The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I&#x27;ve tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds.  I&#x27;m not sure that this is such a bad thing.  The Queen can&#x27;t create legislation, she can restrain it.  She is purely a moderating influence in this sense.  She could, in theory, name new people to the House of Lords, but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body and there is a mechanism for the House of Commons to override the Lords.<p>Parliament <i>does</i> have power over the monarch in some senses, of course, in that there is precedent for Parliament changing the order of succession or introducing a regency.  This happened without the monarch&#x27;s assent, though admittedly over a hundred years ago.  But the British constitution is one that replies on precedence, not a formal document.<p>I&#x27;ve characterized the Queen&#x27;s powers as &quot;reserve powers&quot; inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person).  By law she has to call elections within a certain amount of time.  Obviously there&#x27;s nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that&#x27;s true of any country.  She (or her heirs) are the leaders of last resort.