My point exactly: It’s a monarchy and so is the UK. But to classify them together is inane.
It acts as one, however. An intelligent classification system ought to make that clear.
I don’t see why. I’m a mammal and a hedgehog is a mammal, but I don’t generally forage for snails.
Hence the qualifiers. If you felt so inclined, it would make more sense to come up with a single word to account for both constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, rather than corrupt the meaning of a republic. Intelligent or otherwise, it’s not something likely to happen.
Interestingly, the same office, the Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und Abtreibung, was responsible for fighting both homosexuality and abortion.
What’s wrong with “parliamentary democracy”? The UK (and Canada, for that matter) have democratically elected parliaments; by my lights that makes them parliamentary democracies. It seems to me that a parliamentary democracy can exist in either a republic or a constitutional monarchy.
Nothing is wrong with it. That’s my point. Derleth had suggested the UK was a republic, which by most people’s understanding it is not. As you state, the UK is both a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.
H.G. Wells, in his Outline of History, referred to the UK of his time as a “crowned republic.” (Quotation marks in the original text, however.)
Either the will of the people, as expressed by ballots, is the determining factor in government, or it is not. At his point in our specie’s progress towards liberation, that’s about the only thing that counts.