Technically, according to what is written about that, the Queen does hold some authority but what she does exercise in practice, and has been the case for a long time is ceremonial. The government of all of the countries that she is the Monarch of, including Great Britain, are run by elected officials, and the PM is ceremonially chosen by the Queen, but in actuality he is the person who leads, in most cases at least, the governing party.<quoted text>
If the monarch's role were ceremonial, the monarch would not be appointing PMs, and the monarch would not have the power to shut down the Parliament.
But we all know you have problems with the English languauge.
Like when you insisted 'unanimously' meant 'almost everyone'.
What I have read, which is kind of crazy and a bit scarey, is that theoretically she does hold power to overrule the government, but the present Queen has never used that authority, and I highly suspect (but am only guessing) that if she actually attempted to overrule the ruling government that they would do something that would quickly take that power from her.
I doubt that the majority of any citizens of any country in the British Commonwealth would sit back and allow the Queen to rule us. I understand from talking to people who were raised in England but came to Canada after they married, when I asked them why England puts up with having a Queen in this day and age, and the response was that it was good for tourism.