Abolish Lords

-Removed-

Again, King Charles III could dissolve parliament tomorrow if he wanted. On what planet is that not real power?

Edit: He also has the power to dismiss a Prime Minister refusing to resign after losing the confidence of the House of Commons.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
Yeah, those damn Trumps....not like the Roosevelts, Clintons, Bush's, Kennedy's etc were some kind of family heirarchy.

Yes, well, each of those family members earned their own place in their own right. They didn't capitalize on the reputation of family.

I can't wait until Donald makes cokehead Donnie Jr. Secretary of State, or, God help us, Secretary of Defense. Or even worse, Secretary of the Treasury.

@vivify said
Then the requirements should be changed to where birthright has nothing to do with this office. Make the process democratic rather than hereditary.

In other words, make an equivalent office with elected officials.

They'd have to change the name, for sure.

Back in the day, and perhaps even now, every one had some sort of title, Lord of This, Lord of That, Lord of The Other Thing.

-Removed-

Power doesn't have to be unilateral. Needing a PMs request doesn't make the ability to dissolve Parliament any less significant, especially when the King can also refuse to dissolve it.

The Monarchy most certainly (and unfortunately) does have power.

-Removed-

Is it notional power or real power that enables a king to dismiss a prime minister who has lost the confidence of the House of Commons?

Here's a shovel...

@Suzianne said
Lord of This, Lord of That, Lord of The Other Thing.

I wish this was a Mel Brooks trilogy.

@vivify said
I wish this was a Mel Brooks trilogy.

You got my intent. Well done. 😀

-Removed-

It was executed under Boris Johnson and caused a crisis where the Supreme Court needed to step in.

-Removed-

Wow.

The QUEEN used that power, dumbass.

And I never said it was independently exercised. Way to strawman.