https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

Right at the bottom of the article there is a quote: “Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”

The journalist never provides any evidence to the contrary.

Also, the government has to request it. Another problem the UK has is: massively corrupt governments.

The law got signed in to effect anyway. The "trick" was that parliament can sign laws in to effect if the king is incapacitated. They declared him incapacitated, signed the law, and declared him "capable" again the next day. Whether that was truly legal and in accordance to the letter of the law was a matter of some debate (in my reading of the text, it's not), but I expect things will go in a similar fashion for the British monarchy if Charles really tries to use his "hard power" (rather than "soft power"/influence) in any way.

> Charles could disband parliament tomorrow

Elizabeth had some amount of real world power perhaps via the potential threat of this.

It’s completely different.

The Congress does not answer to the president. It is an independent institution. It does not convene and dissolve by presidential request.

Executive orders can be over-ruled by either of the other two branches of government

Veto power can be over-ruled by the congress.

Until recently, presidents needed congressional approval to make war. Now we skip that part and just don't call it a war.

And yet Article 2 Section 3 exists. Constitutional convention copy machine go Brrr. However I did exaggerate slightly for satirical effect. Maybe I should have just said "some alterations".

Support for the Iraq War at the time of invasion was either close to or a majority.

Does Donald Trump agree?

I would wager that neither man feels particularly accountable to the unwashed masses that both of them openly disdained.

Edit: Does George Bush agree?

You can be assured that Royal Family Inc will fight tooth and nail to keep their privileges intact.

I don't care about monarchism or anti-monarchism, nor would I ever take a position about anything like that in a moderation comment. The moderation comments are always about the same thing—avoiding tedious repetition (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818). The irony is how tediously repetitive they are!