Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[DMC]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'd still argue for a narrower analysis of Western Democracies with hereditary monarchs as head of states (that is admittedly a rather narrow pool, basically Spain, Scandinavia, the Benelux states, Liechtenstein, and the UK and commonwealth realm (that kept House Hangover Windsor as their heads of state)).

I mean if you want to be Eurocentric about it that's your own business, just saying there's no reason to omit Japan otherwise based on the unit of analysis.

[Ran]

I found this article by two academics who wrote a book on modern monarchies interesting, since we're talking about the subject. 

[mormont]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

Agreed.  As I said in my first post ideally the ceremonial head of state should be elected. 

If we're going to have one, yes. But we have to accept that means it's less symbolic and more political. Donald Trump, for example, is exactly the kind of person who might get elected to be a ceremonial elected head of state. He'd probably have preferred that to being President.

15 hours ago, DMC said:

What I was responding to there was the contention that one can not be a small-d "democrat" and still support a hereditary monarchy as a ceremonial head of state.  I don't think that's the case at a theoretical/logical level.  And at an empirical level, some of the most "democratic" countries in the world also have hereditary monarchies.  

No, I still believe that this is inherently contradictory. You can't believe in democracy and in monarchy, even ceremonial, symbolic monarchy. Or you can, because people do and contradictory beliefs are things that people hold, but that doesn't change the fact that at that theoretical/logical level, the principles of these things simply aren't coherent.

[Heartofice]

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

I found this article by two academics who wrote a book on modern monarchies interesting, since we're talking about the subject. 

Thanks, I think this is a key point for anyone confused about how much power constitutional monarchs have:

Quote

Constitutional monarchs must accept that they have little or no discretion when it comes to matters of state; little choice but to approve every action or decision of the government in the hundreds of documents they are required to sign every week.

Plus modern monarchies are really beholden to the will of the people, and have to stay in their lane if they want to stick around

Quote

Modern monarchies are continuously held to account, in a range of different ways. They are all regulated by law: as we have seen in the UK, in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (the latter making the rules of succession gender neutral, a change already made in all the other European monarchies except Spain). They are subject to public funding, which can go down as well as up

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Thanks, I think this is a key point for anyone confused about how much power constitutional monarchs have:

 

Get a literal dog to do the job then not an fancy inbred.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

But we have to accept that means it's less symbolic and more political.

Uh, k.  I'm not really sure what this means.  You keep on saying "political" like it's inherently a bad thing and seem to be conflating this with my previous point that they tend to be above the partisan fray.  What you could say is elected ceremonial heads of state tend to have more practical power - while still limited - than unelected ones.  But, while I haven't reviewed the lit in 6 or 7 years, the consensus at the time was this did not make a significant difference between the two.

4 hours ago, mormont said:

but that doesn't change the fact that at that theoretical/logical level, the principles of these things simply aren't coherent.

As long as they have no influence on policymaking, it's really not.  Hell, even if they did, there are plenty of unelected actors in democracies between the courts and the bureaucracy that have a much more substantive role on policymaking.  Obviously those aren't hereditary, but what's contradictory about that is a meritocratic holding.

[Spockydog]

Give it Rylan!

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

If we're going to have one, yes. But we have to accept that means it's less symbolic and more political. Donald Trump, for example, is exactly the kind of person who might get elected to be a ceremonial elected head of state. He'd probably have preferred that to being President.

How so? He's never once received a majority of the vote.

I know this is probably impossible, but I'd be curious to see if this would work with a panel of nine who themselves are elected, so long as there are three conservatives, moderates and liberals and they then agree on someone who could fill the role for two years. And again, this person would have zero power or influence. 

Not sure if it would actually work, but it's still a huge improvement over royal bloodlines that extend for a lifetime. 

[Heartofice]

I don’t understand the elected idea, it removes many of the positives of the lifelong royal, as in they are an element of continuity, a connection to the past and to collective history, and apolitical. By electing a head of state you remove all of that. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don’t understand the elected idea, it removes many of the positives of the lifelong royal, as in they are an element of continuity, a connection to the past and to collective history, and apolitical. By electing a head of state you remove all of that. 

It's not a royal so much as a figurehead of state that just serves the same purpose. 

And philosophically no one should have a lifetime position in general, and it absolutely should not be because of their bloodline. Just for example, I've always heard that if Charles was born to a middleclass family in the UK, he probably would have amounted to nothing. So why make him king for life? 

[kiko]

I have to confess, I'm really confused by parts of discussion. This is what I got so far.

There are countries that are headed by a sometimes more, sometimes less ceremonial hereditary ruler. They have more or less official influence and probably a bit more unaccounted influence due to their wealth, network and history. Their influence may or may not be limited by rules and agreements. The true extend of their power is usually untested and not completely understood. This is true for people like crown prince MBS of Saudi Arabia on the one end of the spectrum and the currently deceased last princess of Hawaii. The other  monarchies and their members are somewhere in between.

Right?

Now. Can anyone explain to me, why they want someone to have influence over their life, however minuscule when this someone arrives at that position by accident of birth and where they have not even a theoretical option to escape that influence?

[Ran]

We live in a world where countless people have an influence over our lives, including people we did not choose and have no choice in. What's one more? 

I've never felt impacted by the Swedish royal family in any negative way, and what positive impact they've had is largely just that I think it's nice to have this piece of living history around. 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not a royal so much as a figurehead of state that just serves the same purpose. 

And philosophically no one should have a lifetime position in general, and it absolutely should not be because of their bloodline. Just for example, I've always heard that if Charles was born to a middleclass family in the UK, he probably would have amounted to nothing. So why make him king for life? 

The point is continuty to the past, which I think you lose when you go elected because it’s so transitional. What a royal family gives you is a shared cultural centre and soft cultural power. At a time where the nation state is being pulled down and destroyed a figurehead to a shared continuity is very useful. 
 

Like Ran above, having a King or Queen has very little negative effect on my life, if they went tomorrow nothing would change from my life, if anything I think it would be a sense of loss 
 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The point is continuty to the past, which I think you lose when you go elected because it’s so transitional. What a royal family gives you is a shared cultural centre and soft cultural power. At a time where the nation state is being pulled down and destroyed a figurehead to a shared continuity is very useful. 

The past is just that, the past. This is basically the same argument for religion. We know both institutions are pretty dumb by modern sensibilities, but we must stay connected to the past, ignoring all the horrors and atrocisitices of the past connected with these institutions, mind you.

Quote

Like Ran above, having a King or Queen has very little negative effect on my life, if they went tomorrow nothing would change from my life, if anything I think it would be a sense of loss 

Literally the only reason you're invested emotionally in this topic is because of the royals. Without that, you'd feel nothing, exactly how I feel about the Kardashians. 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The past is just that, the past. This is basically the same argument for religion. We know both institutions are pretty dumb by modern sensibilities, but we must stay connected to the past, ignoring all the horrors and atrocisitices of the past connected with these institutions, mind you.

Literally the only reason you're invested emotionally in this topic is because of the royals. Without that, you'd feel nothing, exactly how I feel about the Kardashians. 

I mean where I’m coming from is I’m proud to be British, I’m proud of the royal family and the history, warts and all. It makes me feel more British and my family, at least half, are not from here. It gives me a sense of connection to the country and I really like that there is some long running timeline from the past to now. I’d be very sad if that was removed and we became some sad souless country like America 

[Cas Stark]

I'd wager that if some countries could redo history, they'd stick with the monarchies instead of the governments they ended up with.  Russia, China. Iran.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean where I’m coming from is I’m proud to be British, I’m proud of the royal family and the history, warts and all. It makes me feel more British and my family, at least half, are not from here. It gives me a sense of connection to the country and I really like that there is some long running timeline from the past to now. I’d be very sad if that was removed and we became some sad souless country like America 

You can be proud to be British and not need to cape up for a monarchy that has a terrible history and produces miserable people that have grifted you for your entire life.

And the people here who generally think like you find most of you Europeans to be soulless. Funny that. Perhaps for a day try enjoying life without having to view the world that way. It's quite pleasant, really. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Russia, China. Iran.

Iran tried to become a democracy 70 years ago with Mosaddegh and instead the US (and the UK) propped up the Shah.

[Cas Stark]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Iran tried to become a democracy 70 years ago with Mosaddegh and instead the US (and the UK) propped up the Shah.

Point taken.

[Conflicting Thought]

well i think if the british or the netherlands or every other country that has a monarchy want to keep them...fine, but they should stay in their respective countries, and get out of other countries that dont have a choice in being part of a monarchy, this monarchies should also return what they stole and pay reparations.