3 ms·

I think the point is that the Monarchy provides a stability mechanism, which is generally why its supporters like it. However I could be misinterpreting the co

I think the point is that the Monarchy provides a stability mechanism, which is generally why its supporters like it. However I could be misinterpreting the comment.

morelisp 4y ago
Consistently this Schroedinger's Monarchy defense. "The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her? "Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power! The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  The UK Monarch has real power, but not absolute power. From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements." This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    I didn't say absolute power. But for example, in the comment immediately below this one, I currently read > it's not like the king of england has any real power This is a widely-held belief.
    - Handytinge 4y ago
      But it's not "real power", it's theoretical power. The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment. Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly. Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.

I think the point is that the Monarchy provides a stability mechanism, which is generally why its supporters like it. However I could be misinterpreting the comment.

morelisp 4y ago

Consistently this Schroedinger's Monarchy defense. "The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her? "Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power! The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.

brutusborn 4y ago
The UK Monarch has real power, but not absolute power. From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements." This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
- morelisp 4y ago
  I didn't say absolute power. But for example, in the comment immediately below this one, I currently read > it's not like the king of england has any real power This is a widely-held belief.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    But it's not "real power", it's theoretical power. The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment. Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly. Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.