You are incorrect in saying that the Queen holds no constitutional power, it is only convention that she does not do so, there are many constitutional veto's and prerogatives that she, (and her predecessors), has that just haven't been used for many many years!
ok...yes, Queen does indeed "RULE" but i think NIGHTOPERA75 meant it in a "they rock" kind of way. like....Queen Rules! can translate into Queen Rocks! does that make any sense...?
i didnt know that!
nice to find out now though...
i think he/she/it meant "queens rule" where women can accede to the throne. in the other places, kings rule. some other places hace empresses who rule, or emperors.
or at least that's how i view it!
Spud wrote: You are incorrect in saying that the Queen holds no constitutional power, it is only convention that she does not do so, there are many constitutional veto's and prerogatives that she, (and her predecessors), has that just haven't been used for many many years!
the "constitutional veto" exists in name only - it's not so long ago that they "lost their heads" for trying to exercise any veto
i think you'll find just how much power they don't have if they EVER try to veto anything
if they have power of veto why didn't they use it to keep their (ahem) sport (fox hunting)going?