to exist.

[@TheHopperUK]

@@DS9TREK Ooh fascinating, thanks! I'm more than 40 years old so I probably just came across the phrase a lot as a kid.

[@KolibriMert]

Either way, I'd rather do what the Queen tells me than what the Prime Minister tells me.

[@csharpe5787]

What you need to understand is, she may I have the power, but she has the good grace not to use it.

[@ghughesarch]

The last time a British monarch unilaterally decided to exercise their theoretical power, they wound up without a head.

[@destinationmobileone5476]

That's what happens when you get a foreign power involved with domestic affairs, France I believe, could be wrong on France.

[@trinitylizz]

What about during WWII and King George?

[@paulfarnier3914]

What about Charles1?

[@tallthinkev]

Think I'm right George V said make a government, or I'll can another election, in 1932. It was a hung parliament

[@ghughesarch]

@@paulfarnier3914 Charles I is who I was referring to. There was no unilateral declaration (without parliament) in WWII. And the French comment I don't understand.

[@marcowilliams3707]

It might help you get a picture of where she stands if you realise that Queen is the person - the Monarch. But The Crown is the idea that passes from Monarch to Monarch. So the Queen acts as the embodiment of the state. Her powers are (as some have indicated) are kept in check by convention and tradition. As a constitutional monarchy (there is no written constitution) she effectively has to navigate a middle ground. Oh, and by the way, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as well a Queen to a number of Commonwealth Countries.

[@jeffreyelliott713]

I'm Scottish, and yes even here we are called subjects or commoners but only a small fraction of British people tend to get offended by that.

[@stevenhenry7862]

England took the Scottish King, as the Nobel King of Great Britain, when the English King Died. A few Weeks back 🤣. So techniquely, Scotish Subjects were not only recognized as an equal, but the Scottish Blood Line superseded the English Blood Line. (PBS 1 Channel) From an injured British War Veteran

[@raymondporter2094]

@@stevenhenry7862 Is this a reference back to 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died? Childless, her nearest relative in succession was James Stuart (son of Mary Queen of Scots) who was already King James Vi of Scotland. He came down to London and was crowned James I of England and therefore has been always known as James the First and Sixth.

[@stevenhenry7862]

@@raymondporter2094 yes, that's the Pal. Thanks 👍

[@GalacticAtom]

There is nothing in current law which describes us as subjects. We are British citizens. Before nationality law changed in 1983, we were both: "British subject : Citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies".

[@adamgibson3011]

@sparkiegaz no

[@lorddaver5729]

She's not the Queen of England. There is no such sovereign country as "England" and there hasn't been since 1707. And no such title as "Queen of England". Her proper title is "The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

[@davidkaye8712]

But her favourite title under her breath is and always will be Queen of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, which is shortened to Queen of England. I suspect you are not English.

[@ktiemz]

Yeah, but that's a mouthful...

[@dbg5744]

"pars pro toto" Use the singular to mean the whole. Everyone does it. Before the dissolution of the USSR, it was normal to refer to it as Russia, when Russia was actually one of 15 republics. Bosnia or Bosnia and Herzegovina? The Roman Empire ... Rome. In 1839, Lord Melbourne, the Queen’s prime minister, announced his intention to resign. Victoria asked former PM the Duke of Wellington to form a government and he declined. She then asked Robert Peel (a Tory) to form one. He said only if she removed some of her Ladies of the Bedchamber, many of whom were wives and or relatives of leading Whigs. She responded, “The Queen of England will not submit to such trickery.” If Queen Victoria can say it, anyone can say it. Or how about official documentation. Take, for example, and there are many, the Treaty of Waitangi, from 1840, which set up New Zealand as British. (Look, there it is again!) The first line of the preamble starts, “HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ……” But Article the First reads: "The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England…." You are much more likely to hear a French person say ‘Angleterre’ than ‘ le Royaume-Uni’. Certainly, context is important. To say Scotland is in England would be wrong and, to some, insulting. But when referring to the sovereign political entity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without regard to its constituent parts, pars pro toto is perfectly acceptable. So a person is not wrong to say "England" if they meant the UK.

[@DNW28]

@@davidkaye8712 I think England , Wales ,Scotland and Northern Ireland does have a shortened version and it's not England !!!!!!.....Try UK or full title United Kingdom . Also you might like to check up that the Queen is not head of state of Ireland !!!.....I take it you ARE English

[@jnicholas-windsoramyisrael46]

Thank you for posting this! I was about to do it myself 😊

[@glimpsesofnorfolk]

Enjoyed your vid, thank you. Here in England, and I reckon in the larger UK and Europe, I've watched the last four years of American political drama play out with increasing concern. And I've drawn comfort from the knowledge that there is a benevolent power beyond the Prime Minister and Parliament if that kind of nonsense ever happened in my own country. A power that would likely enjoy overwhelming support from the civil service, military and general population.

[@alancook]

I recommend you react to "Who's in Charge of Britain" by Jay Foreman.

[@iz723]

That's an amazing channel

[@reallygoodtv6613]

Map men. map men. Maaaap men.

[@Kagato100]

In the UK we are technically all Subjects of the Crown, although its not generally in every-day usage.

[@Damo2690]

Not anymore, passports now say Brittish Citizins not Subjects like it used to

[@KissMyFatAxe]

Yeah it's rarely used. I don't mind it though. Feels kinda traditional 😆

[@Kagato100]

@@Damo2690 Actually we still officially are Subjects, but they've changed that as a lot of people dont like the word

[@williamwilson5577]

I am not a subject.

[@JJaqn05]

@@williamwilson5577 Yes you are and you always will be

[@johnnybeer3770]

I love the Queen , I've no problem with the word " subject " in protocol it's the correct term .

[@brianmidmore2221]

It is sometimes said that it is not the power that the queen has but the power she denies others.

[@trevcornwall8160]

I tell ya? Never have I learnt so much about history and the UK?! History bored me in school, as I get older my opinion has changed a lot, hope you don't mind me joining you on this ride :)

[@Xoferif]

I was always taught that the armed forces work for the Queen so that they are decoupled from any particular political party - especially whichever one happens to be in power.

[@Alan_Mac]

For sure. I was a member of our armed forces from 1981 - 1996 and served the crown.

[@davidjones332]

Which is why we could never have the farce we've just seen in the US, where Nancy Pelosi had to quietly warn the generals in the Pentagon to keep out of Trump's way when he was threatening to use force to stop himself losing the election. In the UK when a Prime Minister loses an election the moving van's there next morning, and the new man's already on his way to the Palace to kiss Her Majesty's hand.

[@jillelliott8175]

Seems like a good move especially today.

[@davidb3979]

The Queen has wants called "sovereign immunity" in every country. If she broke a law there the most they could do is ask her to leave!

[@JeroenDoes]

As a dutch person I am totally ok with the term subject. It is almost the same as citizen but somewhat broader.

[@ROT695]

Sounds posher and I like that haha

[@paulwatson9217]

In simple terms the Queens powers are absolute. Don’t forget it’s HM Government, she allows them to run the country. It’s also HM Forces, all the Police forces have the ER badge. She’s in charge of the lot, all the previously mentioned only have delighted power. Even the laws Parliament pass have to get Royal assent so signed off by the Queen. So as you can see she has a lot more power than people think.

[@Jamieclark192]

In regards to the commonwealth, the Queen is head of state in 15 other countries including Canada and Australia. There her powers will be codified in their written constitutions, in practice she appoints a Governor General to act on her behalf for each nation on the advice of that nation’s government. New Zealand would be a different case as they have no codified constitution and is therefore more similar to the UK however, she still appoints a Governor General on the advice of the NZ Prime Minister to act on her behalf.

[@genericname3206]

Australian here, the PM's are voted by the the people but the Queen has the power to kick them out or appoint one

[@Bill-2203]

I think the only time that power would ever be used is if the PM turned genocidal towards they're own people 😂

[@greg_mca]

@@Bill-2203 interestingly it actually happened in Australia in the 1970s, though I'm afraid I can't remember the context of the incident. However it did lead to the Governor-general of Australia (the Queen's representative) removing the prime minister and Parliament finding a replacement

[@Bill-2203]

@@greg_mca that's fascinating I wonder if it was The governor-generals Protocol or actually the queen who told him to do it

[@brownbess8185]

Australian here. We don't vote for the PM. We vote for politicians that, in theory, represent our constituency. The party or groups of parties, (coalition) that gets a majority of politicians in parliament forms government and they, the politicians, vote for a leader who becomes PM. The government can dismiss a PM and vote a new PM without any say of the people of Australia. I think the Queen-Governor General still has to formally ratify the appointment.

[@danep8553]

@TheRenaissanceman65 The anniversary of that was recently, or the Palace documents were recently released. Is there any contention in Australia over the matter, or is it recognised as an important constitutional function?

[@philwhatever3903]

A few corrections and additions. The Queen does not have diplomatic immunity, she actually has Sovereign Immunity and technically yes she can commit a crime anywhere in the world! Another addition. Its not only the British militaries that are sworn to her, she has many militaries all over the world that are sworn to her. If she was a country she would be the biggest military power on earth, if she was to declare war she could call upon this military power to do her bidding (technically) The queen is the biggest owner of land in the world and owns 1/3rd the land mass of the Earth. Even if you buy a property on her land you are technically leasing that land. She still owns rights to this land and if you find Gold or strike oil. She can have you removed from this land and take it from you. (If she wanted to)

[@tomasjakovac7950]

Canadian here, our relationship to the Queen is more or less the same (except for us she has no religious role) so I'll try and explain why these powers are only theoretical and would never actually be used. See, in both the Canadian and British legal traditions, statutory law (that is, laws that are formally written down) is only one part of what makes up our respective constitutional documents: another major component are legal traditions and conventions, which are treated with the exact same legal weight. So for example, even though there is no codified, written procedure for who gets to be appointed Prime Minister, convention mandates that it be the leader of whatever the largest party or coalition in parliament is at the time. If the monarch does not do this, the supreme court can hold a trial, and potentially declare the actions of the monarch as unconstitutional. Once an action is declared unconstitutional, it is immediately struck down and no longer has any effect. The single most important of these conventions is called "parliamentary supremacy", which basically means that the monarch cannot exercise the royal prorogative without the advice and consent of parliament. So in the US you have a separation of powers between the Executive (the President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (the Supreme Court) branches which are theoretically equal in power. Under parliamentary supremacy however, the legislative branch (in this case, the parliament and Prime Minister) is the most powerful component of government, and has the ultimate say in how the other branches exercise their powers. So while the monarch technically holds all those powers, she can't actually exercise most of them unless parliament tells them to. So basically, imagine if the President was pretty much only allowed to do what Congress told them to. The reason this exists is because the monarchy derives its legitimacy from parliament, and not the other way around. This started when King Henry VIII sought a marriage annullment from parliament instead of the Pope: by doing so, he set the precedent that parliament has power over the monarch even in something so personal as marriage. Several kings have historically tried to rule as absolute monarchs in Britain, and each one ended up being overthrown by parliament, so their successors realised that if they wanted to stay in power, they had to be on good terms with parliament. Another example would be the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century when parliament gave the British crown to the Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange. This meant that parliament has the power to choose a new monarch if they feel the current one is tyrannical. So really, all the power lies in the hands of parliament, as not only does the monarch have to do what they say, but they also have the power to simply choose someone else to be the new monarch if they wanted to. The monarch's power may sound scary at first, but that's only if you look at written law says and don't take into account the sizeable body of unwritten laws, traditions, and conventions. Sorry for the wall of text but hopefully this was helpful at all! Great video btw! :)

[@marcuswardle3180]

The Monarchies surname was Saxe-Coburg Gotha at the beginning of the First World War. Due to Anti-German sentiment they changed it to Windsor!

[@carolinekofahl8867]

And her husband was born prince of Greece and Denmark (Denmark as a backup as the Greek throne was always insecure)

[@zaftra]

The queens blood goes back centuries in England, marrying a foreigner doesn't make you any less English.

[@marcuswardle3180]

@@carolinekofahl8867 Another interesting character! Served in the Mediterranean and the Pacific at the Battle for Okinawa.

[@michaelhodgson662]

Our Monarchy has had many names going back centuries, your point?

[@zaftra]

@Ally Wakka But the point is mute with no relevance to the uploaded vid.

[@Nzpure]

She has those same powers in all the commonwealth nations. Shes not just the Queen of England. Shes the Queen of New Zealand, The Queen of Australia, The Queen of Canada etc.

[@ondank]

A few points - The correct term you were searching for at the beginning is the UK, which is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What is colloquially referred to as Britain is the largest island in the British Isles and is made up of Scotland, Wales and England (and some people might argue that the Duchy of Cornwall should be specifically listed here as a nation too). Parliament has absolute power over the entire UK. They devolve some powers to local bodies like the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh, London and NI assemblies. Unlike US states which are constitutionally protected and empowered, the regional bodies have no such enshrined status or powers, so they are different from body to body and can be taken away by parliament through a simple majority vote. A lot of the time England dominates this as its the largest part of the UK with around 50-55 million of the 65 million people in the UK being there. But if you want to discuss the whole thing, UK will stop people getting angry. The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament and is the head of government. In effect the Prime Minister uses the queens powers to govern the country. In the past the power was often wielded by a lord, but now it is always an elected party leader. They are PM for the whole of the UK, but again, regional bodies have first ministers or mayors in the case of london, which retain local control over various issues. The key term in the introduction was the term "Openly", the queen frequently lobbies government, including lobbying government to hide her personal wealth and her lobbying. There have been some very recent leaks about this in fact. Prince Charles also recently had his "Spider Memos" released (because of his handwriting not for any other reason), in which he lobbied government ministers over reasonable things like environmentalism, and unreasonable things like alternative medicine. Whilst the monarchy has ruled the UK for a long time, the UK has had many many constitutional Monarchs and almost know absolute rulers. For at least 200 years the royal family has been largely irrelevant to actual politics in the UK on the surface at least, when I studied history we learnt very little of Monarchs and the focus was almost always on Prime Ministers and Parliament. Personally I hate the term subject. I am no ones subject and if I was summoned to the palace I would not go. But the term subject is almost never used politically. Citizenship is what we discuss but subject is the proper term. If you went to Northern Ireland about half the people there would LOATHE being referred to as subjects. Declaring war is an interesting one, for the last decade at least military action has not taken place without parliament voting on it. So even Prime ministers won't make use of the power to unilaterally declare war. Formally I would like to see that power removed, but at the moment its fairly irrelevant. The PM/Monarch likely wouldn't declare war without knowing that Parliament would support it as Parliament could remove the power from the PM/Monarch with a simple vote. That is a complete overstatement of diplomatic immunity. That isn't how it works. Most countries do maintain diplomatic immunity principals and the Queen definitely would qualify but most countries do have many caveats in their immunity. If the Queen goes to China and murders someone, the chinese will simply revoke her status and arrest her. Simon Whistler missed a step when he says anyone can be appointed Prime Minister, he is right but there is a caveat. They must be a member of parliament. The commons are elected but the lords are appointed. Historically monarchs have seen their prime minister not elected to the commons ... so they have just appointed them to the lords. That could still happen to this day, but realistically the commons is more powerful then it used to be, would vote down the government and demand a new candidate be selected. Again, I am not sure that the queens ability to dissolve parliament is so clear cut, in 2010 there was some constitutional reform that required a certain degree of parliamentary approval before requiring a new election. But its a slightly murky issue thanks to UK having no constitution. The part about her being able to appoint ministers who would create laws for her is just flat out wrong. Ministers don't have that power, parliament does and they could simply reject the laws placed before them. And as the commons are elected, that section is just wrong.

[@robharris8844U]

Please note UK has the first Bill of Rights and Magna Carta both which the US Bill of Rights is based on.(and D.o.I)

[@irishwristwatch2487]

Big Lizzie is in a league of her own. The woman has ultimate gravitas Also, been enjoying the Napoleonic wars stuff, vaguely recall you enjoy ww2 stuff also?

[@SoGal_YT]

Yes, I like military history in general, but so far WW2 is my favorite era for that.

[@jamescopeland8050]

@@SoGal_YT - One thing I would recommend if you haven't already checked it out, would be the "London 2012 opening ceremony". There is an entire performance which is 100% British that reflects on the journey of the UK from the 1800s to present day, and it's full of lots of interesting facts. The show itself is really, really good though - one of the few times we went all out to tell a story with many household names involved!

[@irishwristwatch2487]

@@SoGal_YT ahh perfect - if you havent seen it already, then Hitler's circle of dvil is a good watch. Really gives an in-depth look at the upper ecjelons of the Nazi party and their persomal beliefs

[@Kagato100]

@@SoGal_YT I recommend Rommel's Africa Corps campaigns - one of German's best military officers but destroyed by politics.

[@joestrutter180]

Remember the picture of her when she was a child doing the Nazi salute, her ancestors are German after all

[@dang1086]

14 year ago we got married in Las Vegas. My aunt who born Ireland but held a British passport for at least 40 years was denied access to the USA because her passport said she was a British subject and not a British citizen. Strange thing is she’d traveled to Florida 2 years previous.

[@TheKFMProductions]

Brit and happy subject here 🙋‍♂️😂🇬🇧

[@Kagato100]

There are 54 nation states in total within the Commonwealth

[@thejesusaurus6573]

Yes but not all of them recognize the queen as head of state.

[@Kagato100]

@@thejesusaurus6573 Not as their own head of state no, but the Queen is the head of state of the Commonwealth, its actually one of her official titles

[@thejesusaurus6573]

@@Kagato100 She is the head of the commonwealth of nations, but not the "head of state" of the commonwealth of nations as it is not a state its just a club essentially. She is the head of state of all the nations of the commonwealth REALM though, which is different and is effectively defined by the fact that queen Elizabeth is the head of state of those nations.

[@paulleader7000]

2.6 billion people

[@thejesusaurus6573]

@@paulleader7000 I mean that's true but most of that is 1 country

[@TheHallPartnership]

An interesting point is that the queen has been in power since 1953. Its as if Dwight D. Eisenhower was still the president of the USA! Most UK citizens have known no other monarch. Perhaps this is why the vast majority have such respect and affection for her, regardless of their politics.

[@charlesborden8111]

Yep, of the nearly 184 years since the coronation of Queen Victoria, two people have ruled for over seventy-one percent of that time. Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II (and she's still going), that is some staying power. It's as if Edward VII, George V, George VI, were just keeping the throne warm.

[@billmorris8358]

6:19 she has diplomatic immunity from any crime anywhere!

[@wendymcmillan7857]

She is my queen and I am happy to be a subject as are my family

[@Rockyboy2106]

You are fake

[@olliedwards8069]

I’m not!

[@andrewhiggins224]

Pathetic 🤣

[@emperorpicard6474]

So we don't vote for a PM, we vote for MP's who then vote for a recommendation. The Queen then elects a PM based on the recommendation.

[@stephenwalker6823]

Close, but MPs don't vote for the PM either. By convention, the leader of the party that has the most MPs elected is asked to form the government, but it can be anyone that can command the confidence of a majority of MPs (no matter what mix of MPs from different parties that is). The monarch could actually appoint anyone though.

[@elliotkouame3849]

Proud to be a subject of this great woman! Although we never really use the word unless the Queen is being discussed

[@davidsomervaille5929]

I love watching this stuff with you it gives me a history lesson and I’m English

[@danimal722]

The Queen is Head of State and Queen of 16 independent kingdoms called the Commonwealth Realms. Therefore she is Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada etc because they are all separate sovereign states and monarchies totally independent from the United Kingdom. So the Queen of the UK has no authority over New Zealand for example, but the Queen of New Zealand does (same person but two separate roles).

[@tobiusgregory2805]

@Danimal Something the Peter FitzSimons' of the world (prominent republican here in Australia) can't seem to get their head around; Her Majesty is not a "Foreign Monarch" somehow keeping us downtrodden and leeching off us; she is our Queen, the Queen of Australia (Or Canada, New Zealand etc).

[@redsquirrel1086]

Something I noticed the last time I renewed my passport was that next to nationality I am now a British "citizen" rather than a "subject." Despite being a monarchist I welcome this subtle but important change. For me, the description "subject" implies subservience and I'm not sure that term sits comfortably with many Brits in the 21st century.

[@anthonythomas8840]

As a British person I’m proud to be a subject of HRH. It’s also not about the power she has but the power she denies to others. I feel much safer knowing that we have a monarch instead of a politician as head of state. Her whole life has been dedicated to the service of The United Kingdom and The commonwealth, she’s not a self serving politician she serves her country.

[@mgytitanic1912]

There are 54 countries in the commonwealth, which is more than i thought. I had 26 in my mind. Glad I looked it up.

[@chrismorris76]

I'm a subject of the King, and a citizen of the UK.

[@DraconimLt]

It's not just English Law, the Queen has 'diplomatic immunity' he said it in the video, but you either missed it or didn't realize what he meant 🙂 - 'Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they may still be expelled'. So by international law they cannot be tried in any country they visit, at worst simply sent home and told not to come back, unless the home nation removes it.

[@matspurs1629]

i Trust my Queen, i support her whatever the outcome

[@jamingaming9251]

Me too but I can't say the same about Charles.

[@joestrutter180]

You support her even if she commits crimes in countries like Canada, a Canadian orphanage perhaps when children her and her husband went on a picnic with and some didn't return. Nobody is above the law but people treat her like she's God

[@duncanfairbairn1350]

In general, both with the Monarchy and the British subjects, the world needs to remember just one thing. Never confuse subtlety with weakness. HRH Queen Elizabeth II doesn't need to demonstrate her powers as some Country leaders try to, as a kind of weapon. She just uses her powers correctly and with moderation. No drama, no fuss, just efficient.

[@margaretarg1329]

Also her son and grandson have the same commitment by being in touch with the public very personally and through their charities and social interests.

[@TechWechSech]

The subjects thing isn't off putting for most people. You're born as one and free to give up your citizenship to lose your status as subject. That being said, the word has little to no legal meaning in most modern monarchies.- A subject of the Dutch king.

[@justinsmith6296]

When you manage to sort out how our UK government actually works please let the rest of us know, because no one in the UK has a clue lol

[@detesco764]

Ha, ha, ha.

[@LightxHeaven]

“Such are the oddities that arise when dealing with a 1000 year old monarchy” -CPG Grey

[@stevelavelle2597]

Parliament is basically where our elected Members of Parliament (MP's) sit and rule the UK, however, some powers have been dissolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland such as education and health although in reality the money comes from Central Government.

[@davehopkin9502]

The term "subject" was officially removed in 1981 we are legally citizens - King Charles I refused to accept Parliaments supremancy - he was executed in 1649

[@white-dragon4424]

Thank god I've at last found someone who knows! Yes, Charles I was the very last royal who held political power over government, or any power whatsoever. When he tried to overrule parliament, Cromwell had him executed.

[@davehopkin9502]

@@white-dragon4424 Not really, the civil war ended with Charles's defeat, he was held under house arrest for some time whilst Parliament tried to get him to accept their future power in a settlement, then Parliament found he was plotting to bring an Irish Catholic Army to England to restart the Civil War - thats when he was tried and executed

[@white-dragon4424]

@@davehopkin9502 Yes, I know that. I mean that the civil war marked the end of his political power. Once he was defeated he really didn't have any power over Parliament. All that was left was to make it formal. Him trying to raise an Irish army was just him being stubborn and not wanting to face the truth by trying to wrestle back the power he'd lost. If he hadn't done that he would've been kept alive as a puppet king.

[@LeoXcs7]

The common wealth is a little more complicated however one thing I do know is that who ever the UK/Queen declares war on, so does the common wealth (including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and most of the Caribbean)

[@rogermalpas3002]

She has the power of denial. No potential dictator can take over.

[@jamingaming9251]

Until she hands the reins over to Charles on April 21st.

[@rogermalpas3002]

@@jamingaming9251 that power of denial extends to the monarch, including Charles. If he exceeds his authority or power, the people (parliament) may pull his head in. Would have been Interesting in the case of your late President!

[@Lkerrigan1]

There’s no one I respect more on this Earth. I might be her subject but she is the people’s servant.

[@boomamathics2666]

In the uk you technically don’t vote for the PM instead you vote for a local representative who goes off to parliament to vote on their behalf but as for the queen’s input the role of prime minister is chosen by the queen but she has always chosen the elected figure along with every monarch has done so as well

[@paddybrennan5602]

Long live the queen 🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@madmaxmcinnes4102]

Er ..... she's not the "Queen of England" ....... she's the Queen of The British Isles and the Commonwealth ...... the British Isles comprising of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. She mostly holidays in summer in Scotland, at Balmoral Castle, but predominantly is 'based' in various English locations, particularly Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. The "Queen of England" is an outdated concept, and came from when Scotland had it's own King or Queen, and England had it's own King or Queen. The title 'Queen of England' just stuck, but it's only a quarter true🤣

[@Bowleskov]

First thing to understand The PM is in charge of the UK as whole but as with US states, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Government which have some devolved powers including Taxation which vary by the Nation. England is led directly by the PM but there is a system of Regional mayors who receive devolved powers from but again it varies. The Monarch itself started to change the way it operated after the death of Queen Victoria, but Queen Elizabeth does receive a Weekly briefing with her Prime Minister usually on Thursdays. The UK also has the House Of Lords to which some hereditary but mostly Lifetime appointments are made which edits and sometimes rejects British Legislation before it passes into law. See the prorogation of Parliament in September 2019 as a time when the UK Supreme court Reversed what had been perceived to be a Power of the Queen. The Most important thing to understand is that very little of the Queens power is documented and so Parliament itself operates by guidance of a document Known as Erskine May.

[@Bowleskov]

And as I understand "Subject" I am Subject to the Laws of the Land to which her establishments enforce, the Courts are Her Majesties, The Police are Her Majesties and The Prisons are Her Majesties. In realistic terms being a Subject of the Monarch of Great Britain is only relevant in so far as any Societal organisation that would bring back into line is run in the name of the Monarch.

[@hobartpaving8986]

Practically, we agree to give the Queen certain powers on the condition that she never tries to use them.

[@HankD13]

I can see that if something REALLY went wrong - tyrannical government trying to keep itself in power against the will of the people... the loyalty of much of the government and armed forces.... those powers would mean an awful lot.

[@EarlJohn61]

Also those powers act as a constraint on certain peoples who might wish to instigate certain programs that would not be beneficial... Say someone (I won't mention the white haired Git's name) wanted to purge all of the British Isles of *Gay armadillos that like to procreate with hedgehogs* (to pick an unlikely minority, you may chose your own specific minority). He may be able to set up the program, but HM would be all over it to make sure that, even if it's "just", it isn't the tip of an iceberg that will eventually alienate every one. If HM were to EVER directly & publicly speak out against a potential leader, I for one would listen VERY carefully. Even P. Charles, while he may criticize certain architects, doesn't usually discuss politics in public. Again IF the word got out about him being down on a person, I'd pay close attention.

[@sebastianminney4696]

That's not true at all

[@wessexdruid5290]

She has influence - a lot of influence. Do you think she doesn't use it?

[@Jamieclark192]

The UK does have a constitution, it’s just not codified in a single document. Instead it is a mixture of Acts of Parliament (Statute) English, Scottish and Northern Ireland Case law and precedents and conventions practiced by parliament and its members. All parties, including the monarch must follow the precedents and conventions of the constitution or risk the whole thing unravelling into chaos.

[@matthewjames6762]

She has power over the commonwealth as she is commander in chief, she owns one sixth of the world's land surface and can also dismiss any president/prime minister in the commonwealth

[@Chris_GY1]

The Queen can remove the prime minister of Australia.

[@ghughesarch]

Because - quite separately - she is the Queen of Australia (and Canada, and New Zealand, and various other places)

[@craigmccullough7333]

It was actually the Governor General, the Queen's deputy and representative in Australia.

[@colinwelsh2874]

The Governer General is her representative and exercises her duties while she is not present in Australia (or Canada or New Zealand etc), but if the Queen is present in the country she can carry out the duties herself. As she did by opening a session of Parliament in Canada once. She flew there straight from a UN session in New York. She travelled on a Canadian Air Force jet, chartered as Her Majesty The Queen of Canada.

[@jayde1708]

In 1975, the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor General) dissolved the Australian Parliament which forced new elections. The Parliament was split and the Labour Party didn't have control of the Senate and couldn't get the Budget through. The resulting election was a huge landslide against the Labour party. The sacking of the government caused a huge uproar but I don't know if the laws have been changed to prevent it happening again. I have no idea if this action was even possible in any other Commonwealth nation. At least it solved a stalemate in government and allowed the country to work through the issue. God only knows how long it may have lasted if the Governor General had not acted as he did. In a sense the election result vindicated the Governor General's action and gave a huge margin to the Liberal party. It took years for the Labour party to recover.

[@charlesswitzer8378]

Constitutional monarchy started in what would become the UK at the end of the seventeenth century when Parliament installed King William III and Queen Mary II. Before that, the monarch was fairly absolute although Magna Carta stripped some of their absolutism in the thirteenth century. The odd thing about this is that all of these powers and prerogatives still belong to the Queen in wording and all and this is largely due to the UK not having a written constitution; but over time, the will of the people took precedence, and their votes to elect parliament became the real sovereign power---even though the monarch is still in place--therefore, the monarch respects the will and votes of his/her subjects and respects the will of the Prime Minister who runs her government. The monarch still wielded vast influence in government until the middle era of Queen Victoria's reign. The purely symbolic/neutral style of Queen Elizabeth II has been the norm for about 150 years now. People in the UK are citizens in every right and privilege of the word, but it is a Kingdom (people seem to be perplexed that kingdoms are real) and all people inside of the UK are the Queen's subjects but there is no law or rule that states that is what they must be referred to as.

[@francisrich1731]

The narrator did not say the queen avoids politics. He said she avoids making public statements on politics. Massive difference!

[@colinharbinson8284]

Last time a monarch offended the people, they cut his head off.

[@Taopuppy]

When she was still alive, her power was not based on what she could do, but what she kept OTHERS from doing.

[@kylerobb233]

The queen’s powers are on paper but hold little actual power as she is more of a figurehead.

[@rodden1953]

So how come that this week it has been discovered that she has over 1000 laws changed for her financial gain ?

[@kylerobb233]

@@rodden1953 I don’t know. First i’ve heard of it but if it is true then I take back my previous opinion.

[@kai-ht3qs]

@@rodden1953 Source please

[@rodden1953]

@@kai-ht3qs Look up the queen lobbied government .

[@thetom12395]

we are hoping William will be the next king no one wants Chile's is to old at this point lets have a young king.

[@Martin-88]

7:30 The Queen can appoint anyone she wants as Prime Minister. She just obviously chooses who the electorate has voted for. I can't say I'm a big lover of the royal family, but I've always liked The Queen. She keeps to herself and gets on with things.

[@perpetualidiocy6622]

The whole appointing of the first ministers (prime ministers) is really just a ceremonial thing. she merely ratifies the elected choice as opposed to appointing

[@theborderer1302]

@6:16 The Queen has diplomatic immunity in any country she visits, whils an ambassador would only have diplomatic immunity in the country to which he/she is appointed to. So the UK ambassador to the USA has d.i. in the USA, but not France. Whilst the Queen has d.i. everywhere.

[@johnshortland860]

Check out the magna carta, it was signed By King John. it may help to explain why she will not abuse her power.

[@byronofrothdale]

A big difference between England or other European countries and US is the role of religion in our daily lives. You can't see a Head of State, not even the Queen, praying in public. And remember she isn't just the Head of Church of England but the Defender of the Faith. Religion is Europe, in more or less, degree are an individual reality being the most extended in France. But there is some ceremony, for example, in my country, Spain, the nuncio (always a Cardinal, usually born in Italy or Portugal), the Holy See ambassador, has preference over other nations representatives, literally, by law.

[@RolandjHearn]

There is a reason there are very few monarchs left - people have power when they are united. All of the monarchs "power" while being a product of historical development actual exists as that which the people have not taken from her - think French revolution. So while she could "theoretically" do the things suggested here she could probably only do them once. The country would collapse under the weight of revolt, which is what the monarch has been seeking to avoid for the last couple of centuries. So by vesting all that power in her, knowing that she would like to keep her and her children's heads on their shoulders (a bit dramatic perhaps) she self-curtails herself and controls her family. That means at the end of the day there is actual a genuine check to political power. There are therefore some significant applied advantages of a constitutional monarchy over a republic.

[@MsGeoffh]

That is a good thing imagine if we had AOC here we would demand the Queen get rid of her and pronto or Pelosi i like that. lol

[@Gingerninja800]

The vote for the prime minister was historically a courtesy. The queen can appoint whoever she wants, just she *always* appoints the winner of the vote, for obvious reason.

[@barryford1482]

The Queen is also head of state in Australia and we have a Governor General who acts on behalf of the Queen . In 1975 the senate in Australia blocked supply and the government was unable to pay their bills . The Governor General Sir John Kerr sacked the prime minister Gough Whitlam and put in the opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as the new prime minister until a new election could be taken. Gough Whitlam after being sacked appeared at the front of parliament house and said "Well may we say God save the Queen but who can save the Governor General" Regards Barry

[@zebj16]

"What would happen if some mad person got that power?", er, King George III, crowned 1760, a.k.a. "Mad King George". 16 years later into his rule, some dodgy colonialists, with a serious problem with tea, got their knickers in a twist - the rest is history...

[@brontewcat]

Except most of the policies were those of his government, and not so much of the king. George III had a lot more influence and say than his successors, but the policies were ultimately those of his PM and ministers. Moreover he did not develop his mental illness until after the loss of the American colonies.

[@wayneseex1595]

The video, and most of the commentary below, misses completely the fundamental point about the Queen, which is that she is a constitutional monarch and represents the symbolic part of the British constitution. The former executive, legislative and judicative powers of the nation are performed by others. In effect, the UK is a 'crowned republic' with affairs long since run by elected representatives of the people. As Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen as symbolic Head of State is bound to fulfil the particular role that she does and not act like some of her ancestors undoubtedly did in an absolute way. She has to accept the advice of her Ministers. It is her constitutional duty to do so. There is no question of her exercising the powers the video suggests are theoretically hers. It is very misleading to say that she has any kind of supreme authority but that she simply chooses not to exercise it. For we elect politicians to run the country according to policies they put before us in a manifesto. Her Majesty is above politics.

[@PeterCrowe1966]

Absolutely correct, the chap who presented this video was way over simplifying the notion of the ‘Crown’ as in the cipher embodying the state, and the person of the monarch exercising her constitutional functions. Also there is a U.K. constitution (much of it written), it’s just not codified into a single and ancillary documents like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[@davidhollins870]

The monarch is immune to prosecution under English or Scottish law, but beyond that she has the same immunity as any diplomat under the Vienna Convention.

[@alexfletcher5192]

There's a kind of unspoken covenant between the Queen and the country where she won't get involved and therefore the degree of executive power is not really considered an issue. I can think of only one occasion in the last century where the Monarch has actually challenged the idea of who was going to lead parliament and that was one of her ancestors making the decision. But I do think the hereditary principle does explain why Brits and Americans think differently about their place in the scheme of things. In the US - although it's had a few problems in that area recently - the person who gets elected is head of state and you'll never know until the electoral college votes are ratified. I don't need to guess who the next head of state is in Britain - barring accidents, I can literally point to a picture of him!

[@ayethein7681]

The video didn't mention that it wasn't long ago that the Queen Didn't pay tax, and there such a fuss about it that she opted for being taxed to not alienate support - there are not a few in the UK who think the need for a Royal ruler is long gone..

[@Neil_BT]

Whereas in the States you have a written constitution - we run on a series of conventions and traditions. Problematic in some ways, not in others. So for elections, whilst the Queen can appoint whoever she likes as PM, by convention she appoints the person who goes to her telling her they can form a government that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. In practice, this is the leader of the party with the most MPs. If that party doesn't have an outright majority then there can be shenanigans involving negotiations of coalitions or things called "confidence and supply" agreements where another party will agree to vote with the government.

[@davidhollins870]

The way it works is that until King John, the monarch was absolute, but since then power has flowed away to Parliament. However, there are thus some powers the monarch retains. These are actually exercised by the elected government in the name of the monarch and the monarch signs it off on the government’s advice. However, in theory, the Queen could act in a crisis on her own decision. The obvious examples recently were the hung parliaments of 2010 and 2017. The convention is that the previous PM gets the first go at forming a coalition, but if he fails, the leader of the next biggest party has a go - hence PM Gordon Brown had the first go at a coalition in 2010, but could not form a majority, so Cameron (whose Conservative Party was larger than the Labour Party of Brown) had a go and created a coalition. The election of 2017 produced a hung Parliament, where the previously majority Conservative party under May was reduced to a minority. May did not form a coalition, so the Labour leader, Corbyn, was allowed to try. He could not either, so the question was whether May could reach a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionists - an agreement that was not a coalition, but only to support the Govt on the key measures (basically the Budget Finance Act). The Queen agreed to this, as the alternative was another election and we had one in 2015 and the European referendum was in 2016. We then had a lot of paralysis as the Commons argued over the process of leaving the EU. As part of that, there were proposals for some kind of coalition of other parties to take over the government without an election. In the end, the smaller parties would not accept Corbyn as PM, but it could have happened and the Queen would have had to make the decision on which side became the government. The Queen wisely did her best to avoid doing that and in the end, May was forced out by her own Conservative party and replaced by Johnson, who secured the vote for an election in December 2019.

[@dromanov3596]

I'm British and I am a subject of HM x

[@Gingerninja800]

Subject is never used outside of the context of the queen. We are simultaneously British citizens and the subjects of the crown. Its ceremonial if anything. Legally we're citizens but theoretically we're subjects.

[@hackenbush23]

All Bills passed by the Australian Federal Parliament do not become an Act until they are formally accepted by the Governor-General, the Queen's representative in Australia, this process is known as Royal Assent. Likewise Bills passed by the individual Australian state Parliaments do not become an Act until they too are formally accepted by the Governor of each state, the Queen's representative for that state, this process is also known as Royal Assent. Anyone charged with breaking these laws once enacted will find themselves at the mercy of the Crown prosecutor.

[@afpwebworks]

The monarchs power isn’t totally unrestricted. There was the Magna Carta to start with. And if a despot became monarch, the parliament would be able to do away with the monarchy. I live in Australia, and one of the Queens titles is Queen of Australia In 1977 we had a political crisis where the Senate wouldn’t pass Supply (parliamentary code for financing the government). One party controlled the House of Reps and the other. Controlled the. Senate. The parties stood toe to toe, refusing to budge, each wanting the other to back down. Then the Governor-General, who exercises the power of the monarchy rather than the Queen, for the first and only time exercised what’s known as the Reserve Power. This power is THEORETICALLY in the hands of the Queen herself and all Governors-General around the Commonwealth. So our GG dismissed the government and appointed the opposition into government. The PM, Whitlam and Leader of the Opposition Fraser swapped jobs. There was an unholy row over this as you might expect and the country was immediately into election mode it was the most heated election campaign in memory. The end result of all this was that Fraser was elected, beating Whitlam in a landslide and the political pundits have been talking about “The Dismissal” ever since It’s the only time the Royal Reserve Power has been used but in theory the Queen could use it at any time The Queen could use the power in Australia but in practice she never uses any powers here. Royal powers are always exercised by the Governor-General instead. The GG is always a distinguished Australian, appointed by the Queen, but on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s unthinkable that the monarch might go against the advice of the Prime Minister but theoretically possible. My guess is that if the monarch ever did, or if the Reserve Powers were exercised again that would be the end of the monarchy in Australia It’s very different to how it is in the USA, where the President is a political person, wielding a lot of power and making decisions all the time. Our monarch and her representatives are by convention NOT political and are usually adept at sidestepping any attempt at getting them to take a political position on things There are a large number of things that happen because that’s convention, rather than constitutional law.

[@REVAN2338]

There are a myriad of laws in place to deal with a rouge Monarch. Many of them lay in weird places, but they exist.

[@ZombieATAT]

You regularly study history on your channel, so you're aware of how many singular heads of state have existed (monarchs, emperors etc). Having all of a nation's adoration/scorn directed at one person has repeatedly led to instability. By allowing the people to chose, you also shift the responsibility to them. The ruling party alters as power moves between benefitting the rich and poor demographic. However, the nation remains stable in the long term, the mean/average prevails. Democracy is an "opiate of the masses", a solution to inevitable dissent.

[@HankD13]

Being a citizen of any country, you are still "subject" to its laws. It is only a matter of terminology. We are "subjects" of the crown - the laws of the land. The Crown exists only for a long as we - those subjects - want it to. Crowns that annoy their "subjects" enough soon end up being ex-Royals. A situation we have already gone through, and is very well understood. "Elected" governments are far more likely to abuse the powers they have, and the Crown acts as a check upon that. These "powers" exist for those "extreme circumstances" that might make them necessary - and personally, a good thing too.