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).
Pity they can’t just put a page in the book that says “from here forward we do things this new way” and just keep moving. But that’s not how legal and governmental systems work.
Malaysia has a king, so they would remain a 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.
These comments are proof that Robespierre didn’t go far enough.
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 🤣
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.
You realize The Vatican is a city-state right? Like a country.
What’s wrong with New Zealand or Australia ot Canada or?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.”
I’m neither American nor from a monarchy, but pledging allegiance to your country still seems less weird than to a specific person. Like, what you are quoting still “on behalf of the United States” as opposed to, say, the president. Both are weird, but pledging allegiance to a person feels weirder to me.
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.
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.
And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.
your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say
So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?
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 point of a constitutional monarchy is to transition away from an absolute monarchy towards a republic.
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.
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.
If you are American, you will never understand.
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).
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).
This is the best answer I think, tons of income from tourism.
Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?
I don’t quite understand this argument. It’s not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.
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.
Yes their purpose was to take as much as they could from the populace for their own personal gains. That was their purpose. By the way it’s absurd that you sit here and talk about centuries to build up nation-states (as if thats an inherint positive) and common law as if those things weren’t built up in spite of monarchies. Usually in bloody opposition to monarchies.
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.
Wealth extraction was an just an outcome? Good lord man. That’s hilarious. No. It was the point. Rather like in business, lol.
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.
Yes it’s called overwhelming and brutal military force. It’s called the threat of violence. Wealth doesn’t front come from the sky it’s taken from the people through exploitation. Taken through fear. Also stop saying constituents. You mean slaves. You mean serfs. Constituent is an entirely different term than implies a measure of equality and choice. It’s really weird you’re using that term.
Also just as an aside, what’s the shit you keep talking about with Disney? Do you think Disney’s anti-monarchy? Cuz like their whole thing is pretty princesses and wonderful princes and shit. Like I have no idea where on Earth you’re going for with that one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.
