I mean, just declare a republic ffs.

  • zout@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        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?

        • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              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.

          • BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago
            • 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

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              ???

              What kind of idiot puts any substance into what name a country styles itself after rather than how it functions.

                • Deceptichum@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  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?

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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.

        • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          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?

          • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            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.

    • Mysteriarch ☀️@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.

  • starlinguk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    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).

      • al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?

      • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I was with you until “stolen from the people.” Monarchs back in their heyday served a purpose. It took centuries to build up nation-states and common law.

        Hell, it took Germany until the late 1800s to get their shit together, and even after then, it took another 100 years still.

          • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            I think you’ve bought into the Disney trope a bit too much, or at best viewing history from a myopic perspective.

            Monarchs provided defense for their constituents, they provided city planning. Wealth extraction was an outcome, not unlike a business. Not all kings were Ivan IV’s, there are far more who served their people well who are not as infamous.

            That isn’t to say I’m a monarchist, not by a long shot, just that monarchy serves its place in history.

              • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                13 days ago

                Got to have the right location, resources, timing and motivation. It’s not like wealth falls from the sky. It’s not like workers/constituents will work for the sake of working, at least not most of them. They have to get something out of the deal.

                Get some knowledge in your head, read a book. Think for yourself and stop getting your info from the Disney channel.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    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).

  • mastertigurius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    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.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      That reminds me:

      What the fuck does a “Pope” do? (rhetorical question)

      They don’t even have a country to ceremonially rule over 🤣

      • mg2130@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        You realize The Vatican is a city-state right? Like a country.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        To a small extent they’re in charge of the third biggest population of any country

        • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          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.

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Zloubida@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

  • mastertigurius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    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.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    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.

    • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

      • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

        • Merva@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          There are lots of republics where the president does serve as a literal figurehead without any consequential powers, so a republic does not necessarily turn up with a Trump. In fact the US is rather unique in how it has combined republic with absolute monarchy in the office of the president, probably very much a sign of how antiquated the constitution is.

          • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            I feel like that’s sarcasm? But yes, I legitimately feel that our system, where the only person who has any “theoretical” power to make unilateral decisions without parliament is some old guy who is content to just stay out of it, is better.

            Imagine an America where they could tell Trump. “Okay, you’re king. Here…we’ll even put you on our money. Now go live overseas and fuck off”