Subj : Re: Thursday night
To   : Charles Blackburn
From : boraxman
Date : Fri Sep 23 2022 12:52:28

 CB> and a lot of that was born by the fact she pretty much had ZERO power.
 CB> the uk govt had all the power and she just was a figurehead and that
 CB> goes back wayyyyyy before her unfortunately.
 CB> 
 CB> she wasnt supposed to be political or anything like that, but if she had
 CB> more of a say in things then that would be one thing. for example, the
 CB> queens speech... that's written for her by the politicians.
 CB> 
 CB> she wasnt supposed to be political or anything like that, but if she had
 CB> more of a say in things then that would be one thing. for example, the
 CB> queens speech... that's written for her by the politicians.
 CB> 
 CB> yea the queen has been a constant figurehead, but over the past few
 CB> decades, imho, the monarchy has been seriously diluted by the uk govt
 CB> and so forth.
 CB> 
 CB> i tend to agree in some ways, yes they failed the commmonwealth, but on
 CB> the other side of the coin, as i said, they don't really have any power
 CB> any more.
 CB> 
 CB> regards
 CB> Charles Blackburn    


No power?  She had the power to veto any bill passed through parliament.  The Queen has the power to sack the PM.  We in Australia had a Prime Minister sacked by the Governor General.

She also has incredible influence.  To say that someone without influence has no power is baffling.  If the Queen were to even UTTER a comment to this effect, it would have massive, massive repercussions.  Even if she had no power formally, her words alone do.

How do you think Hollywood can influence the West to such a degree despite having no formal power?  Influence.

She said NOTHING.  The Monarchy has the power to comment, they are in the ear of the leadership, and they cannot lose their jobs for saying anything, unlike, pretty much everyone else.

To do nothing is inexcusable.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.