Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 21st, 2017, 07:09 AM   #51
Dilettante
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,398

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
while it is correct that the masses elect the members of the Parliament by way of the popular vote known as the House of Commons, the House of Peers or the upper house is the legislative body that comprises the British Parliament that is exclusively constituted by the members of the Monarchs lineage.
You might be a little bit incorrect here.
GogLais is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 21st, 2017, 07:26 AM   #52

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,687

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post

The existence of the House of Lords, is what made it a distinct Constitutional Monarchy because while it is correct that the masses elect the members of the Parliament by way of the popular vote known as the House of Commons, the House of Peers or the upper house is the legislative body that comprises the British Parliament that is exclusively constituted by the members of the Monarchs lineage. That makes it a distinctive character of British democracy, which really fails to make it to the definition of a republic.

.
The HoL has never been populated by members of the Monarch's lineage as a recognisable House of Lords with the right to sit based on summons, as opposed to a council emerged in 1350, so you are just over 650 years out of date.
In fact no member of the "monarch's lineage" apart from distant cousins has sat there since 1838, Law Lords and Bishops without an hereditary title have been raised since 1876 and Life Peers who hold a non-hereditary title have sat since 1958. The number of Life peers about matched that of hereditary titles by 1999 when the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House was removed apart from a small number of "working peers".
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 08:18 AM   #53
Dilettante
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,398

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
The HoL has never been populated by members of the Monarch's lineage as a recognisable House of Lords with the right to sit based on summons, as opposed to a council emerged in 1350, so you are just over 650 years out of date.
In fact no member of the "monarch's lineage" apart from distant cousins has sat there since 1838, Law Lords and Bishops without an hereditary title have been raised since 1876 and Life Peers who hold a non-hereditary title have sat since 1958. The number of Life peers about matched that of hereditary titles by 1999 when the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House was removed apart from a small number of "working peers".
I was too lazy to type it all out for him. As far as I'm concerned the HoL is an embarrassing shambles, however well it might sometimes do its job. But that's for another thread.
GogLais is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 08:52 AM   #54
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by GogLais View Post
You might be a little bit incorrect here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
The HoL has never been populated by members of the Monarch's lineage as a recognisable House of Lords with the right to sit based on summons, as opposed to a council emerged in 1350, so you are just over 650 years out of date.
In fact no member of the "monarch's lineage" apart from distant cousins has sat there since 1838, Law Lords and Bishops without an hereditary title have been raised since 1876 and Life Peers who hold a non-hereditary title have sat since 1958. The number of Life peers about matched that of hereditary titles by 1999 when the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House was removed apart from a small number of "working peers".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GogLais View Post
I was too lazy to type it all out for him. As far as I'm concerned the HoL is an embarrassing shambles, however well it might sometimes do its job. But that's for another thread.
Gentlemen, I must accept of my ineptness of the particulars of the House of Lords, but while it is correct that there might be non hereditary heirs, but, it is still Constitutional Monarchy in view of participation of the monarchs in the British politics.
dagul is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 10:25 AM   #55
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,923

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Gentlemen, I must accept of my ineptness of the particulars of the House of Lords, but while it is correct that there might be non hereditary heirs, but, it is still Constitutional Monarchy in view of participation of the monarchs in the British politics.
The styling of a country's government is largely left to the country itself for official purposes. North Korea styles itself as "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". That's how it's recognized in the UN. In fact it operates like an absolute monarchy. Generally countries are styled by the titles of the head of state, regardless of the actual authority the head of state has in governance. Japan is styled as an Empire because the head of state is the Emperor. The Emperor has no clothes (no actual or reserve power whatsoever). Executive power is constitutionally vested in the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Both the UK and Germany have parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state. When want to do business with these countries, you talk to the Prime Minister or Chancellor although you might have a courtesy visit with the Queen or President. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and Germany is a federal republic.

Last edited by stevev; May 21st, 2017 at 10:38 AM.
stevev is online now  
Old May 21st, 2017, 01:43 PM   #56
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,599

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
...since the monarch is not the one who rule Britain from the moment the Parliament was created then the monarchs are no longer the ones who govern...
This is not quite true

The English/British monarchs DID rule Britain for a long time after the first parliament was created. Gradually their powers were ceded to Parliament though and today the British monarch does not rule...though she technically has powers greater that the POTUS has in the USA.


Quote:
...today, the US is a democratic nation and a republic like Britain because their respective governments are the affairs of the people. Read the definition.

I am not arguing which one is better. I am presenting to you the correct meaning of republic.
Yes the USA is a democratic country and yes it is a republic.

The UK is also democratic but it is not a republic because it has a head of state who gets his/her power by right of birth.

In Ireland they also have a parliamentary democracy and an Apolitical president who is elected. That makes Ireland a republic.
Poly is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 01:49 PM   #57
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,599

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
...the existence of the House of Lords, is what made it a distinct Constitutional Monarchy because while it is correct that the masses elect the members of the Parliament by way of the popular vote known as the House of Commons, the House of Peers or the upper house is the legislative body that comprises the British Parliament that is exclusively constituted by the members of the Monarchs lineage. That makes it a distinctive character of British democracy, which really fails to make it to the definition of a republic...
The House of Lords is indeed a feature that makes the British democracy unique in the world and it is not something most British people are comfortable with.

Those peers that get their place in the Lords by birthright are being removed for elected members. But elected on what basis ?

Lords are also "made" by governments...when they receive their "life peerage" they choose to be a Labour or Conservative (or something else) peer.

The whole system stinks.

The House of Lords was viewed as a check on the power of the House of Commons...is democracy safe in a legislature of a single house ?
Big question that so far no party has been able to answer.

The only really acceptable way forward is to devolve power and create a federal political structure in the UK.
Poly is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 05:54 PM   #58

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,687

Here's the bottom line:- Britain's Constitutional Monarchy has worked with hardly a glitch since 1688. Britain and the UK has been largely free of civil wars, government crises, uprisings, civil unrest and heads of state and heads of government have not had to be dragged into court during or after their tenure (although some may have deserved to be).
Republics, Federations, Confederations and absolutist states tend to rip themselves apart periodically----so all-in-all, a proven system that has so far proven, at least, the least worst system.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 06:22 PM   #59
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

^yes, you don't fix anything that is not broken. It is among the most stable democracies in the world.
dagul is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 07:06 PM   #60
Academician
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 94

The UK, Canada, Australia and USA from a sort of continuum from one system to the other. Australia is often termed top have a "Washminster" form of government.
Australia has....
Monarch with a Governor-General as rep.
Written Constitution, with High Court to interpret if federal laws are constitutional.
2 almost co-equal houses of Parliament. GG has some written and some reserve powers from the crown and probably has greater power then the monarch now does in the UK)
House of Reps where PM is elected by party/or coalition of parties with majority with speaker. ( We have also can have minority government with a minimum of committed support for confidence and supply motions from non government MP's.)
Senate with equal reps from each state that can initiate, block or modify legislation.
A means for breaking deadlock between the houses called Double Dissolution, where if Senate blocks H of R legislation under certain strict conditions, the government can request from GG, a fresh election of both houses. The blocked legislation (and only the stuff from that has gone through the formal rules and submitted to the GG) can be submitted to a joint sitting of both houses where they vote altogether, the H of R numbers are kept by the constitution at around twice that of the senate.

One difference is that only enumerated rights were passed to the Federal Government, all other rights in theory have remained with states except what they voluntarily pass to the feds however the High Court has passed some rights to the feds as well. Each state has a separate governor appointed directly by the Queen on the advice of their state premier. In some ways each state is in some sense a monarchy as well.
AnthonyB is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
britain, republic, united



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why did Outer Mongolia not reunite with Inner Mongolia to form a united republic greatstreetwarrior Asian History 140 October 23rd, 2015 08:10 PM
Question: why dident the united arab republic last? Evilspider Middle Eastern and African History 3 February 2nd, 2014 12:11 PM
Treaty of Cession between the United States and the French Republic CathareHeretic American History 1 July 28th, 2013 01:03 PM
Entente Cordiale United Kingdom and French third Républic CathareHeretic European History 5 March 6th, 2013 05:41 AM
What if the United Arab Republic had succeeded? Panthera tigris altaica Speculative History 16 June 2nd, 2012 01:05 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.