Liberal and Socialist Monarchies...

Factual Questions
1

One question that has always perplexed me, at least. How could some of the most liberal and even sometimes socialist countries in the world be monarchies? Yes, they are constitutional monarchies. But still.

I am talking about countries like Denmark, Sweden. Heck I will even throw in the UK and Canada for good measure.

There are myriad of reasons why this confuses me. But to just give one, doesn’t the reigning monarch have veto power over legislation? So can’t they just veto what they don’t like that way? There are some other aspects about this arrangement that make me wonder too.

Well?

:):):slight_smile:

2

Not necessarily. The King of Sweden has no role in the legislative process at all.

3

You skip over this like it’s meaningless. But it’s precisely the point - we don’t have an all powerful state figurehead (president) who could become dictatorial given the right circumstances. I often hear with regards the US politics about the ‘checks and balances’ in place, whereas a constitutional monarchy really does this par excellance.

Whilst the government are following the rules and not power grabbing, the monarchy keeps quiet and does as they are told - they’d be out on their ear if they didn’t. But as the national figurehead, if the government starts to get all nazi-like and start oppressing its people, against the will of its people, the monarchy can step in, knowing the country (and likely also the military) is behind them.

It also gives us someone to represent our nation in a not political, non partisan, no vocal manner. Which you shouldn’t knock, given the US head of state right now.

4

One other thing - countries tend to change style of government if they’ve been through dramatic political turmoil (revolution, civil war) or major boundary changes/splits (eg Yugoslavia). The countries in Europe that retain their monarchy tend to be stable democracies with no pressing need to change the system for the sake of it.

5

Beautifully put.

6

There must be millions of merkins who still believe this. The question and variants has likely been asked and refuted explicitly and emphatically every week on these forums since 1973.

Another example of the asymmetrical nature of bullshit.

7

The head of state and head of government are different things and valuable things. In the US we combined the roles. This is not cool for one important reason, Donald Trump is the representative not just of the American government, but also the American Nation. This may seem like a trifling point, but it’s really not. It allows other countries to diplomatically separate actions of the government from the populace. So, let’s go to the UK since that’s the monarchy that the US is most familiar with. So Tony Blair did some unpopular things abroad. If Tony Blair shows up at a dinner party, there are some pretty firm reasons for people to snub him. When the head of government and the head of state are the same, then you end up in a diplomatic conundrum. How do you say, “I like the UK, but I hate the current regime.”

We (the US) have that problem now with Annoying Orange. Diplomatically, people hate the bugger with good reason. They hate his appointees and pretty much everything about him. They have some pretty good reasons to give him the finger and not include him at the annual World Leader picnic and table games symposium and if he shows up to not include him in their reindeer games. In the UK’s case though, they have a card that we don’t. If a country is at odds with Tony Blair, the UK can ship over Lilibet and Forever Prince Charlie as representatives of the state and not the government. Their sole job besides being tourist magnets is to be well-liked by everyone except Hitler and his ilk. They are to have no opinions and they exist in a world so dictated by protocol as to make it nearly impossible to give offense and they can soften the stances of other countries’ populaces toward the UK in spite of policies those people might disagree with. They also provide other countries with a visible opportunity to make it clear that their beef is with UK policies and not the UK people. This is not a valueless thing. If Theresa May shows up in Germany, there might be some reason for Merkel to flip her the bird, but then Germany could also extend an invitation to the Queen for a parade and pinching the cheeks of the Royal Great-Grandbabies making it abundantly clear that they are not mad at the UK, just May and her party.

The diplomatic value of royals far exceeds their costs. Imagine when Obama wanted to open up Cuba if he could dispatch King George Washington the Tenth down to Fidel and he walks around smiling and shaking hands with Cubans and saying how much he enjoys their rum and beaches and that Martha has so enjoyed the hospitality and friendliness of the Cuban people which rivals anyone’s on earth. That’s a valuable thing to have.

Another extremely valuable thing they possess is that they ostensibly speak for the state. Let’s pretend for a moment that we had another September 11th. Yes, our Presidents can do a good job of communicating to us. George W.'s speech post-9/11 was frankly a masterpiece. I’m not so sure though that Donald Trump’s would be. I think that if there were another major disaster, even if Trump were to give the speech of his life, quite a few people would be turned off. We would not be necessarily be ‘rallying behind the flag’ as it were. Having an ostensibly neutral head of state give that speech though could go a long way to helping us cope with our grief and unite together without the baggage of political views. If the exact same speech were to come out of Donald Trump’s mouth vs a hypothetical King of America, we’d have much different reactions and rightly so and there are times when you need the people to react well to something major.

The last reason is one that maybe actually helps answer your question. A monarchy actually serves as a moderating influence on the higher levels of government. Again, looking to us as an example, Trump largely feels ‘l’etat, c’est moi.’ Prime Ministers in monarchies have a visible reminder that it ain’t. In the UK (and I would guess to some extent in other Const. Monarchies) the Prime Minister is required to go to the Queen for counsel (which of course he is free to ignore and who knows how much counsel they are actually capable of giving) but nonetheless, there is a visible and frequent reminder that they are not the state, merely stewards. We don’t have that. No matter how powerful your title in those countries, there is someone bigger than you. They may be powerless, but they are still your superior and I believe that that does serve to moderate their worst tendencies. I might even be so inclined to state (perhaps without evidence, so one could argue) that the reason that those countries are liberal is BECAUSE of the monarchy in some small measure. A monarchy has a tendency to discourage autocracy which is the enemy of liberalism.

8

Americans get their information about monarchies from Disney movies, basically.

This keeps coming up, and the rest of the world keeps telling Americans that it doesn’t really work that way, that kings and queens haven’t had unlimited power since the dark ages, and even then it wasn’t really unlimited.

Americans sort-of-but-not-really elect a figurehead. The Commonwealth has a family of them that have been doing the job for 300-ish years. Filthy peasants like me are never going to get a chance at either job, so who cares? I prefer having royalty because it seems way less hypocritical.

9

[Moderating]

Let’s please keep our discussions of good and bad heads of state in the abstract. This thread isn’t about Donald Trump.

[Not moderating]

It’s sometimes said that the Queen of England can do anything she wants, once. That is to say: There are a lot of powers that the monarch once had, which were never officially taken away. But if a monarch ever tried to use those powers, then Parliament would immediately take it away after that (as well as probably taking away a bunch of other powers that the monarch might be considering using). In practice, the only powers of the monarchy are to give inspiring speeches, smile and wave for the paparazi, and go to important funerals and look solemn.

10

These are hardly socialist countries. And I expect you imagine the monarchs to wield more power than they actually do.

11

Why is it surprising that liberal/socialist countries are monarchies? It makes perfect sense. Liberals and socialists are suspicious of inherited power and prefer democratic, limited government.

The monarchies that tried to hoard wealth and power soon lost their positions.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

12

No, that is flawed. There are many things QEII can’t do once and the only thing Elizabeth Windsor wants is the continuation of the Monarchy.
As to what constitutes power and what is influence is not a moot question but she is Commander-in-Chief of the UK armed forces and Head of the Church of England.

13

Not in Spain.

But they didn’t have it in the Middle Ages either, and nobody had invented Seguridad Social yet…

14

I think one thing that confuses us in the US is what we were taught about the last time we had a king. We are taught (at least at the basic level) that the policies of England to the colonies were primarily driven by George III. Yes we learn of the Townshend Act, Lord North’s Intolerable Acts, Pitt the Elder trying to ease the situation. However, George III is clearly the villain driving the plot.

From the outside it looks like the UK has the same system of government now as then, so the thought that Elizabeth technically has the same powers that George did is not that much of a stretch. How much more power did George III have compared to Elizabeth II? Or was he pretty much a figurehead who was a convenient target for American opprobrium?

15

George III and Elizabeth II have roughkly the same power as a matter of constitutional law.

As a matter of constitutional convention, George had much more power.

Neither has the power to pass laws independently. Laws are made by Parlaimanet. However, in George’s time, he had more control over who got elected to the Commons. As a great landowner, pre-Reform Bill, the King would be able to choose or influence the choice of a large number of MPs - estimates range from 75 to 125 MPs.

There was also a sense that the King should have the people in government that he wanted, so many MPs, especially country MPs, tended to support the government the King appointed.

Third, the general sense was that the King had a major say in foreign affairs, which included the colonies.

The result was that there was the Prime Minister, but the King had considerable influence in the policies of the Government.

In practice, that meant that although there was considerable sympathy for the America colonies among some MPs (Burke, and Chatham in the Lords), the King had a major impact on the policy towards the colonies. Lord North, the PM, likely was able to stay in power mainly because he had the King’s support, until the British forces were finally defeated.

It’s completely different today. The Queen has much the same legal powers, but by constitutional convention (which is just as much part of the British constitution as the laws), she only exercises those powers on the advice of the Prime Minister. The PM, in turn, becomes PM because he/she has the confidence of a majority of the MPs in the Commons. Unlike George, Her Majesty has no power to influence the make-up of the Commons.

16

Exactly.

17

This, I’m afraid. Divine Right of Kings only had a toehold in Britain during the reigns of James I and Charles I. The ending of Charles’ reign convinced all of his successors (save James II) that Divine Right of Kings was a rather dangerous political doctrine.

But I’ve been struck by how Americans, even on these boards, seem to think that’s really how the constitutional monarchies work, and that at any moment Elizabeth could throw away 3 centuries of constitutional developments and take over the government (e.g. over Brexit, something that has been suggested by several American posters in the Brexit threads over the past two years).

Ain’t going to happen.

Elizabeth doesn’t want to join Charles I prematurely in Windsor Chapel.

18

In fact, a lot of people who don’t live in monarchies seem to think that monarchs anywhere, anywhen had absolute power; a lot of people who live in constitutional monarchies seem to think that of monarchs before a certain date (date to vary with person). Even Louis XIV of France and Ivan I of Russia needed to follow a set of rules beyond “I fancy this, it shall be done”.

19

You know how the USA chooses to spend money to maintain National Monuments and National Parks? The royal family is like that. Symbol of the country’s heritage, nothing more.

20

I watched a television report about the queen mother of the Ashanti empire. No political power whatsoever. Surrounded by an imposing number of gracious women, and big strong men, each and all of whom had to be satisfied that the reporters, and crew intended to be polite, respectful, and await Her Imperial Highness’s permission before speaking.

One of the other persons interviewed was an elected official of moderate rank in one of the countries in which the Ashanti people are a large minority. He was asked if Her Highness had any political power. He laughed.

“She is our mother. She does not need power.” When asked if people would do as she asked if she did ask, he replied. “We love our mother. Do you love your mother?” the reported assured the man that yes, he did indeed love his mother. “And if she asks you to do something, do you do it?”

Power and influence are not the same. Power is easier to challenge.

Tris

The easiest power to wield is not wanting any.