Question about monarchies and rebuplics.

[Puupi]

In presidential republics, the president is the head of state and government. Eg. USA and France.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

In presidential republics, the president is the head of state and government. Eg. USA and France.

In France it is a bit different, while the President is the head of state and has considerable powers, the head of governement is the Prime Minister, which is the one presenting a government to the President who in turn appoints it. The 5th Republic was designed with the President having the aura of a Monarch, steering the wheel while his subordinate Prime Minister makes it happen and manages the mundane. But in turn it allows for Cohabitation, with the President losing his majority, and having to deal with an opposition Prime Minister and Government (it has become less likely since they cut down term lenght from 7 to 5 years, but is still a possibility).

[Dhrizzle]

I think Queen Elizabeth still gets a dollar/citizen every year, can bestow knighthood, and can get away with a lot more than a president. I can't remember if she can execute people too.

Most of the Queen's income comes from the Crown Estate which is essentially her personal business. The proceeds from the Estate go to the government and a percentage (25%) is given back to pay for her sovereign responsibilities. There's also a lot of fuzzy areas as to what is the Queen's private/personal wealth and where the government funding is maintaining the nation's heritage rather than her personal lifestyle.

Whilst the Queen does bestow knighthoods they are generally selected by the government or civil servants.

In the UK there is no legal way to execute someone, however the monarch is not subject to the law so technically she could kill whoever she wanted, though it would probably cause something of a constitutional crisis.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still confused. When European countries were brutalising their African and Asian colonies.
Was it a Constitutional thing? Or a monarchy thing?

It's weird if Leopold II was just a figurehead back in Belgium. But parliament let him treat the Congo as his personal torture playground.

If "Belgium" was like the UK there would have been a gradual erosion of the monarch's power through legislation and custom. However Congo was pretty much a private enterprise of Leopold's so he was absolute ruler of Congo whilst being the constitutional head of state of Belgium.

[Tuor]

In presidential republics, the president is the head of state and government. Eg. USA and France.

In Republics, the head of state is normally the President, whille in monarchies its the King/Queen.

I live in a semi-Presidentalist systhem, and the head of state is obviously the President, even its the Prime-Minister that runs the country. Nearby Spain the head of state is the King.

[RevolverLynx]

In Republics, the head of state is normally the President, whille in monarchies its the King/Queen.

I live in a semi-Presidentalist systhem, and the head of state is obviously the President, even its the Prime-Minister that runs the country. Nearby Spain the head of state is the King.

And Putin is like a damn modern emperor.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

And Putin is like a damn modern emperor.

I think Czar is the term.

[Endus]

I think Czar is the term.

Which etymologically derives from Caesar, a reference to the Roman Empire. And thus, we're back to emperors.

Same applies to Kaiser, in Germany, FWIW.

[Forogil]

In presidential republics, the president is the head of state and government. Eg. USA and France.

Yes, in the US the president is both.

But isn't Finland a republic with a president, where the head of state is the prime minister?

[ranzino]

Yes, in the US the president is both.

But isn't Finland a republic with a president, where the head of state is the prime minister?

yes, but therefore Suomi is not a "presidential republic"
federal president of germany is also a thing, but chancellor Merkel calls the shots. thus germany is not "presidential republic"

[Waniou]

Most of the Queen's income comes from the Crown Estate which is essentially her personal business. The proceeds from the Estate go to the government and a percentage (25%) is given back to pay for her sovereign responsibilities. There's also a lot of fuzzy areas as to what is the Queen's private/personal wealth and where the government funding is maintaining the nation's heritage rather than her personal lifestyle.

Whilst the Queen does bestow knighthoods they are generally selected by the government or civil servants.

In the UK there is no legal way to execute someone, however the monarch is not subject to the law so technically she could kill whoever she wanted, though it would probably cause something of a constitutional crisis.

It's worth remembering the Queen does still technically have a lot of powers, she just never uses them because she would almost certainly be removed from her position if she did.

These days, her role really is mostly as a figurehead but I believe she does also advise the Prime Minister in some matters because she's pretty smart and experienced so she knows what she's talking about.

In New Zealand, she is still our Queen but our de facto head of state is the Governor General (IIRC currently Dame Patsy Reddy) who is technically appointed by the Queen but is done so on the recommendation of the Prime Minister,so basically the PM chooses someone and it's always someone apolitical for a 6 year (I think) term. but again, is a largely ceremonial role similar to the Queen's where she signs bills into law and opens parliament.

[Forogil]

yes, but therefore Suomi is not a "presidential republic"
federal president of germany is also a thing, but chancellor Merkel calls the shots. thus germany is not "presidential republic"

yeah, but the president is currently mostly ceremonial in both Finland and Germany (some call that parliamentary republic with a ceremonial presidency); and not head of government in France (semi-presidential republic).

[Mihalik]

I'm still confused. When European countries were brutalising their African and Asian colonies.
Was it a Constitutional thing? Or a monarchy thing?

It's weird if Leopold II was just a figurehead back in Belgium. But parliament let him treat the Congo as his personal torture playground.

You're stretching there. The Belgian constitution has underwent roughly a dozen or more revisions, amendments and whatnot since Leopold's rule. While Leopold wasn't an absolute monarch he technically claimed the Congo under the corporation of the crown, rather than the state.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

You'd be hella hard pressed to find an seafaring European (this includes the US) power that hasn't engaged in the mess of atrocities and racist double standards of colonialism.

The US despite of not having a monarch has equally "illustrious" and bloodsoaked colonial history as any other colonial power. Annexations, invasions, corporations instead of monarchs etc. And while Europeans still meddle they sure as shit outgrown their colonial phase compared to us.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Which etymologically derives from Caesar, a reference to the Roman Empire. And thus, we're back to emperors.

Same applies to Kaiser, in Germany, FWIW.

Nothing new to me, Caesar comes from Julius's name, Emperor derives from Imperator, which referred to a victorious general, all of which were titles of the Princeps.

Back to main topic, the only occurence where Head of State and Head of Government are the same, are in Absolute Monarchies, or some Presidential types of government (even France is not one of those).

[RevolverLynx]

Which western monarchies are you referring to?

European, dont think there are any others.

[zealo]

There are no monarchies left in the west where the monarchs wield actual political power. They're all constitutional ones where power firmly rest with elected parliaments.

The other sort still exist in the world, but that's more along the lines of Saudi Arabia, and there's none of those in the west.

[Monster Hunter]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

Yes and no.

Its a bit different as each constitutional monarchy evolved on its own so depends which state your on about.

In the UK legaly the Queen is the Head of state and the Head of the armed forces, in practise by convention she is politicaly neutral and serves in an advisory role to government, abides the wishes of Parliament whilst maintaining the legal means to pull the plug on democracy and reset it if something cataclysmic went wrong, Thats her offical capacity and function any way.

Ultimately its all about deviding power so that no single individual democratically elected or not can have all of it, most republics have there president in similar capacitys as a constitutional monarch, a figure Head, head of state but not the governor of state, with enough powers to police the democracy if needed if it starts to stray, the only real difference is a monarch is for life and a president for terms both have pros and cons.

The usa is different from both though and shouldn't ever be seen as a good example of a republic or democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no monarchies left in the west where the monarchs wield actual political power. They're all constitutional ones where power firmly rest with elected parliaments.

The other sort still exist in the world, but that's more along the lines of Saudi Arabia, and there's none of those in the west.

Eh, depends. Legaly speaking my Queen can if she wanted to, but she dosnt because its convention.

Legally speaking she could sack Boris jhonson tomorrow, make me a lord peer, askgn me to the house of Lords and make me priminister of the UK if she woke up and felt like it, there all powers she legaly has, in reality that won't ever happen.

[zealo]

Eh, depends. Legaly speaking my Queen can if she wanted to, but she dosnt because its convention.

Legally speaking she could sack Boris jhonson tomorrow, make me a lord peer, askgn me to the house of Lords and make me priminister of the UK if she woke up and felt like it, there all powers she legaly has, in reality that won't ever happen.

If she did that, it wouldn't be long until the UK turned into a pure republic afterwards.

While on paper it may still be there, de facto power rests with Parliament. There's a stark difference between that, and e.g the Saudi King.

[freezion]

Be more specific please. As far as I’m aware there are only 2 in which the monarch is more than a figurehead. And both of those it’s just due to political influence and not their absolute right to rule.

There's no ''true'' monarchies in the EU anymore.
They're all parliamentary constitutional monarchies.
In most of those countries, the royal families have political power/ per the constitution, but do not practice it.
For example in Denmark, all new legislation needs to be approved and signed by the queen/king before it can be implemented, and despite that the queen in theory could refuse, its just getting signed as a pro forma.

[ranzino]

Which makes this thread pointless.

i wonder who the 2nd true monarch is, the other one is the pope. being vicar of christ he rules absolute and ex cathedra.

[Monster Hunter]

If she did that, it wouldn't be long until the UK turned into a pure republic afterwards.

While on paper it may still be there, de facto power rests with Parliament. There's a stark difference between that, and e.g the Saudi King.

It depends entirely on why she uses the power and her level of public support.

The last time a monarch in the UK used there veto in the UK it was to prevent there being a law passed that required some one to have a certain level of wealth to be eligible to be an MP.

There's a fundamental difference between stepping in on a government exciting the will of the people, and stepping in on a government thats over stepping its remit.

Not long ago it came out that Prince George was advising the government to push greener energy policy's, the press tried to make it a big deal, the republicans tried to make it a big deal, ultimately that got slapped back in there box because 1. Support for the monarchy is extremely strong and 2. It was good a right advise in the peoples eyes.

Its a balancing game, the queen has that kind of power, she can use that kind of power and because she can it is both convention that she dosnt and parliament never puts a bill in front of the monarch that would make them moral question passing that bill. And thus the convention exists to prevent the possibility of extream governments of either wing.