I mean, just declare a republic ffs.
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).
Malaysia has a king, so they would remain a monarchy.
These comments are proof that Robespierre didn’t go far enough.
Monarchs are like cardboard boxes. Someday they’ll be useful again, you just know it.
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?
Instructions unclear, accidentally placed a cat on top of King Charles III
See? I knew we’d find a use for him.
Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
No, the point is to prevent real democracy by being “democratic enough”.
Who would want “real democracy”? Have you met people? They’re terrible.
Have you met people? They’re terrible.
Um… That’s how the United States of America got the Senate and infamous Electoral College.
Are you saying you are in favor of the Electoral College of the US, and State Legislatures appointing US Senators?
Electoral College yes, in favor
Senators appointed by legislature no, not in favor
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of Electoral College reform. I think in particular unbinding electors is necessary, as is doing away with the “winner-take-all” distribution of electors. And while uncapping the House isn’t EC reform per se, doing so would make a drastic improvement to how representative the EC would be. These three things would fix most of the problems with the EC, ranked-choice voting or similar would take care of the rest.
that you weren’t instantly permabanned from slrpnk for saying this
You mean the instance that hosts the “not voting” community? I think I’ll be fine.
“in your election”, for moral abstainers and non-citizens. Not an anti-democracy sub.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
