[pau1f0rd]

A far as I can see the article doesn't mention that she writes the laws, just that she is ultimately responsible for Britain’s "crusader laws" which (if you ignore the 'crusader' bit) is true. The Queen is 'ultimately' responsible for just about everything that the UK does as a nation.

What the Queen of England has, isn't actual POWER to rule.
I'm curious as to what you're basing this assertion on. She has an enormous amount of power and authority (not only in the UK but in Canada, NZ and Australia too) - she just chooses not to exercise it.

[nopardons]

If she chooses to not use her "power", then she doesn't have the POWER ascribed to her ( by the Islamonazi ); now does she?

[-=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-]

In Canada, she can remove PM, senators, MP, etc.. at will, if she want to.

[Canard]

"She has an enormous amount of power and authority (not only in the UK but in Canada, NZ and Australia too) - she just chooses not to exercise it."

The 'powers' that she has are merely theoretical and illusory in that, if she tried to actually exercise them, she'd find herself de-queened fairly quickly. It's not merely a choice not to exercise them (although I'm not saying she wants to).

To describe her then as having 'power to rule' is not accurate in terms of any real world situation.