[QUOTE=RB33;51222851]There's a difference between head of government and head of state. A monarch/king/queen is the head of state, a prime minister is the head of government.[/QUOTE]
What? What's the difference between head of government and state? The state IS the government
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223204]And a monarch is someone who rules unilaterally. Does any european country have a unilateral ruler?
Like holy shit scroll down two section on your own link:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#Ambiguities[/url][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarch[/url]
[QUOTE]1: a person who reigns over a kingdom or empire[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic[/url]
[QUOTE]1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president[/QUOTE]
These countries got a monarch, republics do not. Therefore they are not a republic.
[QUOTE=RB33;51223302][url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarch[/url]
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic[/url]
These countries got a monarch, republics do not. Therefore they are not a republic.[/QUOTE]
Once again, "kingdom", "empire", "reigns".
What kingdom? What empire? These royal families don't have shit. They don't reign over anything. There is no kingdom. There are no empires. European monarchies are [I]fantasy[/I]. They're [I]make believe[/I].
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
The chief of state is the Prime minister or president.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51223220]Britain is not a republic, which it is by the logic of some of the above posters
That said, it also isn't a 'monarchy'[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. It's a constitutional monarchy.
It astounds me to see people literally arguing against commonly held definitions of words for no reason at all.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223230]What? What's the difference between head of government and state? The state IS the government[/QUOTE]
"Head of" refers to a person having that position. In the US, the head of state is the President, in the UK and other monarchies, the King or Queen. The head of government is the person who is heading the government, in the US, this is also the President. In monarchies, these are different persons. A monarch and a prime minister.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223319]Once again, "kingdom", "empire", "reigns".
What kingdom? What empire? These royal families don't have shit. They don't reign over anything. There is no kingdom. There are no empires. European monarchies are [I]fantasy[/I]. They're [I]make believe[/I].
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
The chief of state is the Prime minister or president.[/QUOTE]
Making up your own reality doesn't change the one others commonly accept. People accept that a kingdom exist, that a king or queen heads it. They might not like it but that's how it is.
[QUOTE=RB33;51223333]"Head of" refers to a person having that position. In the US, the head of state is the President, in the UK and other monarchies, the King or Queen. The head of government is the person who is heading the government, in the US, this is also the President. In monarchies, these are different persons. A monarch and a prime minister.[/quote]
This is a totally arbitrary distinction. It's just one made up to give special status to a royal family. The reality is that there is no monarch. They don't rule. They don't reign. They don't have any power or dominion. There [I]is no monarchy[/I]. There are [I]royals[/I], but no [I]monarchs[/I]. Do you see the distinction I'm making? because I feel like it keeps getting ignored. You can't be a monarch if you have no [I]power[/I]. The state and the government are one and the same.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[quote]
Making up your own reality doesn't change the one others commonly accept. People accept that a kingdom exist, that a king or queen heads it. They might not like it but that's how it is.[/QUOTE]
What [I]is[/I] the kingdom then? And, as head of the kingdom, what does the king or queen do?
There is no kingdom. I can point to a dozen institutions in European governments and say "See: government" and show you how the prime minister or president of the government has authority of it and say "see: head of government/state". What can you point to to show me a kingdom or someone's authority over it? Getting to be the official authority on who's called "sir" or "lord"?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223373]This is a totally arbitrary distinction. It's just one made up to give special status to a royal family. The reality is that there is no monarch. They don't rule. They don't reign. They don't have any power or dominion. There [I]is no monarchy[/I]. There are [I]royals[/I], but no [I]monarchs[/I]. Do you see the distinction I'm making? because I feel like it keeps getting ignored. You can't be a monarch if you have no [I]power[/I]. The state and the government are one and the same.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
What [I]is[/I] the kingdom then? And, as head of the kingdom, what does the king or queen do?
There is no kingdom. I can point to a dozen institutions in European governments and say "See: government" and show you how the prime minister or president of the government has authority of it and say "see: head of government/state". What can you point to to show me a kingdom or someone's authority over it? Getting to be the official authority on who's called "sir" or "lord"?[/QUOTE]
Every law in the UK has to be approved by the Monarch. If the Monarch refuses to sign a bill it does not become law.
[B]All[/B] political authority derives from the Monarch - thus the UK is a Monarchy.
The Monarch's powers are constrained by a constitution and power is exercised by a Prime Minister who is appointed by the Monarch.
The Monarch does not have absolute power and the Prime Minister exercises power on the Monarch's behalf - thus the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
[QUOTE=Mythman;51223452]If the Monarch refuses to sign a bill it does not become law.[/QUOTE]
god i want this to happen just so i could enjoy the huge outcry that would ensue
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223373]This is a totally arbitrary distinction. It's just one made up to give special status to a royal family. The reality is that there is no monarch. They don't rule. They don't reign. They don't have any power or dominion. There [I]is no monarchy[/I]. There are [I]royals[/I], but no [I]monarchs[/I]. Do you see the distinction I'm making? because I feel like it keeps getting ignored. You can't be a monarch if you have no [I]power[/I]. The state and the government are one and the same.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to have power to be a monarch, you simply have to have a kingdom. No one else is ruling that kingdom, they are, even if that means no authority in practice. They are the head of that kingdom, which is the same as the state. This with state/government being the same is a US specific thing but elsewhere they aren't the same thing. The state is the structure in society, the government is the one controlling that structure. Therefore the monarch is the symbolic head of the state/kingdom, while the one who is head of government is the one with actual power.
[QUOTE]What [I]is[/I] the kingdom then? And, as head of the kingdom, what does the king or queen do?
There is no kingdom. I can point to a dozen institutions in European governments and say "See: government" and show you how the prime minister or president of the government has authority of it and say "see: head of government/state". What can you point to to show me a kingdom or someone's authority over it? Getting to be the official authority on who's called "sir" or "lord"?[/QUOTE]
The king or queen represent the country abroad as well as dealing with organisations in the country, handing out prizes, chairing charities and other stuff.
There is a kingdom because it says there is. It's in my country's constitution that we are a kingdom, so we are. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.
It's in North Korea's title and constitution that they're a democratic republic; that doesn't make them one. In fact, North Korea [I]is [/I]a monarchy. Single ruler; rule by one (even has a dynasty to go with it). Sweden is much closer to a democratic republic than North Korea, and North Korea is much closer to a kingdom than Sweden.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223631]It's in North Korea's title and constitution that they're a democratic republic; that doesn't make them one. In fact, North Korea [I]is [/I]a monarchy. Single ruler; rule by one (even has a dynasty to go with it). Sweden is much closer to a democratic republic than North Korea, and North Korea is much closer to a kingdom than Sweden.[/QUOTE]
the thing is though that sweden, for all intents and purposes, is a democratic republic
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223631]It's in North Korea's title and constitution that they're a democratic republic; that doesn't make them one. In fact, North Korea [I]is [/I]a monarchy. Single ruler; rule by one (even has a dynasty to go with it). Sweden is much closer to a democratic republic than North Korea, and North Korea is much closer to a kingdom than Sweden.[/QUOTE]
So a country with a monarch is not a monarchy while one who think itself as not is one. You don't get to change the commonly accepted meanings of words. Britian is not a republic, Sweden is not a republic, Thailand isn't a republic. Are you going to argue that all dictatorships are indeed monarchies? Since those has a person with the sole power.
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51223647]the thing is though that sweden, for all intents and purposes, is a democratic republic[/QUOTE]
No, we are a parliamentary democracy that's also a monarchy. Don't invent new words for things that already have a name.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;51223331]Yes it is. It's a constitutional monarchy.
It astounds me to see people literally arguing against commonly held definitions of words for no reason at all.[/QUOTE]
Commonly accepted definitions can absolutely make no sense. Definitions are not magic spells holding ultimate truth. By some definitions the Thai monarch is not a monarch, by some definitions of republic thailand is a republic.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51223647]the thing is though that sweden, for all intents and purposes, is a democratic republic[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly my point
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;51223666]So a country with a monarch is not a monarchy while one who think itself as not is one. You don't get to change the commonly accepted meanings of words. Britian is not a republic, Sweden is not a republic, Thailand isn't a republic. Are you going to argue that all dictatorships are indeed monarchies? Since those has a person with the sole power.[/quote]
Sweden has no monarch. The king of Sweden has no unilateral power.
Yes, all dictatorships are monarchies, and all monarchies are dictatorships. Monarch means "rule by one". So, if there is a dictator of a country, who rules it entirely by himself, he's a monarch. Just because European dictators dressed up in fancy clothes and made their kids the next dictator didn't make them [I]not[/I] a dictator. Pick a king before there was a democratically elected legislature, and he was a dictator. Since we came up with democracy as a better form of government than dictatorship, the European dictators are just cultural icons and tourist attractions.
edit:
Tsar Nicholas II, for example, was a Dictator
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
And as far as I know every Tsar ever was a dictator since there was no real legislature
[QUOTE=RB33;51223666]No, we are a parliamentary democracy that's also a monarchy. Don't invent new words for things that already have a name.[/QUOTE]
which makes sweden for all intents and purposes a democratic republic lmfao
dont get all condescending with the nuh uh dont invent new definitions!! :^) lol
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
also definitions can be flexible, don't act like something's the word of god just because it is like it is
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223689]Sweden has no monarch. The king of Sweden has no unilateral power.
Yes, all dictatorships are monarchies, and all monarchies are dictatorships. Monarch means "rule by one". So, if there is a dictator of a country, who rules it entirely by himself, he's a monarch. Just because European dictators dressed up in fancy clothes and made their kids the next dictator didn't make them [I]not[/I] a dictator. Pick a king before there was a democratically elected legislature, and he was a dictator. Since we came up with democracy as a better form of government than dictatorship, the European dictators are just cultural icons and tourist attractions.[/QUOTE]
Swedish Constitution
[QUOTE]5 § The king or queen who according to the order of succession
holds the throne of Sweden is the Head of State. Act (2010: 1408).[/QUOTE]
Your personal definition doesn't change the reality of the situation.
You can be a monarch without being a dictator, that's how constitutional monarchy works.
[QUOTE]A constitutional monarchy (also known as a limited or parliamentary monarchy) is a form of monarchy in which the monarch executes their authorities in accordance with a set constitution, which can include political and constitutional conventions. Constitutional monarchy differs from absolute monarchy, in which a monarch holds absolute power.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy[/url]
the swedish king is really pretty much identical to the finnish president, for example
[QUOTE=RB33;51223723]Swedish Constitution
Your personal definition doesn't change the reality of the situation.
You can be a monarch without being a dictator, that's how constitutional monarchy works.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy[/url][/QUOTE]
I'd say that William of Orange was a constitutional monarch; There was a parliament to check his authority. I'd say that Tsar Nicholas the II was an absolute monarch, as there was no parliament to check his authority.
Queen Elizabeth is not a monarch, because she has (basically) no authority for the parliament to check. She has nominal authority, but if she decided she was going to start bossing people around, England would take away what little power she has left. She's not a monarch, she's a [I]tourist attraction.[/I]
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
Japan has an emperor. Are they a monarchy? Are they a constitutional monarchy? No. They're a republic, because their emperor has [I]absolutely no power[/I]
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51223708]which makes sweden for all intents and purposes a democratic republic lmfao
dont get all condescending with the nuh uh dont invent new definitions!! :^) lol
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
also definitions can be flexible, don't act like something's the word of god just because it is like it is[/QUOTE]
It can't be a republic since it's a monarchy. In that case the US can be monarchy while being a republic. It literally contradict each other. If you think that 'republic' is the same as 'democracy', then use democracy. Not a word which contradicts a country's status.
[QUOTE=RB33;51223752]It can't be a republic since it's a monarchy. In that case the US can be monarchy while being a republic. It literally contradict each other. If you think that 'republic' is the same as 'democracy', then use democracy. Not a word which contradicts a country's status.[/QUOTE]
could you please understand the concept of "pretty much"
christ
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223742]I'd say that William of Orange was a constitutional monarch; There was a parliament to check his authority. I'd say that Tsar Nicholas the II was an absolute monarch, as there was no parliament to check his authority.
Queen Elizabeth is not a monarch, because she has (basically) no authority for the parliament to check. She has nominal authority, but if she decided she was going to start bossing people around, England would take away what little power she has left. She's not a monarch, she's a [I]tourist attraction.[/I]
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
Japan has an emperor. Are they a monarchy? Are they a constitutional monarchy? No. They're a republic, because their emperor has [I]absolutely no power[/I][/QUOTE]
Prove to me that monarch have to have power to be a monarch. Because they don't. The monarchs we have today are mostly symbolic but that doesn't stop them from being monarchs.
As I said before, is this hard to understand?
[QUOTE]1: a person who reigns over a kingdom or empire: as
a : a sovereign ruler
b : a constitutional king or queen[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarch[/url]
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51223757]could you please understand the concept of "pretty much"
christ[/QUOTE]
That already got a name. I could say that Germany is pretty much a constitutional monarchy since they also got a symbolic head of state but that would be stupid argument. Little differences are what changes the name and meanings of things.
[QUOTE=RB33;51223752]It can't be a republic since it's a monarchy. In that case the US can be monarchy while being a republic. It literally contradict each other. If you think that 'republic' is the same as 'democracy', then use democracy. Not a word which contradicts a country's status.[/QUOTE]
The US is not a monarchy because we have no absolute ruler
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;51223767]Prove to me that monarch have to have power to be a monarch. Because they don't. The monarchs we have today are mostly symbolic but that doesn't stop them from being monarchs.
As I said before, is this hard to understand?
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarch[/url]
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
That already got a name. I could say that Germany is pretty much a constitutional monarchy since they also got a symbolic head of state but that would be stupid argument. Little differences are what changes name and meanings of things.[/QUOTE]
I'll give you that they're kings and queens, but monarch literally means "rule by one". They have no authority. This is just getting circular. Maybe it's just a language barrier between Swedish and English, but monarch comes from greek for "rule by one".
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223785]The US is not a monarchy because we have no absolute ruler[/QUOTE]
And a monarch doesn't have to be absolute. Please provide a link to a definition of that being the case, if you think so. Because what I provided says otherwise.
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223785]I'll give you that they're kings and queens, but monarch literally means "rule by one". They have no authority. This is just getting circular. Maybe it's just a language barrier between Swedish and English, but monarch comes from greek for "rule by one".[/QUOTE]
This might come as a shock to you but words can have other meanings than what they literally mean. As with the word 'literally' as an example.
[QUOTE=RB33;51223801]And a monarch doesn't have to be absolute. Please provide a link to a definition of that being the case, if you think so. Because what I provided says otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Here:
[url]http://159.203.142.122:8080/def.html[/url]
that's about as much authority as I need to prove this to you. Merriam Webster and Oxford didn't invent the idea of a monarch. The greeks came up with the word a LONG time before the english language or european monarchs even existed
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[quote]
This might come as a shock to you but words can have other meanings than what they literally mean. As with the word 'literally' as an example.[/QUOTE]
[B][I]and you're asking for Dictionary definitions???[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223820]Here:
[url]http://159.203.142.122:8080/def.html[/url]
that's about as much authority as I need to prove this to you. Merriam Webster and Oxford didn't invent the idea of a monarch. The greeks came up with the word a LONG time before the english language or european monarchs even existed
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[B][I]and you're asking for Dictionary definitions???[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Okay, so what's your point with ignoring commonly accepted definitions and hundreds of years of use with that particular meaning to instead use the meaning the Greeks used 2000 years ago? The word as used in English is no longer Greek. But is used in a meaning decided by English speakers.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223820]Here:
[url]http://159.203.142.122:8080/def.html[/url]
that's about as much authority as I need to prove this to you. Merriam Webster and Oxford didn't invent the idea of a monarch. The greeks came up with the word a LONG time before the english language or european monarchs even existed
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[B][I]and you're asking for Dictionary definitions???[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ
If you're going to get super-pedantic, Monarch doesn't even mean 'rule by one'. It simply means 'one Archon'. (Mono = one, Archon = is a political office in Ancient Athens).
The UK is a Monarchy (albeit a Constitutional one) by any modern definition. So is Sweden. So is Thailand.
The head of State is an unelected, hereditary lifetime ruler - their political authority is derived from their title.
The USA is a Republic. So is Finland.
The head of State is an elected, representative who rules for a set term - their political authority is derived from the popular vote.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
[QUOTE=Mythman;51223876]Jesus Christ
If you're going to get super-pedantic, Monarch doesn't even mean 'rule by one'. It simply means 'one Archon'. (Mono = one, Archon = is a political office in Ancient Athens).[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monarch&allowed_in_frame=0[/url]
[quote]mid-15c., from Middle French monarque (14c.) or directly from Late Latin monarcha, from Greek monarkhes "one who rules alone" (see monarchy). As a type of large butterfly, from 1890.[/quote]
Actually, you're wrong
I'm simply trying to say that just because some countries have a tourist attraction called the "king" or "queen", that doesn't make them a monarchy. They are, for all intents and purposes, a republic. They smell like a republic, they look like a republic, they act like a republic: they ARE a republic.
Japan has an emperor. He has no power. Japan is a republic.
Korea has a king that they found back in the 1990s. He's a tourist attraction. he has no power. Korea is also a republic
England has a queen who likes Corgis and soaking up tax dollars. She's got enough authority that if she ever attempted to wield it, she'd lose it all (meaning none). England, having a similar government structure to the rest of the republics in the world, with a parliament and an elected head of state/government, is a [I]republic[/I].
North Korea has no elections, has no real representative legislature. North Korea has a single guy who [I]rules[/I] [I]alone[/I] (or, as a greek may say [I]is a monarch[/I])
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223897][url]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monarch&allowed_in_frame=0[/url]
Actually, you're wrong
I'm simply trying to say that just because some countries have a tourist attraction called the "king" or "queen", that doesn't make them a monarchy. They are, for all intents and purposes, a republic. They smell like a republic, they look like a republic, they act like a republic: they ARE a republic.
Japan has an emperor. He has no power. Japan is a republic.
Korea has a king that they found back in the 1990s. He's a tourist attraction. he has no power. Korea is also a republic
England has a queen who likes Corgis and soaking up tax dollars. She's got enough authority that if she ever attempted to wield it, she'd lose it all (meaning none). England, having a similar government structure to the rest of the republics in the world, with a parliament and an elected head of state/government, is a [I]republic[/I].
North Korea has no elections, has no real representative legislature. North Korea has a single guy who [I]rules[/I] [I]alone[/I] (or, as a greek may say [I]is a monarch[/I])[/QUOTE]
Jeez, don't tell me what Monarch means by citing some random online web page.
I've spent years learning Ancient Greek, I know where the word derives from - there is no such word in Ancient Greek as 'monarkhes'.
We're not arguing over [I]de facto[/I] power, we're arguing over [I]de jure[/I] power.
All political power in the UK derives from our Monarch - the Prime Minister is merely exercising this power. The Prime Minister maybe the [I]de facto[/I] authority but legally ([I]de jure[/I]) it is the Queen.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51223897][url]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monarch&allowed_in_frame=0[/url]
Actually, you're wrong
I'm simply trying to say that just because some countries have a tourist attraction called the "king" or "queen", that doesn't make them a monarchy. They are, for all intents and purposes, a republic. They smell like a republic, they look like a republic, they act like a republic: they ARE a republic.
Japan has an emperor. He has no power. Japan is a republic.
Korea has a king that they found back in the 1990s. He's a tourist attraction. he has no power. Korea is also a republic
England has a queen who likes Corgis and soaking up tax dollars. She's got enough authority that if she ever attempted to wield it, she'd lose it all (meaning none). England, having a similar government structure to the rest of the republics in the world, with a parliament and an elected head of state/government, is a [I]republic[/I].
North Korea has no elections, has no real representative legislature. North Korea has a single guy who [I]rules[/I] [I]alone[/I] (or, as a greek may say [I]is a monarch[/I])[/QUOTE]
No offence here but you're starting to sound just as bad as a flat earth theorist with the stuff you're throwing around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
