The Queen, Sovereign of the United Kingddom and her other Dominions, will be very surprised to hear about that.

 

 

INO.  If you want to compare 21st century UK with 19th century Uk (which BTW had slavery) go ahead.  But in the 19th century, it was moving out of the "king is all" (it was after all only 24 years earlier when the US revolted and formed a new nation - totally unheard of at the time).  Quite simply, while it is not a true MOnarchy in the sense of the Royalty dictate all (they still have power - just not as much), it had, has and always will have a royalty that America has never experienced (much to Hillary Clinton's chagrin).  And that was what Karl Marx was writing about. 

At the time of his writing, many European nations were entering the Industrial revolution where the "serfs" were taken off the farms and put in factories in what by any modern comparison was deplorable conditions.  And that was a great influence on his writings and why he saw things like the Russian Revolution occuring (that of course was corrupted by the fact that man is not perfect).  Indeed, many european countries still have a monarchy - in name only.

But england was a feudal state.  It is not now, it is socialist.  But it was during most of the 19th century.  I know what it is.  I am not ignorany of European history like many Americans.  I have lived it - and may have stared across the wall at you back about 40 years ago. (If you are that old).

But all this is getting away from the point.  Marx and Engels did not conceive of a peaceful transition to a non-royalty society, because they had no conception of it.  America was still a very backward nation that was struggling with its own self doubts (the Civil War), and they (Marx and Engels) were immersed inthe fiefdoms of europe and what they saw as the "exploitation" of the masses by royalty.  NOt of the masses running the show.  A shame really.  If they had been born in the US, the world may never have had the stain of communism (but I am sure there would still be enough generic dictators to take the place of the faux communist).

just because she is called "Sovereign" doesn't mean she is in possesion of the sovereignty. Someone who is Emperor by By the Grace of God very likely wasn't really appointed by God either.

Sure she is formal the head of the state she has no large legislative or executive force (okay she can dissolve the parliament but you know very well that this would be the end of the british monarchy if she abuses this.

Slave Trade was abolished 1807 and Slavery completely abolished 1833, while it is not completely wrong what you said as this was in the 19th century, Marx was 15 years old in 1833.

I am not argueing that Marx wasn't influenced by the late-feudal countries in Europe, but England definitely wasn't feudal.

There was no serfdom, no supreme rule by landowners or kings, the bill of rights granted them rights like bearing own weapons, no punishment without a trial, freedom to elect a parliament, freedom from cruel punishments.

That is no feudal society at all.

 

And nowadays UK is not socialist: the means of production are in personal hands and the national income isn't collected and made equally available to everyone. What makes UK socialist? UK is a social market democracy (you know there is grey not just black and white).

 

I guess if it wasn't for Marx and Engels which became so popular with communism either someone else would have turned up or some other guy who had same ideas would have become the idol of communism, maybe even Thomas Morus

1800 = 19th centure. You start counting centures at 1, not at 0.

 

The only real communism humanity has ever had were small communities, like the quaker villages, the mayflower compact and the kibutzes in israel, actually often settlers / fledgeling nations start with communist villages, and when they grow large enough they transition to capitalism.

Russia was NEVER communist, it had money from begining to end. It had horrible brutal dictators and it stripped the riches of everyone but the military and the politicians, but while doctors and engineers were made as poor as anyone else, the ruling class was rich, with money, not just servants, and material goods.

Crazy dictators often used revolutions to try to gain power, it is the most common form of coup detant there is. Heck in england they still learn of cromwell.

But that is not to say that communism/socialism on a larger scale (once you move beyond the "several dozen to hundred people desperately trying to survive) is completely impracticle and repungant.

I don't see who used it wrong honestly.

(Confused because it seems obvious.) Yes, it does. That's exactly what "sovereign" means.

 

Possibly not, but by law subjects were supposed to see it that way.

Law doesn't necessarily reflect objective reality. Smoking pot is illegal but I don't think it should be.

 

Leauki, Sovereignty is usually defined by having the legislative and executive power (or at least most of it) and while the queen has to sign laws she has no real legislative and executive power at all. The Sovereign in UK is all their citizen which are represented by their parliament.

superamus = above anything/everyone

Maybe anglo-saxon definitions are a bit different from what we consider sovereign in germany though.

 

You should watch Yes Minister more often. The show explains it well.

UK citizens are NOT the sovereign. The Queen is.

You are confusing a kingdom with a republic or possibly the UK with Germany (which is a republic).

 

Leauki, how much power has the queen and how much power have the citizen via their representation by parliament?

(I admit that this might be a bit of a pragmatic definition of sovereignty but a sovereign monarch is a absolut one, not one who is just monarch because of tradition)

And I never said the citizen are "The Sovereign" just that they possess the sovereignty.

Edit: actually I did, my bad. The Sovereign per definition is the Queen yes.

Edit2:

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. 

source : http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm

The queen can veto any act of parliament she disagrees with. In practice if she did that she'd likely be overthrown, but in theory the power is still there.

The order of a bill(law) is: House of Commons (made up fully of elected members) proposes the bill, it gets scrutinised etc., then they have a vote on it. If successful, it goes to the house of laws (not fully elected) which might veto it, and/or propose amendments. If they veto it it goes back to the house of commons who vote on those amendments, and then it goes back to the lords etc., if the lords continue to veto it then the house of commons can use the parliament act to force the bill through the lords without their consent. The final stage is royal assent where basically the queen signs it off. Hence citizens representation is predominantly through the house of commons (with only partial representation in the house of lords). The queens only (legislative) power is via her ability to refuse to sign/agree to the relevant legislation.

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. "

You are confusing type of sovereignty with who owns the sovreignty.

The Queen is the sovereign and soverignty is hers. The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary and that she makes parliament come up with all the laws doesn't change that fact.

In Germany the people are the sovereign. Nevertheless, sovereignty in Germany is parliamentary. The German Bundestag (and Bundesrat) make the laws, but they are NOT the sovereign of Germany; the people are the sovereign.

In both cases parliament is the tool used by the sovereign. But in the UK the sovereign is the monarch and in Germany (and the US) the sovereign is the people.

In our prayer books which we import from England (obviously), there is a prayer for the Queen/King and her Prime Minister and his cabinet. We have a card glued to the cover of the book that replaces the prayer with one for the President and the Taoiseach. The president in a republic represents the people and the people are the sovereign. In a monarchy the monarch either represents himself/herself or has a Governor General. (A president might also have a governor general, of course.)

 

I really would like to see what happens if the Queen decides to remove the sovereignty from the parliament

real sovereignty means factual power not being in possession of some theoretical power.

 

"The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary"

parliament gets elected by the people so they are the de-facto in possession of this sovereignty not the queen (she has one vote in the election like all others have as well)

In 1940 the King named Winston Churchill Prime Minister without asking parliament.

What happened was that we (Germany) lost the war.

Similar events took place in Australia in the 70s when the Governor General fired a Prime Minister without asking parliament. In the Netherlands the Queen occasionally interferes when parliament is deadlocked.




It is factual power. There is nothing theoretical about it. It's called "reserve powers" and those powers are very very real.

There is just no good reason to use them just to prove that they still exist.





Actually, the Queen doesn't have a vote.

And neither do hereditary lords (who are already represented in the House of Lords).

That is the 19th century. And Marx grew up with it.  People often forget that the years with the biggest impact on your life are the early ones as they seem to lasted the longest.  15 years is a life time to a teenager.

England was indeed feudal.  WHen it stopped being feudal is open to interpretation, but the fact that it was is not.

Uh, that was Ameican, not English.  And if you are referring to the Magna Carta, that applied to nobility only.

YOu are confusing Communism with Socialism.  England is not a pure socialist society (that does not exist), but it is mainly socialist.