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.
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.
German’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.
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.
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.
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
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.
German’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.