This is a great example how propaganda works. The same picture just based off of 1918 would have looked almost identical to 2023. None of the monarchies left are actual 'monarchies' either, they are all constitutional ones.
I guess the point is that it's a bit misleading. Constitutional Monarchies effectively function as democracies, they just have a King or Queen instead of a President. Not to mention, not all of the "republics" in the image actually function as republics anymore, at least a couple of them have quite strongly crossed over into Autocracy territory, functioning like Monarchies of old.
Are all monarchies the same? Or was it fair maybe, that toolkitxx made the distinction “constitutional”?
Do you mean to tell me you did not understand the point of the comment, or do you just disagree and happen to actually view countries like Saudi Arabia and Norway as cut from the same cloth?
What are you on about?
Again, the person from the US not knowing what a monarchy is... what do they teach y'all over the pond?
If the head of state is a king - that state is a monarchy. That's it, that's the definition. A monarchy can be a democratic state (like the UK). These things are not mutually exclusive.
I am curious to understand why you believe this is propaganda.
The reasons I don't believe that is propaganda is that the title itself is set as a question to open a discussion. The maps are based on official definitions. It doesn't really try to sway any opinion.
Because the point in time one choses for something like this, determines the reception of the viewer. If you have spend a single hour learning about sales or marketing, this wouldnt be a question. 1914 is the beginning of what we call World War 1 today. Such a large scale war happens when systems clash with each other. What we had in 1914 were many 'absolute monarchies', which is the natural thought the majority has, when it comes to 'monarchy'. A King or Queen with absolute power in comparison to all other forms. Constitutional monarchy was the exception and not the majority at that time. Monarchy, due to it's way of passing power to the next holder, was intensively working with concepts of 'spheres' and 'entitlement'. We left all of this behind when we moved to border-states and populous voting, which is why almost exclusively everyone changed towards constitutional monarchy, if monarchy at all.
This compares to a completely different issue in today's systems, namely the function of the president or prime minister usually. Which powers are concentrated in that position and how is that position determined. Is anyone in any of those monarchies wielding any real power at all today? They are not, at best they have democratic veto rights in a democratic process.
Because the point in time one choses for something like this, determines the reception of the viewer
Or they picked that year because it was right before event which completly shattered old order - world war 1?
Like they co
What we had in 1914 were many 'absolute monarchies', which is the natural thought the majority has, when it comes to 'monarchy'. A King or Queen with absolute power in comparison to all other forms. Constitutional monarchy was the exception and not the majority at that time.
Except this is not true - only monarchy which was even close to absolutism was Russian Empire. (and Ottoman empire, but that was so rotten that monarch had basicaly only small real power)
Every other monarchy put some restraint on monarchs - some more (Great Briatin), some less (German Empire).
Which powers are concentrated in that position and how is that position determined. Is anyone in any of those monarchies wielding any real power at all today? They are not, at best they have democratic veto rights in a democratic process.
You completly ignore the fact that this map shows both democratic republics (nearly all of Europe) and authoritarian republics (Russia, Belarus)
By your logic, this should be anti-republican propaganda.
Since constitutional monarchies are essentially seen as the same as a republic in terms of democracy, it is. You could as well post a picture about the power a president in each country actually wields, which would say more and has more use, than this.
Head of state is as ambiguous in terms of power. And the countries that chose constitutional monarchy, simply elected the Royal Head to be the it. Done once and usually written down in a constitution, saves everyone constant elections and keeps the 'traditional' aspect. As they all are representatives only, there is simply no real difference.
Yes, it wasn't perfectly democratic, but the vote was 79-21 in favour of a monarchy. It's ridiculous to imply that letting women and young men vote would have flipped the result.
His argument is bad. But saying people voted for the monarch because some people voted for his ancestor in 1905. Also, woman and poor people were not allowed to vote.
But saying people voted for the monarch because some people voted for his ancestor in 1905.
The same can be said about anyhting. I live in Italy, under a constitution written as an absurd compromise between CIA-sponsored Christian Democratic forces and USSR-sponsored Communists in 1946-1948. Did I vote to be under this form of constitution? Did modern-day americans vote to be under a rule system set up in the late 18th century?
Also, woman and poor people were not allowed to vote.
Yeah, and today we don't let convicted felons vote, nor forigners, nore people under 18. All of this is totally arbitrary nonsense subject to change.
Sure, note how I didn’t claim any of these things. Also, I’m sure in Italy you can change the constitutions through democratic means. In my constitutional monarchy, we can vote to end the monarchy, but the king actually has to sign the law. Making his democratic mandate much weaker than that of your constitution.
That's a bit of a silly argument to make when several of these republics are actually dictatorships with rigged elections, where the leader holds more personal power than a constitutional monarch.
Interesting. I said "several of these republics" yet you chose to interpret that as "all of these republics". Then you deliberately avoided picking out any of the dictatorships. You really are a little propagandist aren't you.
The Swedish royal family is pretty popular. They're also symbol cultural and historical identity.
Some more practical reasons is that some world leaders love meeting royalty, so there's a diplomatic use as well. And they're a tourist attraction.
The annual allocation for the royal family is about €12 million which is a tiny fraction of the national budget. This isn't their money to use how they want, but funds for staff and offices, offical travel, royal stables, palace administration, and so on. So if we want to keep the actual diplomatic positions and historical buildings, that cost won't go away just because we remove the actual royalty.
They actually have to finance their private business themselves from private income, and they do pay taxes like anyone else.
They have no political power, so not being elected is not an issue.
In short, it's not an expensive thing, there's arguably several factors that make them a net gain, and physically removing them would be ending a several centuries long tradition. Which, for the above reasons, is arguably harmless.
Also, while there's a miniscule minority that might think they're chosen by some christian god, Swedes are generally not religious to begin with.
They don't "take". And the money they recieve is used for maintaining the old buildings, and making great advertising value when they travel, and create diplomatic relations.
83
u/toolkitxx Europe🇪🇺🇩🇪🇩🇰🇪🇪 May 20 '25
This is a great example how propaganda works. The same picture just based off of 1918 would have looked almost identical to 2023. None of the monarchies left are actual 'monarchies' either, they are all constitutional ones.