I mean, just declare a republic ffs.
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 🤣
You realize The Vatican is a city-state right? Like a country.
To a small extent they’re in charge of the third biggest population of any country
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.
Now I really want to answer your rhetorical question, because you’ve badly misunderstood how popes work.
What’s wrong with New Zealand or Australia ot Canada or?
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.
“…that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; …so help me God.”
Removed by mod
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.
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?
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.
It’s called Royal Assent, the GG gets final say over everything.
When they don’t like what you’re doing, they dismiss your P.M. and cause a constitutional crisis.
Just be glad you haven’t had to have it happen yet, and let’s hope your never do.
Wow that is messed up. It’s also from 50 years ago so… yeah.
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.
and the republic’s of the world are much better?
They’re just better.
- 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
???
What kind of idiot puts any substance into what name a country styles itself after rather than how it functions.
ok, lets look at it the other way then?
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?
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.
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”.
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
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.
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 "
Removed by mod
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
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.
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.
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.
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 love that you said Canada but not the UK as we share a monarch 🤣 please send help i hate it here
Heh. Yeah, I can’t really hold up a country backsliding on trans rights as an example of an effective constitutional monarchy.
Yeh that and the whole Enoch powel impression our aledged left wing prime minister is doing just now
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.
My bad. I blame the thirty eight million times I heard people make the argument earnestly after the British queen died
I get it. As a New Yorker, I really fucking tired of hearing how “rude“ New Yorkers are.
We’re not rude, we’re just in a hurry, and I’m running late for work, so when you stopped me to take a picture of you in front of some random building, I’m may be a little short with you. Instead, ask some person who’s just standing around. There are plenty of them, and they will be happy to take your picture in front of whatever. I’m late for work, and that’s also why I’m walking so fast.
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.
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.
The British monarchy provides quite a bit of money for the country.
That’s one way to see it… Countries that got rid of their monarchy, got the money in a more direct way
What do you mean?
They don’t have to give money to receive it back. They just keep it, while still having tourists (cf France).
What do you think happened to the wealth of the French king?
Pretty sure the French King isn’t bringing in any revenue anymore.
What do you mean?
Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.
Crown Estate’s revenues
Well, dispossess them and use the property directly wouldn’t hurt either, would it?
tourism, trade, media and the arts.
There might be other ways to promote your image than having an institution that symbolizes colonialism and is hated by many people. Like abolishing said institution to show the global South that you are sorry? That might make you more likable aa well
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.
They provide about 1.5 billion pounds of tourism revenue per year, far outweighing the sovereign grants they recieve from the the government.
You really think the tourists would stop looking at British castles etc. if the UK became a republic?
some if them would. Some people are just fascinated by the anachronism of having a king. A palace that once belonged to some king a few hundred years back is just far less interesting than a palace with a living, breathing monarch in it.
Versailles gets fifteen million visitors a year
Removed by mod
maybe you don’t, but lots of people do.
I’m pretty sure the people calculating the number could distinguish between tourism for castles and the monarachy.
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.
