How much damage could a British monarch do, if they decided to with hold Royal Assent? At least in Canada, "no act of any government can become law" without Royal Assent given by the Governor-General, which can later be overridden by the monarch. If the monarch. If they then decided to abolish the monarch, could the monarch also refuse to grant royal assent to that, or call for the dissolution of parliament (an emergency reserve power), and then continuously dissolve parliament until nothing could be done. Of course this would never happen, as all the Monarchs have been quite benevolent, and looking out for the People first.
Anglosphere
<<If they then decided to abolish the monarch, could the monarch also refuse to grant royal assent to that, or call for the dissolution of parliament (an emergency reserve power), and then continuously dissolve parliament until nothing could be done.>>
What's the Monarch going to do if, after dissolving Parliament, the Parliament and Prime minister keep on passing and enforcing laws as usual. Of course, they'd need the loyalty of the Canadian Army and the polular support, too. Could the monarch send in the UK fleet and army to occupy Canada?
BTW -- does the Monarch have absolute (un-overridable) veto power over UK legislation, too? Can the Monarch issue Royal Decrees that have the force of law?
What's the Monarch going to do if, after dissolving Parliament, the Parliament and Prime minister keep on passing and enforcing laws as usual. Of course, they'd need the loyalty of the Canadian Army and the polular support, too. Could the monarch send in the UK fleet and army to occupy Canada?
BTW -- does the Monarch have absolute (un-overridable) veto power over UK legislation, too? Can the Monarch issue Royal Decrees that have the force of law?
>> BTW -- does the Monarch have absolute (un-overridable) veto power over UK legislation, too? <<
Yes, by convention
>> Can the Monarch issue Roya Decrees that have the force of law? <<
No.
Yes, by convention
>> Can the Monarch issue Roya Decrees that have the force of law? <<
No.
If she got the prime minister on her side, I wonder if he could issue executive orders like the President of the US can. Of course those could be blocked by parliament.
>> o. Could the monarch send in the UK fleet and army to occupy Canada? <<
No, because the Queen can't command the military without Parliament declaring war.
No, because the Queen can't command the military without Parliament declaring war.
Referring to Queen Elizabeth II as "an old hag" is very disrespectful, there's no getting away from that. Yesa, she is 83 years old, but a hag? I think not....look up the definition of that word! I used that title as she is by no means the only Queen in the world...there are several more here in Europe, but when people across the world simply say The Queen it's pretty obvious they mean the British Queen, the one I saw ride up and down The Mall, London, yesterday, along with her old man The Duke of Edinburgh, in an open landau drawn by two magnificent horses, on the annual Trooping the Colour Parade.
Although I have seen The Queen on a number of occasions back home in Edinburgh (she has one of her Scottish homes in our city - at the Palace of Holyrood - the other is at Balmoral, where she spends most summers) this is the first time I've been to this particular parade, along with three friends, and as we couldn't get up close to Horse Guards Parade, we got good places on The Mall saw saw the whole parade go by, along with The Queen and the Duke (who is 88 this month, and still as active as ever), and in another carriage was Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, and the two princess, in full military uniform William and Harry.
So far Trooping the Colour 2009 has now yet been put on YouTube but a shot of yesterday's parade shows Clonmel, one of the stars of the whole show - the Irish Wolfhound who is the mascot of the Irish Guards - heading the parade down The Mall from Buckingham Palace to Horse Guards Parade - is already on YT and here it is showing Clonmel along with his keeper. The dog got a huge cheer from the crowds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruMWmjJE9Y
No way is The Queen "an old hag" but if that's what you guys in Kiwiland and Aussieland think of her then it's your prerogative, and as I said before you are free to choose to diss her as Head of State and become Republics with a President or whatever, whose credentials may well turn out to be dubious and questionable to say the least, as has been shown so clearly elsewhere in the world.
Australia has toyed with the idea of cutting all ties with Britain and becoming a Republic several times in the past, and at one time a majority of people there thought it was the right thing for them, but once they had discussed the whole thing in great detail, thought hard and long on all the implications such a move would involve, then the majority gradually swung very much the other way, retaining The Queen as Head of State, even though she lived in a Palace on the other side of the world where Christmas does not mean picnics on the beach and avoiding all those scary poisonous creep crawlies so prolific in Australia....they even have lethal spiders clinging to lavvy seats down there and even more lethal snakes at the bottom of the garden! Eeks!
At one time South Africa actually did cut all ties with Britain and left the Commonwealth because of the ultimatum given to the South African Government of the day oveer the issue of Apartheid, racial segreation which the British Government would not tolerate. Due to world wide pressure South Africa abandoned apartheid altogether, and the first thing the South African Government did then was to apply to rejoin the British Commonwealth.
When I was at school in Edinburgh The Queen and the Duke visited us in connection with a D of E Awards ceremony, and I saw her at very close range when she came and spoke to us as a group. She was 71 at the time and she looked really nice for a lady of that age - lovely clear complexion and amazing blue eyes, and she was so friendly and easy going, and what she knew about us and what we had been doing was astonishing.
This clip is from of one of today's UK national Sunday newspapers....it seems that our Queen is best buddies with the First Lady of the United States of America. Michelle Obama, in true American style, shattered all protocol and put her arm around The Queen during the vist of her and Barack Obama to London here earlier this year for the G8 Conference. Such a thing had never been seen before, as it simpoly isn't ever done - nobody actually touches The Queen, but apparently Liz didn't mind at all. The next thing we see the two of them will be going to bingo together - who knows! ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/5523623/The-Queen-and-Michelle-Obama-forge-firm-and-affectionate-friendship.html
Although I have seen The Queen on a number of occasions back home in Edinburgh (she has one of her Scottish homes in our city - at the Palace of Holyrood - the other is at Balmoral, where she spends most summers) this is the first time I've been to this particular parade, along with three friends, and as we couldn't get up close to Horse Guards Parade, we got good places on The Mall saw saw the whole parade go by, along with The Queen and the Duke (who is 88 this month, and still as active as ever), and in another carriage was Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, and the two princess, in full military uniform William and Harry.
So far Trooping the Colour 2009 has now yet been put on YouTube but a shot of yesterday's parade shows Clonmel, one of the stars of the whole show - the Irish Wolfhound who is the mascot of the Irish Guards - heading the parade down The Mall from Buckingham Palace to Horse Guards Parade - is already on YT and here it is showing Clonmel along with his keeper. The dog got a huge cheer from the crowds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruMWmjJE9Y
No way is The Queen "an old hag" but if that's what you guys in Kiwiland and Aussieland think of her then it's your prerogative, and as I said before you are free to choose to diss her as Head of State and become Republics with a President or whatever, whose credentials may well turn out to be dubious and questionable to say the least, as has been shown so clearly elsewhere in the world.
Australia has toyed with the idea of cutting all ties with Britain and becoming a Republic several times in the past, and at one time a majority of people there thought it was the right thing for them, but once they had discussed the whole thing in great detail, thought hard and long on all the implications such a move would involve, then the majority gradually swung very much the other way, retaining The Queen as Head of State, even though she lived in a Palace on the other side of the world where Christmas does not mean picnics on the beach and avoiding all those scary poisonous creep crawlies so prolific in Australia....they even have lethal spiders clinging to lavvy seats down there and even more lethal snakes at the bottom of the garden! Eeks!
At one time South Africa actually did cut all ties with Britain and left the Commonwealth because of the ultimatum given to the South African Government of the day oveer the issue of Apartheid, racial segreation which the British Government would not tolerate. Due to world wide pressure South Africa abandoned apartheid altogether, and the first thing the South African Government did then was to apply to rejoin the British Commonwealth.
When I was at school in Edinburgh The Queen and the Duke visited us in connection with a D of E Awards ceremony, and I saw her at very close range when she came and spoke to us as a group. She was 71 at the time and she looked really nice for a lady of that age - lovely clear complexion and amazing blue eyes, and she was so friendly and easy going, and what she knew about us and what we had been doing was astonishing.
This clip is from of one of today's UK national Sunday newspapers....it seems that our Queen is best buddies with the First Lady of the United States of America. Michelle Obama, in true American style, shattered all protocol and put her arm around The Queen during the vist of her and Barack Obama to London here earlier this year for the G8 Conference. Such a thing had never been seen before, as it simpoly isn't ever done - nobody actually touches The Queen, but apparently Liz didn't mind at all. The next thing we see the two of them will be going to bingo together - who knows! ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/5523623/The-Queen-and-Michelle-Obama-forge-firm-and-affectionate-friendship.html
I meant the G20 summit and not G8 - that was held in Edinburgh a couple of years ago.
Wouldn't it be a better idea for AU and NZ instead of wasting their time worrying about whether to become a republic and instead just write in some kind of escape rope into their constitutions that says that a 2/3 majority in parliament can override the monarch's reserve powers in the event of an emergency. This would prevent a constitutional crisis in the future, in the unlikely event that some future monarch might abuse their power. Seems like this would be the most sensible approach. Debating whether or not to have a monarch is a waste of the government's time, that they could put to better use.
A recent public opinion poll here in the UK arranged by the British Constitutional Monarchy Association showed that only 18% of the British public would wish to dispense with the Monarchy once The Queen has shuffled off this mortal coil. The next monarch will undoubtedly be male - Charles in the normal course of events, but as The Queen has vowed never to abdicate under any circumstances Prince Charles could well be prtty long in the tooth by the time Liz snuffs it, and his son Prince William even (who is just two months younger than I am) could also be a wee bit doddery by the time he ascends to the throne.
There's no doubt that feelings towards a female Monarch, especially one who was only 25 when she became Queen, are different to those directed towards a male, but even having a King instead of a Queen does not alter the vast majority of the British people's attitude towards the continuance of the Monarchy in this country. In the minds of most people being a Republic is totally alien to the British psyche, by and large. That's just the way it is.....it is part and parcel of what this island nation is, and even if every other European monarchy went up the spout (very unlikely as it is) this will still remain a Monarchy, inspite of all the bleatiungs we get from the usual "Republican" quarters - smaller in numbers than the loudness of their pronouncements.
It's been done before in England...in the 17th century. Oliver Cromwell* made King Charles I a full head shorter with one whack of an axe on a bitterly cold, snowy day in Whitehall, London, in January 1649 and for the next eleven years this country was, in effect, a Republic - ruled by Cromwell and his Puritan Roundheads, and these eleven years were about the most miserable this country has ever experienced (apart from the wartime conditions 300 years later)....there was no joy in England as the Puritans put a stop to all that kind of caper.
It was true that prior to 1649 there was such a thing as the Divine Right of Kings, which meant that the monarch of the day had all the power - what he or she said - went, it was as simple as that. The monarchs could, in effect, rule on a whim, more or less. At least Olly did away with all that, but once Olly snuffed it in 1658 the Monarchy was restored in this country when that old rake King Charles II returned from Holland and ascended the throne, with all his mistresses securely stored in the background. Every King had to have a mistress, it was the done thing, even up to very recently......why else would Diana say that there were three people in her marriage to Charles.....breeding mares come to mind here, but there you go.
Anyway, it was circumstance which brought the present Queen to the throne following the early death of her father who, in turn, was forced into being King because of his very weak brother who had taken up with a twice divorced female American social climber called Wallis Simpson, who was anaethema to the British people and the British Establishment. In 1930s Britain divorce, single motherhood/single parenthood were complete and utter social taboos, so Edward VIII had to give up this highly vocal American woman (who really was more of a mother to him than a real wife all said and done as his own mother, Queen Mary,was a bit of a cold fish to say the least who bore kids then immediately passed them over to a nanny to bring up, as was the norm in those far off days.
So Edward VIII and this American woman, whom he married soon after his Abdication, were immediately banished from Britain, and not long aftrwards the British newspapers showed both the former King of England and his wife virtually idolising Adolf Hitler over in Nazi Germany, and reported as saying they found many of the Nazi dictator's pinciples "admirable". That sure as hell didn't go down well back in Britain and these two were loathed even more over here. They never returned here except to be buried alongside each other at Frogmore, Windsor....even that was allowed with reluctance.
Poor stammering King George VI (the Queen's dad) hads became the reluctant King and the strains of WW2, when he and the rest of the Royal Family refused to be evacuated to the safety of Canada but remained with his people to face the full onslaught of aerial bombardent and threats of invasion. One Friday afternoon in September 1940 the King and Queen (later the Queen Mother who died in 2002) were "taking tea" in Buckingham Palace when a couple of German Luftwaffe bombers flew low over the whole length of The Mall and dropped a stick of bombs on the Palace. The K & Q had to scamper away to the shelter just in time before all the windows were blown in by the blasts which destroyed nearby parts of the Palace. It was after that incident that the Queen said that she could now look the people of the East End of London full in the eye, as they had been subjected to full scale bombing for days on end prior to this occasion.
Being KIng in WW2 badly affected thge king's health and he died at the age of 56, and Liz became Queen. Sincve then she has devoted her entire life, tirelessly, to the people of this country - even hard line Republicans have to admit that, and even though the Royal Family, like everything else, has changed over recent decade, very much so, and apart from the Queen herself, has been seen to be quite dysfunctional, to say the least - but so have millions of ordfinary families in present day Britain.
As Monarch The Queen has no actual powers as such - Oliver Cromwell's actions saw to that, as the new British Constitution handed over all effective control and power to the elected Governments, but still very much retaining the Monarch as Head of State, and all in all it was all worked very well all the way down to today. The Court (ie the Monarch and the Establishment) and Parliament (ie the Government, with its two separate chambers) literally work hand in hand with each other, and even though the Queen has no actual power, she still has very much a stabilising influence over the way this country is run.
In spite of all this, The Queen's "permission" has to be sought and given for most issues and she could, in effect, refuse to accept anything she deems to be unacceptable to the British people, but this has never really been put into effect. Only something really serious has to happen before this sort of situation comes about.
The Queen is impartial, she is "above politics" and technically this should apply to all other members of the Royal Family, too, but that's not always the case. Prince Philip has often spoken his mind, as has Prince Charles, in a big way, but there you go.
In a nutshell this is the Royal Prerogative - which gives at least some information on what The Queen, could, if needs be, do to
go against the wishes and desires of Parliament - again something most unlikely to happen in a highly stable democracy such as the United Kingdom, which is basically quite content with the status quo, and looks set to remain so long after Lizzie has left us, which could well be years and years away yet if her Mum is any guideline in this respect.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/royal_prerogative.htm
It really is funny to see all the foreign tourists cheering and clapping like crazy each time they see the Queen as such events as yesterday's Trooping the Colour Parade - and the Americans are especially enthusiastic You'd think that Liz was THEIR Queen as well! I've seen it back home in Edinburgh loads of times as we have such pomp and ceremony all the time.....it's part of the British scene. Take it or leave it - it's the way we are. ;-)
There's no doubt that feelings towards a female Monarch, especially one who was only 25 when she became Queen, are different to those directed towards a male, but even having a King instead of a Queen does not alter the vast majority of the British people's attitude towards the continuance of the Monarchy in this country. In the minds of most people being a Republic is totally alien to the British psyche, by and large. That's just the way it is.....it is part and parcel of what this island nation is, and even if every other European monarchy went up the spout (very unlikely as it is) this will still remain a Monarchy, inspite of all the bleatiungs we get from the usual "Republican" quarters - smaller in numbers than the loudness of their pronouncements.
It's been done before in England...in the 17th century. Oliver Cromwell* made King Charles I a full head shorter with one whack of an axe on a bitterly cold, snowy day in Whitehall, London, in January 1649 and for the next eleven years this country was, in effect, a Republic - ruled by Cromwell and his Puritan Roundheads, and these eleven years were about the most miserable this country has ever experienced (apart from the wartime conditions 300 years later)....there was no joy in England as the Puritans put a stop to all that kind of caper.
It was true that prior to 1649 there was such a thing as the Divine Right of Kings, which meant that the monarch of the day had all the power - what he or she said - went, it was as simple as that. The monarchs could, in effect, rule on a whim, more or less. At least Olly did away with all that, but once Olly snuffed it in 1658 the Monarchy was restored in this country when that old rake King Charles II returned from Holland and ascended the throne, with all his mistresses securely stored in the background. Every King had to have a mistress, it was the done thing, even up to very recently......why else would Diana say that there were three people in her marriage to Charles.....breeding mares come to mind here, but there you go.
Anyway, it was circumstance which brought the present Queen to the throne following the early death of her father who, in turn, was forced into being King because of his very weak brother who had taken up with a twice divorced female American social climber called Wallis Simpson, who was anaethema to the British people and the British Establishment. In 1930s Britain divorce, single motherhood/single parenthood were complete and utter social taboos, so Edward VIII had to give up this highly vocal American woman (who really was more of a mother to him than a real wife all said and done as his own mother, Queen Mary,was a bit of a cold fish to say the least who bore kids then immediately passed them over to a nanny to bring up, as was the norm in those far off days.
So Edward VIII and this American woman, whom he married soon after his Abdication, were immediately banished from Britain, and not long aftrwards the British newspapers showed both the former King of England and his wife virtually idolising Adolf Hitler over in Nazi Germany, and reported as saying they found many of the Nazi dictator's pinciples "admirable". That sure as hell didn't go down well back in Britain and these two were loathed even more over here. They never returned here except to be buried alongside each other at Frogmore, Windsor....even that was allowed with reluctance.
Poor stammering King George VI (the Queen's dad) hads became the reluctant King and the strains of WW2, when he and the rest of the Royal Family refused to be evacuated to the safety of Canada but remained with his people to face the full onslaught of aerial bombardent and threats of invasion. One Friday afternoon in September 1940 the King and Queen (later the Queen Mother who died in 2002) were "taking tea" in Buckingham Palace when a couple of German Luftwaffe bombers flew low over the whole length of The Mall and dropped a stick of bombs on the Palace. The K & Q had to scamper away to the shelter just in time before all the windows were blown in by the blasts which destroyed nearby parts of the Palace. It was after that incident that the Queen said that she could now look the people of the East End of London full in the eye, as they had been subjected to full scale bombing for days on end prior to this occasion.
Being KIng in WW2 badly affected thge king's health and he died at the age of 56, and Liz became Queen. Sincve then she has devoted her entire life, tirelessly, to the people of this country - even hard line Republicans have to admit that, and even though the Royal Family, like everything else, has changed over recent decade, very much so, and apart from the Queen herself, has been seen to be quite dysfunctional, to say the least - but so have millions of ordfinary families in present day Britain.
As Monarch The Queen has no actual powers as such - Oliver Cromwell's actions saw to that, as the new British Constitution handed over all effective control and power to the elected Governments, but still very much retaining the Monarch as Head of State, and all in all it was all worked very well all the way down to today. The Court (ie the Monarch and the Establishment) and Parliament (ie the Government, with its two separate chambers) literally work hand in hand with each other, and even though the Queen has no actual power, she still has very much a stabilising influence over the way this country is run.
In spite of all this, The Queen's "permission" has to be sought and given for most issues and she could, in effect, refuse to accept anything she deems to be unacceptable to the British people, but this has never really been put into effect. Only something really serious has to happen before this sort of situation comes about.
The Queen is impartial, she is "above politics" and technically this should apply to all other members of the Royal Family, too, but that's not always the case. Prince Philip has often spoken his mind, as has Prince Charles, in a big way, but there you go.
In a nutshell this is the Royal Prerogative - which gives at least some information on what The Queen, could, if needs be, do to
go against the wishes and desires of Parliament - again something most unlikely to happen in a highly stable democracy such as the United Kingdom, which is basically quite content with the status quo, and looks set to remain so long after Lizzie has left us, which could well be years and years away yet if her Mum is any guideline in this respect.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/royal_prerogative.htm
It really is funny to see all the foreign tourists cheering and clapping like crazy each time they see the Queen as such events as yesterday's Trooping the Colour Parade - and the Americans are especially enthusiastic You'd think that Liz was THEIR Queen as well! I've seen it back home in Edinburgh loads of times as we have such pomp and ceremony all the time.....it's part of the British scene. Take it or leave it - it's the way we are. ;-)
>> and the Americans are especially enthusiastic You'd think tha Liz was THEIR Queen as well <<
Well we still feel a strong connection to her. And to you, seeing the Queen is no big deal as she lives there, but to us it's a lot more exciting. Also we don't have the same feelings towards the Queen as certain people from AU and NZ have, probably because we aren't reminded of her every day.
Well we still feel a strong connection to her. And to you, seeing the Queen is no big deal as she lives there, but to us it's a lot more exciting. Also we don't have the same feelings towards the Queen as certain people from AU and NZ have, probably because we aren't reminded of her every day.
Having a constitutional monarchy is infinitely preferable to having a republic.
Being a constitutional monarchy, we don't have a politician as Head of State, and that's an even sweeter thought in the wake of the recent MPs' expenses scandal.
And, of course, a constitutional monarchy is cheaper.
Being a constitutional monarchy, we don't have a politician as Head of State, and that's an even sweeter thought in the wake of the recent MPs' expenses scandal.
And, of course, a constitutional monarchy is cheaper.
There are around 44 constitutional monarchies in the world, including countries such as the UK, Spain, Sweden and Japan.
This is a list of constitutional monarchies only. There are one or two absolute monarchies, such as Bhutan, but they don't appear on the list.
State.....Year last constitution established....Type of Monarchy
Andorra 1993 Co-Principality Selection of Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and election of French President
Bahrain 2002 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belgium 1831 Kingdom; popular monarchy Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Bhutan 2007 Kingdom Hereditary succession
Brunei 1959 Sultanate; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Cambodia 1993 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Denmark 1953 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Japan 1946 Empire Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jordan 1952 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Kuwait 1962 Emirate Hereditary succession directed approval of al-Sabah family and majority of National Assembly
Lesotho 1993 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed approval of College of Chiefs
Liechtenstein 1862 Principality Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Luxembourg 1868 Grand duchy Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Malaysia 1957 Elective monarchy Selected from nine hereditary Sultans of the Malay states
Monaco 1911 Principality Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Morocco 1962 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Netherlands 1815 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by
constitution
Norway 1814 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Oman 1996 Sultanate; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Qatar 2003 Emirate; absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Saudi Arabia 1992 Kingdom; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Spain 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Swaziland 1968 Kingdom; absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Sweden 1974 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Thailand 2007 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tonga 1970 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
United Arab Emirates 1971 Elective monarchy Chosen by Federal Supreme Council from rulers of Abu Dhabi
Vatican City Theocratic elective monarchy Chosen by College of Cardinals
United Kingdom 1688 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Antigua and Barbuda 1981 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Australia 1901 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
The Bahamas 1973 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Barbados 1966 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belize 1981 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Canada 1982 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Grenada 1974 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jamaica 1962 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
New Zealand 1907 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Papua New Guinea 1975 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Lucia 1979 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Solomon Islands 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tuvalu 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
This is a list of constitutional monarchies only. There are one or two absolute monarchies, such as Bhutan, but they don't appear on the list.
State.....Year last constitution established....Type of Monarchy
Andorra 1993 Co-Principality Selection of Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and election of French President
Bahrain 2002 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belgium 1831 Kingdom; popular monarchy Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Bhutan 2007 Kingdom Hereditary succession
Brunei 1959 Sultanate; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Cambodia 1993 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Denmark 1953 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Japan 1946 Empire Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jordan 1952 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Kuwait 1962 Emirate Hereditary succession directed approval of al-Sabah family and majority of National Assembly
Lesotho 1993 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed approval of College of Chiefs
Liechtenstein 1862 Principality Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Luxembourg 1868 Grand duchy Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Malaysia 1957 Elective monarchy Selected from nine hereditary Sultans of the Malay states
Monaco 1911 Principality Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Morocco 1962 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Netherlands 1815 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by
constitution
Norway 1814 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Oman 1996 Sultanate; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Qatar 2003 Emirate; absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Saudi Arabia 1992 Kingdom; Islamic absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Spain 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Swaziland 1968 Kingdom; absolute monarchy Hereditary succession
Sweden 1974 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Thailand 2007 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tonga 1970 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
United Arab Emirates 1971 Elective monarchy Chosen by Federal Supreme Council from rulers of Abu Dhabi
Vatican City Theocratic elective monarchy Chosen by College of Cardinals
United Kingdom 1688 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Antigua and Barbuda 1981 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Australia 1901 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
The Bahamas 1973 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Barbados 1966 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belize 1981 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Canada 1982 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Grenada 1974 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jamaica 1962 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
New Zealand 1907 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Papua New Guinea 1975 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Lucia 1979 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Solomon Islands 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tuvalu 1978 Kingdom Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Yesterday's Trooping the Colour Parade is now on YouTube.....my friends and I were stationed about three quarters down the length of The Mall from Buckingham Palace, closer to the spot where the parade goes down to Horse Guards, where the main ceremonials took place.
Until the mid 1980s The Queen actually rose side saddle on horseback to and from the Parade on Horse Guards. The colour being trooped this year was that of the Irish Guards - hence the presence of the lovely Clonmel, the Irish Wolfhound mascot who, for 90 minutes or so stood to attention alongside his Guardsman handler.
Now The Queen rides in an open horsedrawn carriage.
The RAF fly past right at the end was fantastic - colouring the clear blue sky with red, white and blue vapour trails...a lovely day indeed. I've seen them do the same over Edinburgh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmsTa6I6l2o
Until the mid 1980s The Queen actually rose side saddle on horseback to and from the Parade on Horse Guards. The colour being trooped this year was that of the Irish Guards - hence the presence of the lovely Clonmel, the Irish Wolfhound mascot who, for 90 minutes or so stood to attention alongside his Guardsman handler.
Now The Queen rides in an open horsedrawn carriage.
The RAF fly past right at the end was fantastic - colouring the clear blue sky with red, white and blue vapour trails...a lovely day indeed. I've seen them do the same over Edinburgh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmsTa6I6l2o
The architect Lord Rogers has said he believes Prince Charles has broken the "constitutional understanding" governing the role of the monarchy.
Lord Rogers attacks Prince Charles for intervening in Chelsea Barracks wrangle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5546098/Lord-Rogers-attacks-Prince-Charles-for-intervening-in-Chelsea-Barracks-wrangle.html
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Architect Rogers angry at Prince
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8102158.stm
Lord Rogers attacks Prince Charles for intervening in Chelsea Barracks wrangle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5546098/Lord-Rogers-attacks-Prince-Charles-for-intervening-in-Chelsea-Barracks-wrangle.html
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Architect Rogers angry at Prince
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8102158.stm
If the Spanish king marries the English Queen would Spain join the Commonwealth?