Hacker News Reader

Comment by Angostura | Hacker News Reader

The Queen is the disabled root user of the constitution. The government are the sudoers.

She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state.

Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.

View on HN

The link OP posted is talking about a different process ("Queen's Consent") from the publicly known rubber stamping process ("royal assent").

Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.

If you had read the article the parent comment linked you would know she does actually get some say in how some laws are drafted. She doesn’t, practically, have a veto once both houses of parliament have approved the law but she is sometimes consulted by the government on laws it is drafting to submit to parliament and she does make suggestions that are sometimes incorporated

The crown is just a rubber stamp, until it’s not, like in the Australian constitutional crisis

Link for the lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

but she can't actually use her root privileges too much, like start/stop too many processes (or say anything about brexit)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com