I am thinking about scenario where suddenly some kind of crisis emerges and king/queen of the Spain/Sweden/UK/Netherlands etc need to rise up and take administration in their hands for short time being like probably an year.
Does they have specific kind of skill set or internal inhouse training to actually rule not just being a rubber stamp ?
Requirements:
- Semi-constitutional monarchy
- Monarch must hold substantial power, equivalent to that of an executive role rather than a ceremonial role, or more (Basically, an extremely powerful monarch that exists with a constitution and a senate/parliament, but is not ceremonial, the monarch is not ceremonial nor does he rule with absolute power in the way that monarchs like Louis XIV did
- Can be historical, or can be in the modern world
- Despite it being semi-constitutional, it shouldn't be considered TOO democratic
Only asking because media has been concerned about her health deteriorating.
https://preview.redd.it/huffakhe32581.jpg?width=410&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a53f10681616c0f2b543d165bc1ee8181a946568
Hello there. It’s unfortunate to see nowadays monarchs are nothing more than just royal figurines. amongst the existing constitutional monarchies, which ones have actually influential Monarchs? And among those which ones have good governing skills? Appreciate your opinions
Looked around in the game files if I could find a way to get tsar stalin in as leader of russia, but while looking I found a hidden focus for constitutional monarchy in russia, but I dont know how to get it. any ideas? I also found that doing the focuses for either facist or tsarist will remove and idea called "uncertain counter-revolution" which I dont see any way of getting, no references to it in the events file, and all it does is give you -5% stability, I wonder if it is something needed for the constitutional monarchy where you first have a democratic counter revolution. I am currently thinking that this is just cut content.
Uncertain counter revolution idea
Title says it all. Trying to consolidate my collection into 10oz bars. And, yes, I haven spoken with Jaysilverbull, and he has given me permission to post. They are truly beautiful bars! Simply looking to add 2 more 10oz sunshine bars. Only one trade please, seeing as it is an odd number of oz’s, hence the constitutional. Mercuries, pre 65 quarters etc…not picky. Shoot me a pm if interested!
https://imgur.com/a/tYuHMC8/
Will ship Saturday/Monday SFRB. Just had knee surgery so getting around is a little slow at the moment.
Would the share the White House with the President/Prime Minister/Whatever? Or would it be somewhere new?
I come from Barbados, a current constitutional monarchy that intends to become a republic. A good few months ago, this news (expectedly) seemed to elicit a negative reaction in this sub.
But I wonder, what exact benefit is having a monarch, especially a foreign one supposed to give? She has no influence in our day to day life, nor do we want her to, and opinion of her and her family seems to be overwhelmingly neutral at best and negative at worst (given her family ancestry and state had a heavy hand in the suffering of many of our ancestors). Not to mention the implications of having a foreigner as the highest official authority in the land.
So with all that, what purpose does keeping her serve? I am genuinely curious.
Hi, I’m u/mrocks301 and I an running for governor of the great state of Florida to prevent a monarchist from taking power in this country. Everyone on the left and the right should be united in the understanding of how dangerous this would be. We cannot let Florida be the next Arizona. Please join me in the next election to fight back against authoritarianism. AMA about my platform in the comments, I’ll answer every question.
Let's say the US decides to have a constitutional monarch, akin to Britain's, picked from former presidents. The monarch basically has no power other than being cool. Everything else, including the presidency, remains exactly the same. Who should be the monarch?
Can only make changes after 1945!
Nicholas II rejected any ideas of constitutional monarchy in Russia until after the 1905 Revolution and the adoption of a constitution in 1906, but even then he did his best to maintain as much personal power as possible. Sultan Abdulhamid II revoked the Ottoman constitution and parliament established in 1876. Kaiser Wilhelm II, while nominally a constitutional monarch, still wielded considerable power over the German Empire and (at least to my understanding) he was blamed for being personally responsible for starting the war. Why did they all reject a constitutional system more like the British monarchy's, despite obvious growing support for one? Or is it more complicated than that? It seems to me that under a constitutional system, they'd still enjoy all the perks and priveleges of being royalty without having to deal with the messy business of playing politics and appeasing supporters in government.
The Napoleonic Wars stoked the fires of revolution so much that even after Napoleon's demise the revolutionary fervor did not die out, it only subsided temporarily.
Hence many states transformed from absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies during the 19th century to appease the populace, especially during the first half of the 19th century and especially during the 1848/49 revolutions. Though some countries managed to revert the changes induced by those revolutions thereafter.
-
What did a constitutional monarchy in the 19th century commonly look like? What powers did the monarch commonly still hold? What powers were now newly limited by the constitution and how? What powers were now in the hands of a parliament or appointed government?
-
Did all constitutional monarchies even have parliaments? Or could a constitutional monarchy also work by just having a constitution, no parliament, and only that constitution limiting the powers of the monarch?
-
How would constitutional monarchs commonly (ab-)use the power that they still had left to influence policy to a great(er) effect like in the days of absolute monarchy, despite the newly imposed limitations? Real examples would be cool!
If the question is too broad for you (e.g. I am asking about how constitutional monarchies commonly looked like during the era, not a specific country), then here are some countries/regions I am particularly interested in in knowing how their constitutional monarchy worked in relation to the questions above:
- States of the German Confederation/German Empire (doesn't have to be Prussia or Austria)
- States of Italy before the unification/Italy after the unification
- Japanese Empire after the Meiji Restoration
- Brazillian Empire
- Any states not commonly talked about on this subreddit or in historical discussions in general
But any other countries you have knowledge about are welcome, too, of course!
Both the event text when he is appointed as president, and his character description when you hover over his icon mention his potential as a constitutional monarch... But he can only be Tsar if you go for an absolute monarchy. This doesn't really make much sense to me. Especially because it's not like he has any motivation to let Kiril replace him as head of state (And does not become head of government if Kril is appointed head of state). Essentially he shunts himself out of office.
On the one hand, as far as I am aware, Iran/Persia has only ever had one republic in its history....namely the current one. So if the constitution were replaced with something else, I can understand why Iran would want to leave behind its experience with republican government.
On the other hand, I understand that the previous government was not very popular either (what with the anti-democratic tendencies, the secret police, etc.), so I could also understand why Iran might want a presidential republic instead of a monarchy again.
You could either view restoration of the monarchy as "correcting the mistake" of 1979, or you could view the creation of a democratic presidential republic as the "final step" in Iran's long transition to democracy depending on your view of history.
If the constitution is changed and a new government system is implemented, which would you prefer?
A post like this was already made, but it didn't get too many responses, and I can't find it (if anyone knows which one I mean a link would be appreciated). So, to those here that believe monarchs should be restored to their former power, or at least gain a more active role, how would you do it if you were one? You can imagine any current European monarchy as your starting situation, but I guess the UK, Spain and Belgium have the most potential, most others have been reduced to even-on-paper ceremonial crowned republics (correct me if I'm wrong). From the day of your coronation, what political actions would you take? Do you think it would be at least theoretically possible?
After WWI*
I'm starting a Napoleonic France campaign, and I would like to create a blessed constitutional French Empire. I'm at the point where Napoleon has been crowned and is my HoS. Is there an election event following that event that will allow me to pick a new party that isn't PatAut? Thanks in advance all!
I imagine a Monarch would want some say, but also for their opinion to be hidden and away from politics and the rough arguments held in Parliaments. Thus, they would want to vote discreetly from the comfort of their palaces and whatnot, not engaging into political debates.
One could argue that all bills require the signature of the Head of State which is in a way a greater power than a vote, but in some places it is obligation for the said HoS to do it and thus has no choice. They are, afterall, the first citizen and as a very great french king stated — "I am the state."
This would enter the realm of semi-constitutional monarchy, but it is still holding a very republican way to integrate and allow the Monarch to exercise their voice — discreetly. One can also give them 2, 3, or more votes. So that if they want to personally hold neutrality eg "I don't know" or some other personal confusion, they can just ballot in one vote for "Yes" and the other for "No" — or they could just abstain. This also gives them more say or weightage due to their position. They are afterall, the State, and yet, as Emperor Augustus of the Roman Empire liked to refer to himself, they are First Citizen as well.
Monarch+Citizen+State+Representative of the people, kinda deserves like 4 votes(ignore this one i was joking).
I think most agree that constitutional monarchy is better than a absolute monarchy on this sub. I was wondering what some of your opinions were on how much power a constitutional monarch should have.
Should they be purely a head of state to unite their people but with no real power?
Should they get emergency powers?
Veto?
Introduce legislation?
Etc.
Just was thinking about this the other day after a government reading I had, and wondered how constitutional monarchies would go about instating regents/if it would be done at all. Also, has this ever happened before?
Even if you belive in the right of an informed public to have a say in the decisions that impact them there is no reasonable way to supply them with the relevant information to make decisions of foreign policy.
As in the monarch is like the executive branch with a parliament for legislation
