The British Crown hasn't had real power since 1649, but please continue complaining about nothing.

There's still a 10% difference in wealth on average between people with noble Norman family names and everyone else in UK.

No you just (by constitution) have to swear allegiance to the crown to become a lawmaker, which makes you a perjurer if you don't acknowledge their power.

Also is the monarch not commander in chief their armed forces? I thought being under the command of the queen / monarch was part of their oath. If your soldiers are sworn to do what the queen says that seems like a lot of potential power.

Yeah, it's crazy to me that the UK has no armed forces, the military are all personally bound to the monarch. The king has interfered in politics too, so arguments based on royalty not being active are off to a bad start.

It's hilarious that even though I think my comment was misread, it turns out I think we both are right.

You read it as me talking about the military in the UK.

No I was talking about the Canadian military. They are bound to the queen and swear an oath to such, you know the one that lives in the UK.

It really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.

Ah, I suspected you were talking about Canada, but wasn't sure if it might be Australia. I guess your situation is more absurd.