(inspired by a conversation with my husband this morning)
Which current reigning monarch could be considered most powerful in terms of:
a) internal control of their own country?
b) global influence?
The Spouse thought the king of Thailand might be up there, considering the known consequences of dissing the Thai monarchy (very, very bad idea) and his impression that various military coups have actually been carried out on behalf of the king. I’m thinking that somewhere like Saudi Arabia might be a front-runner.
Bonus question - how many places with active monarchies (by which I mean the monarch setting policy and actually governing on their own behalf) are actually nice places to live?
I think (knock on Formica) I can safely say without fear of 15 years’ imprisonment it’s not the Thai king. By law, he cannot be involved with politics, and he has no influence outside of these borders, not even in directly neighboring countries.
I have also heard that the King of Thailand does not necessarily approve of Thailand’s Lese Majeste laws, but, ironically, anyone calling for their repeal could technically be prosecuted for committing an offence of… Lese Majeste.
(And don’t worry, Sam, I realise you’re limited in what sort of comment you can provide on the issue)
I have to say that I think Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is going to be very high on the list. Whilst, legally, HM’s powers are pretty limited, most things in the Commonwealth are done on behalf of The Crown and you can bet that when Her Majesty makes “suggestions” they’re taken Extremely Seriously. That, and she’s got her face on money and postage stamps all over the world, which is pretty influential when you think about it.
The Queen does things in the UK like ‘approving’ the Prime Minister(PM), opening Parliament and making a speech outlining future legislation.
But she’s never turned down a PM, never refused to open Parliament and her speech is entirely written for her by politicians. (I suppose if a Nazi came to power, she might object. On the other hand, she’s never said anything about the handful of racist BNP members being elected.)
By convention, she never says anything specific in public.
Yes, she meets with the PM regularly. But nobody ever says anything about the conversations. And PMs go on making stupid mistakes and being greedy. So much for the Queen’s ‘experience’.
The one area of true influence is the honours system, which attracts rich people and slavish backbenchers. But I believe the PM does all that and the Queen just rubber-stamps it.
As for the Commonwealth, the Queen will be treated well as a ceremonial figure who heads the organisation.
But she’s never going to get a ‘suggestion’ past the Australian Parliament for example.
And there is indeed her picture on money and stamps. But she has less influence than say Washington on the dollar bill (because he presided over the US Constitution). And Washington’s been dead for centuries.
Is the Pope a monarch? I suppose his is in the most technical sense, but his position is elected, he does not grow up knowing he’s even in the system to become Pope except as a Catholic. Anyway, I’m not sure he does have that much power within his own country anymore.
Perhaps on particular issues, but if they are practicing Catholics they recognize he has substantial authority. Even if you assume half of all Catholics are only nominal, that’s still a lot of people he has influence over. And given the Catholic Church’s political clout in many countries, he has influence over many people who are not Catholic.
I’d agree. He is a powerful monarch in a powerful state. Other Gulf states have absolute monarchies, but those countries aren’t as powerful as Saudi Arabia, while powerful countries like Japan and the UK have weak monarchs.
As mentioned, it would have to be the King of Saudi Arabia. He’s the absolute ruler of a nation that controls the world’s primary energy source. Who can compete with that?
Yeah, it probably comes down to the Pope and the Saudi king. But their powers are different and the reach of that power is different. It’s kind of apples and oranges to even compare them.
The Queen of England has got a boatload of powers, but if she ever decided to exercise them it’d take less than 10 seconds to throw her out.
A situation in Fiji happend like this. QEII was also Queen of Fiji which is about evenly divided between native Fijians and Indians (from India) that were brought over to work. The Indians got enough votes to form a government and did so. The native Fijians didn’t like this and had a coup. QEII opened her mouth to protest and in a flash Fiji stopped being a monarchy and became a republic.
This is similar though not the the same extent with Saudi Arabia. The monarch has a lot more powers in every day but the fact remains, he’s still limited by the clerics. If the monarch said “You know everyone in Saudi Arabia should be able to practice their religion freely.” He’d be out on his royal butt in a flash.
The King of Saudi Arabia has a lot of power provided the clerics approve of what he says. In a sense he’s a puppet to these religious forces. As oppsed to the old king of England, Henry who just tossed out the Catholic Church.
Hassanal Bolkiah the current Sultan of Brunei has a lot of power, because his nation has been in a long term “State of Emergency”
The Queen has an astonishing amount of global diplomatic and personal influence; she’s been in the job for 50 years and is a respected figure on the international stage. She has known monarchs, prime ministers and presidents who cam and went a dozen times over during her time. She has the ear of anyone in the world she wants.
But she has no actual power. Her advice is heeded, but nobody is obligated to follow it. So, she doesn’t rank on the “power” listings, but it would probably be wise not to underestimate her influence.
As far as internal power, I’d say it’s a tie between the king of Bhutan and the king of Thailand. The king of Bhutan is kind of on his way out by his own volition, as he’s making an admirable effort to democratize the nation. But as it is, he’s hugely popular, and I think his father was too. And, of course, the king of Thailand has quite a following within his own country, and will cheerfully throw those who don’t like him in jail.
If we’re talking about power on a global level, the Saudi king, no question asked. Dude single-handedly controls the nation that controls lots and lots and lots of oil.
I doubt it. He must know that he could never use them, unless he’s interested in having his county erased from the face of the earth. He’s crazy but I don’t think he’s that crazy.
(OK, it’s a little more complicated than that, but the reality is that The King/Queen does have rather a lot of power. A lot of it has not been used in centuries, but technically speaking the option is there for them to exercise it. What would happen if they chose to do so is the sort of thing Doctoral Theses are made of, of course.)