Why did NATO let monarchies join it? isn't that contrary to the liberal ideology?

Why did NATO let monarchies join it? isn't that contrary to the liberal ideology?

There are no monarchies in Europe, there are constitutional monarchies where the king or queen are essentially figureheads with no real power. It's democracy but with a little traditional flavor.

>There are no monarchies in Europe,
>there are constitutional monarchies

NATO is a Russia containment alliance, what the fuck does it have to do with liberal ideology?

>NATO
>Ideology

I assumed OP was talking about absolute monarchies, why would a constitutional monarchy in any way be opposed to liberal ideology

The spread of liberal values is part of NATO. It is a liberal alliance.
Because it's a form of monarchy.

almost entirely by name

>The spread of liberal values is part of NATO. It is a liberal alliance.
are you fucking retarded?
NATO has a monarchy as founding member

Not exactly. More like they've chose not use some of their more vested powers in past decades. nothing stops them.
They were hypocrites from the gitgo. why?

>NATO
>liberal ideology

I don't know if I'm being payed for a fool or talking to a genuine imbecile.
NATO has literally one purpose and that is to oppose Russia.
Everything else is sugarcoating.
Half of original NATO members were fucking monarchies, how can you ask how come NATO "let monarchies join" when monarchies fucking founded NATO?

not an argument. NATO is a liberal alliance.

>Nothing stops them
Except the constitution, but lol who cares?

No, it is not. It is a pact led by the US to secure the expansive economic interests of the member counties.

Maybe in the likes of Sweden and Belgium where they don't even bother actually crowning the monarch, but that's not the case in Britain.

>TFW when you'll never get to see a 'King Charles III'-like (legal) storming of the Commons.

>The spread of liberal values is part of NATO. It is a liberal alliance.
Sure, that's why Turkey is a member

...

>liberal values
You mean American influence?

>It is a liberal alliance
lel, alliance with majority of liberals if anything; "liberal alliance" doesn't mean anything

Great Britain, and the Scandinavian countries, etc. are not Absulute Monarchies. They are Parlaimentary Monarchies in which the Monarch has little to no power. The Duke of Luxemburg lost his power to approve of disapprove new laws 9 years ago.

NATO isn't even an alliance based solely on a common system of government/economy. NATO was a defence pact against the growing threat of the Soviet Union and communism.

>They were hypocrites from the gitgo. why?
They weren't because it's not a liberal alliance, it's anti-russia alliance. Retard.

>little to no power

The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister
The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers
The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament
The power to make war and peace
The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom
The power to regulate the Civil Service
The power to ratify treaties
The power to issue passports
The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England
The power to create peers (both life peers and hereditary peers)

Why'd you leave out the fact the monarch is legally bound to act on advice?

so is this thread about why does Europe still have fucking kingdoms or why are people so hopelessly ignorant about NATO's purpose?

The latter bot somebody keeps clainimg NATO would be a liberal alliance, what ever that might be.

Neither. OP is just shitposting

> de jure

All powers that:
>require consent/approval by the house of lords
>not done by the queen but by others
>doesn't exercise out of fear of parliament just taking away the power, see Luxemburg
>doesn't exercise out of fear of public repercussion that loses the support of the people and could end the monarchy