I’m an English pensioner. I don’t care for King Charles personally (he’s an out-of-touch adulterer), but the Monarchy is useful for us.
As has been said, the King has no power to make policy - that’s all done by democratically elected members of parliament.
Instead the Monarchy is jolly useful in acting as the representative of our country:
hosting foreign dignitaries
opening events (e.g. Olympics)
travelling abroad (usually quite a popular thing)
having weddings and births (we like a bit of ceremony )
representing our history and traditions
All of the above stuff is best done by a figurehead who is popular with the people. No political axe to grind.
By contrast America (a great country) is massively let down by its current President, who has no idea of diplomacy or manners…
As I understand the quote in the OP. It’s saying King Charles is very constrained by the democratic systems of the United kingdom, so constrained in fact that he has no power at all, and is just a figurehead. Donald Trump on the other hand? He’s constrained a little but the checks and balances in the US democratic system, I guess? But as I’ve said in other threads I put more faith in the cold hand of the grim reaper at protecting US democracy from a Trump dictatorship, than I do the checks and balances in the US constitution
@Cervaise, here’s a possibly interesting side story about your monarch (I’m assuming that you’re Dutch). In 1985 I was a young Canadian naval officer and our ship was in Den Helder for a NATO short work period. One evening I was in a bar downtown and met the then-Crown Prince/now-King and had a few drinks with him. I ran into him one more time in the same bar during that visit.
He seemed to be a really nice, down to earth, guy.
@Cervaise, my apologies. I just assumed that the blue on the Luxembourg flag in your avatar was the Dutch flag with some colour screw up via my laptop or whatever. Sorry about that.
Yup. Watch the original 1990 British House of Cards sequel To Play the King to see what can happen to a UK monarch who is perceived as letting general concern for subjects’ welfare shade too distinctly into political partisanship.
I read the quote in the OP as referring to the UK’s communal, inclusive and largely voluntary celebrations as being democratic, rather than (as others noted) a Nuremberg-style expression of inherently oppressive physical power.
The fact that a monarch is the focus of attention is almost secondary - it’s a similar communal impulse as parades for winners of sports trophies, carnival queens, or whatever. I think Brendon was picking up on the observations to that effect in a classic sociological article about the coronation of 1953.
Almost off-topic here, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a monarch like Carrot in the Discworld?
He is apparently historically the ‘rightful king’ but chooses to be a captain in the Guard. And when an emergency happens, he asks for help and everyone pitches in because it would be ‘Bad Form’ not to.
I do think William seems to be a fairly decent and competent chap… I could work with him, I expect…?
Japan is a functioning democracy with an emperor who only serves a ceremonial role I can’t see how it would be any more democratic if they had a different head of state.
Same thing in the Scandinavian countries. The last time our king went against the government was in April 1940, something which most Norwegians think was the right choice for the country.
Although the monarch definitely isn’t apponited by any democratic process, there’s something to be said about having an apolitical, completely non-partisan head of state.
Kenneth J Arrow (1921 – 2017) got the ‘Nobel’ economics prize in '72, for demonstrating that no voting system can be perfect: no ranked voting system is immune to ranking disorders.
Simplifying one aspect of that, you always need to choose which non-democratic aspect your democratic system will have.
The special point about the British Monarchy system is that the Monarch is outside of Arrow’s impossibility theorem: the Monarchy is essentially a random factor that can’t be gamed, which only comes into play if there is a systemic failure.
Put aside who is currently the president. Just consider the office of the presidency in general and not the individual.
Now assume we decided to make the presidency a hereditary office that is held until death. The previous president’s eldest child would automatically become the president died. And that eldest child’s eldest child would automatically become president in turn when their parent died. If a president died without any descendants, then their closest living relative would become president for life.
Are people saying they feel this would be a more democratic system than our current system? Not necessarily better or worse but more democratic?
No.
The role of the King in the Brit democracy is completely different to that of the American president.
There is a suggestion above that the British system is more democratic than the American system: that American system would be more democratic if the leader of the majority party in the House of Reps took over the executive role of President, (and perhaps the President got the Head-of-state role like the Israeli President, or the British King, but that isn’t part of the argument).
Ifølge Undersøkelseskommisjonen av 1945 var det mer enn noe annet Kongens motstand mot å utnevne Quisling som førte til at regjeringen enstemmig avvise tyskernes krav.
Translation:
According to the 1945 Commission of Inquiry, it was the King’s opposition to appointing Quisling more than anything else that led the government to unanimously reject the Germans’ demands.
There were ministers who strongly considered capitulation.
Have you not understood that POTUS is the US head of government, and as recently witnessed, can govern uninhibited via Executive Orders and making interim/acting appointments and simply bypass the legislative branch?
.
Now emasculate POTUS down to a ceremonial role as Head of State and you can appoint/anoint them as hereditary primogeniture, or give the job to whomever wins the Heisman Trophy. And that would be more democratic that the schmooze you have now with all it’s mythical checks and balances.
Yeah, I’m not getting what is so difficult about this. In a monarchy, the Head of State (i.e. the monarch) has very few powers, except those that are carefully circumscribed in the constitution or by legislation. As I’ve said before, he or she answers to the people through their elected representatives and does what the elected representatives of the people want. He or she does not just make stuff up and sign executive orders to that effect, believing that he or she has ultimate power and can override the people’s will.
The monarch is a figurehead, signing bills passed by Parliament, and otherwise, acting in ceremonial roles: opening hospitals, acting as patron of charities, sending greetings to people who have reached a significant milestone in their lives, greeting foreign heads of state, accepting credentials from foreign ambassadors. But power—actual power—lies with the people, through their democratically-elected representatives, who tell the monarch what to do.
I’d suggest that today, places like Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the like, despite being constitutional monarchies, are robust democracies, adhering to the Rule of Law doctrine. Their monarch (KCIII) does not try to govern, rule, or otherwise interfere with what their peoples’ democratically-elected governments want to do, or how they wish to move forward. They are democratic, in spite of having a heriditary head of state.
)
