This post is really embarrassing. It's this - not the first quoted portion by the previous poster - that has absolutely no grasp of nuance or understanding of the subtler manipulation of power. If anyone is 'out of their depth', it's the respondent.
Believe it or not, the distinction between constitutional and absolute monarchy isn't remotely hard to grasp. That's even in the absence of a written constriction. What is very evident, though, is that the protestation that the Windsors have only 'soft power' or, more frequently, are the claim that they have none at all, is propaganda put out by their slick PR machine. This is what they want people to think. And anyone with half a clue knows it isn't true.
The reality is nothing resembling the image. They do have power, a great deal of it, much more so than your average rich family. The received view that the monarch 'does what she's told by the PM' is something that can never be evidenced, because she (using her in the present tense for the moment) has a meeting with her each week, the contents of which we are not allowed to know. With such an audience comes many an opportunity to exert undue influence. And this is one of the many strange 'unwritten laws' surrounding Windsor protocol, not to mention the nebulous UK constitution that's precariously perched upon similar opaque constructs.
The taxation issue another case in point. The monarch pays, at an amount she thinks she will and which you're not allowed to know - having previously not contributed a bean in FORTY years on the throne - because she came under pressure to do so. It might be £10 PA and we'd be none the wiser. You don't know - for the very good reason that they and their highly elusive finances are shrouded under their exemption from the FOI Act.
Exemption from FOI. That, again, is a considerable power: some might say an abuse of power. It extends to every single member of that family, and is a privilege enjoyed by no other citizen of these islands. As for the crazy protestations elsewhere on the site that it makes little sense for a monarch to pay taxes to her/his 'own' treasury? Apparently it hasn't occurred to some that a system in which a single citizen holds the treasury is what's really wrong with this picture. Barmy or what?
There are myriad other examples. Former Minister Norman Baker elucidates very well the shady mechanisms by which the Queen and Charles were able to veto specific legislation that affected them in a way they don't like. And just ask citizens/tenants in Cornwall what they think to his handling of their wonderful county. Then there's the inordinate degree of control they're able to exert over the presentation of their image in the media - you can speculate for yourself as to why that's the case - or the serious damage their very powerful PR machine can do to anyone who crosses them.
The previous poster is quite right. The UK Monarch does have unparalleled power and control. And the fact that this is exerted insidiously and covertly rather than openly is even more a matter of concern than the reverse.