Bit off-topic, but I'm new to posting so forgive me!
The ruling Monarch actually has the power to veto any bill put through Parliament (although I'm not sure what this actually does, except perhaps get a unhappy smiley face with a crown on top stamped on the bill) as the last step is seeking Royal Assent. This hasn't actually happened in since 1707.
Theoretically this could mean that the ruling Monarch could, for example, chose to veto a bill which proposed the dissolution of the Monarchy. If, assuming that vetoing the bill at Royal Assent stage scuppered it, this was the case then that would mean that the Monarchy could only be deposed by force of arms? (if anyone's able to clarify, or offer words of wisdom; that'd be grand).
Whilst not a particularly good example, the link http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm does have relevance. A smaller, low-tech force can, with intelligence, succeed in neutralising a larger and more advanced force.
Slashdot Mirror
Bit off-topic, but I'm new to posting so forgive me!
The ruling Monarch actually has the power to veto any bill put through Parliament (although I'm not sure what this actually does, except perhaps get a unhappy smiley face with a crown on top stamped on the bill) as the last step is seeking Royal Assent. This hasn't actually happened in since 1707.
Theoretically this could mean that the ruling Monarch could, for example, chose to veto a bill which proposed the dissolution of the Monarchy. If, assuming that vetoing the bill at Royal Assent stage scuppered it, this was the case then that would mean that the Monarchy could only be deposed by force of arms? (if anyone's able to clarify, or offer words of wisdom; that'd be grand).
Whilst not a particularly good example, the link http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm does have relevance. A smaller, low-tech force can, with intelligence, succeed in neutralising a larger and more advanced force.