Why are there countries that still have kings and queens in 2017?

British monarchy still wields a lot of influence in state affairs.

MUERTE A LOS BORBONES

Cromwell didn't go far enough

I love that pic

What good would it be to hold elections for an office with the equivalent power of a constitutional monarch?
In regards to countries with a parliamentary republics, in which the president is basically an elected monarch as a symbol with very lax constitutional powers.

It's just a way to swing parliamentary elections.

TRIPS FOR THIRD REPUBLIC

youtube.com/watch?v=mxU9_VL96IM

Haha Veeky Forums is full of mic drops

most extreme case of cuckery

t. spaniard

No it doesn't. The Queen's 'powers' are effectively rubber stamping what parliament/general elections decide evade everyone knows that if the Queen just went fuck it and started signing shit off on her own there'd be a revolution (or at the very least the monarchy would topple and our entire system of government would have to be rewritten since it's a fucked up mess of laws written by old dudes on pig skin in the 18th century that all depend on a monarchy existing)

I've heard she can actually be held in contempt of Parliament if she doesn't sign their laws. Can anyone verify this?

It sounds to me like the royal family needs better PR.

Long live the Republic!

Why do we still have monuments?

Same reason. Most regents have been reduced to living monuments.

As for the exceptions where they still have real power, well, as long as it works, democracy is overrated.

Democracy is a sham that lets psychopaths and oligarchs rule over the pathetic indolent masses through propoganda and bread and circuses.

Countries with monarchs are blessed because when the sham democracy finally crumbles under it's own weight the countries with monarchs will have someone to peacefully fill the power vacuum and make decrees.

Monarchless countries will have to have violent civil wars in which millions die and which result in decades of instability and infighting.

Poor republicucks, they'll probably end up serfs to powerful corporations or drug cartels.

Because they haven't been entirely ruined yet.

You're unaware of the Windsors, then?

tourism dollars

Absolutely this.

Why is she not a fanatic for her country?

Why is she not angry?

This has been disproved again and again. The old palaces in France actually get more visitors than Windsor Palace (helped, in large part, by the fact they're vacant and not occupied by inbred celebrities).

My point stands.

(((Parliament))). Magna Carta was the worst thing to happen.

Retarded claim. The Crown Estate is the legit one.

Ugh. Just ugh.

I eel like most people simply don't are about if we have a king or not. Aside from the loud leftists who doesn't want a king, it's not really that spoken about switching to a republic. (from my personal opinon from sweden). And it does bring tourists to our ountry, epspecially asians who want to see the castle. Nobody wants to see jsut an old house in sweden where our president lives. It works in America becuase it's the center of the world. But for us who are less relevant, we still cling to our kings n shiet

Pardon?

The Crown Estate is not the Queen's private property, it's owned by the nation and includes most of the territorial seabed and any private land that becomes ownerless.

>figureheads
A common misconception. Most of the remaining crown heads of Europe have a fair amount of power in the state, including Queen Elizabeth II.

>The Crown Estate is not the Queen's private property
No, it specifically is. It's just not Her property for use under the parliamentary agreement. And remember, the monarch is the nation.

>No, it specifically is.

No it very specifically isn't.

>And remember, the monarch is the nation.

While reigning as monarch. If the monarch where replaced by another head of state then they would be the "owner" of the Crown Estate, but only while head of state until they were replaced by another one.

Monarchy is objectively the best form of government

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
>The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.[1][2][3][4]
If the monarch were replaced, the only way to remove the properties from their possession would be theft from a private citizen.

You just posted a citation that specifically says it is not part of the monarch's private estate as evidence it is her private estate.

Good one.

Good thing there are never any mad psychopathic kings and civil wars every other time the line of succession is even slightly indistinct.

At least under democracy, you only have to deal with your mad king until his term limit is up, and usually have mechanisms to remove him that don't involve also removing his head.

Why is both of your opinions so monumentally one-sided?

Are you saying that there are only "Mad Kings" and never a "Good" King or a "Good" Prime Minister/President?

I get that you guys are operating on 50 layers of resentment, but at least try to sound like you aren't both jaded materialists.

Very well, if you're not going to read the article.
>Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right".[1] The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation.[1][6][7]
Additionally.
>How did The Crown Estate come into being?
>Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from the time of the Norman Conquest.
>In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury.
So the monarch is still the owner, but ownership and control as per the agreement. Basically, it's held in trust. So much like you don't own your trust fund, when conditions are met, it reverts to you and stops being your trust fund.
>At least under democracy, you only have to deal with your mad king until his term limit is up,
And he's replaced with another one that they pretend 51% of you chose from ones they allowed to be picked.
>and usually have mechanisms to remove him that don't involve also removing his head.
Is that meant to be a good thing? Apathy?

>So the monarch is still the owner

I'm not sure you are quite understanding the concept here.

The monarch is the "owner", but only in their capacity as monarch not as the owner in the sense you own your own TV.

If she were to abdicate tomorrow she would no longer be the owner of the Crown Estate and the new office holder would be the "owner". If the nation decided to replace her then the new office holder would be the "owner" but only for the time that they held office.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

Constitutional Monarchies actually make sense in a lot of countries.

See, in a Republic, the government draws its legitimacy from the people, in the form of a constitution. This works great in the USA where our constitution (and the people who wrote it) are revered and respected. It gives the government and the democracy it creates a lot of legitimacy and makes it stable.

Most republics don't have the same culture surrounding their constitution that the US has, and that's why young Republics are so prone to becoming dictatorships. The people don't really believe in the democracy they've been given and easily accept autocratic rule.

Constitutional Monarchies are democratic, but their governments draw their legitimacy from the authority of the monarch, which is backed by tradition and divine right. These concepts are more natural for most cultures to accept, and so Constitutional Monarchies tend to be more stable than equivalent Republics.

>If she were to abdicate tomorrow she would no longer be the owner of the Crown Estate and the new office holder would be the "owner"
You're half right. There would be no Crown Estate because the CE is an agreement between Parliament and the monarch. Dumping the monarchy would mean that previously private property becoming private again.

No because it wasn't as simple as the monarch lending the nation some land in return for an annual payment. The entire government budget was essentially the monarch's personal finances and the land was used to help finance, the military, the civil service etc etc. Essentially the agreement split the nations land and finances from the monarch's personal finances.

In other words if you are suggesting upon replacement Elizabeth would get "her" land back then she would also have to take on £1.8 trillion of debt. I'm not sure she can afford that.

You come across as some one who has never read about this topic before.

>No because it wasn't as simple as the monarch lending the nation some land in return for an annual payment.
Correct.
>The entire government budget was essentially the monarch's personal finances and the land was used to help finance, the military, the civil service etc etc.
Not quite. Parliament levied it's own taxes and had it's own finances, after all. The Crown Estate just meant that income from the CE went to Parliament as well, and in return George IIIs debts would be wiped. The result was that the monarch's income was now dependent on Parliament via salary, as opposed to private holdings (most of which became the CE).
>In other words if you are suggesting upon replacement Elizabeth would get "her" land back then she would also have to take on £1.8 trillion of debt.
Negative. The other way around would see that happen though.

>Parliament levied it's own taxes

In the name of the king. It's still HM Treasury and HMRC.

>The other way around would see that happen though.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "the other way round".

>In the name of the king. It's still HM Treasury and HMRC.
Except it went into it's own coffers. It had the monarch's authority is all.
How else do you think the monarch was able to take loans out from Parliament?
>I'm not even sure what you mean by "the other way round".
If the monarch purged parliament and resumed full control. Ie. the ideal method.

Because it's a tourist attraction.

>Except it went into it's own coffers. It had the monarch's authority is all.

Parliament doesn't have "it's own coffers".

>If the monarch purged parliament and resumed full control. Ie. the ideal method.

Well no, because even if she did that the Crown Estate and the debt would still be the nation's and separate from her personal finances as an individual.

>Parliament doesn't have "it's own coffers".
Of course it did. How do you think George III ran out of money, but Parliament didn't?
>Well no, because even if she did that the Crown Estate and the debt would still be the nation's and separate from her personal finances as an individual.
The Crown Estate would cease to be, though, as you're missing 50% of the appropriate parties. The monarch is actually a special case as far as individuality goes, with them being the nation and all.

I'm a monarchist, but a constitutional monarchy with the king as a symbolic figurehead is a vulgar mockery of both monarchy and democracy.

so their populations know that some people are naturally superior

Monarchy saves money. Elections are costly and don't change anything so why bother.

The queen has a ton power, her use of it isn't publicized because that makes government run more smoothly.

Someone Correct me if i am wrong but i heard the magna carta was only passed because they gave some fat guy extra votes as a joke

I hope it is true

>>Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed.

The brits make a fair amount off of it, so good luck to em with that sort of king/queen.

Not a big fan of monarchy with any real power

>b-b-but it's the CURRENT YEAR guys

Nothing wrong with monarchy

that poor woman

Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand all have kings in power.
Spain, England, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Nigeria, Monaco, Turkey, and Japan all have respectively five monarchs, two princes, and two emperors who don't have any political power.

>come from a family of nobles that ruled until the partitions of my country
>mrw is always 'refugees welcome' when anyone asks me about Islamic immigration to western Europe

Praxeologists pls go.

>And he's replaced with another one that they pretend 51% of you chose from ones they allowed to be picked.
Hey, at least it provides the populous with the illusion of agency.

...and I know I'm supposed to pretend nothing in the last 25 years happened, but, love it or hate it, if the last US election proved anything, it's that political outsiders can still win.

>and usually have mechanisms to remove him that don't involve also removing his head.
>Is that meant to be a good thing? Apathy?
That's not apathy - that's called doing transitions in a calm and legalistic way, instead of sending the nation into a bloody civil war to transfer power from the incompetent.

Besides, I'd much rather be under shit rulership for 4-8 years, instead of either being under shit rulership for a lifetime, or experiencing a civil war - possibly well after or well before I'm of the age to partake in it to boot.

...Granted, my main beef with both systems is that neither does anything to guarantee competent rulership (even democracy, under most of our current models, only mitigates the damage of incompetent rulership). What I'd really like to see is a complex and comprehensive system that thoroughly vetted potential rulers to guarantee they were among the top 1% of the populous qualified to hold the position - regardless of they were elected or not.

Kinda makes me sick that the only qualifications to be leader of the free world are some cash, being born here, and having lived to 35. Fucking kindergarten teachers have a higher bar than that.

...But that also probably would have changed something I need to stop referencing that happened within the last 25 years.

>Thailand
>king having power
just because it's illegal to talk shit about him (lèse-majesté) doesn't mean he has any real power
>Nigeria or Turkey having a monarchy
nigga what?

>tfw Irish nationalist but think it'd be kinda cool to have a monarchy (only if there was an Irish royal family though)
am I retarded?

>Hey, at least it provides the populous with the illusion of agency.
Not really a good thing, my man.
>if the last US election proved anything, it's that political outsiders can still win.
I'm glad he was the puppet who won, but ultimately you still only got to choose someone who was on that screen/sheet of paper.
>That's not apathy - that's called doing transitions in a calm and legalistic way
Yea, that's apathy. You don't care enough about the government to do anything but the bare minimum about it. This in turn means there's no onus on the government to do anything but the bare minimum in pleasing you.
A monarch having his house stormed down and head removed is a pretty good sign to the heir that shit needs to be done better in the future. And if it hasn't gotten that far, then the situation is still salvageable.
>Besides, I'd much rather be under shit rulership for 4-8 years, instead of either being under shit rulership for a lifetime
Oh... sweetie...
>or experiencing a civil war
Apathy.
>neither does anything to guarantee competent rulership
Well, monarchy does. The monarch will have an heir, who gets trained from birth for the job. Elective systems just have to have people be popular at the right time, and say the same hollow, honeyed words people want to hear.

Nigeria has tons of subnational monarchies. Some of them are breddy cool guys

No, you have simply taken the Borupill

>In Britain's case specifically, it's a country which survives entirely off of deluding itself of its own relevance

I'm going to have a fun time guessing what meme country you come from.

>Not really a good thing, my man.
Stability isn't a good thing apparently, but most of your posts have made this clear.
>but ultimately you still only got to choose someone who was on that screen/sheet of paper.
After going through a dozen rounds of voting in primary eliminations and run offs... And as opposed to having no options at all.
>Yea, that's apathy.
Avoiding creating a war you don't need isn't fucking apathy, it's sanity. But you seem to think any moment not spent killing your countrymen is a moment wasted.
>The monarch will have an heir, who gets trained from birth for the job.
If you're lucky. Even good kings often make for shit parents, and no one else can force that brat to do anything he doesn't want to lest a regent is involved. It's not like he has to pass any tests beyond being the oldest surviving son. Even a mere popularity test is better than that - promising he at least has enough charisma to persuade and command.

But yes, in either case, I'd really like some fucking monumental qualifications for every high office.

>implying our Queen isn't just a figure head who has no power but we use her to gain money from Americans who seem to love the royal weddings more than we do

>Stability isn't a good thing apparently
Stability is great. It's one of the things monarchy affords better than all others.
>After going through a dozen rounds of voting in primary eliminations and run offs
Same argument. Do you really think Ted Nobody would ever be a contender on a presidential ballot sheet?
>And as opposed to having no options at all.
It's called accountability.
>Avoiding creating a war you don't need isn't fucking apathy
No, it's apathy. You don't care enough about your nation or it's governance to sacrifice anything for it beyond the time it takes to check a box.
>But you seem to think any moment not spent killing your countrymen is a moment wasted.
No, I just think that if you're not willing to make a sacrifice, then maybe it isn't something needing to be done.
>If you're lucky.
A lot more luck on your side than any other option. Where 51% of voters have to be that lucky.
>It's not like he has to pass any tests beyond being the oldest surviving son.
He has a far stricter test: That of his masters, the people. If he fails, then he loses a few pounds off the top, and the next one tries that bit harder.
>promising he at least has enough charisma to persuade and command.
Yes, i'd prefer my pickpockets to be able to charm me as they pilfer. Makes it much better.

>Windsor Palace

no such place m8

>European monarchies
UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,

>European republics
France, Grease, Poortugal, Slavshits

boy i wonder why

you missed some countries, retard

The better question is why are there countries today that still have a democracy even though that system was proven flawed and inferior for over 2300 years ago.

Enlightened despot is the way to go.

>In Britain's case specifically, it's a country which survives entirely off of deluding itself of its own relevance.

>5th largest GDP.
>Amongst the top ten most powerful armies in the world.
>Most overseas territories/dependencies in the world.

Try harder kiddo.

thanks for proving the point Nigel

not Great Britain

they lost their true king James II long ago, and their so called royal line is completely illegitimate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

english protestants are traitors

>Being this uneducated
Probably the one good thing about the development of English constitutionalism is that it makes people like you butthurt. James II (and technically Charles II, but no one knew til after) was a traitor to England, and rightfully deposed for legitimate heirs.

A Reinhard doesn´t exist m8. They all have flaws and since they don´t micro-manage everything, the subordinates will fuck up. Kircheis doesn´t exist as well

Lichtenstein has a Prince with power, I think.

>The monarch will have an heir, who gets trained from birth for the job
Unfortunately, most heir seem to be spoiled brats who don't really get trained as thoroughly as they should.

Cruz would've likely been the Republican nomination if it weren't for Trump.

>Grease
It's Greece. Also,
>tfw they didn't keep their king and become like the UK
They could still invite his heirs back, it's not too late!

Also, remember, us Americans will always have Britain's back. If every country in the world declared war on the UK, we'd side with them. If saving a million Englishmen meant letting your entire shithole drown, faggot, we'd fucking do it.

Muerte a los bonbones!

You only think that because the press caters to the lowest common denominator.

Because outside of places like Lichtenstein and Monaco, we don't really have functional monarchies. So there's not a whole lot to do, beyond training for PR.

Yup, thats why the little monarchies like those you mentioned are the only ones surviving till the end of time. Or ww3

The better question is why haven't we realised democracy is retarded yet.
The people are too stupid to vote, and when combined with immigration, the country winds up under external control

This.