Ah, but what you don't know it seems, is that the Monarch is not 'The Crown'. The monarch is the embodiment of the Crown, and it's representative, but in British political history, the authority of the monarch to act has been limited and restricted, etc. The Crown is like the sovereignty of the country. But this doesn't mean that the monarch can do what he/she wants.
It's an important concept, as far as I know (admittedly limited - not a constitutional scholar).
But the Crown is the institution, the sovereignty. That sovereignty is exercised through government institutions.
This is the foundation of the modern United Kingdom, that took a leap forward with the Magna Carta and then another with the 1689 Bill of Rights.
In fact, much of the United States constitutional foundation builds on the UK system, but takes it to another level. In the US, the sovereignty of the nation is embodied in 'the People'. In the UK, it is in 'the Crown'. But Charles is not the Crown. For example, he has to take oaths.
The problem is not so much the form of the government. It's the corruption that infiltrates and abuses it. Corrupt presidents in the USA for decades have horribly gutted the country and caused a plethora as problems. In the UK, the Royal Family is or has (always) been corrupt, but some would have been better than others. But corruption in the Monarchy as well as in the executive is likewise a problem.
Both the United States and the UK have three branches - legislative, executive and judiciary.
Corruption is the problem.
And no, Charles doesn't 'own' England, Canada Australia or New Zealand. The Crown does.
They are wrong
Charles owns england, canada, australia and new zealand
It is called 'crown land'. Everyone is a renter
And he used to own the U.S.A. until trump came along.
Ah, but what you don't know it seems, is that the Monarch is not 'The Crown'. The monarch is the embodiment of the Crown, and it's representative, but in British political history, the authority of the monarch to act has been limited and restricted, etc. The Crown is like the sovereignty of the country. But this doesn't mean that the monarch can do what he/she wants.
It's an important concept, as far as I know (admittedly limited - not a constitutional scholar).
But the Crown is the institution, the sovereignty. That sovereignty is exercised through government institutions.
This is the foundation of the modern United Kingdom, that took a leap forward with the Magna Carta and then another with the 1689 Bill of Rights.
In fact, much of the United States constitutional foundation builds on the UK system, but takes it to another level. In the US, the sovereignty of the nation is embodied in 'the People'. In the UK, it is in 'the Crown'. But Charles is not the Crown. For example, he has to take oaths.
The problem is not so much the form of the government. It's the corruption that infiltrates and abuses it. Corrupt presidents in the USA for decades have horribly gutted the country and caused a plethora as problems. In the UK, the Royal Family is or has (always) been corrupt, but some would have been better than others. But corruption in the Monarchy as well as in the executive is likewise a problem.
Both the United States and the UK have three branches - legislative, executive and judiciary.
Corruption is the problem.
And no, Charles doesn't 'own' England, Canada Australia or New Zealand. The Crown does.