Okay, Britfags. I just got done watching King Charles III. Does

>>131323757
Yes.

>>131323757
Yup

>>131323757
Yeah

Technically in our constitution the Queen has total power, and parliament is subordinate to her

But nowadays it's mostly dressed up with legal fictions, eg all laws are created by the Queen but in practice she's entirely advised by the government and Prime Minister what to do

The Prime Minister always asks the permission of the Queen to dissolve parliament, because the constitution says it was the queen who gave it authority and therefore only she can revoke it

(Historically the death of the monarch would always result in a fresh election, because the parliament did not have the support of the reigning monarch anymore, I think this no longer happens though)

>>131324599
Can the ruling monarch just say fuck it and throw out the prime minister and put himself in charge.

>>131324908
yes and no, the monarch can fire a prime minister at any time and choose anybody to replace them

the prime minister is meant to be the monarch's ambassador to the house of commons, the person who can gain their support

it used to be just random people, usually friends of the monarch or random aristocrats, but gradually it evolved to be just the leader of the largest party there

so the position always has to be filled

I suppose in theory the monarch could just permanently dissolve parliament so there would be no need for a PM

Of course if any of this ever happened there would be riots