What's the point of constitutional monarchies? Why even keep the monarchy in place if they aren't even doing anything?
I mean, just declare a republic ffs.
It's like your country is wearing a fancy hat. The hat is not practical, it doesn't help you do things, but boy does it look neat. It's not all that expensive, so why not? Lots of countries have big monuments, historic buildings for their legislatures to be in and so forth, this is just that in human form.
It’s not all that expensive, so why not? Lots of countries have big monuments, historic buildings for their legislatures to be in and so forth, this is just that in human form.
Are we sure they're not all that expensive, comparatively speaking to the monuments and historic buildings and the like?
It's really not that expensive in comparison, especially when you count the tourism factor which is absolutely significant.
Go to London, or Copenhagen, or Stockholm, and see the Changing of the Guards. Do that on any random Tuesday - and notice the crowds of people that watch.
And, as has been said already, at least in Scandinavia the monarchs have high cultural value and are very well liked, on top of having important roles in keeping government going. They aren't freeloaders, and there isn't a huge upper class attached.
Yeah? They generally have plenty of money of their own, the government just pays for a bit of pageantry now and then.
There are stabilizing benefits in some cases. Traditions can be valuable, even just for show.
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 "
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.
Most constitutional monarchies got that way due to incremental change generally caused by political crises. Switching from a monarchy to a republic usually done as a response to one of these crises; no crisis usually means the monarch keeps the crown.
You also have an issue of what to replace the monarch with. Most constitutional monarchies have parliamentary systems of government where the legislature has supremacy. However, you still need a supreme executive to run a government when the legislature fails. The process of picking that person is very politically important and had inherent risks to it. For some countries, keeping the monarch as the on/off switch is easier than dealing with the headache of choosing a President.
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.
These comments are proof that Robespierre didn't go far enough.
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.
Monarchs are like cardboard boxes. Someday they'll be useful again, you just know it.
Instructions unclear, accidentally placed a cat on top of King Charles III
See? I knew we'd find a use for him.
My wife uses them to keep weeds from growing in the garden...boxes that is. Perhaps we could utilize the king in a similar fashion?
Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.
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
The point of a constitutional monarchy is to transition away from an absolute monarchy towards a republic.
It's not though. It could be the point in some cases. But often enough, constitutions have been granted as concessions from the sovereign to whatever group was putting up pressure, often the nobility, who had no further intent to introduce a republic or democracy or whatever else. Just looking out for their own interests.
Damn out of 90 comments I read only a couple that made any sense.
It's because it's a complex legal transition to g othrough, because laws are a dumb series of words that's usually tied to the whateverness the highest for of power is.
It's still objectively odious to grant birth based rights or role to certain people over others.
The only practical positive I can see is that it's such a dumb system that it can be fromally abused to enforce a certain degree of stability when the proper democratic process go and fuck itself, but 1) there's other ways 2) at that point the crown storically sides with the degenerates (becaue power by birthrights is a degenerate concept after all).
The King of Norway has a mostly symbolic role in day-to-day affairs. New laws that have been passed by the Storting (Parliament) will have their final approval signed by the King, but this is largely a token approval. The King does have veto power over any given amendment, but if he invokes it, Parliament has the right to vote the same amendment through a second time, at which point it cannot be vetoed. He is the head of the Church of Norway, and also supreme commander of our armed forces. Though command is delegated to other commanders, the King would have a more direct role in questions regarding central command or wartime. When representing our country abroad, he is very much considered a personification of the nation, rather than a representative of the ruling party. Norway's main reason for maintaining our own monarchy stems very much from declaring independence from Denmark and Sweden, which ruled us for about 500 years.
I just want to underscore the crucial part of the monarch being apolitical. I believe the only Norwegian citizens that cannot vote are the royal family (whether by tradition or law I'm not sure).
I think it definitely has an effect of bringing cohesion and stability to a country that you have a formal head of state, or a "personification" of the nation, that is not tied to any political party. One thing is in foreign diplomacy, another thing is in bringing the country together during a crisis. In the latter case, the monarch is a figurehead that everyone can gather around, regardless of political affiliation.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Not going into civil war. Basically that's it.
Democracy but don't destroy previous institution because some people would actually go to war over that.
I think eventually they all will fall. When people just stop seeing the point.
There's never been a coherent point
These people have to tune into Fox every night before learning what today's opinions will be.
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.
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.
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.
How would you get rid of them?
All the constitutional monarchies started as just monarchies. Every step between those days and what's around now have been gradual, and usually very stable.
If you want to completely sever royals from government, it isn't as simple as snapping fingers. Some of them, you'd have to unmake the constitution and rebuild it from the ground up. And that isn't something that everyone in those countries wants, so you'd have to get people on board and willing to deal with the transition instability.
Undoing all the baby steps from "King Bob, first of his name, absolute ruler" to "king Fred, he's kind of a figurehead, but kinda has a minor role too" is, in the cases I'm aware of, a damn hard one to unwind. Each movement comes along with other laws and decisions that would have to be untangled to sever the ties.
Not an impossible task, but a long, difficult, and expensive one. Yeah, you get enough people on board, throw a revolution, and you bypass all that, but then you've got to rebuild anyway, which means you'll be building the new government in baby steps with compromises and concessions and political expediency. With no guarantee of something better at all. It could end up better, but it could end up with a nation in collapse.
Again, if enough people want it, and accept that risk, it could happen.
But most people want stability. Very little gives the sensation of stability like hundreds of years of the same family being in place. Sure, you get assholes and idiots among them, but you have the constitution and the actual government to keep it in check. Another fifty years down the road, it changes faces and life goes on.
The simplest method in most cases would probably just be to change the law about succession. Keep the position of king, just make it an elected or appointed one. That way nothing else has to be touched unless you want to change it
All the constitutional monarchies started as just monarchies.
Nope.
Spain, for instance, started as a dictatorship.
Then the bastard died of being an old piece of shit, hopefully extremely painfully, and the corrupt fratricidal parasite he'd named as a successor, a descendant of some dude who had been king long before the dictatorship (which started as a coup against a democratic republican government) he'd been grooming for years, was named king.
There was a sham "democratic transition" that defecated a "democratic construction" with the military threatening the elected politicians to make sure the new constitution wasn't too democratic, and a referendum where the people voted for that thing because at least it wasn't as bad as going back to the dictatorship.
Then a few years later the parasite (secretly) staged a coup, and then publicly diplomatically dismantled it, enshrining himself as a saviour of democracy and making sure the citizenship wouldn't push for radical change, lest the next coup succeed.
As the bastard Franco said before he died, he left everything “tied up and well tied up”.
Being real though, saying that a dictator isn't effectively a monarch is sophistry.
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.
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.
Tourism
The tourism argument is frequently bandied about, but I don't think there's much substance to it. The tourist attractions are the buildings (which obviously don't disappear in the event of ending the monarchy) and ceremonies (which you can keep if you choose to, including the fancy costumes). It's particularly unconvincing here in the UK when we are literally right next door to France, the world's number one tourist destination. Versailles does not lack for visitors.
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.
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 🤣
Republics give you Trump....
What I mean is this:
A Prime Minister is not a president. They are simply the leader of whichever party has he most seats in parliament and is therefore the "face" of the government in many ways.
Most importantly this means that there is no such thing as "executive orders" because there is no "executive" branch, per se. Meaning even if we (Canada) had fucked up and elected Trump-lite, Pollieve, his ability to do the same shit Trump is doing would be severely limited in that everything goes through parliamentary vote without exception (for the most part).
A ruling party has something called the Emergencies Act, that can, to a limited degree, allow them to enact a few things without parliamentary vote, but its use is generally highly controversial and is still very controlled by judicial review.
Long story short (too late, I know) is that the tsunami of bullshit that Orange Hitler is doing is because he's using executive orders to enact things and then fighting congress in court when they push back rather than getting congressional approval BEFORE enacting it.
Something that is far more limited in a governmental system where that much power HASN'T been given to one person.
That's an argument against an executive branch of government, not an argument against a constitutional monarchy.
You could have (and many countries do) a parliamentary system like you describe without having a monarch figurehead.
The question I think OP is asking is: why have the monarch figurehead.
Because, and not to sound flippant, that's just the easiest and most natural way to do it without a lot of extra paperwork.
See technically, a "president* is meant as a drop in replacement for a monarch. A republic doesn't get rid if its king, they just replace one who was born into it with one they chose and one they pretend to have a bit more control over.
Canada's equivalent to Trump isn't Carney, technically it's King Charles. And the U.S equivalent to Prime Minister would be who've leads the majority party in congress.
Could we go through the constitutional rigamarole to change that? Sure. But why bother when he's content to stay out of things.
Essentially, a parliamentary democracy means that our "Trump" is a deadbeat dad who lives in another country.
I'll happily keep that buffer in place versus whatever the fuck the U.S had gotten themselves into.
A Parliamentary Republic with a ceremonial president or Semi-Presidential system with the President and Prime Minister sharing executive powers could also acheive the same thing.
In the UK, the Royal Estate provides the government with a huge income (even though 25 percent goes to the king so he can repair his fancy castles).
I don't quite understand this argument. It's not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.
This is the best answer I think, tons of income from tourism.
Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?
It's the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it'd probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings
The British monarchy provides quite a bit of money for the country.
The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.