4 ms·

Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? The monarch wields no real power -- even if on paper they may st

Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? The monarch wields no real power -- even if on paper they may still retain a great deal. The US system is notoriously bad to get working and really seems to only work for the US. Anywhere else we have tried it has ended with some kind of failure. However, it's reasonable to call the parliamentary systems like the UK republican democracies and those have been emulated else where with a higher degree of success.

blibble 3y ago
> Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament the US then gave its presidency more power than George III would have dreamed of (in practice the presidency also seems to be prone to dynasties)
- InTheArena 3y ago
  Absolute monarchy was still a thread at this time. They just called it enlightened despotism. The colonists were objecting to taxation (and really any form of government) without representation, which both the monarch and the parliament were at fault for. Enlightened Despotism died when George III didn't apply reason (as the colonists saw it) to rectify the problem. In terms of power then George III would have dreamed of - yes, we live in a era when the power of government is still orders of magnitude greater then what anyone could have imagined at the time.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > Absolute monarchy was still a thread at this time. The Civil War (1642-1651) was the last attempt at absolute monarchy in England then Bill of Rights (1688) put it well and truly to bed when Parliament decided they didn't like the current king and picked someone else, simultaneously stripping them of their powers it was well and truly dead by the time of the rebellion
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      Absolute monarchy never really existed in England. There is more to the world then England, and monarchy as government is still a thing. After all, a short hop-skip-jump across the channel, there is a French king soon to lose his head.
      - blibble 3y ago
        > Absolute monarchy never really existed in England. of course it did I suspect my English history is better than yours!
- hangonhn 3y ago
  > it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament Wow. I feel foolish to have not come to that same conclusion until now despite knowing the same sets of facts as you. Great point.
ianburrell 3y ago
The important difference isn't between monarchy or republic, but how the executive is chosen. Parliamentary democracies elect the prime minister. Presidential democracies have separate executive. For example, Ireland is parliamentary republic; the president is only head of state, the prime minister has all the power.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  That's not true. It varies by country, in some most power is hold by president, in some by premier, yet in some it's a mixture. But I don't know any country with a premier who is elected by the people. He is either selected by president or is the leader of the winning party. The executive can be chosen in various ways in a monarchy, too, because there are constitutional monarchies, too, where power of a monarch is limited (famously the UK is still a constitutional monarchy, but their monarch holds almost no power, but it wasn't so historically). You obviously only had the worst kind of monarchy in mind, the absolute monarchy
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    I was conusing; in parliamentary democracies, the parliament chooses the prime minister. There are hybrids like France with head-of-state President with lots of power; I can't tell how different from monarch "choosing" the prime minister. We're not talking about absolute monarchies. For one thing, doesn't really matter how selects the government. It also doesn't really matter for absolute governments if power is inherited, inherited without acknowleding like North Korea, or says is President.

blibble 3y ago

> Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament the US then gave its presidency more power than George III would have dreamed of (in practice the presidency also seems to be prone to dynasties)

InTheArena 3y ago
Absolute monarchy was still a thread at this time. They just called it enlightened despotism. The colonists were objecting to taxation (and really any form of government) without representation, which both the monarch and the parliament were at fault for. Enlightened Despotism died when George III didn't apply reason (as the colonists saw it) to rectify the problem. In terms of power then George III would have dreamed of - yes, we live in a era when the power of government is still orders of magnitude greater then what anyone could have imagined at the time.
- blibble 3y ago
  > Absolute monarchy was still a thread at this time. The Civil War (1642-1651) was the last attempt at absolute monarchy in England then Bill of Rights (1688) put it well and truly to bed when Parliament decided they didn't like the current king and picked someone else, simultaneously stripping them of their powers it was well and truly dead by the time of the rebellion
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Absolute monarchy never really existed in England. There is more to the world then England, and monarchy as government is still a thing. After all, a short hop-skip-jump across the channel, there is a French king soon to lose his head.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > Absolute monarchy never really existed in England. of course it did I suspect my English history is better than yours!
hangonhn 3y ago
> it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament Wow. I feel foolish to have not come to that same conclusion until now despite knowing the same sets of facts as you. Great point.

ianburrell 3y ago

The important difference isn't between monarchy or republic, but how the executive is chosen. Parliamentary democracies elect the prime minister. Presidential democracies have separate executive. For example, Ireland is parliamentary republic; the president is only head of state, the prime minister has all the power.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
That's not true. It varies by country, in some most power is hold by president, in some by premier, yet in some it's a mixture. But I don't know any country with a premier who is elected by the people. He is either selected by president or is the leader of the winning party. The executive can be chosen in various ways in a monarchy, too, because there are constitutional monarchies, too, where power of a monarch is limited (famously the UK is still a constitutional monarchy, but their monarch holds almost no power, but it wasn't so historically). You obviously only had the worst kind of monarchy in mind, the absolute monarchy
- ianburrell 3y ago
  I was conusing; in parliamentary democracies, the parliament chooses the prime minister. There are hybrids like France with head-of-state President with lots of power; I can't tell how different from monarch "choosing" the prime minister. We're not talking about absolute monarchies. For one thing, doesn't really matter how selects the government. It also doesn't really matter for absolute governments if power is inherited, inherited without acknowleding like North Korea, or says is President.