Why Monarchy?

[Left Coast]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

 

[Father Heathen]

Mascots give a touch of character.

 

[Rival]

1. It's a good link to the past, tradition and culture. It gives a strong feeling of cultural and historical continuity; when everything is changing, there's a rock there that's unchanging.

2. It works with a Parliamentary system, which many folks prefer. I know many Brits would rather have a Prime Minister than a President (their job isn't really the same; their powers are not the same).

3. In the UK at least, the King serves as a religious figurehead as well; the head of the Anglican Church, and many Anglicans still feel loyalty to him.

4. Pomp and pageantry.

5. Some folks just like the Monarchical system. It's up to them, really. I don't mind it. There are many ways of doing Monarchy and nearly all of them include checks and balances; some include an elected monarch, as in the old Anglo-Saxon/pre-Norman system or the way the Pope is elected. It need not always be hereditary or absolute. Absolute Monarchy is, in Europe at least, a XVIth century idea; the modern understanding of the idea of Divine Right is not really an ancient one in Europe. It would certainly be foreign to many Mediaeval rulers, even folks like Henry II would not have dreamed of going as far as Henry VIII, for example.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

It's all down to their ancestors having the biggest swords and each generation playing on that.

 

[Left Coast]

1. It's a good link to the past, tradition and culture. It gives a strong feeling of cultural and historical continuity; when everything is changing, there's a rock there that's unchanging.

But it's a terrible rock, lol. This reminds me of arguments in the US for retaining Confederate symbols (not to dredge up that old gem).

2. It works with a Parliamentary system, which many folks prefer. I know many Brits would rather have a Prime Minister than a President (their job isn't really the same; their powers are not the same).

Can't you have a system with a Prime Minister without having a monarch?

3. In the UK at least, the King serves as a religious figurehead as well; the head of the Anglican Church, and many Anglicans still feel loyalty to him.

If religions want to keep their authoritarian institutions thats up to them. I was more interested in discussing monarchy as a political system (though it is interwoven with religion, no doubt).

4. Pomp and pageantry.

You can have lots of that without a monarch. Come to the US.

There are many ways of doing Monarchy and nearly all of them include checks and balances; some include an elected monarch, as in the old Anglo-Saxon/pre-Norman system or the way the Pope is elected.

The Pope is elected by cardinals who were hand picked by prior Popes. So it's an oligarchic election, not a democratic one. I don't know about the old Anglo-Saxon system but I'm interested in learning more.

It need not always be hereditary or absolute. Absolute Monarchy is, in Europe at least, a XVIth century idea; the modern understanding of the idea of Divine Right is not really an ancient one in Europe. It would certainly be foreign to many Mediaeval rulers, even folks like Henry II would not have dreamed of going as far as Henry VIII, for example.

That's an interesting point. How did monarchs come to power if not through heredity or conquest?

 

[MikeF]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

Why do we still have an appendix (the bodily organ)? I think, as with vestigial organs, vestigial institutions fade at varying rates, and may never fade completely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why monarchy? Why both President and Prime Minister? For the heck of it, gives employment to more people.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I've always been curious on how people would deal with the Royal Family, and how members of the Royal Family themselves would deal with it if my country would turn into a republic.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

Well considering in the UK they aren't ruling, just figure heads. I don't see the issue.

Other than that in the one place I know that still has an active Monarchy (Tonga), I would assume it's because it's a legitimate form of governing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How did monarchs come to power if not through heredity or conquest?

Some times adoption if the king does not have a heir. Sometimes they are appointed by Colonial powers. Sometimes kingdoms are bought. Kashmir, Gilgit and Ladakh was bought for 7,500,000 Indian Rupees in 1846 by the Jammu King, Gulab Singh, from the British.

 

[Rival]

The Pope is elected by cardinals who were hand picked by prior Popes. So it's an oligarchic election, not a democratic one. I don't know about the old Anglo-Saxon system but I'm interested in learning more.

I never said it would be democratic

The Anglo-Saxon system had a royal family-ish and members from it would be chosen rather than it just immediately passing from father to son. Prior to this they had another system which was slightly more democratic-ish iirc.

That's an interesting point. How did monarchs come to power if not through heredity or conquest?

Chosen by others; maybe barons, lords etc. whatever the cultural equivalent is.

Can't you have a system with a Prime Minister without having a monarch?

Yes, but many here like doing both

 

[Left Coast]

Some times adoption if the king does not have a heir.

Okay, so power is still retained within the same family with an occasional adoptee. Not much different.

Sometimes they are appointed by Colonial powers.

Yikes.

Sometimes kingdoms are bought. Kashmir, Gilgit and Ladakh was bought for 7,500,000 Indian Rupees of that time by the Jammu King from the British.

Should entire nations be bought and sold?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well considering in the UK they aren't ruling, just figure heads. I don't see the issue.

Other than that in the one place I know that still has an active Monarchy (Tonga), I would assume it's because it's a legitimate form of governing.

Well they have some power like dissolving parliament and creating new elections from what I hear.

 

[Left Coast]

I never said it would be democratic

The Anglo-Saxon system had a royal family-ish and members from it would be chosen rather than it just immediately passing from father to son. Prior to this they had another system which was slightly more democratic-ish iirc.


Chosen by others; maybe barons, lords etc. whatever the cultural equivalent is.


Yes, but many here like doing both

I see so at best you have something like a papal election where a group of oligarchs chooses the monarch. I don't understand how that's preferable to democracy but okay haha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I've always been curious on how people would deal with the Royal Family, and how members of the Royal Family themselves would deal with it if my country would turn into a republic.

It is a smooth transition. Look at Harry. Raza Shah Pahlavi after dethronement. Many cases (perhaps in South East Asia, I think Norodom Sihanouk remained a commoner for a long time. Haile Salassie?).

لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِٱللَّٰهِ​

lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāh
(All change and power is to Allah)

 

[Left Coast]

Well considering in the UK they aren't ruling, just figure heads. I don't see the issue.

Other than that in the one place I know that still has an active Monarchy (Tonga), I would assume it's because it's a legitimate form of governing.

What makes it legitimate? I suppose that's the root of my question.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But it's a terrible rock, lol. This reminds me of arguments in the US for retaining Confederate symbols (not to dredge up that old gem).

Well there's the argument over tradition and not hate to which I think the preservation of the monarchy follows similar lines.

Just the bad parts have been cut out in the name of continued tradition and preservation.

 

[Estro Felino]

I can make an exclusively juridical point.
A royal dynasty who has a certain historical prestige is called to become the guarantee of constitutional control of the democratic process, because it has to be loyal to the people. The Nation.
So in the 21st it is not the people who owe loyalty to the monarch, but it's the other way around.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Should entire nations be bought and sold?

Inhabited islands are sold. I do not remember whole countries sold and bought. Alaska also was bought. A nice buy.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well they have some power like dissolving parliament and creating new elections from what I hear.

Not really. The head honcho is only rubber stamping decisions made by the the PM and government.

Boris Johnson wasn't even bothered about the law, but that's another story; Madge wouldn't have been keen on law breaking but, as I said, she was just a rubber stamper.

"On 28 August 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the Conservative prime minister, Boris Johnson, advice later ruled to be unlawful."
- 2019 British prorogation controversy - Wikipedia