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.
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
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.
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?
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
They don’t have to give money to receive it back. They just keep it, while still having tourists (cf France).
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
I highly disagree with that. It’s literally the opposite in opinion. I’m way more interested in castles where no one’s living in them now because that way they’re more of an historical Relic. Why do I want to see where some rich fuck head lives today? Let’s see some pricks big screen TV and fancy curtains. Ooh that sounds like fun. Fuck that I go to castles to see murder holes. I go to castles to see dungeons. Not duvets.
The only time I want to see some rich fuck head living in a castle is when I see them dragged out of it to meet their just ends.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are stabilizing benefits in some cases. Traditions can be valuable, even just for show.
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
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.
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.
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.
In my country we have 2 kings, one of whom complains he does not get enough money to fuel his yacht. No joke.
I’m intrigued. Which country?
Belgium :)
Our royal family is mostly into sailing, I choose to believe that’s why we don’t have the same issue.
Hahaha yes I would be more supportive of a royal sailing family 😄
What country is it that has these sailing royals?
Norway
Very cool! And also very handy. If you get tired of them, just reverse the current to some ocean wind turbines, and they’ll never make it back 😀
Does he still require childrens hands?
