President or Commonwealth Queen/King: Who is more a monarch. (4)
Foxxie: This is not a thread relating to any individual. It's not about Obama, Bush or Elizabeth II. It is also not intended to be any kind of 'My nation is a better nation than your' thread.
Rather it is related to the 'Station' of President of the United States and 'King/Queen' of the respective member Kingdoms of the Commonwealth. Please ignore that in some of those nations the head of state is not actually called a King or Queen and is actually called a 'First Admiral' or 'Sea Baron' or whatever.
The question as above;
Which station (Be it US President or Commonwealth Queen/King) is more closely related to a Monarch.
I think this could be an interesting one to discuss. Especially given that the US President has actual powers and can act against the wishes of a more recently elected government of another political party whereas the Commonwealth Queen/King is a party-neutral representation of the Crown, with all the Crowns powers in most Commonwealth nations constitutionally residing in the hands of the elected Parliament.
Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.
Once again - this is not a nation or national leader bashing exercise.
Rather it is related to the 'Station' of President of the United States and 'King/Queen' of the respective member Kingdoms of the Commonwealth. Please ignore that in some of those nations the head of state is not actually called a King or Queen and is actually called a 'First Admiral' or 'Sea Baron' or whatever.
The question as above;
Which station (Be it US President or Commonwealth Queen/King) is more closely related to a Monarch.
I think this could be an interesting one to discuss. Especially given that the US President has actual powers and can act against the wishes of a more recently elected government of another political party whereas the Commonwealth Queen/King is a party-neutral representation of the Crown, with all the Crowns powers in most Commonwealth nations constitutionally residing in the hands of the elected Parliament.
Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.
Once again - this is not a nation or national leader bashing exercise.
Not quite understanding just where you are going with this thread
A monarchy is a government which usually lasts until the head of said government dies,and even then, the position is usually hereditary,as in the Head of the U.K. being our Queen,who will be replaced by Charles or William.
Cannot imagine the American government standing for that.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bestbefore: Not quite understanding just where you are going with this thread
A monarchy is a government which usually lasts until the head of said government dies,and even then, the position is usually hereditary,as in the Head of the U.K. being our Queen,who will be replaced by Charles or William.
Cannot imagine the American government standing for that.
nor does the Pres. have the last say inacting laws either.....if he vetos ....it can go back to the houses and a 2/3 majority I believe will still pass the lawA monarchy is a government which usually lasts until the head of said government dies,and even then, the position is usually hereditary,as in the Head of the U.K. being our Queen,who will be replaced by Charles or William.
Cannot imagine the American government standing for that.
------ This thread is Archived ------
grizzwald: nor does the Pres. have the last say inacting laws either.....if he vetos ....it can go back to the houses and a 2/3 majority I believe will still pass the law
nor can he declare war without I believe congress backing------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Feel Good Music
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
the way you look
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Unions support Democrats!
wanting beyond need
men's perspective towards women
Ladies
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
682 Views
3 Comments
Created: Aug 2011
Last Viewed: Apr 14
Last Commented: Aug 2011
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Feel Good Music
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- the way you look
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- Unions support Democrats!
- wanting beyond need
- men's perspective towards women
- Ladies
Rather it is related to the 'Station' of President of the United States and 'King/Queen' of the respective member Kingdoms of the Commonwealth. Please ignore that in some of those nations the head of state is not actually called a King or Queen and is actually called a 'First Admiral' or 'Sea Baron' or whatever.
The question as above;
Which station (Be it US President or Commonwealth Queen/King) is more closely related to a Monarch.
I think this could be an interesting one to discuss. Especially given that the US President has actual powers and can act against the wishes of a more recently elected government of another political party whereas the Commonwealth Queen/King is a party-neutral representation of the Crown, with all the Crowns powers in most Commonwealth nations constitutionally residing in the hands of the elected Parliament.
Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.
Once again - this is not a nation or national leader bashing exercise.