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.

What’s wrong with New Zealand or Australia ot Canada or?

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.

The point of a constitutional monarchy is to transition away from an absolute monarchy towards a republic.

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).

Removed by mod

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).

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.

Monarchs are like cardboard boxes. Someday they’ll be useful again, you just know it.

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.

Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.

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.

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.

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.

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.