William Selinger’s (2019) Parliamentarism: From Burke to Weber (CUP), explores the significant role of parliamentary democracy to nineteenth century liberal thought. It’s very well written and even specialists will get a lot of out it. One very important strain of argument is that Montesquieu’s purported impact on liberal thought is much over-stated. This because from the start many informed commentators — beginning with the neglected Genevan, Jean Louis de Lolme (1740-1806), — recognized that the practice of the model nation that inspired Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers, Great Britain, did not neatly conform to his theory.
As I understand the term "constitutional monarchy" it requires more than a ceremonial figurehead. The monarch must have a substantial share of executive power, for example, in deciding who should form government after an election.
In this context, Spain was a successful example in the transition to democracy, but subsequent events there have illustrated the difficulties inherent in having a lifetime appointment to a position of power, which is a crucial aspect of monarchy.
As I understand the term "constitutional monarchy" it requires more than a ceremonial figurehead. The monarch must have a substantial share of executive power, for example, in deciding who should form government after an election.
In this context, Spain was a successful example in the transition to democracy, but subsequent events there have illustrated the difficulties inherent in having a lifetime appointment to a position of power, which is a crucial aspect of monarchy.
I am more relaxed about such imperfections if they are robust against the much worse evils