I mean, just declare a republic ffs.
I think taking a broad view, there are quite a lot of constitutional monarchies that are really great places to live (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, the Bahamas, Japan, to name a few). There are also quite a lot of republics that can claim the same. So, from a sort of human development POV, I don’t think it really matters very much.
[EDIT: Should’ve added that there are also plenty of republics and monarchies that are disasters, too. My point is that there’s no consistent pattern of one works and the other doesn’t.]
Sure, monarchies are a bit daft but I think ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is quite a good rule. Especially since spending time on fixing things that ain’t broke is time you could be spending on fixing things that are broke. I live in the UK and we have a lot of major problems that need our attention. It’s better to focus on those than have a big argument about the King when, as we can see from international comparisons, the King isn’t really the issue.
I love that you said Canada but not the UK as we share a monarch 🤣 please send help i hate it here
Heh. Yeah, I can’t really hold up a country backsliding on trans rights as an example of an effective constitutional monarchy.
Yeh that and the whole Enoch powel impression our aledged left wing prime minister is doing just now
Some people call it “TERF Island”
As a noggie, this resonates with me. My ideology is in line with nobody being more important from the Birthe lottery than anyone else. But my pragmatic side says that there are no pressing concerns that justify such a drastic change as abolishing the royal family.
They don’t cost that much, our regent is alright, and his heir apparent is pretty alright too. Might as well keep them around as a unifying symbol and as primary diplomats.
Plus, I have to admit that I like the concept of a lhaving an apolitical person with veto powers, in case some shithead starts something silly. I just hope said veto powers are used if needed.
Source: Met them both when I was in the army roughly 1.3 lifetimes ago.
In the Netherlands, it’s not like the King or his family aren’t doing anything. They are somewhat like special ambassadors for the country. They also are highly connected, both to people in governments and other people in a position of power. And they do answer to the Parliament.
Removed by mod
They still have power. The king has regular meeting with the prime minister and they own an awful amount of property which also translates to power
That’s less of a “monarchy” power, more of a “rich people can bribe politicians” power
Not wrong but they are rich because they are part of the monarchy and they are very rich. And the meeting between king and Prime Minister is a scheduled thing in the UK
Influencing their subjects (especially other aristocrats) through their economic power was always important for monarchs, though. The medieval period had lots of weak kings who had substantial trouble bringing the aristocrats under them in line, a lot of the time they weren’t even able to collect taxes at the kingdom-level (you kind of need a money-based economy for that, and civil servants were in very short supply in the middleages).
Which king?
Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, koning der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg for instance does.
I was talking about the UK but pretty sure it exists in other countries in a similar fashion
Yes, of Angmar
Because some people never grow up and still want a daddy/authority figure to tell them how to live.
That’s why orginized religion or other authoritarian fetishes exist.
That reminds me:
What the fuck does a “Pope” do? (rhetorical question)
They don’t even have a country to ceremonially rule over 🤣
To a small extent they’re in charge of the third biggest population of any country
Now sure how much they are really in charge.
A pope can tell christians to be “compassionate” and yet we still see all the xenophobia and racism. Seems like they have no influence whatsoever.
Now I really want to answer your rhetorical question, because you’ve badly misunderstood how popes work.
You realize The Vatican is a city-state right? Like a country.
Think of them as prestigious diplomats.
Sounds way better when you say “I had a meeting with the king of The Netherlands recently” compares to "I had a meeting with the High Commissioner of The Netherlands recently "
You can still say “king” if you want
No because a king is different to a high commissioner.
It’s the country’s law, you can call the high commissioner “king” if you agree to. Ireland calls its prime minister and deputy PM “taoiseach” and “tánaiste” respectively, which are monarchic titles from the Gaelic clan system
It’s like when you get inoculated with a weakened form of a live virus so you can build up an immunity to more virulent forms.
I like this image. I’m a citizen of a small monarchy, and I used to be a staunch republican (in the European sense). I’m still not a big fan of the monarchy, but it’s a way to help conservatives feel secure while being, in fine, more open than the neighboring republics. But we don’t have a House of Lords or any nobility beside the reigning immediate family, so that helps accepting the monarchy.
Because it’s not a small thing to change. You’re basically overhauling everything if you wish to transition from a monarchy to a republic, because it’s rooted in everything.
The names of the governmental positions, and possibly their responsibilities would need to change, as would official documentation, the money, the flag, the national anthem…
You could hardly call yourself a republic if your passports are still carry the authority of the monarch, and your national anthem prominently features the King.
It only gets more complicated if you’re a former colonial power, since they may also be affected, and have to change everything as well. If the UK decides to ditch the Monarchy and become a Republic, Australia and Canada would need to follow suit, since it would be silly for them to have references to a monarch that no longer exists, or a GG who’s meant to be representative for a position that no longer exists.
Either that, or there will be a political/legal headache deciding whether they become the new inheritors of the monarchy, since the parent is gone, or would they be also need to make the same changes (see above).
Pity they can’t just put a page in the book that says “from here forward we do things this new way” and just keep moving. But that’s not how legal and governmental systems work.
Malaysia has a king, so they would remain a monarchy.
Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.
Because conservatives would go to the culture war trenches over it and it’s a cheap, simple concession that literally does not matter.
You give them a royal family as a chew toy and ideally pass non-reactionary, non-anachronistic stuff elsewhere.
it’s a cheap, simple concession
Depends. AFAIK the English monarchy is fairly expensive.
it’s difficult to calculate, but if you factor in the amount of tourism money the british monarchy generates it’s probably a net profit.
Still not convinced that the tourists wouldn’t come anymore if you depower the monarchs and keep the palaces etc. as state-owned tourist attractions, TBH.
I think the “it drives tourism” angle is extremely disingenuous and really doesn’t play. Certainly not for the other constitutional monarchies.
I also think the cost argument itself is pretty disingenuous, though. It’s not like an elected head of state is free. Especially not if you factor in the cost of running elections and campaigns for the position.
Both things ultimately go to the same point: figurehead is a figurehead. If having a figurehead shuts down traditionalist bullcrap elsewhere I am more willing to make concessions there than on actual policy. You want your mid-skill diplomats to be elected by having sex with each other? Weird kink, but there are higher priorities and it’s a good a reason as any to have a chauvinistic parade every so often. Which is to say not very, but again, you do you.
Chew toys.
You don’t need a popular election to elect a state figurehead, Germany just has it done by existing parliaments. And figureheads who aren’t monarchs don’t usually have vast landholdings like most monarchs do.
I don’t know about “most monarchs”. This wole thread is fairly anglocentric, it seems. It makes sense for the holdings of the crown to be public property. That’s a more than reasonable middle ground, especially if the royal family is on a salary.
Germany’s anomaly aside, Presidents tend to have at least some political power, rather than be just a figurehead. I would question the value of an entirely ceremonial head of state who is not a monarch. Why not get rid of the role entirely at that point, if you’re going to keep a fully parliamentarian system with executive power consolidated in a PM? I mean, if you’re planning to have an entirely useless position why take the chew toy away from the dogs? At least keep them entertained.
Didn’t you hear all of the old palaces on France have had zero visitors since they packed away the guillotines
Just in case it’s. Ot obvious /s
In my country they have enough support from both the left and right leaning voters. Also a vast majority of voters think there are more important issues to deal with.
Some parties (we have 8 with >4% votes) have an ideological position that we should abolish momarchy. No party is actively campaigning for it, because it’s seen as unimportant.
In my country we have 2 kings, one of whom complains he does not get enough money to fuel his yacht. No joke.
I’m intrigued. Which country?
Belgium :)
Our royal family is mostly into sailing, I choose to believe that’s why we don’t have the same issue.
Hahaha yes I would be more supportive of a royal sailing family 😄
What country is it that has these sailing royals?
Norway
Very cool! And also very handy. If you get tired of them, just reverse the current to some ocean wind turbines, and they’ll never make it back 😀
Does he still require childrens hands?
Of course. He’s rumoured to have partaken in pedophilic sex parties in the 70s and 80s. But that was before he was king, so that doesn’t count (apparently…).
A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”
Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.
Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule. Victor Emmanuel III was famously told by his generals that they could stop the March on Rome and chose not to because he thought Mussolini would bring him more personal power and conquests for Italy.
Tl;Dr (all of history) your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say, so maybe don’t yield rhetorical ground that you don’t need to
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.
And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.
your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say
So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?
Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.
That’s an argument I’ve often heard, in favour of monarchy - “Would you prefer a President Blair/Johnson/Farage?”
It’s a fair point, but they never have an answer for what would happen with a King Blair/Johnson/Farage.
With a president (or any other democratic system) you can, at least in theory, have a say in who represents the country. As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.
They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.
Monarchy is just repugnant to me - and not just the British Monarchy, the whole concept.
The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.
But I’m with you. No kings.
As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.
They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.
We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.
True, but they can’t literally stop a law happening until it is written to suit them. Figuratively, maybe through influence, pressure, money, etc - but not as an official, formal thing.
You raise a really good point. Makes me think of Plato’s philosopher kings trained since birth and separated from society. Seeing how most politicians are horrible even pre MAGA really makes this seem like a legitimate choice. Also have considered this when most of the population makes their political choices based on nothing but what they consume, ie bozos
I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.
I’ve thought that as well but your comment made me rethink it!
I mean think of it this way: If your monarch isn’t a dick and removing them would piss off the reactionaries and average people who don’t care much about politics, why would you do that? They also help curb strongman autocrats by providing a target for the population to worship (therefore occupying that niche for a certain section of the population) but not give any real power to.
A lot of good points here about pros and cons when considering republic vs constitutional monarchy. I was myself against the idea of monarchy for quite a while, but I realize it’s mostly because I was living in the UK at the time and was exposed to how normal people are treated compared to the upper class. In addition, though the British royal family doesn’t have any power on paper, they have vast connections in all parts of the government and private sector with many ways to influence things. Also, the UK was until recently a two party state, which meant almost total power to whichever party won the election.
Scandinavia doesn’t have as much of a disparity between social classes (even counting royals), and what I see here is that the monarchy provides a stability and continuity that we wouldn’t get with a republic. Anyone can lie, cheat and bribe their way to getting elected president, but when you have a dozen different parties with different policies passing laws with a monarch as an anchor, it works out pretty well.
What’s wrong with New Zealand or Australia ot Canada or?
Uhhh mate our nation is literally dictated by another country and we don’t have genuine autonomy?
Maybe you’re happy with some inbred Brit fuck who thinks he has a god given right to own you and control your nation, I’m not.
and the republic’s of the world are much better?
They’re just better.
- Peoples Republic of China
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Republic of the Congo
- Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
- Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
- Russian Federation…
Then there is the USA
???
What kind of idiot puts any substance into what name a country styles itself after rather than how it functions.
ok, lets look at it the other way then?
Yup those are all European or European-colonial nations.
You don’t see countries such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Cambodia on that list do you?
A republic just means that a country doesn’t have a heritable head of state. All of those listed countries are in actual fact republics. It says next to nothing about the actual political system of a country besides the role of the head of state. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics. Many democracies are republics as well, but as you can see it is the dictatorship/democracy part which describes the important part of those countries political systems, not republic.
Many Americans are confused about this, because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that republic is the main descriptor of their system. Mainly because it was an important descriptor back in the 18th century, when most countries were monarchies, but much less so in later times when most existing countries are republics.
Uhhh mate our nation is literally dictated by another country and we don’t have genuine autonomy?
Uh… No? The fuck are you even talking about? When is the last time the British monarch made a decision on behalf of Canada?
Okay, so the oath of allegience of Canada is quite… weird:
“I swear (or affirm) That I will be faithful And bear true allegiance To His Majesty King Charles the Third King of Canada His Heirs and Successors And that I will faithfully observe The laws of Canada Including the Constitution Which recognizes and affirms The Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
Pledging loyalty to a constitution is one thing, pledging loyalty to some dipshit king is so fucking weird.
It’s called Royal Assent, the GG gets final say over everything.
When they don’t like what you’re doing, they dismiss your P.M. and cause a constitutional crisis.
Just be glad you haven’t had to have it happen yet, and let’s hope your never do.
Wow that is messed up. It’s also from 50 years ago so… yeah.
Yeah, so within the lifetime of most of my country.
So…. yeah, it can happen and is a risk of having an unelected foreign head of state.
They’re fine. But why not go with “Republic of Canada”, etc…
Having to pledge loyalty to a king/queen upon taking office or natualization is quite weird, even if its only ceremonial.
“…that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; …so help me God.”
I’m neither American nor from a monarchy, but pledging allegiance to your country still seems less weird than to a specific person. Like, what you are quoting still “on behalf of the United States” as opposed to, say, the president. Both are weird, but pledging allegiance to a person feels weirder to me.
