Replace English Monarchy with Parliamentary Monarchy

[DominusNovus]

Given that few other countries would have any chance at playing around with the parliamentary mechanics except in the end-game, it would be nice if the current government 'English Monarchy' were available to other countries. To that end, I propose that it be renamed 'Parliamentary Monarchy' and added as a regular form of monarchy that can be adopted by any monarchy.

It may need to be rebalanced, so that it better assumes the role of a precursor to the end-game Constitutional Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy might also need to be rebalanced for similar reasons.

It may need to be a special case government where changing from it is more costly than just the usual costs, to better represent the idea that taking away the power of Parliament would really annoy a lot of people. Perhaps with the new Estates mechanic, there could be a trigger that fires when you switch away from Parlimentary to anything other than Constitutional that really annoys the estates and lowers their loyalty dramatically.

 

[edwardianed]

Given that few other countries would have any chance at playing around with the parliamentary mechanics except in the end-game, it would be nice if the current government 'English Monarchy' were available to other countries. To that end, I propose that it be renamed 'Parliamentary Monarchy' and added as a regular form of monarchy that can be adopted by any monarchy.

A parliamentary monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, they're two names for the same thing: A monarchy where the monarch's actions are limited by constitutional conventions.

 

[gdj]

A parliamentary monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, they're two names for the same thing: A monarchy where the monarch's actions are limited by constitutional conventions.

It is a common misconception that these two are the same. In short, constitutional monarchies retain a monarch as the head of the executive branch, while the the monarch in parliamentary monarchies has purely ceremonial functions.

Granted, the difference between the two is practically nonexistent today.

It might have made more of a difference in the timeframe of EU4, but the english/british system was of the constitutional type, so the point is moot...

 

[edwardianed]

It is a common misconception that these two are the same. In short, constitutional monarchies retain a monarch as the head of the executive branch, while the the monarch in parliamentary monarchies has purely ceremonial functions.

Funny, when I did my law degree (specialising in constitutional and administrative law), I was taught that a parliamentary monarchy is a constitutional monarchy where the executive branch is intertwined with the legislative branch due to the head of government being a serving member of parliament, but which still has a monarch as head of state. Your method of defining the two as separate due to the role of the monarch within the executive does not account for the British parliamentary system (which was the basis for this discussion) which is definitely both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary monarchy, where the monarch is the head of state, but not the head of the executive and still retains some royal prerogatives which can (theoretically) be exercised by the monarch alone without the consent of parliament.

 

[DominusNovus]

The point is that, in the game, right now, the English Monarchy is considered different from Constitutional Monarchy. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have a more primitive version of a monarchy with a Parliament than the late-game Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[gdj]

Funny, when I did my law degree (specialising in constitutional and administrative law), I was taught that a parliamentary monarchy is a constitutional monarchy where the executive branch is intertwined with the legislative branch due to the head of government being a serving member of parliament, but which still has a monarch as head of state. Your method of defining the two as separate due to the role of the monarch within the executive does not account for the British parliamentary system (which was the basis for this discussion) which is definitely both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary monarchy, where the monarch is the head of state, but not the head of the executive and still retains some royal prerogatives which can (theoretically) be exercised by the monarch alone without the consent of parliament.

Sure, i oversimplified the definition of the two, i only tried to point out that these two terms do not describe the same form of system, thus i started my explanation with "in short...". We dont need to make a fuss about who holds which degrees, do we?

The point is that, in the game, right now, the English Monarchy is considered different from Constitutional Monarchy. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have a more primitive version of a monarchy with a Parliament than the late-game Constitutional Monarchy.

Im still not sure whether i like the idea. I would appreciate a similar system f.ex. for noble republics, where the power is primarily concentrated in council of nobles, but having two forms of parliament mechanics for monarchies available for all nations sounds a bit of an overkill for me.

 

[edwardianed]

i only tried to point out that these two terms do not describe the same form of system

To which my rebuttal was that they do. In fact the "English Monarchy" only exists in the game because it is a constitutional monarchy in every way, but they didn't want England to have an advanced government form (with bonuses) so early in the game; so they created a special limited form.