The British overthrew the monarchy in favor of the parliament, and several years later they wanted another monarch. Ironic. The same could happen for Gordon Brown. Well, maybe...
I wish I was British and could relentlessly bash politicians without being labeled an anti American in league with terrorists...You guys have all the fun
So you have to be British now to bash American politicians? I've been going at this the wrong way then.
It seems we Brits don't like authority, and will criticize everything an important world leader does...
Technically, the Prime Minister is more politically and democratically oriented than what a monarch would be if the Queen still had political power. The monarch is now simply ceremonial, while the Prime Minister and the Parliament really divide the role that a monarch would have played.
Interestingly, while England - not to mention all Commonwealth states - are a Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch still retains the power to disband Parliament and assume absolute power. Of course, the Queen is hardly going to do that
Assuming absolute power would violate the Magna Carta, wouldn't it? :\
Sort of, yes. 'Absolute' is perhaps to strong of a word. All the Manga Carter does is restrict a monarch from exercising complete and utter unquestionable authority by making it 'law' that certain things can not be thrown aside like basic human and legal rights (the most notable being habeas corpus).
Though that said, the Magna Carter is a very old document. I am unsure whether it's legal validity would still maintain itself today.
I suppose that it does retain its legal validity. If the U.S. Constitution still is put into effect today, then the chances are that the Magna Carta keeps at least some of its validity. And the monarch being able to regain political power is something I haven't known, and it seems a bit "out there," if you know what I mean.