What's so bad about a constitutional monarchy?

So we must force a person to pretend to be something she/he can never be for the supposed morale boost for everyone? That is pretty dumb

>oh I like LOVE royalty soo so much like all the pretty castles and gardens and the fancy clothing and the darling prince in shining armor so charming and rooted in tradition like entire decades of history

Barbie doll shit. I'll take a man's monarch like Akbar any day over this rubbish.

Nobody forces them. It's a job with considerable perks that can be turned down. Edward VIII abdicated to marry his American sweetheart.

>Edward VIII abdicated to marry his American sweetheart.
Pretty sure that made as painful as possible for both Edward and the public.

>It's a job
Something that you are born and bred to do cannot be labelled so lightly as a 'job'.

It was traumatic for all involved, especially with the context of WW1 fresh in everyone's minds, but it set an important precedent that added a crucial piece to a monarchy-public cultural contract.

We're all dealt our own hand when we're born. In a free society, how we play those cards is up to us.

>but it set an important precedent that added a crucial piece
That the pressure to remain as king and do what the kingdom wants them to do is huge and restricting to the individual, so much so that severing that connection means you more or less can't the rest of life part of the kingdom anymore? Okay gotcha senpai.

>In a free society,
Muse about free will all you want, a monarchy still imprisons would be heirs to act and fulfill roles they never agreed to in the first place.

It was 1936, thousands of widows and parents who'd lost their children saw the sacrifices of taking the thone as miniscule compared to the sacrifices everyone had made for the nation. If an heir abdicated today the tabloids would have a field day but nobody would brow beat them into the leaving the country over it.

It's not a prison, they can opt out -if they want. You might as well say that any child is a prisoner of their familial circumstances. Consider that perhaps many of these heirs like the opportunity they've been gifted.

I didn't choose to be born to a schizophrenic single mother, but there you go

>If an heir abdicated today the tabloids
If your counter-example is a possibility that might happen in the future, then it isn't an example.

>You might as well say that any child is a prisoner of their familial circumstances.
Sure and the tragedy of a monarchy is that a child is born and bred solely to wield power over others, with no other function intended or offered to the child. Just because abdication exist doesn't mean they love to stay everytime, exceptions doesn't prove the rule.

>they've been gifted.
Then these gifts are undeserved.

It's a hypothesis based on the historical precedents and the differences within the socio-cultural context.

Many would consider it lucky to be have a function offered, let alone intended. And they have opportunities like anyone else, nobody forced Harry to climb into an Apache helicopter. Nobody forced Elizabeth to drive an ambulance during the Blitz. Many of us face tough choices in life where we have to choose one thing over another, perhaps looking after a sick parent over pursuing some other goal.

Are the children of the rich undeserving of their inheritences? Perhaps yes, but if you want to enforce justice upon that you don't want a constitutional monachy you want upper stage communism which nobody's yet achieved or even proved possible.

I am active in a lot of Republican groups in my country. We are nearing it, the King christmas message had almost no viewers, and the support for the crown plummets.

I am not anti monarchical as much as I am Pro Republican.

I merely want to know that if I wanted to be the Head of my State there was a Democratic mechanism to achieve it.

How Cuckolded do you have to be to accept that a Family deserves a position over you just because they were born somewhere else.

Literally Cuckold logic

>It's a hypothesis based on the
Okay as long as you admit you have no evidence to back up what you just said

>Many of us face tough choices in life where we have to choose one thing over
Sure but none of our circumstances affects the whole nation since we are not born and raised to rule over a nation. Putting this much weight over some children by virtue of their birth is ridiculous and undeserving taxing on them.

>you want upper stage communism which nobody's yet achieved or even proved possible
Why are you trying to red-bait me? I am only arguing from a Republicanism view of self-determination.

I don't care for the monarchy as an institution, but I doubt a president would be any better.

> How Cuckolded do you have to be to accept that a Family deserves a position over you just because they were born somewhere else.
You could say the same of any rich and influential family, there's plenty of them out there. Most aren't expected to adhere to any sort of agreement or profess loyalty with one nation in return for their privelege. Most don't even constrain themselves to one nation and make sure that they are free to globe trot as they see fit.

>Okay as long as you admit you have no evidence to back up what you just said
Like I said, it's based on the evidence.

>Sure but none of our circumstances affects the whole nation since we are not born and raised to rule over a nation. Putting this much weight over some children by virtue of their birth is ridiculous and undeserving taxing on them.
In the British model, they don't have to make many if any major decisions. The Queen's speech is written for her by the elected government. But I agree that the children should not have all this pressure on them, the media should leave them alone and the people who pay to find out about their private lives are doing them a disservice.

> Why are you trying to red-bait me? I am only arguing from a Republicanism view of self-determination.
Wasn't my intention, but when words like 'undeserved' are used it opens up a can of worms with repercussions that call into question the very fabric of a society.

So long as the society agrees to the arrangement and the royal family in question is happy to continue it, it's a democratic decision that so far has worked as well as most republican states. There's always the option of becoming a republic through the ballot box, something which might happen if the royals stop holding up their end of the bargain.

Just have a fucking monarchy or don't

Trying to have both just ends in a socialist welfare state

imagine cheating on Ladi Di for Camilla Parker Bowles...

I think retaining the monarchy is important, having a office that could override the legislature in extreme cases whilst being terrified to do so normally is a god blend, president's feel empowered.

Personally, I object to it out of pure pettiness.

In my own country of Denmark, where we have to make tough choices with the public finances in regards to taxes, healthcare, immigrants, benefits, entitlements, pensions, public sector salaries etc., I simply cannot fathom why we are paying millions so a bunch of inbred Germans can LARP as a monarchy. Some of the shit is frankly ridiculous. Why, for instance, is the Crown Prince's brother's ex-wife alimony on the national budget? She has an education, she can take care of herself ffs. Similar petty issues arise when they sell out their property and keep the money for themselves, when this property has always been paid for by the taxpayers.

The rest of us get austerity, while they literally live like kings on our taxes. They can go to hell.

the overriding mechanism is overrated. If the system has the correct manner of checks and balances, a president with sufficient power to enact "extreme legislature" would also have sufficient popular support to force the monarch to adhere to it, anyway.

For instance, in my own country, the only overriding carried out in the era of complete democracy wasn't brought to fruition, anyway, because the king realized that he was merely signing his own abdication.

>You will never be rallied behind your King in battle and face death together with your brothers in arms.

>Like I said, it's based on the evidence.
No it is conjecture that you made up. I am fine with it as long as you admit to it.

>In the British model, they don't have to make many if any major decisions.
Yea but we are arguing on the ideal of a constitutional monarchy where the monarch actually does shit. UK and its colonies is closer to crowned republics than constitutional monarchies.

>So long as the society agrees to the arrangement and the royal family in question is happy to continue it,
But the heirs didn't agree to the arrangement to even call it a democratic decision. It is not as if you people constantly have plebiscites on whether to keep the monarchy or now. Contentment is not an endorsement.

Are you belgian? I think in countries that do have emopwered parliaments the possiblity that unpopular bad laws could be passed would allow the monarch's ability to not approve to be used, the case of the Belgian king i'd argue was down to the fact that abortion is more of a moral issue than an increase of governmental power under a government without the democratic mandate to do so.

Swede here, I agree. Fuck your monarchy, our royal house is way better.

literally a bunch of Frenchies with zero historical legitimacy. At least ours can be traced back to the founding of the nation, inbred as that may have left them.

Thanks for the discussion so far :)

Regarding whether it's conjecture and the fact that we're not constantly voting on it, the media is always trying to keep a pulse on the public's mood towards the royals in the UK and attitudes are positive. yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/ and more than half would be happy if Charles abdicated in favour of his son telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8441035/Prince-William-should-succeed-the-Queen-poll.html whether these polls are accurate or not, the political parties keep a close eye on this issue as a potential vote winner.

> Yea but we are arguing on the ideal of a constitutional monarchy where the monarch actually does shit. UK and its colonies is closer to crowned republics than constitutional monarchies.

If that's the case then a crowned republic is the way to go vs. a constitutional monarchy. If your royal family is interfering in the democratic process they need to be put back in their box.

>get a frenchman on the throne
>breed his offsprings with every noble house Sweden has to offer
>throw in a pinch of Vasa dynasty along the way
We elected his house

That it is not absolute and feudal.
The inbred part is most likely a 1500 onwards thing. Most medieval monarchs were fit and/or mentally able.
The monarch is not a true monarch in this case. Constitutional monarchy where the king doesn't even have executive power=republic with a crown stamped on it.
Maybe the fact that monarchs did no longer participate in battles has broken the people's view of monarchy? Without the king even in the rear one soldier might say "shit i'm fighting someone else's war" but with the king at least being there in the back it might give some other mentality. The last king to actively fight in the frontline in the West was King Albert I of Belgium, and soldiers saw him as /theirheroking/.

I'm pro-monarchy, but a problem with monarchy is that it depends on luck.
Prince William seems to be someone who will be a good king. Prince Charles cheated on his wife, as mentioned here

I'm pro-monarchy only because republics can turn to corporate owned shitholes very quickly. Only exception to the rule is the UK.

>yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
>telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8441035/Prince-William-should-succeed-the-Queen-poll.html
Yes I am well aware that the British public love their royal family, but polling is no substitute for plebiscites. The public must affirm their love for the royal family in a ballot for it to be a "democratic decision" (like what Australia did that one time)

>If your royal family is interfering in the democratic process
Then why even have one? If the monarch were to stroll in HoC to shut it down (ala that Charles the 3rd play), who is going to stop him? So needlessly redundant to have a monarch but not let him wield executive power.