If you believe the British Monarch has the leeway of the elected Irish President, oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister. The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State, and when you control the Head of State, you are exercising their power.
> oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
I have to say before anything else that this comes across as extremely condescending and not at all in keeping with the site guidelines. It's unlikely that I will give a further response after this.
> The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister.
You mean similarly to how the president acts under recommendation from the Taoiseach?
> The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
You think the president could do this in the ROI?
> That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State
Ok? There is more to being head of state than your cherry picked examples. In nether case are they the same role and to reiterate: the House of Lords and the British court system are very much not without authority.
The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister. The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State, and when you control the Head of State, you are exercising their power.