Sure mate, it’s the Schrodinger Prince Charles Influence where he both had no Influence and only wrote quite a lot of secret letters to Government as somebody with no more political influence than any other Briton and AT THE SAME TIME the British Press was constantly celebrating how policy kept getting changed in ways that favored what he cared about.
Pull another one.
If you can regularly get the government to listen to you USING TOTALLY SECRET LETTERS (so it cannot possibly be via one’s influence in public opinion) and do things that benefit your interests or things you care about, then you de facto HAVE direct influence on policy.
Said influence not being formal makes it even worse - it means it’s not transparent and not subject to public transparency rules, which is why the discovery of the “spider memos” was a scandal.
Now, maybe the King of The Netherlands was also doing that kind of backstage shaping of public policy, but I certainly never saw the effects of it reported in the press and nothing ever emerged of him doing it, and I can tell you from experience that at least when I lived there the Press in The Netherland was way less propagandistic and manipulative than the British Press, so I suspect Willem-Alexander never exercised back then as Prince nor exercises now as King that kind of backstage policy shaping, being limited to using his prestige to shame the government in the eyes of the Public (and then the voter chose or not to punish the governing party for it), same as any other prestigious public person (and, IMHO, he’s infinitelly more deserving on any prestige he has - from earning it by his behaviour - than what any of the British Royals has obtained with their army of PR drones and fawning “opinion makers” and royal-titled editors, owners and board members in the British Press).
Either way you go about it, if an unelected Monarch can shape policy without going via the public opinion (i.e. doing it via backstage access to political leaders rather than convincing the public opinion that something is wrong and then voters chose by themselves whether or not to change their vote because of it), that’s anti-Democratic, and all that being via informal channels makes it even worse so, since that’s not open or transparent,
Inconsistent. You stated that the king in Britain has the power to stop laws, and you’re using the fact that he has more influence than the average citizen to support that claim. Those two are not equivalent, sorry.
The king demonstrably did not have the power to stop laws from passing. People educated in Britain are taught this fact at the age of 11-13.
There is no such thing as the Royal Prerogative in Britain and the British Monarch definitely doesn’t have the Soverign’s Constitutional prerogative of Assent to Legislation.
Maybe you should learn more about the laws of your own fucking country since you clearly did not go to a proper school at the age of 11-13.
Again, the prerogative is a formality. If invoked it would be immediately rescinded. Parliament is sovereign in this country, not the monarch.
Because I know the history of this country better than you do, I know how this particular law is applied.
You seem to be having a bad day, so I’ll just stop there.
Sure mate, it’s the Schrodinger Prince Charles Influence where he both had no Influence and only wrote quite a lot of secret letters to Government as somebody with no more political influence than any other Briton and AT THE SAME TIME the British Press was constantly celebrating how policy kept getting changed in ways that favored what he cared about.
Pull another one.
If you can regularly get the government to listen to you USING TOTALLY SECRET LETTERS (so it cannot possibly be via one’s influence in public opinion) and do things that benefit your interests or things you care about, then you de facto HAVE direct influence on policy.
Said influence not being formal makes it even worse - it means it’s not transparent and not subject to public transparency rules, which is why the discovery of the “spider memos” was a scandal.
Now, maybe the King of The Netherlands was also doing that kind of backstage shaping of public policy, but I certainly never saw the effects of it reported in the press and nothing ever emerged of him doing it, and I can tell you from experience that at least when I lived there the Press in The Netherland was way less propagandistic and manipulative than the British Press, so I suspect Willem-Alexander never exercised back then as Prince nor exercises now as King that kind of backstage policy shaping, being limited to using his prestige to shame the government in the eyes of the Public (and then the voter chose or not to punish the governing party for it), same as any other prestigious public person (and, IMHO, he’s infinitelly more deserving on any prestige he has - from earning it by his behaviour - than what any of the British Royals has obtained with their army of PR drones and fawning “opinion makers” and royal-titled editors, owners and board members in the British Press).
Either way you go about it, if an unelected Monarch can shape policy without going via the public opinion (i.e. doing it via backstage access to political leaders rather than convincing the public opinion that something is wrong and then voters chose by themselves whether or not to change their vote because of it), that’s anti-Democratic, and all that being via informal channels makes it even worse so, since that’s not open or transparent,
Inconsistent. You stated that the king in Britain has the power to stop laws, and you’re using the fact that he has more influence than the average citizen to support that claim. Those two are not equivalent, sorry.
The king demonstrably did not have the power to stop laws from passing. People educated in Britain are taught this fact at the age of 11-13.
Sure, mate.
There is no such thing as the Royal Prerogative in Britain and the British Monarch definitely doesn’t have the Soverign’s Constitutional prerogative of Assent to Legislation.
Maybe you should learn more about the laws of your own fucking country since you clearly did not go to a proper school at the age of 11-13.
Again, the prerogative is a formality. If invoked it would be immediately rescinded. Parliament is sovereign in this country, not the monarch.
Because I know the history of this country better than you do, I know how this particular law is applied.
You seem to be having a bad day, so I’ll just stop there.