advertisement


When does a country become "The"?

Vinny said:
And your point is? (Not that he has literally no power at all, although as king, Charles is probably meddling far less than as PoW.)

Being a non-native English-speaker, you are probably getting very confused, it certainly seems so from your posts.
Look up "constitutional" and "absolute" in terms of monarchy.
The UK is a kingdom and as likely as you'd ever be likely to get, united.

Are you arguing for an absolute monarchy? If so, I would suggest a move to the Russian Federation as that has got to be as close to it in a large country as anywhere in the world currently.

Even if the UK were not a kingdom, the name was just a choice of name. So far as I am aware, the British Empire never claimed to have an Emperor of the whole empire (Victoria was only ever called Empress of India?????), but it was called an empire. As above in several examples, a country's choice of name is reasonably arbtitrary - an excellent example is Rhodesia, which chose Zimbabwe, linked to one of the country's ancient and powerful tribes, which never ruled what the country is today.

Portugal is derived from the name of a settlement on the Duoro - a bit like calling the UK as a whole, Greater London, or Londonland, or Londiniumland, which, despite what many Americans in particular believe, is a (very) long way from being accurate.
Click to expand...
What powers exactly does the king have?
 
tuga said:
What powers exactly does the king have?
Click to expand...

Again, what has that got to do with the price of fish? (You may well have to look that one up too.)

Again - look up constitutional v. absolute monarchy.

Seriously, you have no grasp at all about what you keep posting about.

King is a title, not really any different to Prime Minister, or president, or countless other titles - would you like to designate the UK as a prime-ministerdom?
No individual in the UK has the power that you seem to be constantly harping-on about. Various people have different levels of sway in the UK, and very, very likely to change before the end of this week, but the power that you seem to be looking for lies with the House of Commons.

Again - ultimately, United Kingdom, is JUST A NAME
 
tuga said:
So, no powers. A kingdom in name only.
Click to expand...

AGAIN - you really have a totally insufficient grasp of the English language. Kingship is NOTHING at all, in any way whatsoever, to do with power within a constitutional monarchy.

So far as power goes, the royal family have far more soft power than is at all obvious.
 
Here in AO/NZ we refer to the main islands as the South Island & the North Island. See also: the West Coast, the Wairarapa, the Mackenzie (Country), the King Country, the Bay of Islands, the Coromandel (Peninsula), the Naki, the Tron... there will be more I can't think of in this minute.
 
Vinny said:
AGAIN - you really have a totally insufficient grasp of the English language. Kingship is NOTHING at all, in any way whatsoever to do with power.

So far as power goes, the royal family have far more soft power than is at all obvious.
Click to expand...
My grasp of the English language is perfectly fine.
What is the purpose of the monarch in its present form?
What’s his role in the affairs of the nation?
 
tuga said:
My grasp of the English language is perfectly fine.
What is the purpose of the monarch in its present form?
Click to expand...

Your posts make that very, very, very obviously incorrect, your grasp of the English language in all its subtlties is not fine.

AGAIN, as above, the Crown, whoever that happens to be, is head of state.

Would I prefer President Johnson, or President Blair, or President Starmer? Not in one trillion, trillion years, although I have a great respect for the Tony Benn of his later years........................ spoke more sense in his last 15-20 years than his previous 68+.

Take a mad example of soft power..................................
Assume that a total pratt gets into no. 10 at the end of this week, a total jockey, who invites Putin for a state visit. Asuming that he accepted, even if CIII had not stepped in behind the scenes beforehand, I suspect that the chances of the visit being endorsed by the UK crown would be very slight indeed.

A head of state above politics - fantastic idea. Every once in a while the "feeling" spreads that the French would love the same.......... and that may reappear very shortly too.
 
Last edited:
Vinny said:
Your posts make that very, very, very obviously incorrect, your grasp of the English language in all its subtlties is not fine.

AGAIN, as above, the Crown, whoever that happens to be, is head of state.

Would I prefer President Johnson, or President Blair, or President Starmer? Not in one trillion, trillion years, although I have a great respect for the Tony Benn of his later years........................ spoke more sense in his last 15-20 years than his previous 68+.

Take a mad example of soft power..................................
Assume that a total pratt gets into no. 10 at the end of this week, a total jockey, who invites Putin for a state visit. Asuming that he accepted, even if CII had not stepped in behind the scenes beforehand, I suspect that the chances of the visit being endorsed by the UK crown would be very slight indeed.

A head of state above politics - fantastic idea. Every once in a while the "feeling" spreads that the French would love the same.......... and that may reappear very shortly too.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean CIII?
 
tuga said:
So, no powers. A kingdom in name only.
Click to expand...
Actually the Monarch has the power to disolve parliament. Also Parliment can't open without the approval of the Monarch. One could argue these powers are hypothetical, but they've not been tested in modern times so they may not be in actuality.

There are more I'm sure, but as a republican I've not bothered to research the subject in detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top