Since you like Wikipedia, let's go with this:The_Canadian_Crown_and_the_Canadian_Forces.
"Formally, there is a direct chain of command from the Queen of Canada to the governor general, through the Chief of the Defence Staff to all of the officers who hold the Queen's Commission, and through them, to all members of the Canadian Forces. No other person, including the prime minister, cabinet ministers, nor public servants is part of the chain of command; nor does any other person have any command authority in the Canadian Forces, an arrangement maintained to ensure that "the military is an agent for and not a master of the state." As such, all new recruits into the Canadian Forces are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors. According to the National Defence Act, the use of traitorous or disloyal words towards the reigning king or queen is a service offence and may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment."
"Declarations of war, the mobilisation of troops, and the organisation of the forces all fall within the Royal Prerogative; direct parliamentary approval is not necessary for such, though the Cabinet may seek it nonetheless and the Crown-in-Parliament is responsible for allocating moneys necessary to fund the military. The monarch issues letters patent, known as the Queen's Commission, to commissioned officers in the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Further, all regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Neither the monarch nor the viceroy, however, involve themselves in direct military command; per constitutional convention, both must almost always exercise the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Cabinet, although the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained.[n 1]"
Note particularly "the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained." I can tell you, as someone who's served in the Canadian military, they make it clear to us that this is the case. If you think that's merely ceremonial in nature, well, it's never been tested (much like withholding Royal Assent has never been tested), but you should know there are definitely some military personnel who would follow orders from the Queen. If you don't think that's a form of actual legal authority, I don't know what is.
10.7, the final version that supports that early 2008 MacBook. Apple tends to support a final OS version of a particular hardware generation for a while, at least with respect to security related patches. I noticed when a key exploit had been discovered they patched iOS 6 on some old devices I have that are not supported by iOS 7.
I misunderstood your original statement, because a 2008 MacBook did not come with 10.7 installed, it would've come with 10.5. "My 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X" meant to me "my 2008 MacBook is running what it was originally supplied with". Yes, 10.7 is still supported.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes,
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues. Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.
My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.