301–310 of 599 posts
The series theme may come across as bland when compared gems like the wire & breaking bad... but the theme of duty, especially in these times, is uniquely powerful, and production values are worthy of any top series on tv.
For a nonUK viewer, it is hugely instructional. I enjoyed the show immensely
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?
You need "grounds" to remove a monarch?! What are their grounds for the power they currently wield??
The grounds for the power they currently wield is that it’s the law.
I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy.
I can even see hints of that in this thread applied to the UK, but I’m assuming those are Americans.
It makes me curious as a British Scholar would you call the government a Constitutional Monarch? Do you find it commonly referred to as a democratic monarchy or just a democracy consistent with what I tend to see in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?
Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?
I’m talking about what legal process is used, and what grounds are given for that process.
I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
There is a common phrase bandied about: “Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others.” It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy. I can even see hints of…
It is a silly semantic debate. If you define "democracy" narrowly to mean only direct democracy, then no the US isn't a democracy. If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies with constitutionally entrenched protection of minority rights, then yes the US is a democracy, as are quite a few others.
Whether a country is a republic or a constitutional monarchy is rather orthogonal. You can have a representative democracy with constitutionally entrenched protections of minority rights, and with that you can either have a mostly ceremonial constitutional monarch, or a President. The later is a republic, the former is not.
I think the UK does fall short somewhat, in lacking a codified constitution, there is really no such thing as entrenched rights – other countries without an entrenched constitution include Israel and New Zealand. Then you also have countries like Australia, which does have an entrenched written constitution, but the rights protected by the Australian constitution are rather limited – protection against religious discrimination and the implied right of political free speech. But "democracy" vs "constitutional republic" isn't a good way of capturing those deficiencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 40% of the public expresses authoritarian personality traits. From Wikipedia[1]: > The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
This is so wrong that it's basically offensive. Considerably more so-called progressive folks (and others) put their faith in US Presidents they favour, than do subjects of most Monarchs, let alone the UK Monarch. The level of demagoguery I witnessed around 2008 and 2016 in the US was ridiculous, people were spellbound as if their leaders were Disney characters brought to life. Most Democratic Heads of State are elec…
First, I am sorry that you're offended by a statistical figure.
Second, the figure was from research that was done in my grandparents' era, about three quarters of a century ago. About 40% of Americans displayed authoritarian personality traits.
Any assumptions you've made are merely coincidental. Have a nice day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.
That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
There is a common phrase bandied about: “Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others.” It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy. I can even see hints of…
Perhaps because this is both pedantic and wrong? A state can be both a democracy and a republic, and many are, such as the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of the British constitution is specified in the legislature. It isn’t precedent that determines who the next monarch is, or how frequently there are elections. Though there are indeed conventions like the way the House of Lords must treat budget bills.
Do you not have maximum time between election? We have that in Canada.