Q: Curt: “What powers do you think the monarchy should have?”– I havent revised

–Q: Curt: “What powers do you think the monarchy should have?”–
I havent revised anything on government since 2020, so its not in a condition for consumption yet.
That said, the british monarchy is defined correctly, but with parliamentary rather than constitutional sovereignty the british monarchy is unable to act out of fear because they are aware that exercise of their power could create a civil war. So they are waiting out our experiment -which is coming to an end in failure at this moment, as all democracies do – becausethey are only possible under windfall, and thefalse pretense of the end of scarcity.
However the underlying principle of contitutional monarchy under a formal constitution is simple: the role of the monarchy is as judge of last resort, and as such the monarchy is above all law in the restoration of the law, is the final court of appeal, and the legislation, government and all public servants serve at the monarchy’s will.
In other words the monarchy “via positiva” can only promote advise and cousel, and “via negativa” can punish, fire, dissolve, veto, nullify, reverse, commute or pardon anything put before it, in a correction of the failings of government and the folly of the fashion and passion of the people, that violates the constitution, its spirit, or the long term interests of the people.
In other words the monarchy’s power is only to correct for failure of democratic processes, not to choose them. See Luxembug for how these things work. See Hoppe’s Democracy the God That Failed, and Michels Iron law of Oligarchy, and if you can read between the lines, most by Schmidt. We should add to the political hierarch when incorporating new classes – not replace or flatten it. Because our civ is dependent on rule od law, and the markrt for cooperation between theclasses that results.

Reply addressees: @Lazarus92481301 @georgediandra2 @BladeoftheS