> On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country
The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office. I wonder if that contributes to Americans always having weird takes like this?
The purpose of the head of state is to act as a check on the legislature and the chief executive, that's typically the only real power they have, the rest is just ceremonial. And yet many Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US and has executive powers?
> The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office.
The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King. To make it worse, Hamilton argued to have a President for life and Adams argued to address the President as "His Majesty".
Those early years are fertile soil for any fiction writer interested in alternative realities.
> The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King.
This is basically what happened in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. King James was unpopular due to being Catholic and a set of unpopular decisions, so the upper class wrote to the Dutch stadholder William of Orange and invited him to stage a coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_William . Which succeeded without resistance.
This (and subsequent incidents with the Georges) is an important part of how the English monarchy is effectively "leashed" by requiring a certain minimal amount of consent of the governed.
Isn't the argument always that it's okay to have an undemocratically appointed head of state because they have no power so the blatant undemocratic-ness is fine? Yet at the same time put forward the argument that they act as a check on the legislature and therefore wield actual power which would directly contradict why it's okay for them to be appointed the way they are?
I think a split premier/president system where they are democratically elected makes enough sense but having a hereditary monarch is bananas.
My country has been a kingdom for over a thousand years and has enjoyed unbroken sovereignty for five hundred. The current royal house has reigned for two hundred years, and they can trace back their ancestry to the ancient kings. There's value in that.
The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? Like it or not, it's an excellent source for national pride. Yes, it's ridiculous blood magic, but the pomp and circumstance and ceremonies of any nation state can be just as ridiculous.
I'll take that over an elected populist divisive asshole any day.
> The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick?
There's no universal answer to that question. It depends on what you think the state represents.
In your case you attach a lot of importance to your state's longevity, in which case your rationale for the monarchy is consistent. But the defining feature of republican states (US, Ireland, France, most of South America) is definitely not their longevity. It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. In this case a monarchy is the wrong symbol, and the correct symbol is an elected head of state. (The head of state doesn't need to have power, e.g. Ireland's president.)
> It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people.
And yet the first line of the constitution of this constitutional monarchy is that "all power derives from the people". These things are not mutually exclusive.
Rex dei gratia hasn't been a thing for centuries, it's rex populi gratia these days. If any royal family fucks up too much, they're out on their asses, and they know it.
What is the "value" in that? In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive.
And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
It is incredibly valuable to a nation state to be able to project longevity and stability. Are you seriously questioning the value of a thousand years of unbroken tradition? Every country has a founding mythos, and to be able to connect the current head of state to its founding has immense symbolical value.
Imagine that the US were to elect a president who was a descendant of George Washington. As silly as it is, Americans would cream their pants en masse at the thought. ...while vehemently arguing that they absolutely don't do that royalty thing, of course.
> In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive.
Yes? What? Boris was the elected head of government, of course they'd get a populist asshole now and then. Are you saying it would be better if both the head of government and the head of state could be populist assholes?
> you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
Well, the answer to that bulk was simply no, there's no contradiction, because you're conflating different kinds of power. And again, if your country has always combined the two roles and their powers, it might be hard to understand the separation of and difference between them.
But is he actually a viable check on the legislature? If he stopped the legislature from doing something popular isn't there a good chance he'd lose the power to do that? And hasn't the Queen used her influence over the legislature corruptly? [1]
If he stopped the legislature doing something, there would be a “constitutional crisis” but whether or not he then lost the power to do that again would really depend on public opinion and how well judged his move was. I can imagine a scenario in which a corrupt and unpopular government is holding onto power by twisting the rules somehow, and the king says no. It would be chaos, but if the king had public opinion on his side it could work out well.
For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
> The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
That relationship really is hard to define... As a Brit my defining memory of the now King was - as an 8 year old - learning of his desire to be a tampon in his then mistress and current Queen.
This actaully happened last year. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was in a spot of political bother and it looked like the then Queen was going to sack him, as she must (according to the conventions that comprise the UK's constitution) dismiss any prime minister who cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons.
Johnson didn't want to go, so he announced (via a leak to a tame newspaper, another part of our unwritten constitution) that he would advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, in order that new elections be held. He hoped to bring rebellious Tory MPs in line by threatening those in marginal seats with defeat, and those in secure seats with the prospect of a lengthy spell in opposition.
The Palace put paid to this plan by informing the PM that the Queen would be unavailable to meet with him, in the event of him perhaps wanting to to her in order to dissolve parliament.
The "check on the legislature" is only a reality in extremis. The discussion is usually about politics, but ultimately, if a legislature/executive were going off the rails and intervention by the armed forces was required, their allegiance is always to the monarch as the embodiment of the nation.
The rest of the time, the check on the legislature is only theoretical.
I've never heard anything like that. As your sibling comments mention the check in the legislature is the official role of the monarch. It's not about the possibility of a military coup.
It still counts as a coup if somebody in a legitimate position of authority uses the military to seize more power in a manner not permitted by law
Your argument makes absolutely no sense considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence that states that "on the other hand, he has no real power."
As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country. It literally says I must pledge allegiance to him on my citizenship certificate. Yes, of course I understand the whole thing is theater and he has no actual power, but that's why I think the whole charade is bizarre to begin with.
> considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in general.
Still though, using the words "supreme leader" about any constitutional monarch in a liberal democracy sounds so weird to me, that's a title for dictators, which is the complete opposite of what they are. They're heads of state, and they are completely dependent on popular support for their reigns.
> As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country.
I agree, I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
The case for the UK is that they've been doing the king thing for 1100 years now, it's an integral part of the land and the people and the history, and that gives it symbolic value that contributes to the power or cohesiveness of the nation state.
The royal rituals (that the common people are forced to participate in) definitely are consistent with the "supreme leader" thing. They're dictators on paper, and despite what you say, they're not dependent on popular support for their reigns. I'll give you that they're dependent on popular indifference for keeping the heads on their shoulders. If people hate them enough all those allegiance swearing would come to an end.
> I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
Me neither, but Canada was specifically formed by people who wanted to keep that. Otherwise they would have just joined the USA at the start...
I think it makes sense as a local minimal during a process of iterative compromise. They arrived at 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and shall stay there until changing conditions break this stability.
What you are saying, that Britain and other countries keep monarchies around because "if it ain't broke..." I understand, though I still think it's pretty weird.
The comment I was responding to, which makes no sense, made the non sequitur that "Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US" because he only read the first half of my sentence.
IIRC the last time the Brits tried to get rid of their monarch it didn't end well and the people decided the monarchy was better than that chaos.
QE II wasn't a bad monarch, and that was probably a big factor in the UK keeping its monarchy during the 20th century where democracy was the big trend.
The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office. I wonder if that contributes to Americans always having weird takes like this?
The purpose of the head of state is to act as a check on the legislature and the chief executive, that's typically the only real power they have, the rest is just ceremonial. And yet many Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US and has executive powers?