How might one allow for there to be an executive monarchy within the UK?

Indeed, though the scheming that would come from that surely lowers the stability factor?

Venice was actually one of the most stable European states in the Middle Ages.

Doge of Venice isn't executive monarchy, since the doge had no real power.

Even at the end of the Republic, when the Doge's powers had been progressively reduced, that's still an over-simplification. For earlier periods it's an exaggeration, and for even earlier periods it's flat-out wrong.
 
Even at the end of the Republic, when the Doge's powers had been progressively reduced, that's still an over-simplification. For earlier periods it's an exaggeration, and for even earlier periods it's flat-out wrong.

Well, the first doges were governors appointed by the Byzantine Emperor. Reducing of power began in the 11th century, in the 14th century he had lost any independence. Hell, he couldn't even speak with foreigners alone! However, he had some influence since he was the only magistrate elected for lifetime.

Or like most Early Medieval monarchs.

Early Medieval monarchs mostly had no power at all; HRE wasn't an executive monarchy.
 
Well, the first doges were governors appointed by the Byzantine Emperor. Reducing of power began in the 11th century, in the 14th century he had lost any independence. Hell, he couldn't even speak with foreigners alone! However, he had some influence since he was the only magistrate elected for lifetime.

They were also in charge of presiding over some councils, received ambassadors, and often commanded the Venetian armed forces in war.

Early Medieval monarchs mostly had no power at all; HRE wasn't an executive monarchy.

Now that's just ridiculous. Early Medieval monarchs might not have had unlimited power, but they were a very long way from having no power whatsoever.
 
Now that's just ridiculous. Early Medieval monarchs might not have had unlimited power, but they were a very long way from having no power whatsoever.

They were always depending on the good will of their vassals.

They were also in charge of presiding over some councils, received ambassadors, and often commanded the Venetian armed forces in war.

Presiding over councils and receiving ambassadors isn't what I would call "executive power". Also, he couldn't take any decisions without the approval of the elected consigliere.
 
Well if that's your definition there has never been an executive monarchy, anywhere, ever.

I'm actually of the opinion that real absolute monarchy and dictatorship don't exist, since even the most evil tyrant needs the support of a significant part of the population to stay in power.

However, you will agree that Stalin, a dictator, had more power over his subjects than Napoleon, an executive monarch; and that Napoleon had, due to his secret police and centralized administration, more power than John Lackland.
 
I'm actually of the opinion that real absolute monarchy and dictatorship don't exist, since even the most evil tyrant needs the support of a significant part of the population to stay in power.

However, you will agree that Stalin, a dictator, had more power over his subjects than Napoleon, an executive monarch; and that Napoleon had, due to his secret police and centralized administration, more power than John Lackland.

I don;'t think it's too hard for anyone to have more than John Lackland, the man was a bit of a fool.
 
I'm actually of the opinion that real absolute monarchy and dictatorship don't exist, since even the most evil tyrant needs the support of a significant part of the population to stay in power.

Fine, but that's not how the vast majority of the English-speaking world uses those terms, and when you go around telling people that X wasn't a proper executive monarchy based on your own niche definition it honestly gets a bit annoying.
 
Fine, but that's not how the vast majority of the English-speaking world uses those terms, and when you go around telling people that X wasn't a proper executive monarchy based on your own niche definition it honestly gets a bit annoying.

And the worlds of other languages;) So maybe we need a definition of "executive monarch":

- he can, but does not have to take part in legislation
- he can, but does not have to take part in jurisdiction
- he can, but does not have to take part in foreign policy
- he is the chief executive, meaning that he commands the administration, the police, the army etc.
- he has the right to appoint his advisors, ministers, generals and subordinate officials and officers as freely as possible
- he does not depend on his advisors' (or ministers) consent/countersign to take any of his decisions
- he is therefore possibly liable for his acts
- he can therefore possibly be dethroned and charged with the offenses he committed during his reign
 
Last edited:
And the worlds of other languages;) So maybe we need a definition of "executive monarch":

- he can, but does not have to take part in legislation
- he can, but does not have to take part in jurisdiction
- he can, but does not have to take part in foreign policy
- he is the chief executive, meaning that he commands the administration, the police, the army etc.
- he has the right to appoint his advisors, ministers, generals and subordinate officials and officers as freely as possible
- he does not depend on his advisors' (or ministers) consent/countersign to take any of his decisions
- he is therefore possibly liable for his acts
- he can therefore possibly be dethroned and charged with the offenses he committed during his reign

Interesting
 
Top