The United Kingdom is a monarchy ruled by Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Andrew), even though the British people go far out of their way to pretend that's not the case. It's why Boris Johnson had to meet with the queen about forming a new government. Why is she involved at all? It's because she rules the United Kingdom in fact. Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), that's quite relevant to the context. The political structure of the United Kingdom goes very far out of its way to look after and protect the royal family (their rulers).
Shall we pretend that the family that has ruled Britain for 1200 years has no political power? Har har.
Every country in Europe that still regressively clings to a monarchy (and there are a lot of them) goes out of its way to pretend - because it's so comically backwards - that their monarchy is only a figurehead / ceremonial and has no real role. In fact they're all back up dictatorships waiting in the wings if there's ever enough political chaos to prompt the people to turn to that, and that happens every time historically.
France abolished their monarchy. I think the other monarchies took note of this and decided to simply live a life of power, prestige, and influence and not get their heads on a pike by ruling like tyrants.
I think if they tried to exercise major operational control in government, it would trigger revolutions, formal republics, etc.
Reality is usually a bit more nuanced than the formal rules on paper. We have all kinds of laws on the books that don't really apply. Likewise with many of the supposed powers of these monarchies. Without exercise, exercising them makes them legal in the same way killing a home intruder is legal. Legality doesn't mean exercising it won't be bloody, won't have cost, won't have risk, etc...legality one way or another doesn't matter that much.
> Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]),
Try a bit over 100. The House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901. Even if we disregard royal houses and look at just successions then you run into some awkward situations pretty early, including a nice run of kings born in Hanover and speaking primarily German.
A lot of royalist propaganda is an attempt to tie relatively short lived dynasties into some mythical long lived chain of succession, mostly to reinforce the idea that they rule by right rather than by force or accident of history. In reality royal houses are regularly discarded when they become too inept, too inbred, or (in England’s case) too Catholic for the people to tolerate.
> House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901
Just because the 1901 successor to the monarchy (Ed 7) was the son of a reigning queen (Vicky) rather than the son of a king does not make him unrelated to the previous dynasty. Agnatic primogeniture is just as much a bronze age concept as a particular family lording it over everyone by the gods' grace...
It’s a useful metric because that’s how the royal family sees itself. It can’t both claim to be a new dynasty and to have ruled England for over 1000 years at the same time.
> Shall we pretend that the family that has ruled Britain for 1200 years has no political power? Har har.
That's like saying the Church of England still has significant political power. it still has the ability to take tithes, although they are mostly optional.
The present royal family only really dates back to victoria, I mean sure they are tangentially related to the german/dutch/scots/danish that ruled before, but its not that strong.
The monarchy is constitutional technical debt. Technically the queen can refuse to sign laws, and dissolve parliament, but as the constitution is basically "because we said so" it'll be the last thing the queen does.
The queen has "influence", but not political power.
"A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public."
Not to mention the lobbying Charles undertook, which took years to uncover, again because of his privileges as part of the royal family:
""I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that," said Blunkett, who held the post from 1997 to 2001. "He was very keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had what he would have seen as the opportunity to escape from their background, whereas I wanted to change their background."
Call it influence or power, fundamentally it is rich people getting to exert pressure on the legislative and executive that none of us get to exert.
The royal family has no involvement with the UK government.
The queen is officially head of state, but in reality does what she is told by the current party in power (queen's speech is written for her for example).
The fact the Queen is exceedingly good at doing exactly what a Head of State should endeavor to do (not use power) does not mean they never will. Something to keep in mind. Especially with an informal Constitution.
Not that a formal one makes much difference when the people who interpret it start doing mental gymnastics.
She uses power, we just don’t get to see it. She gets final review over any law that affects her estates before it’s submitted to parliment, which includes anything related to tax and employment law.
The whole “the queen is just this beloved and powerless figurehead” is propaganda.
Just ask Prince Andrew.