Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Safety Nannyism Run Amok
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WhiteyMacD" data-source="post: 1867173" data-attributes="member: 7633"><p>If you are asking seriously, I think they are both. Subjects of the crown, yet citizens of the government. The monarchy is really just a figure-head anymore. The Prime Minister would be the most equivalent to our US President, although he holds more power over the country than our President. The Royals (Queen acting as Head of State) are more of a counter balance to the PM's power. From what I understand, the Royals are not really allowed to have political affiliation. They are more-so required to remain neutral, which makes sense. The army is property of the Royals (in this case, the queen).</p><p></p><p>The British Prime minister controls the House of Commons (which is similar to our House), there is a House of Lords (roughly the same as our senate) although the House of Lords does not have near enough power. That is why I said British PM has more power over his country than our President does over ours. Where our fairly (I know thats a stretch) balanced Senate and House keeps our President under check, the Queen keeps her PM under check via controlling the army and the power to dissolve Parliament. The Queen is kept in check by the fact if she tries to completely rule, there would be revolution. So the balance of power between the Royals and the PM is more about forced compromise. If either side gets to uppity, it could have dire results.</p><p></p><p>I've always found the monarchy fascinating. I'd still rather be a citizen of a democratic republic than a subject or a "hybrid", but there is just something fascinating about how their government works.</p><p></p><p>With my family history, I could never live under the crown. (Revolutionary American, Native Savage, Irish Republican and Scottish Nationals) <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WhiteyMacD, post: 1867173, member: 7633"] If you are asking seriously, I think they are both. Subjects of the crown, yet citizens of the government. The monarchy is really just a figure-head anymore. The Prime Minister would be the most equivalent to our US President, although he holds more power over the country than our President. The Royals (Queen acting as Head of State) are more of a counter balance to the PM's power. From what I understand, the Royals are not really allowed to have political affiliation. They are more-so required to remain neutral, which makes sense. The army is property of the Royals (in this case, the queen). The British Prime minister controls the House of Commons (which is similar to our House), there is a House of Lords (roughly the same as our senate) although the House of Lords does not have near enough power. That is why I said British PM has more power over his country than our President does over ours. Where our fairly (I know thats a stretch) balanced Senate and House keeps our President under check, the Queen keeps her PM under check via controlling the army and the power to dissolve Parliament. The Queen is kept in check by the fact if she tries to completely rule, there would be revolution. So the balance of power between the Royals and the PM is more about forced compromise. If either side gets to uppity, it could have dire results. I've always found the monarchy fascinating. I'd still rather be a citizen of a democratic republic than a subject or a "hybrid", but there is just something fascinating about how their government works. With my family history, I could never live under the crown. (Revolutionary American, Native Savage, Irish Republican and Scottish Nationals) :) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Safety Nannyism Run Amok
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
