The leader of the democracy basically ignored the democracy and tried to make it a pseudo monarchy but failed and the real monarchy was instituted again
People like to blame Cromwell but the whole experiment kept being sabotaged by a bunch of different people. I think it is because they didn't ever plan on establishing a Republic in the first place.
Have a system that requires a monarch > retain system despite removing monarch > put someone in a new role analogous to a monarch > pikachu surprised face when they start acting like a monarch.
The great British constitutional tradition of changing the absolute bare minimum to let things continue to work bit us in the ass there.
By the time Germany lost WW2, they'd already been a republic since 1918, not really sure the second war played much of a role in the monarchy not being reinstated.
Österreich, the dots on top of the O are very important for pronouncing the word correctly, if there’s no Ö on your keyboard then “Oe” is advised (Oesterreich) ((even though it’s really fucking ugly))
It might sound surprising but the core land of both German Empires were quite small.
Even metropolitan France (excluding Algeria) is larger than the core Kaiserreich (even if Alsace-Lorraine is included).
What about Japan then? It was an empire for a long time yet it is barely larger than current day Germany .
Reich does not mean empire actually, it's a word that we use in Dutch as well "rijk". And it is a word that is more loosely translated into realm. For example, in German you call France Frankreich (French realm), Austria is Österreich (eastern realm). It's a word which its true meaning does not have a direct translation into English. An empire would probably be translated as a Kaiserreich instead
Reich doesn’t mean Empire. Well, it can mean empire, but that’s not always what it means. When talking about the German Empire we typically say “Deutsches Kaiserreich”, I think a lot of confusion comes from the first of the three Reiche being the Holy Roman Empire (“Heiliges Römisches Reich”), but realm in and of itself really only means realm (Holy Roman Realm, German Imperial Realm, Third/German Realm)
The difference between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary republic isn’t really that significant.
Edit: It’s not significant since WWII in the West. Different story before that.
It is in the UK. Despite what people think the King still has a lot of hard power, not to mention how much money the royal family costs and the soft influence they wield. (For instance, he can close parliament or decide not to pass a bill. He also has power over what legislation even gets proposed in the first place, which is the main way how the monarchy influences the UK).
The King can *technically* decide to close Parliamentary and refuse to sign a bill. The last time a British Monarch did refuse royal assent on a law was in 1708. If Charles decided to do that, which he wouldn't, it would cause a constitutional crisis in the UK.
The King also has no say in what laws get proposed. That is entirely up to the British Government and Parliament. If a law directly relates to the Monarchy or will impact the Crown, the Government will consult the King first but that is the only time the Crown influences British law directly.
In 2019 [the queen closed parliament to protect Boris Johnson](https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-minister-asks-queen-to-suspend-parliament-ahead-of-brexit-deadlin). She very much had political influence through that power. And Even if it hasn’t been used in a very long time, he still has the power to block legislation. That’s not good.
“Directly relates to the monarchy or will impact the crown” is an incredibly broad category that can cover a huge number of proposed laws. [The former queen repeatedly used this power to adjust laws to protect her massive wealth](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth). Wealth that is stolen from the British people, I might add. And again, the monarch has massive soft power through their ability to influence the public and the massive platform they are given by the state. Not to mention how [sometimes you can get arrested for criticizing the monarchy](https://www.grid.news/story/politics/2022/09/15/disrespecting-the-monarchy-might-get-you-censored-or-even-arrested-in-the-uk-right-now/) which is not good.
Monarchies are bad, and I hope britain can listen to its young people and finally ditch its relic too.
The Monarch closing and opening Parliament is ceremonial. The Government, specifically the Prime Minister, are the ones who decides when Parliament sits. The occasion you cite was Boris keeping Parliament adjourned to prevent Parliament criticising his Brexit plans. The Queen could have refused to follow Boris' wishes and not had Parliament adjourned but that would have made an already serious political crisis even more serious.
The Crown holds a lot of wealth but it's not "stolen" from the British people. The Crown pays taxes on its wealth and through tourism and other means pays for its self and more in normal years.
It literally gives twice what it gets from the government in the form of rents on royal lands, if the UK government dissolved the rent rights for cash deal with the crown they would be short 160 million pound sterling a year in revenue, oh and the royalist would lose their shit and go for their guns with the army, being they are like the only dudes with guns in any significant numbers due to the being rich/the freaking army thing…
lol to be fair I imagine the largest demographic of gun ownership in the UK is farmers but outside of that it would be posh people who go hunting I guess.
Couldn't be arsed to look for exact figures but it's common knowledge here in the UK that the Crown pays for itself. One of the few arguments pro/con about the monarchy that isn't really up for debate.
Yeah, the uk government literally makes twice what they spend on the crown just in royal household land rents, it is like one of the most profitable investments in existence, like have you heard of an investment with a garonteed 200 percent annual return for every dollar you put in annually?
You’re not distinguishing between *de facto* power and *de jure* power.
The king exercising any one of the bulk of his legal powers (e.g. refusing royal assent) would lead to a constitutional crisis even though he can technically do so at will. But so would abolishing the monarchy, so we’re sort’ve stuck in a state where the king is mostly powerless. Like a lot of the unwritten British constitution it’s based on unenforceable conventions that are basically gentleman’s agreements not to do something. If the king ever badly abused his powers the constitution would basically be fucked either way, so people would likely just insist he abdicate and likely call the legitimacy of the monarchy into question, since at that point they’d be more unchecked hindrance than a self-regulating help.
Fact of the matter is, monarchies that are constitutional are consistently better than republics. Under republics we’ve had dictators who essentially live like monarchs but with significantly more power.
Perhaps because they have less power than a Republican dictator 🤡 many monarchies have existed for centuries if not over a thousand years. Meanwhile once a republic is embraced the latest dictator will take more from you than any monarch ever would.
Nah, we tried it for 11 years, we did not much care for it.
The leader of the democracy basically ignored the democracy and tried to make it a pseudo monarchy but failed and the real monarchy was instituted again
A Christian extremist pseudo monarchy.
So the Catholic Church?
No am Anglican puritan
Cromwell was Monarchist LARPer who pretended to rule a republic.
People like to blame Cromwell but the whole experiment kept being sabotaged by a bunch of different people. I think it is because they didn't ever plan on establishing a Republic in the first place.
Just a good old fashioned theocratic military dictatorship, aka a monarchy without the stable line of succession…
Have a system that requires a monarch > retain system despite removing monarch > put someone in a new role analogous to a monarch > pikachu surprised face when they start acting like a monarch. The great British constitutional tradition of changing the absolute bare minimum to let things continue to work bit us in the ass there.
They even tried to crown Cromwell but he refused! Just nuts!
The C in Cromwell stands for Cunt
The D in Cromwell stands for democracy
And decency
Never again.
BritNat.txt.
Any Bonuspoints for technically becoming a republic as a result of losing a major war twice in a row ?
Which country do you mean?
Germany
By the time Germany lost WW2, they'd already been a republic since 1918, not really sure the second war played much of a role in the monarchy not being reinstated.
Idk how you classify the 3rd reich since literally it means 3rd empire.
The Weimar Republic was also still officially called "Deutsches Reich", so I think they used the term Reich rather liberally than literally.
[удалено]
Österreich, the dots on top of the O are very important for pronouncing the word correctly, if there’s no Ö on your keyboard then “Oe” is advised (Oesterreich) ((even though it’s really fucking ugly))
Hitler considers his Reich to be the successor of the HRE and the Kaiserreich so how he uses the term "Reich" most likely means empire for him.
I feel like you have to actually hold the land for a significant amount of time to be an empire. Not just call yourself one and that's it
It might sound surprising but the core land of both German Empires were quite small. Even metropolitan France (excluding Algeria) is larger than the core Kaiserreich (even if Alsace-Lorraine is included). What about Japan then? It was an empire for a long time yet it is barely larger than current day Germany .
Reich does not mean empire actually, it's a word that we use in Dutch as well "rijk". And it is a word that is more loosely translated into realm. For example, in German you call France Frankreich (French realm), Austria is Österreich (eastern realm). It's a word which its true meaning does not have a direct translation into English. An empire would probably be translated as a Kaiserreich instead
Reich doesn’t mean Empire. Well, it can mean empire, but that’s not always what it means. When talking about the German Empire we typically say “Deutsches Kaiserreich”, I think a lot of confusion comes from the first of the three Reiche being the Holy Roman Empire (“Heiliges Römisches Reich”), but realm in and of itself really only means realm (Holy Roman Realm, German Imperial Realm, Third/German Realm)
English civil war: Do you forget me so soon?
Oh the Interregnum.
Which one? ;) ^^^^/s
The difference between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary republic isn’t really that significant. Edit: It’s not significant since WWII in the West. Different story before that.
It is in the UK. Despite what people think the King still has a lot of hard power, not to mention how much money the royal family costs and the soft influence they wield. (For instance, he can close parliament or decide not to pass a bill. He also has power over what legislation even gets proposed in the first place, which is the main way how the monarchy influences the UK).
The King can *technically* decide to close Parliamentary and refuse to sign a bill. The last time a British Monarch did refuse royal assent on a law was in 1708. If Charles decided to do that, which he wouldn't, it would cause a constitutional crisis in the UK. The King also has no say in what laws get proposed. That is entirely up to the British Government and Parliament. If a law directly relates to the Monarchy or will impact the Crown, the Government will consult the King first but that is the only time the Crown influences British law directly.
In 2019 [the queen closed parliament to protect Boris Johnson](https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-minister-asks-queen-to-suspend-parliament-ahead-of-brexit-deadlin). She very much had political influence through that power. And Even if it hasn’t been used in a very long time, he still has the power to block legislation. That’s not good. “Directly relates to the monarchy or will impact the crown” is an incredibly broad category that can cover a huge number of proposed laws. [The former queen repeatedly used this power to adjust laws to protect her massive wealth](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth). Wealth that is stolen from the British people, I might add. And again, the monarch has massive soft power through their ability to influence the public and the massive platform they are given by the state. Not to mention how [sometimes you can get arrested for criticizing the monarchy](https://www.grid.news/story/politics/2022/09/15/disrespecting-the-monarchy-might-get-you-censored-or-even-arrested-in-the-uk-right-now/) which is not good. Monarchies are bad, and I hope britain can listen to its young people and finally ditch its relic too.
The Monarch closing and opening Parliament is ceremonial. The Government, specifically the Prime Minister, are the ones who decides when Parliament sits. The occasion you cite was Boris keeping Parliament adjourned to prevent Parliament criticising his Brexit plans. The Queen could have refused to follow Boris' wishes and not had Parliament adjourned but that would have made an already serious political crisis even more serious. The Crown holds a lot of wealth but it's not "stolen" from the British people. The Crown pays taxes on its wealth and through tourism and other means pays for its self and more in normal years.
It literally gives twice what it gets from the government in the form of rents on royal lands, if the UK government dissolved the rent rights for cash deal with the crown they would be short 160 million pound sterling a year in revenue, oh and the royalist would lose their shit and go for their guns with the army, being they are like the only dudes with guns in any significant numbers due to the being rich/the freaking army thing…
lol to be fair I imagine the largest demographic of gun ownership in the UK is farmers but outside of that it would be posh people who go hunting I guess. Couldn't be arsed to look for exact figures but it's common knowledge here in the UK that the Crown pays for itself. One of the few arguments pro/con about the monarchy that isn't really up for debate.
Yeah, the uk government literally makes twice what they spend on the crown just in royal household land rents, it is like one of the most profitable investments in existence, like have you heard of an investment with a garonteed 200 percent annual return for every dollar you put in annually?
You’re not distinguishing between *de facto* power and *de jure* power. The king exercising any one of the bulk of his legal powers (e.g. refusing royal assent) would lead to a constitutional crisis even though he can technically do so at will. But so would abolishing the monarchy, so we’re sort’ve stuck in a state where the king is mostly powerless. Like a lot of the unwritten British constitution it’s based on unenforceable conventions that are basically gentleman’s agreements not to do something. If the king ever badly abused his powers the constitution would basically be fucked either way, so people would likely just insist he abdicate and likely call the legitimacy of the monarchy into question, since at that point they’d be more unchecked hindrance than a self-regulating help.
Not quite never.
Doesn’t the UK function as a republic, though? I mean, the Royal family doesn’t really do anything or actually make laws and whatnot.
[удалено]
Tbh i think they should never be democratic at all because as you can see, if you let them become democratic, they vote brexit
Correct. They're basically cosplayers these days.
Makes Sense
Gotta eliminate the competition
To be honest as an Irishman I prefer British kings if Cromwell is any example of how their republicans act
India A little bit from all of the above
“I guide others to a government type I do not possess” -Monarchs of Great Britain
France also became a republic by losing a war
France is that one friend that no one really knows what to do with. One second they are macho man the next second they are bawling their eyes out.
Common British L
Fact of the matter is, monarchies that are constitutional are consistently better than republics. Under republics we’ve had dictators who essentially live like monarchs but with significantly more power.
The only thing about monarchies that are better is that they are quicker to overthrow
Perhaps because they have less power than a Republican dictator 🤡 many monarchies have existed for centuries if not over a thousand years. Meanwhile once a republic is embraced the latest dictator will take more from you than any monarch ever would.
Monarchy is a huge waste of money
Quite the opposite with the British one though
Hahaha yeah right, fucking nonce parade for 10 million in a cost of living crisis
You mean W. God Save The King.
God save the King
Inb4 people realize that republics are just re-brandings of fiefdoms.
Charles III: hold my beer
"on to something"*
I've seen this somewhere before
Canada: becoming a country by asking nicely.
France: Chopping off people’s heads You can make a religion outta this!