4 ms·

"world oldest democracies" - Demos kratos (people's doings/things - old Greek) By definition, our democracy is not that old. When the old Greeks were toying w

"world oldest democracies" - Demos kratos (people's doings/things - old Greek) By definition, our democracy is not that old. When the old Greeks were toying with funky governmental regimes, Britons lived in tribal/family units, with some nascent petty kingdoms. The UK is a bit odd, even compared to the rest of the world! There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and around 10 other monarchies have the same King Charles. He is also the senior person for several other territories such as the Isle of Man, Channel Isles and others. Each of those have some pretty impressive titles for him to hold. The role of "constitutional monarch" here isn't precisely defined but it is based on precedent which basically means if it worked before and no one complained too much then that's the way forward. Our legal system largely works like that too but with a bit more introspection. The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is! Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. That influence is documented/reported on.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use. >Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice. Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.
- eru 3y ago
  > [...] and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Only in catholic countries. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I assume less than half of remaining monarchies are catholic. Mostly because we have a number of protestant monarchies (like the Netherlands and Denmark), and we have plenty of monarchies that aren't Christian at all (like Thailand or Malaysia or Saudi Arabia).
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    That's why I specified "usually", not all kingdoms are Catholic or even Christian but I would presume most would have similar concepts of deriving authority from somewhere to claim their blood is blue.
    - eru 3y ago
      Oh, you meant it as an example. OK. I'm not sure, but what you claim seems plausible enough. Republics typically also make these kinds of claims to legitimize their leaders' claims to power. They usually invoke the wishes of the people or even a 'general will' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will).
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Authority to govern "on loan" from God, so to speak, is not a right, so this reminds the monarch he is only a sort of regent or deputy, if you will. (Recall John 19:11.)
kmeisthax 3y ago
>The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is! Didn't it come out recently that Queen Elizabeth was actually putting her thumb on the scales for decades to get royal opt-outs for all sorts of random laws? (including, most egregiously, anti-discrimination law) Regardless, your King was also having protesters jailed for holding blank signs under the suspicion that they might write something republican[0] on it. And there's that video of Irish soccer hooligans chanting "Lizzie's in a box" during a minute of silence they did for Queen Elizabeth. Not exactly something that happens in a country with "another governor". [0] Americans: no I don't mean the GOP
- cameronh90 3y ago
  Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all. It might involve dissolving the government, but ultimately parliament would win. You could obviously make the case that the monarch has unfair influence, but at the end of the day they still don’t have absolute power in any real sense.
  - brazzy 3y ago
    > Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all. Formally, it's a lot more complicated and weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
  - lozenge 3y ago
    If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win. The monarch is excluded from environmental law, inheritance tax, heck they can even racially discriminate in hiring. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
    - zimpenfish 3y ago
      > If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win. Aside from the Tories largely being aligned with the idea that you shouldn't be bound by environmental law (see sewage dumping), have to pay inheritance tax (they're considering scrapping it as an election boost), or not discriminate racially (pick whatever policy you want here), the kind of people who support the monarchy also tend to be rabid Tories - exactly the kind of people you don't want to antagonise if you want to stay in power. A Corbyn government might well have gone against the monarchy. I can't see Starmer doing it, though.
ithkuil 3y ago
Speaking of odd monarchies: Andorra is a "Unitary parliamentary diarchic constitutional co principality" The two co-princes are: 1. Bishop of Urgell 2. King of France Since there is no longer a king in France, the role of the second co-prince is taken by whoever is the president of France. In other words the president of France becomes a prince of another state upon election in France. It is an elected monarch but since people in Andorra don't get to vote in France, it's not an elected monarch elected in Andorra. That's quite weird.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  It's not weird. It's a tax haven for the elites. And cheap duty-free ski resort for the wealthy. Do you think Andorra, Monaco, Leichtenstein, ... (even Luxembourg) ... would continue to exist in W. Europe if that were not the case?
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Andorra is uniquely interesting for me because of this weird "co-prince is a an elected president of another country" aspect. I don't think that having that feature is necessary nor brings any advantage for it being a duty-free ski resort and tax haven for the elites. In fact other tax-havens exist which have normal monarchs. Why do you think Andorra is not weird?
    - mikhailfranco 3y ago
      All Europe was previously 'weird' by today's standards, until big empires invaded everywhere, and drew previously 'weird' places into their states. The strange rules that you claim are 'weird' were the norm until very recently, and the only reason certain exceptions still exist, is because, and only because, they benefit the current elites. The monarchies married off their children to make claim over other countries. Philip II of Spain thought he ruled Britain because he married Bloody Mary, who was the daughter of a Spanish princess. The Habsburgs were an inbred dynasty that ruled various non-contiguous parts of Europe, in a totally 'weird' way, for random reasons (Swiss nationhood is based on rejecting them). Naples and Barcelona were once part of the same 'country'. Spain ruled the Netherlands! The Norman (Scandi Viking) dynasties in Normandy France, and yes in Kiev, and can-you-believe-it Sicily ( Roger of Sicily is so Monty Python )? Andalusia in S. Spain is named after the Vandals from beyond E. Europe, who sacked Rome and also invaded Sicily (who hasn't). The British royal family is mostly German. Even 'Prince Philip of Greece', husband of QE II, was a Prince of Greece, born in recently-British Corfu (who hasn't invaded Corfu?), without a single drop of Greek blood. He was mostly German, with an admixture of Danish and Russian. What about Monaco, and San Marino, and Leichtenstein, the Vatican (ex Papal States), and Konigsburg (all that Knights Templar stuff, Memelland, Kaliningrad and now still preposterously Russian). Belgium literally invented in 1839 Treaty of London, half Flemish, half French, with the bitter pip of Brussels in the middle. [Interestingly, the Treaty of London [1] is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Belgium [2]! Some trolls from the EU have been busy whitewashing history :] Italy only unified in 1861, always 'weird' before that (but still contains San Marino and The Vatican). Germany only unified in 1871, always 'weird' before that, with hundreds of petty states, many non-contiguous. The British royal family is from Hanover, Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. It alienated the US colony and is still in (constitutional) power in the UK. The EU formulated in 1993 (Maastricht) but in its present form only from 2009 (Lisbon) minus UK (2016). A weird mixture of monarchies, democracies and rule by un-elected elites. Let's see how long it lasts... (TBC) The little remaining statelets are only allowed to continue their independence because they benefit the current elites (like Switzerland benefitted the Nazis). If you think Andorra is weird and interesting, it's only because you have not studied enough history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) ... not mentioned in ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium

Dalewyn 3y ago

>There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use. >Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice. Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.

eru 3y ago
> [...] and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Only in catholic countries. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I assume less than half of remaining monarchies are catholic. Mostly because we have a number of protestant monarchies (like the Netherlands and Denmark), and we have plenty of monarchies that aren't Christian at all (like Thailand or Malaysia or Saudi Arabia).
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  That's why I specified "usually", not all kingdoms are Catholic or even Christian but I would presume most would have similar concepts of deriving authority from somewhere to claim their blood is blue.
  - eru 3y ago
    Oh, you meant it as an example. OK. I'm not sure, but what you claim seems plausible enough. Republics typically also make these kinds of claims to legitimize their leaders' claims to power. They usually invoke the wishes of the people or even a 'general will' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will).
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Authority to govern "on loan" from God, so to speak, is not a right, so this reminds the monarch he is only a sort of regent or deputy, if you will. (Recall John 19:11.)

kmeisthax 3y ago

>The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is! Didn't it come out recently that Queen Elizabeth was actually putting her thumb on the scales for decades to get royal opt-outs for all sorts of random laws? (including, most egregiously, anti-discrimination law) Regardless, your King was also having protesters jailed for holding blank signs under the suspicion that they might write something republican[0] on it. And there's that video of Irish soccer hooligans chanting "Lizzie's in a box" during a minute of silence they did for Queen Elizabeth. Not exactly something that happens in a country with "another governor". [0] Americans: no I don't mean the GOP

cameronh90 3y ago
Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all. It might involve dissolving the government, but ultimately parliament would win. You could obviously make the case that the monarch has unfair influence, but at the end of the day they still don’t have absolute power in any real sense.
- brazzy 3y ago
  > Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all. Formally, it's a lot more complicated and weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
- lozenge 3y ago
  If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win. The monarch is excluded from environmental law, inheritance tax, heck they can even racially discriminate in hiring. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    > If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win. Aside from the Tories largely being aligned with the idea that you shouldn't be bound by environmental law (see sewage dumping), have to pay inheritance tax (they're considering scrapping it as an election boost), or not discriminate racially (pick whatever policy you want here), the kind of people who support the monarchy also tend to be rabid Tories - exactly the kind of people you don't want to antagonise if you want to stay in power. A Corbyn government might well have gone against the monarchy. I can't see Starmer doing it, though.

ithkuil 3y ago

Speaking of odd monarchies: Andorra is a "Unitary parliamentary diarchic constitutional co principality" The two co-princes are: 1. Bishop of Urgell 2. King of France Since there is no longer a king in France, the role of the second co-prince is taken by whoever is the president of France. In other words the president of France becomes a prince of another state upon election in France. It is an elected monarch but since people in Andorra don't get to vote in France, it's not an elected monarch elected in Andorra. That's quite weird.

mikhailfranco 3y ago
It's not weird. It's a tax haven for the elites. And cheap duty-free ski resort for the wealthy. Do you think Andorra, Monaco, Leichtenstein, ... (even Luxembourg) ... would continue to exist in W. Europe if that were not the case?
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Andorra is uniquely interesting for me because of this weird "co-prince is a an elected president of another country" aspect. I don't think that having that feature is necessary nor brings any advantage for it being a duty-free ski resort and tax haven for the elites. In fact other tax-havens exist which have normal monarchs. Why do you think Andorra is not weird?
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    All Europe was previously 'weird' by today's standards, until big empires invaded everywhere, and drew previously 'weird' places into their states. The strange rules that you claim are 'weird' were the norm until very recently, and the only reason certain exceptions still exist, is because, and only because, they benefit the current elites. The monarchies married off their children to make claim over other countries. Philip II of Spain thought he ruled Britain because he married Bloody Mary, who was the daughter of a Spanish princess. The Habsburgs were an inbred dynasty that ruled various non-contiguous parts of Europe, in a totally 'weird' way, for random reasons (Swiss nationhood is based on rejecting them). Naples and Barcelona were once part of the same 'country'. Spain ruled the Netherlands! The Norman (Scandi Viking) dynasties in Normandy France, and yes in Kiev, and can-you-believe-it Sicily ( Roger of Sicily is so Monty Python )? Andalusia in S. Spain is named after the Vandals from beyond E. Europe, who sacked Rome and also invaded Sicily (who hasn't). The British royal family is mostly German. Even 'Prince Philip of Greece', husband of QE II, was a Prince of Greece, born in recently-British Corfu (who hasn't invaded Corfu?), without a single drop of Greek blood. He was mostly German, with an admixture of Danish and Russian. What about Monaco, and San Marino, and Leichtenstein, the Vatican (ex Papal States), and Konigsburg (all that Knights Templar stuff, Memelland, Kaliningrad and now still preposterously Russian). Belgium literally invented in 1839 Treaty of London, half Flemish, half French, with the bitter pip of Brussels in the middle. [Interestingly, the Treaty of London [1] is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Belgium [2]! Some trolls from the EU have been busy whitewashing history :] Italy only unified in 1861, always 'weird' before that (but still contains San Marino and The Vatican). Germany only unified in 1871, always 'weird' before that, with hundreds of petty states, many non-contiguous. The British royal family is from Hanover, Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. It alienated the US colony and is still in (constitutional) power in the UK. The EU formulated in 1993 (Maastricht) but in its present form only from 2009 (Lisbon) minus UK (2016). A weird mixture of monarchies, democracies and rule by un-elected elites. Let's see how long it lasts... (TBC) The little remaining statelets are only allowed to continue their independence because they benefit the current elites (like Switzerland benefitted the Nazis). If you think Andorra is weird and interesting, it's only because you have not studied enough history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) ... not mentioned in ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium