3 ms·
> My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is s
by dane-pgp 4y ago
> My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country
But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is sovereign?
Of course there is precedent for having a government in exile (which claims a territory it has no control over), and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for "the United Kingship".
- vonzepp 4y agoThe monarch would be sovereign, but he/she/they would execute their powers through different elected assemblies in different parts of the Kingdom. The two assemblies would have no influence over each other. Not sure the monarch has really executed its powers over government since ousting Lord Melbourne in the 1830s. So it really is just about tradition and pageantry.