Exactly how could having a monarch save the UK from someone like Trump becoming the UK Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. Nothing to do with the monarch.
It can't. That is a complete misunderstanding of what a constitutional monarchy is all about.
It can't. However, the way that powers are divided in the Westminster system doesn't give the PM a lot of scope for doing dumb stuff without even their own party supporting them, and if they do becaome a liability, their own caucus can ditch them.
It couldn't, and as I keep pointing out here, to those particular royalists, the UK counterpart of the US president is NOT the monarch but rather the Prime Minister. Although the US president combines the roles of head of state and head of government in one person, by far his most important role is the latter. So, the British could certainly end up with a buffoon like Trump, if such a person happened to be the leader of the party that won a majority in Parliament. The monarch could conceivably decline to ask that person to form a government (it would normally not happen in the absence of strong advice to pass over that person), but such a decision could certainly create its own problems, if that party leader were widely admired by a large portion of the electorate that had apparently suffered mass lobotomies shortly before voting.
If were were NOT a MONARCHY would still have a PM but also OF THE PEOPLE...A PRESIDENT...….www.republic.org.uk
Yes the monarchy has that power. But they would never do it if the election was authentic. Trump's election was not legitimate and he is the agent of a hostile foreign power. The Parliament would have flushed Trump like the cancerous turd he is a few months in, no need for the monarchy. The problem with America is the Republican party refuses to put country before party.
Who ever suggested such a thing ? The Monarch of the UK has no such powers at this time. Rather, it is the party that the PM is the head of that can get together, such as in a caucus of the party's members in the Commons, and decide of they wish their current leader to go. The Conservative Party did that with Maggie Thatcher, which is why her premiership ended.
The monarchy is a separate, non-political branch of government. It has nothing to do with whom Parliament chooses as Prime Minister.
Queen has no political power. she cant do a thing.
It cant - cos we got somebody already "Does the monarch have that much power to overturn a fair election?" not exactly - but it can dissolve parliament and call for another election (the governor general of australia (who acts under orders from the monarch) did it in australia (think it was in the 70s) BUT the result would be a constitutional crisis maybe resulting in a republic (there was a crisis in australia there was a referedum to decide whether to become a republic or not But the stupid republicans didnt put it to a straight vote "republic or monarchy" and if it decided to become a republic THEN have a vote to decide who was gonna be president They allowed voters to vote for several presidents vs 1 monarch - thus splitting the republican vote The number who voted for a president far outnumbered those who wanted a monarch ,but those votes were spread around the several presidential candidates Result was - the 1 monarch got more votes than anybody else so australia stayed a monarchy So even though more people indicated they wanted a republic - it stayed a monarchy
Look, the bottom line is we in the UK, with a Monarchy AND an elected PM, don't have a POLITICAL Head of State. The Queen is non-political much as I'm sure she has her preferences! We could have a Trump-like PM of course, but as PM, such a person wouldn't be in office for long, just as the American President has to stand down after 2 terms. To those hitting the TD button on bot answers .... don't bother. Report - not that so far that's doing much good either.
Trump can’t become the PM of The UK
The Parliamentary system would do that as far more educated people would be the ones picking the new leader.
Obama sucked. That being said, a monarchy is only as good as the leader who is currently in it. The settlers of America like King James I, but they did not like George III. Even where the Bible is concerned, and the kings of Israel, there were both good kings and wicked kings. It's not about "the system" but the people behind that system. No system can create a utopia with wicked leaders running the show. It's possible to have a good monarchy and a very wicked monarchy... democracy was supposed to be the best safeguard against tyrannical leaders by creating a system of checks and balances, and giving the people representation. If you read the Declaration of Independence and see the grievances of the people, you can see that the monarchy wasn't the system that the people desired to rule over them. Also due to the fact that the Church of England claimed to be spiritual rule over God's church and likewise the Vatican, the establishment clause was created to prevent such abuses in America, and give people the freedom to choose. A system of Sharia law is incompatible with freedom of religion, but I wonder if the UK has such protections and safeguards against such things occurring in their own lands?
It's a stupid argument royalists make, even the Americans are not stuck with the same one, their president can't be elected more than twice.