An Argument For Great Britain's Constitutional Monarchy

Cheers rise from the jubilant crowd as the crowning moment we’ve all been waiting for finally arrives. Thousands fill the Mall, craning their necks as Queen Elizabeth II steps out onto her balcony, offering a smile to her adoring subjects. Clad in her bedazzled hat, she surveys the scene: a vast sea of British flags, frantic in their support of sixty years on the throne, waving in time to a raucous rendition of God Save the Queen.

Before evaluating whether or not Parliament is sovereign, it’s important to define what sovereignty means. Sovereignty can be split into two; political and legal. Legal sovereignty is the ultimate power to make laws which will be enforced within the state. Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister have ultimate legal power because they propose and enforce legislation. Citizens have no legal sovereignty because they don’t play a role in the legislative function even though pressure group activity may influence decisions. Political sovereignty is where real political power lies, and depending on the situation political sovereignty doesn’t always lie within Parliament. Critics have argued that due to recent changes, Parliament is no longer

Refer to Table 1-1 of The American Democracy, and in 100 to 150 words, identify and explain America’s 3 core political ideals and the 3 rules of American politics.

Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

A lot of people say that the Queen does nothing to help Canada, so why shouldn’t we get rid of the monarchy? Well, I believe the opposite because by removing the monarchy it’ll just cause even more problems than solutions. One of the big problems is that to remove the Monarchy you would have to create a Constitutional Amendment, which would mean that whole parliament and all provinces would have to agree with this decision; most likely this will tear Canada apart. This brings me to the second problem, which is that the provinces would just start to ask for more demands, specifically Quebec and/or Alberta. So if you really think about it, the Monarchy isn’t really causing any issues that need to be fixed and that it would cause even more problems if we got rid of

They probably think they have power to decide what's right. The colonies voted for them to represent them. In the Declaration they state that whenever the system of government doesn't work for they colonist, they do have the right to change it. All the problems listed there on the paper such as taxes with out representation in Parliament or trials without jurisdiction. These are major problems that need to be resolved. In the Declaration describe King George III as a prince who is described by his actions, which is true. So, the signers of the Declaration of Independence do have the right to change the system of government. Especially, with them being elected and the King acting like a big jerk. My answer still stands that they do have the

One reason why a monarch’s authority to govern should be absolute is because the interest of the state must come first. This means that the nation as a whole is more important than the individual opinions and thoughts of the citizens. In document number three it says, “The more you grant [to the assembled people], the more it claims… The interest of the state must come first.” This quote means that people are greedy and will take what they are given. If you award them too much freedom, they will take advantage of it. This would compromise the success of the country. Allowing the citizens to do and take whatever they want will leave less for the nation. (Document #3)

During the beginning of the United States, many changes were brought upon the government, the most prominent one being the Constitution. When America had just been founded, the first government put into place was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government by providing more power to the states and their people. Quickly discovering the articles were unable to provide a strong government for the United States, the Constitutional Convention was created to compose a new government system. Together, the Constitutional Convention created the United States Constitution. The Constitution used checks and balances to ensure none of the three branches of government abused their power. Eventually, the

Conventions are unwritten rules. They are also one of the five sources for the British Constitution. When Dicey was creating the basis of the constitution, he said that any peer who wasn’t a law lord can’t take any part in proceedings when the House of Lords acts as the court of appeal. One example of a convention created was that all money bills must originate within the House of Commons and that the Prime Minister must be a member of either the House of Commons of Lords, but this was only up until 1963.

Absolutism was political philosophy: Absolutism raised a hypothetical thinking basis that was understood as divine right of kings. Absolute monarchies always trusted on provision in noblemen and some community collections. Also the assertions of divine right philosophy imitated exertions at imperial domination.

The True Law of Free Monarchies and the Petition of Rights 1628 ask an important question that was debated in the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries: Who was supreme in the English government? The King or Parliament? While both James I and Parliament make their case, the issue remained highly contested. King James I wrote the True Law of Free Monarchies to outline his political theories of royal absolutism and divine sanction.

During this period the majority of rulers were monarchs who felt that they had divine power vested in them by God known as the divine right. The absolute monarchy was around 1500-1600. Monarchies encourage the spread of nationalism which was sometimes taken to extremes. There are some conflicts that broke out such as those between Protestants and Catholics. There was also Internal warfare between a monarch and the noble class was also very common. And the problems caused battles also commonly resulted from trade-related clashes between nations. At first spain had most of the power and then the power shifted to two rivaling powers-in-the-making: France and

Do you people of America think that we should be under the king of England's control? I say that we should not be under the control of Great Britain. We should be our own country not under any tyrants control. The loyalists have been creating problems for the patriots because the patriots are not following the rules of the king from England gave them. The king's rules are not fair because he only cares about money, business, and his country, not ours. We need a king that is fair and cares about everyone, not just his own. I am a patriot because I think that we should be an independent country that should have our own rules and do what we want, not under the control of a tyrant kings rules that is in England. And we would be better off without England controlling us and our trade. We also won’t be free to buy anything we’d like, not forced to by English manufactured goods.

Britain has gone through many royal deaths and many more monarchs, but no death more tragic than Princess Charlotte of Wales and no monarch greater than Queen Alexandrina Victoria. The book Becoming Queen Victoria: the Tragic Death of Princess Charlotte and the Rise of Britain's Greatest Monarch tells the story of Charlotte and how her death leaded to the rule of Queen Victoria. Kate Williams shares the twists and turns through the history of Great Britain’s different rulers. Kate has written a few other novels covering eighteenth century Britain, she has gone through courses at Oxford(undergraduate and D.Phil in history) and Queen Mary, University of London(M.A). She also appears on BBC. Kate does a fine job explaining how the British monarchy works and who would take the throne next. She makes it

The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental components of the UK constitution as well as being a principle that is concerned with restricting parliamentary action. Though the rule of law is seen to be a component in the constitution; the actual meaning of the rule of law has been very problematic to interpret. This is considerably down to the fact that it means different things to different people as since the nineteenth century, academics, politicians and judges have proposed diverse definitions and explanations in regards to the rule of law and the role it upholds in the UK constitution.