Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not possible in this day and age, the British like having a modern royal family I think that would soon change though if the monarchy ruled as it did 500 years ago!!
Did they ever really have absolute power? it seems they were always being manipulated by the Church, or power hungry politicians.
Nothing in life is truly "absolute", but William the Conqueror was pretty close to being an "absolute ruler". He did have to reward his compatriots.
In 1701 parliament overruled any argument by blood, and indicated that only descendants of Sophie of Hanover could be future monarchs. Sophie died a few months before her cousin, so her son became the first Hanoverian ruler in 1714. The office of Prime Minister originated shortly after that point in time.
While there was many power plays in the previous 500 years starting with the Magna Carta, most people regard this decision in 1701 as the final ruling over who was ultimately in charge. George I showed little interest in British politics, and effectively aided the shift of power. George III, sought to restore royal supremacy and absolute monarchy, but was ineffective.
I believe the monarch can dissolve parliament of his/her own accord (technically). As I remember some people suggested that QEII dissolve parliament after some financial scandals a few years ago. There was no serious consideration of her doing that extreme measure, but I believe it still remains on the books.
American presidents generally test the limits of their constitutional power, but British monarchs willingly relinquish power in favor of influence.
Charles I anyone? The OP must have slept through that History lesson.
They are all from a b@st@rd line anyway. That guy from Blackadder showed us that in a TV show about a decade ago. It was that archer they were discussing on the TV show the White Queen.
I believe the monarch can dissolve parliament of his/her own accord (technically). As I remember some people suggested that QEII dissolve parliament after some financial scandals a few years ago. There was no serious consideration of her doing that extreme measure, but I believe it still remains on the books.
In theory the queen could veto a law by not giving royal assent, but in reality it would never happen, and would probably provoke a constitutional crisis that would see the end of monarchy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
