Why isn't she considered a dictator?

Because the liberals and republicans were almost calling for the guillotine for her MAYBE dog-whistling for Brexit in a speech. If she tried to use any political power whatsoever it would be used as fuel to degrade the monarchy even further, and she knows it.

You know, despite having the vast expanse of human knowledge literally at their fingertips, why, still...do Americans continue to make stupid threads asking stupid questions when they could find the answer they're looking for in 5 seconds.

How is it possible that in this day and age, you, OP, still don't know how the world fucking works. All the time there are posts from americans saying "can't wait until the old bitch dies, down with tyrants". You really have no fucking idea about how british politics works, do you.

Attached: 1492702477360.jpg (356x321, 33K)

A diplomatic post and a tourist attraction.

Didn't she give up her ability to dissolve parliament?

Because she doesnt have any real power. Her only powers are locked behind the elected body asking her to do things

She's kind of a figurehead I guess, she does do some things like the state opening of parliament and appointing prime ministers when they're elected

>largest land owner in the world
she doesn't need to.
Parliament wasn't created to free the people from royalty, rather free the royalty from the affairs of the people.

Never understood why Brits like having a Monarch that is powerless. I would hate that if I lived in UK.

If you're gonna have a Monarch, let them actually be a Monarch.

damn came here to say this

In 2011 it was removed with the fixed term parliament act, which states there will be an election every 5 years and that a two thirds majority is required in the commons to dissolve the government

That's what you think...

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
FASCIST REGIME

My English grandmother looked exactly like Lizzie all of her life.
My Irish grandfather constantly pointed this out, he was so proud of it.
If there's a heaven he's probably walking around it right now with a Canadian $1 bill and her picture trying to piss off brits like he did at the legion hall downtown for half a century.

People cucked into thinking she is powerless, or just a figure head.

See that's gay.

I'm not British so this means nothing, but I don't see how it could be worse.

>>largest land owner in the world
Bit harsh lad, she seems in good shape to me

What do y'all mean? Isn't it true that she cannot be arrested or charged with a crime or that all laws and decisions in the uk need to be approved by her and that she has complete control over the military?

How is this not a dictatorship?

Funnily enough she can dissolve the Australian parliament still, not sure about Canada though

>not sure about Canada though
Canada isn't a real country.

I dr3ad the day the Queen is gone, oficialy. It will be no good.

Because she literally has no power. If she ever disobeyed Parliament she'd be forced to abdicate the throne.

That's technically true but if she refused to approve a law or went on a murderous rampage or something she would be forced to abdicate

A despot derives power from those below him while a monarch derives her power from he who is above? She rules the folk because of her authority granted to her by God. All authority is ultimately derived from above.
Which actually makes all of the current executives in the western world nothing more then tinpot dictators. All authority in every western country is derived from the populace. Which means they lack real and proper authority.

Attached: 1557105803134.jpg (680x503, 79K)

not to mention every cop/military/public office official in commonwealth countrys swears allegiance to the queen.

dictators need to have arbitrary power to be considered a dictator. "Arbitrary" as in "I've decided it's illegal to pluck chickens unless you wear a yellow hat."

She has no power to make laws at all. In theory she must sign all legislation to make it official, but it's well known that she doesn't actually do it herself, she just has to approve someone else to use the royal seal and do it for her.
And again, if she ever refused to pass legislation parliament had decided on, that's the end of her reign. They'd level all the threats they have at her, cut off her money (which comes from taxes), probably freeze her assets too, reclaim land, and perhaps test whether the military really swears fealty to her or not.

That's not the definition of a dictator.

AYE, tis because I have yet to rrreturn, user

Who takes Machiavelli to school

Attached: 3797363_orig.jpg (804x570, 105K)

I know, but it's one of the requirements. A monarch without arbitrary power is not a dictator.

What if she came at you with a sword
Could you legally kill the queen in self-defense

She is primary council to the PM if the nukes are used. They CAN NOT be used w/o her consent.

surprised that the schzioboomer who believes that the UK is behind everything "bad" aka he doesn't like and that they victimize jews by using them as a front hasn't spammed this thread yet

Attached: 1552925303381.png (1023x682, 598K)

Does the British monarchy even do anything anymore?

Kings/queens were originally warlords the people would elevate in exchange for protection.

Theyre pretty much useless today.

a monarch is not the same as a dictator. Monarchs usually have very limited powers, sometimes there is an electoral system alongside the monarch, or a grand council of nobles.

A despot or a dictator emerges once a monarch or military leader seizes ultimate power

Old hag

bitchute.com/video/wV8dlev5IH6F/

Cultural figurehead, no power in practice. Stop asking stupid questions and any burgers who say the Queen should do one thing or another don't have a clue

>Parliament wasn't created to free the people from royalty
Kinda was. Prydain never had absolute monarchs. Magna Carta cemented it.

What powers are limited from the Queen?

That’s not her name

Because the media tells the people what to think, and they want to phase out the monarchy to free (((themselves))).

Shame that power isn't used more.

All the branches except the army swear loyalty to her, but beyond that she has no authority. Im pretty sure she doesnt even have the cables to issue orders down.

They're not allowed to grab a butter knife in a home invasion. Not even kidding, some lady got charged for waving a butter knife at some guys looking through her windows. You're legally required to flee. People have been charged for shooting home invaders.
Here in the US, in case of terrorism/shootings we teach the motto "run, hide, fight".
Over there, they teach "run, hide, tell" (as in tell the authorities)

Brits being cucked is no fucking joke. Its actually really tragic.

Kinda hard to be a dictator with no power

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
SHE AIN'T NO HUMAN BEIN'
You uncultured swine.

She has no ruling power. "Why isn't she considered a welfare queen", is what you should ask

she can, threatened harper with not to long ago if he didnt admit he lied about the federal budget

she owns like half of canada technically,i bought a concession from the crown and hunt on crown land constantly.....same in the rest of the commonwealth i assume

>except the army
The army does too. You might be thinking of the term "Royal", like Royal Air Force, and Royal Navy, because the army was formed under treasonous circumstances.

Because She pays the country, not the other way around. As in, the exchequer takes £400m from the Windsors, and then Her Majesty is given a salary of £30m

because she's royalty.

The royal family brought in £550 million in tourism in 2017.

>army was formed under treasonous circumstances.
all parliaments are treason
CHARLES I & II DID NOTHING WRONG

>Why isn't she considered a dictator?
Because she doesn’t have dictatorial power.
Do you have any other stupid-ass questions?

How so? By being a feckless Nero-tier cunt that sits on her ass trying on ugly hats while her country burns?

>Nero-tier
she isnt the one ruining her country

She has a veto power she doesn't use. She also has direct control over the armed forces. She could stop it all tomorrow if she wanted.

>She has a veto power she doesn't use.
Not without consequence.
>She also has direct control over the armed forces
Well no.

like fuck she can, at most she can use it to trigger an election which will just result in the same shit, she has more power in the commonwealth than in britain at this point...she isnt going to coup her way to absolute power at this point in her reign..best case scenario william does but it wont happen

Technically yes. The army swear allegiance to the crown, not parliament. The ability to declare war still lies with her too.

In practice that's a formality and she just does what parliament says to do, but on paper at least she is head of state, with everything that means.

Oh no, not consequences! And yes, she does have direct controled over the armed forces. She is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces. That is a fact. You don't even know your own queen's powers. Typical. It's not as if she was ever strong enough to exercise them.

they arent in direct control of the armed forces either, only their allegiance

Because we don't have an office called Dictator.

>Technically yes
Of course. But if Her Majesty went up to a soldier and told them to shoot someone, odds are they wouldn't.

>Oh no, not consequences!
Americans do seem unfamiliar with that term, aye.
>You don't even know your own queen's powers.
Oh the irony. Guess I forgot we're living in Westeros where monarchs can do as they please with no repercussions.
> It's not as if she was ever strong enough to exercise them.
To do the bidding of you in particular, you mean?

>Why isn't she considered a dictator?
She's politically powerless you idiot - go read a book.

She can. She has the military and executive veto, not to mention she is the monarch and all of the influence that comes just with the title, and she has leveraged precisely none of those tools in an effort to protect Britain from ongoing catastrophic subversion. The "consequences" she'd face are not any more grave than the ones the crown already faces, neutered, not even by law but by mere custom, its current monarch the one who oversaw the dissolution of the empire, and the nation handed over to a globalist political elite that has puppeted them out to a former colony and a supranationalist German-led economic union that the so-called "democracy" all of this surrendering of the crown's power was supposedly for can't even get themselves out of.

She is the single worst monarch the UK ever had.

She is the commander-in-chief. What don't you get about this? Not exercising a power doesn't mean the power doesn't exist. The armed forces are literally her possession.

Attached: FdkGU4ZSG.png (760x749, 494K)

Because she's a queen , dumbshit

What are these grave repercusions you're talking about that are so much worse than Britain's actual reality?

>She is primary council to the PM if the nukes are used. They CAN NOT be used w/o her consent.
The PM, or if he/she is dead, the highest ranking officer on a nuclear submarine are the only people who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

>leveraged precisely none of those tools
Because it would mean going against the will of the people, dipshit.
Do you really not know the difference between monarchy and dictatorship?

Ending the monarchy and giving free reign to Murdoch to move in. At the moment, there is at least the placeholder to stymie overt attempts.
Just picture the headlines and the political maneuvers which would result in Her Majesty cowing to your whims.

>But if Her Majesty went up to a soldier and told them to shoot someone, odds are they wouldn't.
You quite sure about that? She is literally the highest ranking officer in our military. It is definitely an order she could give.

>Ending the monarchy and giving free reign to Murdoch to move in.
This. I support keeping the monarchy if for no other reason than what would replace it in 2019 would be absolute cancer.

As if the will of the people makes a routine appearance in the British halls of power. That's just funny. As for the crown serving a ceremonial purpose, I never denied it. Just don't tell me this shit garbage queen is honorable. She doesn't know the meaning of the word.

>She is the commander-in-chief. What don't you get about this? Not exercising a power doesn't mean the power doesn't exist
The problem with discussing what powers she has is that there is a precedent in British law for putting a king on a trial. It's been done legally before.

>As if the will of the people makes a routine appearance in the British halls of power.
In theory, it does. That's what keeps (((parliament))) there. It's one of the clever and insidious things about (((elective))) governments; they can say, "we had majority votes. You want us to do this."
>She doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Do you? Because Her Majesty has done Her job and served Her nation for over 65 years.
Just because you in particular don't like it, doesn't mean it's dishonourable.

And a good monarch should what, shrink from the judgment of her people in her efforts to try and save them? I don't see how any of these "consequences" are worse than your reality. She has the power, in theory or not, but at least on paper, to do SOME THINGS about it, and spent her life doing NO THINGS about it.
Well it's good that the will of the British people is represented in "theory." That makes it all worth while I suppose. In reality, the British political class, just liek the American and Australian political classes, are bought and paid for by special interests and elections are only one small component of the machine that gets these parasites elected. Not that any of this concerns the queen. Her job is to wear ugly hats and wave like a retard, even though, as we know, she can do more than that but doesn't. Very honorable.

thats not how it works in the commonwealth, she has no channels to do what your implying, she holds that title but it would cause a civil war in every realm if she tried to exercise it unilaterally, victoria is the one that started shedding her power, lizzy just finished what she started, fucking burgers explaining my gov/history to me...wew lad

I'm not even talking about the rest of the commonwealth, I'm talking about her control over the British Armed Forces. If she commanded them to, say, block the entry of migrants, would you oppose it? Would you, a subject of one of her gay realms, actually wring your hands over that? You wouldn't even know what to think of a monarch actually exercising the powers she actually legally has, because you've never lived under a strong monarch, just this weakling that has surrendered her empire and is now surrendering the very kingdoms William conquered to Islam, an ancient enemy of Europe.

Spin it all you want. I'm sure history books will be less kind.

>That makes it all worth while I suppose
No, but that's the reality of the situation.
>bought and paid for by special interests and elections are only one small component of the machine that gets these parasites elected
Exactly the problem, bro.
>Not that any of this concerns the queen.
It probably does. But what do you expect Her to do which won't make things immediately worse thanks to centuries of precedent and overwhelming banking/media control now?

This is all as pointless as expecting the president to do anything.

i dont disagree a strong monarch would be better, im just saying it wouldn't happen without conflict in the whole commonwealth, royalists would probably win in the end since they have the nationalists by default, ironically, plus the opposition are globalists or Trudeau types, but it would definitely be bloody...not to mention you guys would definitely intervene

>not to mention you guys would definitely intervene
That is the major concern. They'd want to go 1776 redux to protect their jewish overlords from what will be described as an "evil, white, out of touch, old tyrant."

exactly, doesnt matter what we want, america will stop it from happening

and you were the people that forced the empire to fall apart after suez because of "muh colonialism" "muh democratic post-war order" even today most canadians (by poll) support the monarchy, even natives ffs

I criticize Trump for the same thing. The exact same thing. He also has powers he doesn't use because he's afraid of vague, unnamed "consequences." But inaction has consequences to, and in our case they're catastrophic. We're being subsumed by Latin America, our equivilent of an 'ancient rival' if we ever had one. But that doesn't mean the queen should get a pass. Which is what you're doing, you know. You're saying somehow because she's queen, she's free to ignore any moral responsibility to her people and her countries, but you know why you're doing that, right? Because you're a democrat, and you shouldn't be that. What other reason could you have for making the distinction, except that Trump was elected and she was not?

And by this you mean, "trouble in the commonwealth is a bigger consequence than the gradual obliteration of the entire Anglosphere, England first"? No, I do not agree. And neither should the queen, though apparently she does.

I swear I read somewhere that the army specifically swears an oath to parliament or something like that.

Sovereign nations expand their own interests at the expense of other sovereign nations. A monarch should know that before she reaches age 9. That is not an excuse.

Because she's a monarch, not an authoritarian. They're two different things.

Monarchs don't have absolute power.

>I criticize Trump for the same thing
I wasn't making an anti-Trump statement. It was about the futility of blaming figureheads for the will of the people.
>she's free to ignore any moral responsibility to her people and her countries
No, but your childish ideas of the monarch going 1488 are quite removed from reality. What do you really expect to happen that could be a good outcome?

Maybe both? I never served in the British Army, but I do know that after the restoration, they had to swear fealty to the monarch.