>love everything* about the old monarchies
>the ceremonials, the titulature, the idea of a national celebrity
>*except fact that one family gets above-legal status by chance, especially in modern European constitutional monarchies
How do I bring these two together?
By stop being a heretical pussy.
Adults and children have separate legal status (often several degrees worth).
Seniors can claim pensions that others cannot.
Elected politicians cast special, vastly more important votes than normal citizens.
So why is the monarchic claim of blood to some pension or some legal protection any different?
And why would it matter anyway? It's not like you're a retarded communist.
>Adults and children have separate legal status (often several degrees worth).
>Seniors can claim pensions that others cannot.
But everyone is expected to go through these stages in life.
>Elected politicians cast special, vastly more important votes than normal citizens.
Because the populations elected them to do so. And they have limited terms and can lose their jobs.
>So why is the monarchic claim of blood to some pension or some legal protection any different?
It goes against the idea of equal rights, in which I believe.
Historically speaking, have any post-WWII Euro monarchs (ab)used their power in any interesting ways?
Or is it like a boring version of diplomatic immunity?
>implying you can't hold the king to his law
English civil war enshrined this idea into law
>the people chose the politician
And a monarch is a politician and he expresses the will of the people where else do you think their power derives from
>equal rights
Then why are old peasants people given more money by the state, everyone should be given a pension for existing as they all pay tax
Spanish father of king did some tax dodging and got away with it IIRC
It's as much a burden as a gift to get this above-legal status. A king is very limited in his freedom compared to a modern individual with no regal obligations.
For me this is enough to have no objections to inherited monarchy. Its a sacrifice in my eyes.
John Charles was crucial for the transition to democracy in Spain after Franco.
>But everyone is expected to go through these stages in life.
Some don't, so perfect equality there is impossible. Is it equal rights that some live to 120 and collect six decades of pension while some die at 50?
More importantly, age is something you can't choose, just like being born into a ruling family. To take another example, generally speaking, being born within a country's borders makes it easier/more likely for you to be a citizen of that country. Getting additional rights for something you did not control.
>Because the populations elected them to do so. And they have limited terms and can lose their jobs.
Countries establish those legal and political things (term limits, parliamentary immunity, etc) the same way they might establish limits or privileges on the monarchy. Queen Elizabeth or parliament are as subject to a Magna Carta as King John.
These deviations from the platonic ideal of equal rights are often more benefit than cost, especially in modern, responsive governments.
What you're saying would be true
Except there's more to the royal family than just the king
That should only be allowed if he did it by funneling gold through the Spanish Main.
>Some don't, so perfect equality there is impossible. Is it equal rights that some live to 120 and collect six decades of pension while some die at 50?
You're saying "If we can't have full equality, better not have it at all." It's horrible reasoning. You cannot predict how for long somebody will live.
More importantly, age is something you can't choose, just like being born into a ruling family. To take another example, generally speaking, being born within a country's borders makes it easier/more likely for you to be a citizen of that country. Getting additional rights for something you did not control.
In the modern era the political rights of being a citizen are a given. And the states are supposed to serve their citizens in liberal democracies. Your argument would make sense if we were talking about a caste society.
>he expresses the will of the people
According to whom?
And their obligations and limitations on their freedom seem pretty proportional to the benefits they receive. The closer you are to the main line the more you get scrutinized and the further away you are the less benefits you receive.
At least in my country.
>Worships kings
Why don't you worship contemporary dear leaders? Kings of the past were no better.
>You're saying "If we can't have full equality, better not have it at all." It's horrible reasoning. You cannot predict how for long somebody will live.
If we're already compromising, stopping short of perfect equal rights for all, then what does it matter that we also exempt a couple royal family members from parking tickets?
>In the modern era the political rights of being a citizen are a given. And the states are supposed to serve their citizens in liberal democracies. Your argument would make sense if we were talking about a caste society.
Ah, but there already is a caste society: citizens vs. non-citizens. The distinction is arbitrary, both are people, both can be part of the society the state represents. We can even say there's a distinction of citizens vs. non-citizens vs. wards of the state (e.g. the mentally ill).
However states make that distinction, giving special/extra rights to citizens, because it is beneficial. Just like doing so with figurehead monarchs might be beneficial.
A king rules for a long time
15 years is very long for a president, short for a monarch
I like how they unify generations, if that makes sense
>according to whom
The people
How so?
If the people did feel that their king had become a tyrant then he would be removed
Have you never read Late English, Greek or Roman Republic philosophy
Makes long term projects much for viable, see Singapore for example.
The current party gets elected year after year, enabling them to plan very long-term projects.