Why is the United Kingdom described as a constitutional monarchy when it has no written constitution?
832212
Magna Carta....was originally created because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and his English barons about the rights of the King. It required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and others accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.
894586
The United Kingdom does not have a President.  It is a parliamentary democracy.  The head of government is Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.
296697
A democracy elects its government by popular vote.  A republic does not have a monarchy.\n\nUSA and India are both democracies and republics.  UK and Thailand are both democracies but not republics (as they both have monarchies).\n\nBurma (which calls itself Myanmar now) is a republic but not a democracy (the democratically elected government is under house arrest).  Nepal is neither a democracy nor a republic as it has an absolute monarch.  North Korea is a republic but not really a democracy (although it calls itself a democracy because people have to vote.  As North Koreans have only one candidate to choose from at election time, most people would not really regard this as a democracy.)
989343
Yesterday's newspaper reported that it currently costs the British people $70 million dollars a year to maintain the Monarchy.\n\nConsidering the fact that the Monarchy plays no role in running the British Government, and makes no decisions or policy whatsoever, I think it's high time the British people dissolve the Monarchy and spend their money on ANYTHING better.\n\nPerhaps they should spend the money on paving the grass at Wimbledon with asphalt so they can finally have a more meaningful tennis tournament on hard-court that fairly decides the best player.
292509
It is a country which is in Union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to form the nation of the United Kingdom. Until the King of Scotland James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England and became King James I of England, the two countries had totally separate governments. \n\nScotland has its own parliament which is responsible for its own  internal affairs. The government of the UK is mostly responsible for foreign affairs, some taxaton, etc.\n\nScotland competes with England in the Olympics, but in other international events (such as World Cup soccer) it competes alone as Scotland.
993499
I would say yes. In theory, even in a constitutional monarchy, the constitution comes from the Monarch, and is of his or her will. This said, the monarch could regain executive authority if there was enough cause. This is actually the benefit of a monarchy. In Spain for instance, after the King was reinstalled, the army generals tried to stage a coup. The King asked all forces loyal to the monarchy to come to his and the nations aid. They overthrew the generals and because of the king, order was restored.
1142905
The United Kingdom:\n\na country in northwest Europe, officially called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, made up of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Population: 58,789,194 (2001). Capital: London. The name "United Kingdom" was first used in 1707, when the parliaments of England and Scotland united to form one country. The country's government consists of a Queen or King, a Prime Minister, and two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The United Kingdom has been a member of the EU since 1972. \n\nhttp://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9381542\n__________________________________\nBritain:\n\nBritain is used especially when referring to its pre-Roman and Roman periods and to its early Anglo-Saxon period. It is the Anglicized form of Latin Britannia.\n\n__________________________________\nEngland:\n\nthe largest country in Britain; population 49,138,831 (2001). The capital is London.
73977
It is a parliament without a senat. The laws are passed directly. They form a select-comittee, it drafts up a bill, they represent it before the parliament and the whole parliament votes. If it has the votes needed (that number is usually set in the constitution of each country) the law is passed. Again acording to the constitution, but in most parliamentary countries with unicameral parliament it is so, the president, if he is not to "like" the law, has the right of a veto. Which means he can make them rewrite ot change it and vote again. But there is no senat.\nSuch parliaments have the countries who are reformed and did not really have aristocracy or are not fedarations.
1036706
Because United Kingdom, as its name implies, is a unified group of nations.... Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales.  Just as "Russia" is really a collection of several republics and the US is a collection of states.\nEngland is only one of these (but the most powerful).
1136117
Freedom !!!!!!!!!  In the form of Democracy.   The British GOVT is OK , Prime Minister Blair really runs things well.  The Queen along with the rest of the Monarchy, is a tribute to the past, the History and what the Country symbolizes, but on a day to day of GOVT activities, Mr. Prime Minister Blair runs with it.
706673
No!  Democracy is not compatible with royalty, a position held by accident of birth rather than popular mandate. I'd like a Head of State that we can vote in - and vote out - and with a monarchy you never get the chance to do either. I also resent being classified as a 'subject' rather than a 'citizen'.\n\nThe USA, without royalty,  is closer to being democratic than the UK, but the crazy electoral college system can distort the result, as in 2000, when Gore defeated Bush by at least half a million votes.  Why doesn't the USA simply add up all the votes across the country, as, for example, the French do?
1140971
there is the democratic republic - which the USA has.  They elect people to legislate on their behalf - and elect the leader as well.\n\nThere is the democratic monarchy - which the UK and others have.  It still elects those to legislate for them - but the leader is there by birthright (there are still a couple where the monarch is not just a figure head).\n\nThere is plain democracy, which does not exist to my knowledge anymore, it was in ancient Greece, where there was no real "leader" and that while there was a senate to deal with certain issues, one person = one vote on main issues.\n\nI suppose you could also include the democratic dictatorship where there is "an election" every so many years and surprisingly the "leader" keeps getting re-elected. basically one person = no vote.\n\nThere was the attempt at democratic socialism, but am not sure as much about that.
179071
Your better off viewing the data from the web page as the layout in here is pants (see source)\n\nCountry Monarch Type of monarchy \n\nBahrain King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa Constitutional \nBelgium King Albert II Constitutional  \nBhutan King Jigme Singye Wangchuck Transitional1 \nBrunei Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah  Constitutional \nCambodia King Norodom Sihamoni Constitutional \nDenmark Queen Margrethe II Constitutional \nJapan Emperor Akihito Constitutional \nJordan King Abdullah II Constitutional \nKuwait Sheikh Saad Al Abdullah Al Salim Al Sabah Constitutional \nLesotho King Letsie III Constitutional \nLiechtenstein Prince Hans Adam II Constitutional \nLuxembourg Grand Duke Henri Constitutional \nMalaysia King Syed Sirajuddin Constitutional \nMonaco Prince Albert II Constitutional \nMorocco King Muhammad VI Constitutional \nNepal King Gyandendra Absolute2 \nNetherlands Queen Beatrix Constitutional \nNorway King Harald V Constitutional \nOman Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id Absolute \nQatar Emir Sheik Hamad ibn Khalifa al-Thani Constitutional \nSamoa Malietoa Tanumafili II  Constitutional  \nSaudi Arabia King Abdullah Absolute \nSpain King Juan Carlos I Parliamentary \nSwaziland King Mswati III Absolute \nSweden King Carl XVI Gustaf Constitutional \nThailand King Bhumibol Adulyadej Constitutional \nTonga King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV Constitutional \nUnited Kingdom Queen Elizabeth II3 Constitutional4 \n\n1. Bhutan is in the process of becoming a constitutional monarchy.\n2. Constitutional monarchy suspended in 2002, when King Gyanendra assumed power.\n3. Queen Elizabeth II is also the Sovereign of 15 countries in the Commonwealth of Nations: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.\n4. Also parliamentary democracy.
645771
If the country has a constitution. The constitution is a document that codifies how the country is run and governed. It also often emphasises certain political ideologies. Therefore, all laws that are passed in a country must conform to the constitution, and are often checked thoroughly to make sure they do before they are ratified. The constitution often acts as a safeguard against something going drastically wrong, like having a dictator. But it doesn't always work. Not all countries have a constitution though. The UK doesn't - however there are lots of rules that when put together act as a sort of constitution, and there are also a lot of historical traditions which act as a safeguard.
790685
yes all countries should be a republic\nwhy any one wants to be ruled by a king or queen is beyond me.\nlook how much it costs to keep them the are the biggest waste of money ever.\nin england you have a fair idea who will sit in the throne for the next 100 years. do you not think you should decide who is the head of your country.
905760
In Britain Government and the parliament have the power Monarchy is just in name only to sign as per the advise of Government and Parliament.
757334
constitution, principles of government\n \n \nfundamental principles of government in a nation, either implied in its laws, institutions, and customs, or embodied in one fundamental document or in several. In the first category—customary and unwritten constitutions—is the British constitution, which is contained implicitly in the whole body of common and statutory law of the realm, and in the practices and traditions of the government. Because it can be modified by an ordinary act of Parliament, the British constitution is often termed flexible. This enables Britain to react quickly to any constitutional emergency, but it affords no fundamental protections of civil or personal liberty, or any areas in which parliamentary legislation is expressly forbidden. The theory of the social contract, developed in the 17th cent. by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, was fundamental to the development of the modern constitution. The Constitution of the United States, written in 1787 and ratified in 1789, was the first important written constitution, and a model for a vast number of subsequent constitutional documents. Though to a large extent based on the principles and practices of the British constitution, the Constitution of the United States has superior sanction to the ordinary laws of the land, interpreted through a process of judicial review that passes judgment on the constitutionality of subsequent legislation, and that is subject to a specially prescribed process of amendment. The rigidity of its written format has been counterbalanced by growth and usage: in particular, statutory elaboration (see Congress of the United States) and judicial construction (see Supreme Court, United States, and Marshall, John) have kept the written document abreast of the times. But a written constitution, without a commitment to its principles and civil justice, has often proved to be a temporary or rapidly reversed gesture. In the 18th, 19th, and 20th cent., many countries, having made sharp political and economic departures from the past, had little legal custom to rely upon and therefore set forth their organic laws in written constitutions—some of which are judicially enforced. Adolf Hitler never formally abolished the constitution of the Weimar Republic, and the protections of personal liberties contained in the Soviet constitution of 1936 proved to be empty promises. Since the 1960s, many of the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa have adopted written constitutions, often on the model of the American, British, or French constitutions.   1\nSee E. McWhinney, Constitution-Making (1981); V. Bhagwan and V. Bhushan, World Constitutions (2d ed. 1987); P. Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation (1991); J. W. Peltason, Understanding the Constitution (12th ed. 1991).