Fundamentally speaking, while she held no formal power, she was wealthy, popular, charismatic, and quite possibly the single most politically-connected individual in the country. Half of what she's being praised for in this very thread is examples of her using her informal power to strengthen diplomatic relationships and so forth.
If the Queen wanted to go on TV and denounce the evils of UK society, nothing was stopping her. I'm not from the UK, so I've honestly no clue how she used that power - but to say she was powerless is to say that every artist, author, activist, and lobbyist has wasted their life, because not a single one of them had anything like her influence.
> If the Queen wanted to go on TV and denounce the evils of UK society, nothing was stopping her. I'm not from the UK, so I've honestly no clue how she used that power - but to say she was powerless is to say that every artist, author, activist, and lobbyist has wasted their life, because not a single one of them had anything like her influence.
She went on TV and denounced stuff all the time. Still doesn't change anything. You're mistaking influence with power. And most lobbyist would have more influence than she actually had.
If the Queen wanted to go on TV and denounce the evils of UK society, nothing was stopping her. I'm not from the UK, so I've honestly no clue how she used that power - but to say she was powerless is to say that every artist, author, activist, and lobbyist has wasted their life, because not a single one of them had anything like her influence.