Well yeah, but this is "republic vs monarchy" not "democracy vs autocracy".
Republic can be both authoritarian (China) and democratic (France), and monarchies too can be authoritarian (Saudi Arabia) and democratic/constitutional (Great Britain)
Dane here. To me it is not important to be a republic. I am fine with our constitutional monarchy, I don't really care, to be honest, and I don't see countries with presidents doing so much better when it comes to democracy. If our royal family continues to create a good image, make trips to Asia for exposure and stuff, it's fine.
I just imagine having to vote for one of the most annoying of our politician as a president. And then them being a representative for our country. And voting for one person, rather than a party. It seems like such a dividing process. I get that your royal family has a bit of a problem these days, with the shaman-dude and the not-a-prince, but soon that will be history.
Lol, yeah. Because voting for someone you choose yourself (you can always not vote at all and have the same result) is worse to having choice made for you... but by literal blood in their veins. Expiry date: never. Democracy and accountibility is not a dividing process on its own.
You could also delegate the election of the president to your parliament. Not all countries have direct elections.
What if your children wanted to be "president" of your country? How will you tell them that no, they can't. Why not? Because they were not born from the right vagina.
They can be prime minister. Why is president so important over the prime minister? Oh no, I cannot be president, what to do? Those are words spoken from someone who lives in a country with a president.
I never ever ever heard anybody cry about "oh I am never being president because I was born in this horrible country of no president". But a kid in my country would perhaps dream of being the next primeminister.
And what does vagina have to do with it? It has nothing to do with vagina.
Oh no, I cannot be president, what to do? Those are words spoken from someone who lives in a country with a president.
Because it is a matter of principle. To accept that you can never become something it is to accept that there is someone above you, someone better than you by birthright. I do not accept that. Do you?
And what does vagina have to do with it? It has nothing to do with vagina.
... do you know how monarchs are made? Or in general how people are born? /s For the British Monarch, an existing member of the Royal Family has to marry a woman. Ideally.
Then the next future king will be ONLY the firstborn child that is born from that specific vagina. In this case, the specific vagina being Kate Middleton's. And as you are aware, she already had a child. He (his son George) will decide who the next king will be. Not anyone else. That's the meaning of birthright.
About vagina. Read it slowly again. You cannot be president on our country because we don't have one. No vagina. If the dream is to be King of Denmark, then yes, vagina.
And regarding principle, all polls show, that if we had to vote about it, people will choose to remain a constitutional monarchy, because it is a huge part of our identity as a country.
As a German, a country with a figurehead president elected by the parliament (it‘s more complicated than that but easy enough), not a single child here would ever dream about being president, it‘s a job to honour successful politicians at the end of their careers. You know what kids do dream of being? Queens and kings. Or, you know, chancellor, if they‘re a bit weird.
It was not an example to be taken literally. It was to stress the fact that one is something that with sufficient dedication you could aspire to, and the other is something that no matter your effort, since you were born into the wrong family you will never be able to do.
I understand the kids very well. Everybody know that figures like king and queens belongs to the books; to the fairy tales. But they has nothing to to in a modern democracy.
Do the german people miss the last emperor Wilhelm II?
I can only talk from my own experience.
I've seen good politician, I've seen bad ones. What they've in common ist that they don't love our country as broadly as our King do.
He may not say meddle about politics, as he's forbidden to do so, but you can tell that he cares about us a lot and try to use hes influence to protect us. Without our King our politicians would've sold out our national parks a long time ago.
He's not without fault, like no parents is, but he loves what he was raised to protect.
I don't know which king you are writing about, but it seems to be the Swedish one.
King CG has no power as you seem to think he has.
Without the king, Sweden would be like Finland and Iceland - democracy does not fail if the king is replaced by a president.
The politicians take responsibility for distributing burdens and scarce goods, they pay taxes and we can hold them accountable. This is in contrast to the king and his family
Have you ever talked to kids? That hypothetical is nonsense. They dream of far less likely things, and as a parent you have to figure out how to rein it in to reasonable expectations while not crushing their hopes. That's just basic parenting. And for example the likelihood of me becoming king has always been higher that the likelihood of me becoming an Olympic rhythmic gymnast and about a gazillion other things.
But also, the main issue with kids dreaming of being royals in particular has just about nothing to ever do with their mother's genitalia, but rather the fact that fairytales aren't real. It's like asking how someone would reply if their kid wanted to be a Pokemon master. Their dreams have nothing to do with the positions that exist in real life and it's utterly irrelevant to the head of state your country has.
And for example the likelihood of me becoming king has always been higher that the likelihood of me becoming an Olympic rhythmic gymnast and about a gazillion other things.
But that is not true. Becoming an olympic athlete depends on many factors. Genetics do not preclude you completely the possibility of becoming an athlete. It might put a cap on how good you could be, but it also depends on your competition. Albeit small, your chance of becoming an athlete is still higher than zero, same as the chance of becoming a billionaire, an actor, or a reddit moderator. Whereas with hereditary positions, you either belong to the correct line or not.
It's not about what children dream in practice, or how hard it is, it's a matter of principle that there are priviliges some people are born into, and others that are not. Sure, the children of Bezos or Zuckerberg or Musk are also born into a life of privilege. We can begin by making the world a tiny bit fairer place by relegating monarchies to history AND by fighting hypercapitalism. One does not exclude the other.
No, there are more ways to become royal than birth. You can enter through marriage, through election after the old line tragically dies out, there could be a legal change to the order of succession, maybe you're yet to find out you're the secret bastard of an old/foreign king, or you could…stage a coup and form your own dynasty. And so on. There are several potential pathways, and an entire lifetime for it. Of course the likelihood is infinitesimally small, but indeed more than zero. And it is in fact not particularly dependent on genetics.
It is larger than me being approved for gender reassignment and hormone replacement or whatever as literal child, while simultaneously training and miraculously succeeding in becoming one of the best gymnasts in the word, and lucking out in being recognized as such, and then somehow convince the Olympic committee to allow someone with a Y chromosome to compete in a women-only competition. All this before I've past the youthful prime of a gymnast?
It's always been impossible for me for purely genetic reasons; I haven't even gotten into any medical stuff. And there are countless reasons due to me being born to my parents in particular beyond that. Like the fact that they aren't athletes and there are no gymnastic training facilities where I grew up (I'm not even sure my country has ever even qualified) so how could I possibly become world class? My parents certainly didn't have the resources to ship me away.
The likelihood of be becoming king has indeed always been greater than that of me becoming an Olympic rhythmic gymnast. It still is.
The world isn't fair and it's certainly a noble cause to try to make it fairer. But before you start that crusade, you may want to look at the forms of government you'll commonly find around the top of the social mobility rankings etc. Being a monarchy doesn't impede whatsoever in making things fairer. Like everything it has its pros and it has its cons, but the fact that the firstborns of one family happen to grow up with different opportunities is utterly insignificant. It's probably better to actually try to make things fairer for people, than worry about a strictly ceremonial head of state and disrupting the status quo of clearly quite successful countries.
Fellow Norwegian here, our king has massively worked as a collective figure that is non-political, we really live in a time where this is more important than ever.
It dosen’t work well in Norway. The free press will continue to write critically about the family and the familysystem after the Marius case, his mums friendship with Epstein, how they spend public money and Martha & Dureks business, troubles, lawsuits etc
The press still writing about it is part of the system working. However, neither the King, the Crown Prince and Princess Ingrid Alexandra have been embroiled in any real scandals.
Haakon Magnus is mixing his own ecconomy with the states. He has his own business and has an inherited position, dosen’t pay tax.
The family close to the throne are protected. As Marius was.
Agreed as a fellow dane, but our royal family also long ago realised that big spendings on royal events arent necessary, like the crowning of our new king was nothing like in UK. Even the royals feel the jantelov.
To be fair the Danish monarchy doesn't have the same international recognition as the British Monarchy so it would be less beneficial to spend all the money on a coronation, because there'd be less tourism
Fair enough, as long as you British think its okay i have no issues with it. Denmark is the second oldest monarchy in the world and generally over here in the northern realms we are quite different than the British, we wouldnt accept the big spectacles as it isnt well seen to flaunt your priveleges. We are proud of your royalty, and appreciate they are so down to earth and makes an effort to keep the support for the monarchy high.
I don’t think there is a big spectacle nowadays in Britain. Monarchy tries to be ecological and modest. I mean if you think it’s big now, you should have seen the coronation of QE in the 1950’s.
I don’t know if it’s the same in Denmark, but here in the UK our constitutional monarchy has created a very distinct separation of the ceremonial elements of being a Head of State.
When you consider the ceremony Americans have around the White House and the First Lady, for us all of that is with the Royals. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister just gets on with his job, and often we know very little of their spouses or family.
Right? Right? I know that our prime minister has kid(s). She also is married. I have no idea to whom. I don't know the age or names of her kids. And she has been our PM since way before covid. They can actually do their job, without the circus.
But I know the names of the wifes of every president since ... after Reagan, I guess. And the kids. And it is super important how they act, and the easter eggs and the rosegarden and the christmas decorations, and do they believe in god.
Our king (still feels weird to say king, since our queen retired) and all the kids, and the brother and all his kids and the divorce, and the former princess, and her kids, yeah, they are exposed. Not as bad as in UK, that is mental. But they are just a pillar in our society. They make a little speech, and visit places. It's fine.
I don't see countries with presidents doing so much better when it comes to democracy
It's not about doing better or worse but simply having a say in whom represents you. You cherish the idea because you also talk fond about democracy but with that one little exception of preserving outdated concept from two millenias. I know it's mostly because it doesn't matter anymore but still. It's pretty pointless.
It is one family. Only one. I live in a country with high social mobility, low GINI, and I for sure would like to make it even more equal, I am very leftwing. But that one family, they are the ones without freedom. Our king for sure has struggled with his future being determined by birth. Every girlfriend has been plastered over the news, every drunken night has been recorded.
I believe they are free to escape the role they have been given, but they choose to be part of the history of this country.
I don't envy them, I don't feel like everybody else is below them, this is a part they are playing, it is a job they are doing. And it contributes to danes feeling like a part of something that is us. Even if it is only a drinking game during the royal new year speach, it is something we are.
It is not Saudi arabia, where the royal family owns everything. They have a few castles they maintain, they go on trips to represent us, they travel to Faroes and Greenland to stay in touch with those parts of the kingdom.
Compared to a lot of other countries I think we are born very equal in this country, I don't think a president would make it different.
In the Netherlands, the prime minister is responsible for what the Dutch royal family does. For example during Covid, the Dutch royals went to Greece while the Netherlands was on lockdown. The prime minister (Mark Rutte at the time) apologized for the misjudgment.
You might want to argue their king is not a true king, but then there's this whole country that doesn't seem to care about your strict definition. And it's not the only one either.
It's a fun little play when there are only two political parties, one representing the state and its inhabitants, and the other representing the royal family.
That is how all constitutional monarchies operate - while monarch is source of power, it is held and executed by elected official.
That doesn't change the fact that monarch is still there and that he is still personification of the polity - monarchical state, its unity and sovereignty are vested and de jure owned by monarch.
In other hand, republic is explicitly a polity which is owned by body of citizens (who exactly "citizens" are can differ) and government is just administrating it in their name.
There can be no republic with a monarchy. The thing that distinguish them is the head of state. If it's a monarch it's called monarchy, if it's a president it's called a republic. If the country is a democracy but has a monarch as head of state, then it's called constitutional monarchy.
You can't have a republic with a monarchy, they're mutually exclusive. You can have a democracy with a monarchy, but a republic, by definition, has an elected head of state.
The definition of a Republic is literally that it doesn't have a monarch. Some words do have a set meaning.
One way to think of it is that the broad categories of government essentially say where the power is vested. A democracy? In the demos, people. Autocracy? In the autocrat, a dictator. Oligarchy? In the oligarchs, a small cadre of powerful people. Theocracy? With religious leaders.
Within these broad categories are many different types of government. For instance there are Direct Democracies, Representative Democracies, Executive Democracies, Parliamentary democracies. You have things like Representative Theocracies (Iran, as conceived but not in practice. Still, more democratic than its neighbors which is an incredibly low bar), or even things like Authoritarian Democracies (Singapore).
And sometimes (often) there's over laps or a government might accurately be described as being multiple of these labels. The United States for instance is a Representative Presidential Democracy and a Republic. Prior to the civil rights movement you could have called it an Ethnic Democracy, a democracy in which civil rights are defined by ethnicity (race in the American understanding). Currently the US is a liberal democracy (executive branch is heavily checked), however it is moving toward being an illiberal democracy (executive branch has few checks on power).
At the same time, some government types can fall into either or the broad categories depending on the government's individual structure. A Constitutional-Monarchy can be a democracy (Modern United Kingdom), it can also be an oligarchy (Early-Modern United Kingdom).
The point is that there are many labels, however, each label has a meaning. And a Republic is a subset of Democracies governments that by definition do not have a monarch.
UK isn't far off in that regard, our government also have to ask or instruct King Charles as the head of state to say or do certain things, he can't usually just go off and do them hiself.
Some of his public appearances are either coordinated with the government (like the one at Nansleddan), are part of his ceremonial function (usual events like the VE Day) or he acts on behalf of his charities (like the King's Trust).
That's pretty semantic though. What is a parliament if not a republican style government?
That distinction only really applies to nations where the singular head of state is elected or not. And those ones that aren't? They're mostly only symbolically the 'head of state'.
True, but if the monarchy is purely representational, what's even the difference? All power lies in government elected by the citizens, basically an unofficial republic.
I get that it's about republics and monarchies, not democratic and undemocratic countries, but to me this distinction doesn't tell much and simply isn't useful, apart from "cool trivia". The definition of a republic would also exclude many self-proclaimed republics like Belarus or Russia, which are much closer to being actual monarchies/oligarchies than Western Europe monarchies.
Add to it that there have been elected monarchies (non-hereditary) and the whole distinction gets muddled completely
It depends of definition, if Monarchy is defined as "rule of one", then Republic can be monarchy, and Monarchy as the rule of a Monarch don't need to be monarchy as rule of one, there are Dualrchy and even Oligarchy Monarchies.
The definition of a Republic is one where the supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. A monarchy is where supreme power is held by a monarch. These a mutually exclusive.
A monarchy can be a constitutional monarchy and can be a democracy, but it cannot be a republic.
In most of these countries, Supreme Power is held by the people through elected representatives. The monarchy is mostly reduced to a ceremonial role and is far less powerful than parliament.
constitutional monarchy means the power of the monarchy is constitutionally limited, generally by the power of the people. Some of these countries legally guarantee popular supremacy, others have de-facto guarantee popular sovereignty, but all have it and are therefore republics.
Monarch can be elected, that is the problem I mentioned, also "Monarchy" literally means rule of one, that's why there are Monarchies (guy with crown) that aren't Monarchies (ruled by one).
This is linguistic trouble as those are 2 different words that use the same letters.
Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dualrchy, Anarchy depitct how many people are rulling the country. (1, many, 2, 0)
Monarchy, Republic, Theocracy depict who the ruler is, In Monarchy it is a monarch, in Republic it is "chosen representative" in Theocracy it is religious figure.
Your definition is clearly not what the image is showing, otherwise Sweden would be marked as republic.
The Swedish sovereignty rests exclusively in the people, as the very first line of the constitution cements. The last remnants of public power the king had on paper was stripped half a century ago, since then everything devolves from the authority of parliament (i.e., the people's representatives).
The monarch does not hold supreme power in a constitutional monarchy, they hold only symbolic power. The real power lies in the elected officials. Just look at how the countries in this image rank in ratings of democracy.
A monarchy is usually defined as a lasting system having a head of state appointed for life, often in a hereditary way, while a republic is usually defined as a system whose head of state is elected by the people. But indeed, definitions can vary.
I'd note that the British monarchy was pretty much all the way there by 1914 anyway.
The UK wasn't a full democracy then (mainly due to women not having the franchise) but I'd argue it was almost there, especially after the 1911 parliament act.
The UK wasn't a full democracy then (mainly due to women not having the franchise) but I'd argue it was almost there, especially after the 1911 parliament act.
By that definition, no country in 1914 was a full democracy, except for Norway and Finland, both of which coincidentally were monarchies.
France didn't adopt universal suffrage until 1944, Switzerland in 1971 and Portugal in 1931.
New Zealand would also qualify as a democracy by that measure. It self-governed and women had the right to vote from 1893. It was also a monarchy. While you could argue it was a colony, it had a similar setup to Finland (which was an in-theory autonomous part of the Russian Empire).
Was the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1914 a true democracy? I tried to read up on it and it did have universal suffrage in 1905 but it seems like that was short lived and attempts to be a democracy was quashed by Russia.
Finland got a parliament based on universal suffrage (incl. women) in 1907, and that was followed in all subsequent elections. Complicating things, however, was the fact that the Russian Emperor disrupted the parliament's work by dissolving it almost every year in the decade between 1907 and 1917, though new elections were always held after the dissolutions.
Except the tiny principalities like Monaco, the Vatican, and especially Liechtenstein. Liechtensteiners voted to increase the prince's power in a referendum, which is absurd in my opinion.
Licehtenstein has a constitutional provision whereas individual municipalities have the right to secede from Liechtenstein with as little effort as a simple majority vote among the municipal citizens with voting rights.
Art 4.2: Individual communes have the right to secede from the State. A decision to initiate the secession procedure shall be taken by a majority of the citizens residing there who are entitled to vote. Secession shall be regulated by a law or, as the case may be, a treaty. In the latter event, a second ballot shall be held in the commune after the negotations have been completed.
That’s a crazy amount of local democratic reserve power that I can’t see being matched by any other country in existence…
The prince would probably threaten to resign again if the municipality of Planken, with "four exclaves, two enclaves and a population of 473" decided to secede and leave a bunch of oddly shaped holes in the middle of Liechtenstein.
Edit: excuse my repetition lol, I see you had the same brainwave below
But the prince can veto it, the only thing he can't veto is if the people chose to abolish the monarchy, I looked it up, it's honestly fascinating stuff
Secession shall be regulated by a law or, as the case may be, a treaty. In the latter event, a second ballot shall be held in the commune after the negotations have been completed.
Not sure how the second part is to be intepreted but I read is as non-vetoable as long as the commune doesn’t try to go fullt independent but rather votes to join say, Switzerland via treaty.
Interestingly, Luxembourg monarch recently lost the last tiny bit of power he had left because he tried to influence a parliamentary decision... There's still hope.
In short, the grand Duke refused to validate a law on euthanasia. The parliament decided to strip the grand Duke from the power to validate laws (which was his last concrete power).
By contrast, in 1990 in Belgium, the king was allowed to take a "sick leave" to avoid signing a law in abortion (and a Swiss minister did the same on the same topic)...
Wait, so Grand Duke of Luxembourg used to have veto power on legislation but not on constitution changes? Or he simple signed the constitution change stripping him of veto power not to make a fuss about it?
As I understand it, he technically had veto power but it was clear to anyone that he wouldn't use it. And he apparently accepted the change (or even suggested it) to appease the situation. (And I don't know if he had also to validate constitutional changes.)
Because they willfully gave away power trusting that it will never be abused. They gave away some of their right to control their own government. That's absurd.
If only there was a word for when someone is born in one place but moves to another place 🤔
Someone should make a word for that 😂
(OK jokes aside, I am a Romanian who lives in the UK, since before Brexit from 2011 actually, so I write in UK English. I have "Romania" in my title because...well...I don't actually know how to put two (so UK and Romania) so I decied to go with just Romania because I comment on topic relating to Romania a lot, to give my take on them from the perspective of a Romanian that follows what's happnes in Romania and regularly visits Romania, and I just want people to know I am Romanian without having write it each time
Greetings! Good to have you in the weird melting pot of old Blighty! I am glad to see you have fully embraced British humour, sarcasm, not taking ones self too serious as well as our eclectic range of insults, the wanker part gave you away 🤣🤣. How did you handle our obsession with queuing incidentally? 😁
And yup I know what you mean 'arry!
Actually I am not sure either how you chop and change the flair flavours on here. Was only a while back I realised I could add mine as I was tired of having to explain I am from Britain but I still class myself as European, if that makes sense?
If that worked, there wouldn't be so much trouble in the world today. The size of the country really doesn't matter much. He just needs to please his richest supporters.
The size of the country really doesn't matter much.
Lichtenstein is a small municipality in the end. There is a completely different form of connection between government and citizens.
It does matter till the size reaches bigger numbers. Like rural villages, they govern themself with a certain way of doing things. And one thing is that the villages head will get slapped if he acts out of line.
You still have to fight the system as soon as you have given up legal rights. Depending on what it's about you might not find supporters ready to give up said system in a state this small.
Interestingly no. I just learned a few days ago that Liechtenstein is pretty much the only country in the world where individual municipalities have a constitutional right to simply leave the country with a simple majority vote. The smallest municipalities are just a few hundred electors.
So yeah, if he wants to keep the country together the Prince better have the support of his people. Insofar as that means pleasing ”his richest supporters”, that floats into a joke about whether there are anything but rich people in Liechtenstein…
The overwhelmingly rich population is in fact where I see one of the main issues. They could easily subdued the less wealthy.
A constitutional right to leave the country for a municipality is pretty much worthless, in my opinion - unless you use it to solve issues with ethnic minorities from neighbouring countries.
Why? Because what's a municipality going to do on its own? They would need to join another country. That means the issues would not only have to be so large that a municipality votes to leave, they would need to be internationally recognised.
It's pretty much the feudal way of saying "Well, if you don't like it here, why don't you emigrate".
The nearby Republics of Switzerland and Austria would gladly take in an errant Liechtensteiner commune any day .
I don’t like monarchs with actual power any more than the next guy but you’re just trying to make muck up that simply doesn’t exist. As a Swiss resident: nah, there’s no oppressed masses or minorities in Liechtenstein and we aren’t more free in Switzerland just because they have a Prince but in all other matters function pretty much the same as here.
The expansion of the Princes’ power and a referendum to challenge the same were both voted to the Prince’s favor by overwhelming majorities. All while the individual communes have more local autonomy than anybode else in Europe (it’s not just the secession provision in which they have local control, you know). Both of those measures were, by the way, approved/rejected with larger majorities than the referendums governing Liechtensteins accession to the EEA which also gave up power from a local level to a higher one. Is that also problematic in your view or is it just the hereditary aspect that bothers you?
I agree, but we haven't found a better alternative yet. Vesting power in a single person can be fine if they are benevolent and uncorruptable, but you only need 1 rotten apple to have everything come crashing down.
I'd like a system with weighted voting. Where people get a free day off but also have to fill in a test along with their ballot to test their knowledge on society objectively. So people who don't inform themselves, or like content that's misinformation, their vote counts for less.
However, some major problems
Who decides such questionnaire, and what the answers will be. Can't be the government itself.
It's complex, so needs to be digital, which means it can get hacked and manipulated
If the monarch doesn’t do right by the public they will be deposed. That’s why there is like 4 left in Europe. They are the ones that don’t abuse their people
To be fair in England we beheaded our monarch before it was cool and then reverted back to them again all before the 1700s. Our monarchs haven't really had the same level of power since, and I imagine it would make anyone think twice before overreaching like Charles I. Parliament has been the real power since.
I cannot speak for the other nations but yeah our monarchs were put in their place before WW1.
You are thinking too big. We are probably talking about things like the monarch getting special tax rights or being able to grant them to his buddies. Not the prince installing death squads.
Still, you have now no legal right to fight those tax cuts. You lost that power. But you'll have to lose quite a lot until people are ready to depose a ruler by force.
That may have worked two hundred years ago when it was a relatively level playing field but that doesn't work in modern times. A monarch today could use technology to do effectively shield himself from the unwashed masses that he'd never be deposed
I think a lot of people outside of these countries don’t realise that some of the healthiest democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies, having a prime minister who technically answers to the monarch limits their ability to things a president can do (look at the states). It’s a layer of protection that the monarch can dissolve parliament and call an election if legislation stalls in the Houses of Parliament, and if the monarch abuses that power, the public very easily can tell them to quite rightly fuck off.
A good example is Australia in the 70s, parliament was gridlocked, and the queens representative in Australia dissolved both houses and called an election. If the king tried to do this in Australia today, as a power grab without due cause, they would be a republic faster than you can blink.
I genuinely believe the US would be better served by having a monarch like figure or overseeing body who can dissolve parliament if legislation stalls, outside the ability of congress to impeach, with only ceremonial duties otherwise. Also give them compulsory voting and preferential voting to stop the crazies getting into power.
You are right about the advantages of having a ceremonial Head of State with only emergency powers, and only notionally superior to an executive Head of Government. But note you can do this with a ceremonial president too (eg: Germany, Ireland).
You are talking rubbish about Australia though. For one thing the emergency powers were (and remain) in the Governor-General’s hands and the monarch of Australia has no role beyond symbolism (and appointment of a Governor-General and Governors according to prime ministerial and Sate premier instructions).
For another thing, in your 1975 example the Governor-General famously fucked up and failed in his constitutional duty by misinterpreting the Reserve Powers and dismissing the PM in an extremely unorthodox way.
I think a lot of people outside of these countries don’t realise that some of the healthiest democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies
You could also say the same in reverse. France? Germany?
"I think" a lot of people living in constitutional monarchies, have obviously not grown up in a Republic. So for them, it's what they have always been used to and see it as normal.
People who grew up in a Republic cannot ever see monarchies as "normal", except for a few loonies.
I think a lot of people outside of these countries don’t realise that some of the healthiest democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies, having a prime minister who technically answers to the monarch limits their ability to things a president can do (look at the states). It’s a layer of protection that the monarch can dissolve parliament and call an election if legislation stalls in the Houses of Parliament, and if the monarch abuses that power, the public very easily can tell them to quite rightly fuck off.
The Swedish king has literarily no powers and even his ceremoninal role is almost completely irrelevant. He doesn't sign the laws, he doesn't preside over parliamentary sessions(not even in theory), he can't dissolve parliament.
Hell a couple of years ago he expressed frustrations with HOW the laws of succesion was changed in the 70's and even that got a lot of criticism. (Though his actual opinion was probably that it shouldn't have been changed at all, not just the process.)
I used to not mind the current set up but I just don't see the point anymore. Either we should go back to an update version of 1809's Instrument of Government or the monarchy should be abolished, complete waste of money in it's current form.
Do you think the democracy will fall, if the monarchys vote for a change to president? Healthy democracies in Europe are for example Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland
While this is true, as far as i'm aware those presidencies do not hold much power, most of the power there rests with the parliament, if i'm wrong someone from those places could end up correcting me. Not the best examples in favor of a presidential system imo. I support the Norwegian monarchy, and frankly? Unless the Royal House misuses its powers, I don't see why we should get rid of it. Healthy democracies should rely on a parliamentary system and not a presidential system imo. I think trying to present an argument for a presidential system while the constitutional monarchies work fine is disingenuous, but as a Norwegian political party said once; A vote that fails to abolish the monarchy is also a vote that shows confidence in the Monarchy.
You mean the drama around Marius and the recent weddings? Entirely irrelevant to the line of succession. Marius isn't a part of the Royal Family. I will admit, the recent wedding was a shitshow, but the Monarchy is still popular through that even if their popularity did dive, polling does show support for the Republic of Norway is still miniscule compared to the Kingdom of Norway
Marius is still shielded by being associated with the Monrachy. No one else with those accusations would go on constant trips to foreign countries. He also seems to have used his stepfathers wealth and influence to finance his awful lifestyle.
I genuinely believe the US would be better served by having a monarch like figure
Well, they are on the way to do that. Just not to your example of a benevolent/good King, which historically and currently (if you look outside Europe) is an exception, not the norm.
I think a lot of people outside of these countries don’t realise that some of the healthiest democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies
This is great example of survivorship bias.
These countries are not rich because they are monarchies - they are monarchies because they are rich, because poor monarchies were overthrown and replaced by republics.
What we see now are monarchies that had the best conditions for their survival - not the other way arond.
It’s a layer of protection that the monarch can dissolve parliament and call an election if legislation stalls in the Houses of Parliament
But that is already taken care of.
in parliamentary republics, parliament automaticaly dissolves itself if it is unable to form executive in specified time.
in presidential republics, executive can operate indenpendly from parliament to some degree, avoiding grindlock completly
I genuinely believe the US would be better served by having a monarch like figure or overseeing body who can dissolve parliament if legislation stalls, outside the ability of congress to impeach, with only ceremonial duties otherwise
How would this help exactly? Stalling of legislation in USA is result of filibuster - parliamentary procedure over which monarch would have no control.
Yeah that’s why I mentioned overseeing body, a benign monarch works great for some places, something different works better in other places. I like living in a constitutional monarchy, I don’t care for the royal family, but that final say is important for the health of my democracy in a somewhat backwards way.
True. And a completely ceremonial (and politically impotent) head of state has advantages over superannuated politicians who dominate HoS roles as an alternative.
I think that only Monaco has an active monarchy as the prince still holds the judiciary, executive and legislative powers, legislative is shared with the "parliament" but he also has the power to dismantle it and impose new elections. He can also grant pardons to anyone and give the nationality to anyone he wants.
The monarchs in Liechtenstein and Monaco hold lots of power, but not absolute. They can't legislate themselves for example, only the elected legislatures can.
The Vatican City is an absolute monarchy. The Pope can declare anything to be law within the Vatican City, he holds all power in the state.
They are not representative. They are representative too, but make no mistake, they are real monarchs. It's just that the system is so well built that it doesn't allow the monarch to become a dictator and their real power only comes into play at huge national crisis like invasion
As long as there is some level of power or special laws for nobility (eg hereditary seats in UK's House of Lords), they can only be flawed democracies. There is no way around that. The fact that monarchs typically do not exercise their powers makes no difference.
Many republics are also flawed democracies (for other reasons) btw. Many of them even more than the constitutional monarchies (nepotism, corruption, free speech violations...)
It's still a flawed democracy, since parts of the power (whether they're actual or just country representation) are still under the hand of someone not elected and that has the right because... "Yes".
You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old. Nowhere in the post does it speak of democraies. Just republic vs monarchy, which are mutually exclusive by definition, as a republic is simply any state witnout a monarch.
Yes, their power is symbolic. The problem is the cost of these "choosen ones" for the countries. How many people's tax spend for example King Charles to have breakfast. Yeah, that's the thing that makes most people upset, not their power...
They're not necessarily symbolic. There's a number of times laws were amended to appease the royal family before they were ever seen publicly. Surprise surprise it's usually about taxing them.
The UK, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, etc. seem to be quite happy with theirs.
Not saying others should follow that example (if you know who would have the German crown, if it existed, you’d go for an easy pass) but I also don’t think it is the biggest problem that any of these countries have to resolve.
Because then some elected asshole will want the position, castles, money and the like instead. A lot of those Blue places still have all that pomp and circumstance because... it plays well to both the crowds and during diplomacy. Check how many of those places now have a President instead. So nothing won by changing and you lose a tourism magnet.
small constitutional monarchies (Scandinavia and the Low Countries) are way more rich than France or Germany?
Easy!
They aren't!
Going by GDP Germany and France are richer than any Scandinavian constitutional monarchies.
What you are probably referring to is like "general quality of life" and "geneal happiness" and such and that's because they case because of the "Scandinavian module" not because they are or aren't constitutional monarchies
Being a rich country isn’t measured by GDP (bc for example the GDP of India is significantly higher than that of Switzerland) but by GDP per capita or by the net worth of the ppl (cfr Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report).
he or she is presenting typical monarchist mental gymnastics to justify having a king. Also, the president is not the same as a king, it's not hereditary, and the benefits only encompass the holder of the title, not his whole family (to my understanding).
Having a constitutional monarchy is one of the most wild brain washing outcomes in history. Think about it, some privilege monarchs managed to convince their people to still let them live in lavish luxury with public money because somehow they "bring prestige" and "tourism" to the country. It's really collective gaslighting haha
Having a constitutional monarchy is one of the most wild brain washing outcomes in history. Think about it, some privilege monarchs managed to convince their people to still let them live in lavish luxury with public money because somehow they "bring prestige" and "tourism" to the country. It's really collective gaslighting haha
I can't say I disagree 😂
Like in some places, having one (a constitutional monarchy) is good.
But in most places you could get rid of the monarch and royal family and be fine
The Low Countries always preferred to have a system where the people have as much power as possible ( to be able to do as much business as possible) and where the leader has only very little power. A king has zero power which is perfect for us. If we would have a president he will spend money which the people need to pay. That’s why the Low Countries and Scandinavia are so rich and why France or Germany are more poor than we.
I prefer living in a constitutional democracy (Denmark) than living in a country like USA. Having some random dude like Trump, define politics of a whole country, rather than having a parlament running a country, sounds horrible.
The general lack of controversies is why we haven’t just fired them yet and become a republic. They represent the people and culture quite well, so people don’t really care to spend time and money to dismantle a millennium old institution. There is no real republican agenda being actively pursued by any of the big political parties.
If our royal family was like the UK one then yea we maybe would’ve just said fuck it and become a republic. I would be a republican in principle, but I think it is more pragmatic not to try and fix what isn’t broken
1.2k
u/saschaleib 🇧🇪🇩🇪🇫🇮🇦🇹🇵🇱🇭🇺🇭🇷🇪🇺 May 20 '25
A "constitutional monarchy" can still be a democracy, with just a crowned head of state.
In most (all?) of these countries, the royals today mostly have representative functions. Very different to the monarchies of 1914.