Um, because he has a history of interference regarding laws and policies and his mama exercised her own influence on the government as monarch?
It does look like they have more direct influence around legislation that directly affects the Monarch’s holdings. It’s influence they use pretty sparingly, given that the articles seem to be listing every time they had a comment, once in the 70s’, that thing in 82 and 86, it isn’t as if they’re constantly putting their two pence in. In 2013 when a bill came across their desks to eliminate the practice of sending them bills, they apparently consented without comment.
Any influence they have, they are allowed to have, and the moment they overstep that allowance can be taken away.
I advocate that people speak up against crimes against humanity using whatever metaphorical megaphone they have. If speaking out against atrocities endangers a constitution, that may be a high price, but weighed against the atrocities, it’s a cost worth paying.
I am unwilling to equate “speaking up” with “mass violence in the street,” or whatever you’re suggesting when you say “overthrow by non-constitutional means.” The specific means matter.
From your link:
A spokesperson for the Queen said: “Whether Queen’s consent is required is decided by parliament, independently from the royal household, in matters that would affect crown interests, including personal property and personal interests of the monarch.
“If consent is required, draft legislation is, by convention, put to the sovereign to grant solely on advice of ministers and as a matter of public record.”
She added: “Queen’s consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”
The Cabinet Office said: “Queen’s consent is a longstanding convention and a requirement of the parliamentary process. Consent is routinely sought by the government and agreed by the monarch as a matter of course.”
Wow - I never anticipated my OP would have this sort of legs. As a Yank, I just viewed it as sorta, “Meh - a really old lady who IMO had a really good gig died. Not a shock that any 90±yr-old-dies, and she had access to the best medical care available.”. With a soupçon of, “Good for old Jugears, that he finally has his shot.”
I was kinda surprised at the amount of news dedicated to her passing stateside. But then our press sensationalizes everything, leaning heavily towards celebrity worship. Even with everything posted here and that I’ve seen elsewhere, I don’t really see the royals as much other than mascots/puppets. I can imagine Brits feeling sad, because they are THEIR mascots/puppets, but Yanks’ fascination with the British royals consistently amazes me.
I honestly did not intend to spur a debate of the British constitution/government (aspects of which have always sorta confused me) - but carry on.
What has amazed me is the amount of utter vitriol on social media. Because she was a symbol of hte ebil colonizers. Like she had any power at all over that? I mean, if you want to address the seat of power in the UK, you’ve got to aim your hatred at the House of Lords. Tilting at the Monarchy is just chasing the rodeo clown.
One cousin may never speak to me again because I dared to point out that she actually presided over the dismantling of the British colonies. And she’s not even from the Irish side of my family! I was accused of not being anti-racist enough. Mind you, my father’s side is actually from Northern Ireland. My cousins there agree with me.
IMHO Elizabeth Windsor used her podium as well as she dared. Her dance with President Nkrumah mattered in its time. It was quite a social risk for her to take, but she did it without hesitation. She is responsible for the legislation that declared an oldest child would succeed her regardless of sex. Legislation which could lead to equality within the House of Lords as well. That drive with the Saudi King led to women receiving the right to drive there. By all accounts she was welcoming and kind to Meghan Markle.
I do not expect to have the same respect for Charles’s reign. And part of why I am sorry to see her go is because I’m not fond of her successor.
How can someone as abjectly powerless as the queen has been described as also be responsible for anything?
Schrodinger’s power?
There are hard powers and there are soft powers. QEII was respected enough that her soft powers often were influential.
ETA: only one example: she was tremendously important for British-German reconciliation after the War and British-German friendship in general, just by visiting Germany so often. Her first visit was in 1965 and was very controversial in Britain, but a great overall success. The Germans loved her.
Super cool how you mock criticism of colonial powers. Makes you look hip and smart!
Oh shit, you really dared that? Your cousin may not speak to you again, but trust that here, we recognize your courage–your bravery–your steadfastness in the face of adversity. Imagine daring to point that out! I would never have the pluck.
Your post is twaddle.
I know, right? On the one hand she’s “just a figurehead” and we’re supposed to just ignore the very real influence even a figurehead might have within a system that otherwise relies on popular support to exercise power, while on the other hand she should be credited for “presiding” over the dismantling of empire.
So which is it? Is she a mere figurehead, such that she is immune from moral evaluation, or is she a moral agent with influence over the nation who might be judged according to her actions and her inactions?
ETA: And that’s on top of the whole “born into it” thing. Don’t think her being the best damn Queen she could have been would make me okay with the hereditary aspect of the monarchy.
Overthrow? No. Violate? Fuck yes. If the Constitution mandates that I treat Black people like property, I’m breaking the fuck out of that law. Any other course of action would be immoral.
Right? It’s bonkers.
That said, there’s an easy way to resolve this. Neither she nor anybody else is responsible for the actions of the empire. Each person is responsible for their own decisions, and their own actions or inactions in the face of evil.
I don’t hold Trucelt’s grandma responsible for concentration camps in Kenya, because she didn’t really have an opportunity to do anything. If the queen didn’t know about them and didn’t really get a chance to know about them, I don’t hold her responsible either.
But if she knew–or if her ignorance was deliberate–then sure, she had a chance to do something, and she wasted it.
And wasting that chance is what she’s responsible for.
Similarly, if she took any actions that hastened the dismantling of the empire, and that was her intent, I’ll give her full credit for that. What were those actions, again?
I have a $20 in my wallet with her picture on it. Is it yours?
What do you think said oaths were about?
So why not overthrow it then?
Ok, any non constitutional means short of violence. For example, did you advocate for Obama to overreach his executive powers, declare a state of emergency and close Guantanamo over the democratically and constitutionally legitimised wishes of Congress?
Because there’s middle ground between, “Follow all laws regardless of morality or justness,” and “abolish all laws.”
Nice selective quoting.
Also from that link:
“Some of the bills reviewed by the Queen also related to wealth or taxation. According to The Guardian, members of the Windsor family are allowed to keep their will sealed from the public, unlike anyone else in Britain. No one has publicly confirmed how rich the family is, although some estimates say they hold in excess of hundreds of millions of pounds.”
“The government, The Guardian reported, exempted the Queen from a 2006 act to prevent the mistreatment of animals, stopping inspectors from entering her private estates.”
No doubt Charles will be a lot more reluctant to influence legislation to his personal beneft and beliefs, given his history. 
I honestly don’t remember if I advocated for such at the time. I’m not the queen, and I have a very little megaphone compared to what she could have, so it doesn’t much matter if I did. I use my energy for local issues where my voice actually matters, in addition to random bullshit arguments on the internet. But absolutely I’m in favor of presidents pushing the limits of their power in an effort to stop actual crimes against humanity and other atrocities. That almost feels like a trick question.
(To forestall the “AHA YOU HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD” retort: I’m not in favor of presidents pushing the limits of their power to perpetrate crimes against humanity. I see a difference).
Minor nitpick - House of Commons.