• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nov 7, 2017
5,084
I have been binging on The Crown on Netflix and I can't help but think why in the fuck does the UK or any other country in this day and age still have royalty? Maybe UK era (or other people that live in constitutional monarchies) can chime in since as an American I don't get this. It seems like they have no actual power and they just sit in their palaces being royalty. Do any of you think the monarchy will last for another decade?
 

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
Because we don't want to pay to protect 10 ex-presidents. Kings at most, you tend to have 2.
 

SmartBase

Self-requested ban
Member
Dec 17, 2017
469
Because no one cares enough to change anything. Even my neighbours in Sweden, Norway and Denmark are more than happy to have these useless welfare families at the top. Then there's Australia, Canada, New Zealand all sharing the same monarch that isn't even their own.
 

Melhadf

Member
Dec 25, 2017
1,530
Because being born from the correct vagina is apparently more important than democratically electing leaders.
 
Nov 18, 2020
1,408
They're around because of the pageantry, nationalism, and tourism they generate. And they're essentially celebrities. People love to follow their every move, even outside the UK. The Queen is still "head of state" of Commonwealth countries, but in practicality she doesn't have any power. Theoretically she could still do something (maybe), but they operate a strict hands-off policy in everything. The Queen just participates in formalities, like "appointing the Prime Minister" or "opening and closing Parliament." All for show.

Honestly and truly, I think a large reason why the UK Monarchy still exists in its current form is because of the universal likeability of the Queen. Once she finally passes, Charles and Co. will have a tremendously difficult time justifying their worth. They are nowhere near as likable.
 

Mr. Genuine

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,622
Someone once explained to me that it does have a positive unintended consequence of removing all the deference and ceremonial pomp and circumstance that would otherwise be placed on an elected official. From what I understand, in the UK, there's no deference due to the Prime Minster the way there is to the President of the US; he's just the head of government, not the head of state. In the US, since the President is also Head of State as well as Head of Government, there's a much greater aura of deference and ceremony placed on him that I think, in a healthier society, should rather be placed on a politically powerless, non-partisan figure.
 

Fritz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,720
Fo the fragile sense of stability and identification? Not living in a monarchy myself

Someone once explained to me that it does have a positive unintended consequence of removing all the deference and ceremonial pomp and circumstance that would otherwise be placed on an elected official. From what I understand, in the UK, there's no deference due to the Prime Minster the way there is to the President of the US; he's just the head of government, not the head of state. In the US, since the President is also Head of State as well as Head of Government, there's a much greater aura of deference and ceremony placed on him that I think, in a healthier society, should rather be placed on a politically powerless, non-partisan figure.

You don't need a monarch for that. What you are describing is exactly the role of the German president (Merkel is our chancellor and not our head of state).
 

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,640
Because being born from the correct vagina is apparently more important than democratically electing leaders.
Modern monarchs are rarely the actual leaders of the country. For instance, here in the Netherlands the title of King is almost purely ceremonial. Sure, a purely ceremonial title who gets millions of euros for being born in the right family which sucks, but it's not like he actually has shit to say when it comes to running the country.
 

Dan Thunder

Member
Nov 2, 2017
14,071
UK here and I'm the exact opposite of a monarchist. They do however bring in the tourist money and provide xenophobes and nationalists more fuel.
 

Zoantharia

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,860
I don't live in a country which has one, but I say let's get rid of them all. The Saudis in particular.
 

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,640
I suppose that every current government has it's share of making things needlessly overcomplicated

Electoral college lol why tho
I wouldn't call monarchies overcomplicated. More like the opposite, people do not want things complicated so they just kept the status quo despite it making no sense anymore.(kings & queens have no power, they just exist).
 

anamika

Member
May 18, 2018
2,622
Nationalism and classism. Classism is still a thing in the UK. That's why people swallow the nonsense spouted by posh toffs like Jacob Rees Mogg.
 

Coen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
722
Antwerp, Belgium
I'd rather have crazies rally behind some well-payed family with no real power than electables spouting all kinds of nationalistic bullshit just to get elected.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,269
I'd happily get rid of ours (UK), but apparently their good for tourism. Ironically, it's said it's the US that have the biggest fascination with them.
 

Herr Starr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,234
Norway
Over these last few years, I've come to believe that many of the United States' problems might have been avoided if it was a monarchy (without getting rid of the office of the President, just to be clear). Right now, the most powerful person in that country is, by default, partisan. With how votes are divided, almost half of the country will feel as if the President does not represent them, and they will feel little to no attachment or pride in him/her. The only thing that might bind people together outside of the political party they support is the country itself, which is a nebulous concept that is swiftly losing its importance.

That's why I feel like the monarchy still serves a purpose. Here in Norway, the position of Prime Minister might change based on elections, but there's always, always a person at the very top, even if only ceremonially, that ascends politics and serves as someone everyone in the country can feel pride in. The position of King has little practical value in daily politics, but the value to the national image is vital.
 

i_am_ben

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,015
Australia still has one because it is too difficult to agree what form a new government should take.
 

Mr. Genuine

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,622
Fo the fragile sense of stability and identification? Not living in a monarchy myself



You don't need a monarch for that. What you are describing is exactly the role of the German president (Merkel is our chancellor and not our head of state).

I suppose, but if you're going to have a powerless figurehead, I don't see what harm there is in having the office be hereditary. In fact it seems to me, and I can't say this is the case in Germany as I truly have no idea how it works over there, that having that office be an elected position will naturally create more controversy and division over the office holder than there would be otherwise. Does the German President truly have little to no power? Are they represented by a political party or have a platform they run on to get elected?
 

Ramsay

Member
Jul 2, 2019
3,623
Australia

Part of it is due to nationalism and classism.

Part of it is due to the fact that having the head of state and the head of government both be elected figures is a terrible idea as it both paradoxically weakens the separation of powers needed to keep a democratic society intact and allows for populists to gain control of both offices (remember how close Austria got to electing a neo-Nazi as President in 2016?) - though why the head of state cannot simply be appointed by a legislature with a supermajority, I don't know.
 

Plinkerton

Member
Nov 4, 2017
6,061
Yes they bring in tourism and stuff, but the real reason they still exist is that no government would want to be the one to get rid of them. They're still massively popular, especially amongst older people and the "patriotic" Empire-loving types, so it would be political suicide to propose ditching them.

Edit: this was specifically about the UK monarchy.
 

SmartBase

Self-requested ban
Member
Dec 17, 2017
469
Over these last few years, I've come to believe that many of the United States' problems might have been avoided if it was a monarchy (without getting rid of the office of the President, just to be clear). Right now, the most powerful person in that country is, by default, partisan. With how votes are divided, almost half of the country will feel as if the President does not represent them, and they will feel little to no attachment or pride in him/her. The only thing that might bind people together outside of the political party they support is the country itself, which is a nebulous concept that is swiftly losing its importance.

That's why I feel like the monarchy still serves a purpose. Here in Norway, the position of Prime Minister might change based on elections, but there's always, always a person at the very top, even if only ceremonially, that ascends politics and serves as someone everyone in the country can feel pride in. The position of King has little practical value in daily politics, but the value to the national image is vital.

As amusing as having a king sounds, couldn't you just have a president like Finland? As a bonus they'd actually be useful too and not just ceremonial.
 

Ramsay

Member
Jul 2, 2019
3,623
Australia
As amusing as having a king sounds, couldn't you just have a president like Finland? As a bonus they'd actually be useful too and not just ceremonial.
You don't want the head of state to be popularly elected, especially if they are given significant power, as your government is then left significantly more vulnerable to populists setting up a dictatorship (i.e. Turkey).

Having the head of state be appointed (with a supermajority) similar to what was proposed in the 1999 republic referendum in Australia could work reasonably well, though.
 
Last edited:

Cass_Se

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,127
Honestly and truly, I think a large reason why the UK Monarchy still exists in its current form is because of the universal likeability of the Queen. Once she finally passes, Charles and Co. will have a tremendously difficult time justifying their worth. They are nowhere near as likable.

How long will Charles be the king though. William is the one that seems pretty liked by the press and tabloids love Kate. I think they will do fine, sadly. Especially as Elizabeth had overseen UK's slide into irrelevance, the tabloids will need the monarchy to fall back on in their claims of UK's exceptionality.
 

Mr. Genuine

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,622
Over these last few years, I've come to believe that many of the United States' problems might have been avoided if it was a monarchy (without getting rid of the office of the President, just to be clear). Right now, the most powerful person in that country is, by default, partisan. With how votes are divided, almost half of the country will feel as if the President does not represent them, and they will feel little to no attachment or pride in him/her. The only thing that might bind people together outside of the political party they support is the country itself, which is a nebulous concept that is swiftly losing its importance.

That's why I feel like the monarchy still serves a purpose. Here in Norway, the position of Prime Minister might change based on elections, but there's always, always a person at the very top, even if only ceremonially, that ascends politics and serves as someone everyone in the country can feel pride in. The position of King has little practical value in daily politics, but the value to the national image is vital.

I feel the same way. I'm American, and I've always felt like Europeans, particularly the British, have a much healthier outlook and attitude towards politicians, in that they are almost all universally looked at with disdain and contempt. The cult of personality Americans place on their leaders (and yes, to a less frenzied extent, Democrats do it to) is really embarrassing.
 

Conal

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
2,868
It's pretty contested that removing them would have a huge negative impact on tourism if I remember correctly.
 

Catshade

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,198
It's tradition and (supposedly) the unifying identity of the nation. But I'd rather have a powerless royalty than de facto political dynasty that has the power to influence the party or government. Ideally I want neither, of course.
 

Tomasoares

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,549
At least for the UK monarchy, the queen still has lots of power. Not practical, of course, but still strong political influence.
 

SmartBase

Self-requested ban
Member
Dec 17, 2017
469
You don't want the head of state to be popularly elected, especially if they are given significant power, as your government is then left significantly more vulnerable to populists setting up a dictatorship (i.e. Turkey).

Having the head of state be appointed (with a supermajority) similar to what was proposed in the 1999 republic referendum in Australia could work reasonably well, though.

Obviously it wouldn't work in coin flip democracies like Australia, but Finland has like 4 major parties and numerous minor ones which makes a Turkey situation more than unlikely. Well that and the fact the president hasn't got much power on the domestic side of things.
 

Praetorpwj

Member
Nov 21, 2017
4,363
I can give you a long winded answer about how the monarchy is supposed to work and cost benefits it provides to the UK.

But what it boils down to is people like the current queen. Who knows how they feel about her successor and how that will change their role in society; it's all untested in the modern age.

There are grave concerns about Charles; as you watch The Crown you will understand this. That's why they want William to take over instead. He's been trained as the acceptable face of the modern monarchy.
 

Vault

â–˛ Legend â–˛
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,623
A shame the one time we chopped our kings head off we replaced him with a puritan dictator
 

Fritz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,720
I suppose, but if you're going to have a powerless figurehead, I don't see what harm there is in having the office be hereditary. In fact it seems to me, and I can't say this is the case in Germany as I truly have no idea how it works over there, that having that office be an elected position will naturally create more controversy and division over the office holder than there would be otherwise. Does the German President truly have little to no power? Are they represented by a political party or have a platform they run on to get elected?

I do agree with you! As my dad always says: There is nothing like a trained king. Like the whole lives of these people revolve around being an identification figure for "their" people. No elected official will ever amount to that, don't know whether that is good or bad. Also they will never have the kind of monumental quality of a monarch and never be such a point of identification.

However what I can tell you is that - and this is always a surprise to me - there has been very little controversy around our presidents in the short history of the German Federal Republic. They have all been more of a unifying, highly regarded, moral authority. I mean some more some less but it kinda always worked out. The president is elected by a special parliamentary body, similar to your electoral college I guess. The parties in our parliament will nominate members of that electoral body. This can be everyday people, politicians or celebrities' even. Sure enough most of them will have some form of party affiliation. The parties do present candidates for the office amongst whom then the president is chosen. Generally speaking, the biggest party in parliament will also "get" their president. These candidates are always senior party members and politicians. However, once in office the president is supposed to be fully neutral and cast of any affiliation.

It worked so far, our presidents have always been somewhat dignified and honorable. Others might argue against this statement but I believe in general it holds true. Might be a special case with our most recent history resulting in some discipline making that choice. And sure enough we lately see the disruption by the far right here as well. Last cycle I believe was the first time the far right party in parliament was bringing their own candidate for presidency forward which of course was super controversial. The candidate didn't have a chance this time around but who knows. It would certainly damage the institution significantly (just as we have seen with trump).
 
Last edited:

Herne

Member
Dec 10, 2017
5,319
Most modern royal families are excellent ambassadors for their countries and for charitable or otherwise worthy causes. Yeah it's shit they get so much money for being born into a privileged position but they also live a life of service, whether they want to or not. They're also nearly always under the scrutiny of the media which is an awful way for anyone to live.

I'm not saying they're massively essential or anything but they do still have roles to play, and generally they're an asset to their countries, especially diplomatically. King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands visited Ireland last year and they signed a treaty of double taxation between the two countries, visited members of the Men's Shed organisation and similar initiatives and discussed the possibility of starting it in the Netherlands. They also met with Dutch emigrants who settled in Ireland. None of the above activities necessitated a monarch to perform them but they clearly are still useful for some roles.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,350
Another decade of course, another century? There will be less of them for sure...

I envy the french in that regard
 

Rotobit

Editor at Nintendo Wire
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
10,196
To me it's always felt a bit like patriotism and just... how things have always been. The queen's had her role longer than most people living in Britain have been alive, and few people want to rock that boat without cause.

I'd rather they weren't publically funded, just let traditionalists support them independently and let them make money via appearances and other means. At the very least they don't have much power in the grand scheme of things.
 

RedShift

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,063

France is the most visited country in the world, and rather famously does not have a monarch. If anything opening up palaces to tourism rather than keeping them as holiday homes for monarchs would increase visitors.

Tbh as much as I would like the UK to be a republic it's probably a lot of effort to change, and there are far more pressing issues facing the UK. I'd rather get rid of hereditary peers and the monopoly students of a handful of fee paying schools have on all the levers of power in this country.

Maybe once Charles or William is king opinions will start to shift.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,618
Spain
Ultimately there is always a historical reason why they weren't removed, probably that they knew when it was time to accept democracy and/or defend it.
Personally it's not that I like the monarchy, but I couldn't care less. If you look at the world's top 20 democracies, ten are constitutional monarchies, so its not like it cannot work. Ultimately, modern kings are lifelong ambassadors that are trained from birth to perform that role. There is nothing that would change in the democratic and economic life of any of those democratic monarchies if that ceremonial role was taken by an elected official.