Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "Your Friend Porchey | The Crown (Claire Foy, Matt Smith)" video.

  1. It could be because they are stuck with it. In British law, all bills that affect the King/Queen, before they are presented to Parliament, must be submitted to the King/Queen, who can request changes. Any bill that abolishes the monarchy is likely to be blocked by the reigning king or queen. Any bill that passes Parliament is not law until the King/Queen signs his/her assent.
    2
  2.  @krdiaz8026  You have raised a good question re consequences. That's something that has never been really tested. The closest thing was the Elizabeth's representative in Australia, governor general John Kerr, who sacked the prime minister for incompetence. But only half the Australian population were against it. Kerr resigned not long after, but that was most likely because public drunkenness ruined his stature. Don't forget the British monarch, now King Charles, gets a look at any bill that might affect him, BEFORE it is presented to Parliament. Thus the press may not hear about it, and the public kept in ignorance. For all we know, Elizabeth II may have rejected bills that we don't know about. I think you are correct as far as general bills are concerned. They are all in the public domain, so if the monarch rejects popular bills, or even any bills, there will as you say at least be a big stink. But any bill that abolishes the royal family is most likely to be killed, and killed without our knowing, unless the monarch him/her self desires to bring it to an end, and I don't see that happening. Self interest triumphs over public perception anyway, when your position makes you filthy rich, waited on by flunkies, and gives you tenure. We ordinary joes have to keep the boss and/or customer happy with our job performance or we'll get the sack - King Charlie does not.
    1