Timeline for Is it plausible for a monarch to retain some real powers in a democracy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2019 at 5:02 | history | edited | Cyn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 1, 2019 at 0:54 | answer | added | Ray Butterworth | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 30, 2019 at 22:47 | comment | added | The Nate | en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Norway | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:45 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @Voo In Australia some decades back the Governor General, acting for the Queen (his power being based on her authority) dismissed the then PM. This produced a constitutional crisis but was deemed a legitimate act. | GG=Kerr. PM = Whitlam Garglabet search and Wikipedia article | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 18:55 | answer | added | M. A. Golding | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 17:32 | comment | added | errantlinguist | Interestingly enough, looking the other way around, there have been a number of Polish monarchs who were elected -- not in truly popular elections as we know them today, but they were elected nonetheless. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 11:53 | comment | added | Jiguna | @Mołot Not in practice. I want monarch to assign their own defense and foreign secretaries without any consultation with the elected cabinet. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 21:31 | comment | added | vsz | Don't forget about soft power. Even without explicit political powers, one can have influence as a celebrity, in shaping opinion, even just by being a figurehead. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 21:02 | answer | added | Radovan Garabík | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 19:30 | comment | added | Voo | @Russel The way I see it, the queen has looots of powers in theory, but very little in practice. Can you name any particular influential actions by the queen in the last decades or so? I mean even mostly ornamental positions can still sway the public opinion, but so do lots of other people - that's not specific to the crown. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 15:58 | comment | added | emory | @JoeBloggs it seems the opposite of Qadaffi - who officially was just a retired colonel and not part of the government - but in practice was the dictator. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 12:44 | answer | added | Haakon Løtveit | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 11:54 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | Liechtenstein would be the obvious example that works like this at present. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you, The Queen | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 11:30 | answer | added | Russell McMahon | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 11:23 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | I live on the leading edge of the empire (first to see the sun) - and disagree with Martin. While the Queen may in theory have little political power, the difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory. The Queen's [tm] power lies in presumed steel fist in many many layers of ve;vet glove, to the extent that while everyone "knows" that the steel fist is not actually there, in practice it is (even though it's not, even ...). | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 9:42 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | @Mołot The Queen has influence, but she has very little practical political power. She has essentially no economic power; she is only about a demi-billionaire (and wikipedia lists about 50 British billionaires). FWIW, I'm a British citizen. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 8:26 | answer | added | Kaotis | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 8:10 | answer | added | Clearer | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | emory | There is such a thing as an elected monarch. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 18:49 | answer | added | RonJohn | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 18:08 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 17:15 | comment | added | Len | A) I think you should reconsider the UK ceremonial system. And B) If the Monarch is agreeable in giving up some powers, the incoming political system could be agreeable in letting them retain some of their powers. If the exchange of power was amicable on both sides I don't see why they couldn't come to an agreement. All parties involved could agree that there's a good reason to make it so. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 17:10 | answer | added | Hegolin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 16:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 22, 2018 at 17:50 | |||||
| Jan 22, 2018 at 16:10 | comment | added | Mołot | "The UK's ceremonial system doesn't work for me." - please specify why. Queen is a real political and economical power there. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 14:06 | answer | added | JCCyC | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 12:41 | comment | added | Secespitus | Welcome to WorldBuilding Jiguna! It's recommended to wait at least 24 hours before accepting an answer to give everyone around the globe a change to have a look at your question and the answers. Sometimes there are discussions that could change your look on certain answers. Some people may be discouraged from interacting with your question if they think you already found your solution. You can accept/unaccept as often as you like. Of course it's completely your decision whether you want to accept something and if so what and when. Just a tip for the future. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 12:05 | vote | accept | Jiguna | ||
| Jan 22, 2018 at 12:02 | answer | added | Geronimo | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:59 | comment | added | Euphoric | Obligatory Seriously. This should be auto-commented under every question that tries to discuss politics. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:57 | answer | added | Ville Niemi | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:39 | answer | added | kingledion | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:37 | answer | added | Separatrix | timeline score: 36 | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:29 | comment | added | AlexP | Why does the name of the position matter? The presidents of France, Russia and the U.S.A. command both defense and foreign policy, and, in the last decade, seem to be able to make war and peace. France, Russia and the U.S.A. have strong presidential systems which you may very well call "elective monarchies". The only differences between a French, or Russian, or American president and a king are the name of the position and the duration of their reign. Mr. Putin seems to be eternal; and until recently the French president was elected for 7 years with the possibility of re-election... | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:24 | comment | added | Joe Bloggs | Fun thing about the English system is that hypothetically the Queen has all the power, as long as she agrees not to use it in any way except that directed by Parliament. This offers a nice little quirk where if the populace overthrows the government the Queen can step in and organise a new one without any real changes in the constitutional monarchy. Assuming the monarchy survives the (extremely) civil war. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 11:16 | comment | added | Raditz_35 | Of course, multiple examples from history. If you don't like the English system (which wasn't a constant in history btw), check out Germany before WW1 for example. But there are many, many more examples to choose from. Maybe you should start by asking such a question over on history SE. I'm not saying it doesn't fit, but over there are more experts. Here you find more people with some (degree of) general knowledge that are good at googling, maybe not what you are looking for | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 10:59 | history | asked | Jiguna | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
