With a POD before 1900, how would it be possible for constitutional monarchy to mean "monarch bound to a constitution" instead of "ceremonial head of state"?
We Dutchman have a constitutional monarchy since 1815 (or 1814 depends on from when you count) and the monarch has always had some power. In the beginning king Willem I could make laws without the agreement of parlement.
Sure as hell that is more than ceremonial, yet it was called a constitutional monarchy.
Well the Queen still has loads of power, she just doesn't really use it that's all. You need people more willing to have a strong monarchy.
Like 1848 being less successful?
Like 1848 being less successful?
Problem with a weaker 1848 (depending on how weak) is that it may just result in stronger autocracies and a depreciation of Constitutional monarchies overall. In some circumstances this POD might work though.
I'd suggest that the main thing you need to do is butterfly the first world war, which resulted in the removal of many monarchies which were making progress towards constitutionalism. If you could extend the general political 1880-1910 era by about 5 decades to a century you could see some real progress.
So this would mean a more varied spread of constitutional monarchism, as opposed to the British model being the only major one post-WWI?
With a POD before 1900, how would it be possible for constitutional monarchy to mean "monarch bound to a constitution" instead of "ceremonial head of state"?
Don't we have "representative monarchy" for this? In German we have.