Asked by jimbillyjoe
How are parliamentary monarchies and constitutional monarchies similar? Explain why the chosen choice is correct and why the others are wrong
(1 point)
Responses
Both have monarchs whose power is restricted in some way.
Both have monarchs whose power is restricted in some way.
Both have a document that sets out limits to the monarch’s power.
Both have a document that sets out limits to the monarch’s power.
Both have monarchs who do not have to abide by any laws or policies.
Both have monarchs who do not have to abide by any laws or policies.
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
Correct choice: Both have monarchs whose power is restricted in some way.
Why this is correct
- In both constitutional monarchies and parliamentary monarchies the monarch is not an absolute ruler. Their powers are limited by law, by political practice, or by elected institutions (for example, real executive power is exercised by a prime minister and parliament). Modern examples: Sweden (constitutional limits in law) and the United Kingdom (monarch’s role is largely ceremonial and constrained by statute and convention).
Why the other choices are wrong
- "Both have a document that sets out limits to the monarch’s power." This is not always true. Constitutional monarchies usually have constitutional or legal limits, but parliamentary monarchies (e.g., the UK) may rely heavily on statutes and unwritten conventions rather than a single written constitution. So you cannot assume a single formal document exists in every case.
- "Both have monarchs who do not have to abide by any laws or policies." This is false. Modern monarchs operate under legal and political constraints; they do not have unchecked authority and are subject to laws, conventions, and the actions of elected bodies.
Why this is correct
- In both constitutional monarchies and parliamentary monarchies the monarch is not an absolute ruler. Their powers are limited by law, by political practice, or by elected institutions (for example, real executive power is exercised by a prime minister and parliament). Modern examples: Sweden (constitutional limits in law) and the United Kingdom (monarch’s role is largely ceremonial and constrained by statute and convention).
Why the other choices are wrong
- "Both have a document that sets out limits to the monarch’s power." This is not always true. Constitutional monarchies usually have constitutional or legal limits, but parliamentary monarchies (e.g., the UK) may rely heavily on statutes and unwritten conventions rather than a single written constitution. So you cannot assume a single formal document exists in every case.
- "Both have monarchs who do not have to abide by any laws or policies." This is false. Modern monarchs operate under legal and political constraints; they do not have unchecked authority and are subject to laws, conventions, and the actions of elected bodies.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.