I argue that constitutional monarchies aren't actual monarchies,

>>1536024
>HURR

>>1536024
>elected officials
>implying implications
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy where the powers of the king are constrained by a constitution. Where do elected officials figure in this situation? They're completely optional to the concept.

>>1536103
Take the UK and Holland for example. The monarchs hold a symbolic position while the actual power rests with the parliament.

>>1536137

So?
It isn't inherent in a constitutional monarchy. You could have a monarch following a constitution written and enforced by unelected aristocrats and it'd still be a constitutional monarchy. Which is how England's started anyway.

>>1536024
>>1536103
Some constitutional monarchies see an absolute monarch but a legislative house, which can be overruled, is constitutionally provided. See: Monaco, Imperial Germany. They're distinguished as executive monarchies for this purpose, though.