Isn't the UK prime minister a similar situation? Appointed by the king?
Slop.
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
This is the case in all European countries with royal heads of state, meaning Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain etc.
Formally/de jure yep
De facto they likely couldn't go against the results of a generally election without pushback from parliament and the public(regardless of the extent of their real hard power over the state they still have massive influence over most of it's organs, including those they're officially head of such as the military and Anglican church), so monarchists use this to excuse them from responsibility for any war crimes etc committed by the rest of the state, similar to the people who argue Hirohito has no responsibility for Japanese actions during WWII
It would be interesting to see that come to a head, but with how reactionary the UK government already is, what could the monarchy possibly gain from opposing it? Now that I think about it though we would definitely see the Crown testing its powers if a leftist government ever got in.
The David Weber fantasy of the woke Crown allied with the Commons against the greedy and venal Lords
Ah, good Tsar and bad Boyars. Timeless classic.
I hadn't heard that term for it, so I did a little search. Fun how NATOpedia seems to think it's almost exclusively a defect of the Slavic brainpan.
Also not even all lords, just a few bad apples.
we would definitely see the Crown testing its powers if a leftist government ever got in
We certainly saw the Crown test a lot of unofficial powers when Corbyn, an anti-monarchist, was a potential PM.
A few times in the 19th and 20th centuries, the UK monarch has appointed a PM without a corresponding election or Parliamentary vote. But only in the 1800s did they specifically go against a vote.
As you say, they still exercise their power in very real, other ways. The UK monarch has been shown to secretly vet, veto and amend laws all the time, at least around a thousand over the past few decades. And those are just the times we've found out.
You'd think so, and I don't think anyone of them tried, but as a counterpoint: Macron (who is as close as you can get to a King of France without being one at this point) did pretty much that multiple times and nothing happened.
Yeah but that's because in France, the president is the head of the executive, not the prime minister. The PM is chosen by the president, but every executive functions reside with the president, who also can dissolve parliament and call a new election or sack the current PM to choose another from the majority party in the legislative assembly.
There were Iranian gusanso claiming that 90%! of Iran was atheist and thats why they should use a pre-islamic flag of iran.
You can't just add -oid to everything.
diasporussy
World Jewussy
Christendomussy
The Ummahussy
Oh yeah? Just watch me Hexbearoid!
I sure can, WokePalpatinoid
Spacenoid
There are very few adequate substitutes for the disdain I feel for my supposed countrymen.
Your commentoid isn't going to stop me
Appointed by the very same Shah they love so much, no less.

Two things:
-
Either they indirectly admit the Shah was a fool for appointing a "traitor" (as they call him), showing his poor judge of character and lack of ability to rule
-
or they admit the Shah had no choice but to appoint Mossadegh owing to his massive popularity (through the National Front)
Most will avoid, but I've interacted with a couple of them who admit #2, but also admit that they think working class Iranians, then and now, are dumb plebs who will follow any "demagogue" and need the strong hand of their preferred autocrat to get them to achieve "greatness".
Most will avoid, but I've interacted with a couple of them who admit #2, but also admit that they think working class Iranians, then and now, are dumb plebs who will follow any "demagogue" and need the strong hand of their preferred autocrat to get them to achieve "greatness".

they think working class Iranians, then and now, are dumb plebs who will follow any "demagogue" and need the strong hand of their preferred autocrat to get them to achieve "greatness".
It is fascinating how consistently liberals talk like this when their politics are proven unpopular.
Ive been saying he was democratically elected for like 20 years now and Im not going to change just because some dipshit nerd wants to reinvent the past


f**k those satl-e-an talabs
Im confused? Are they this supposed British election is a good thing or bad thing?
Oh you trust someone called MOSSAD-degh?
Checkmate nationalists.
