3 ms·

> The King has no meaningful power at all, Please define "meaningful power". Because getting millions of pounds from the state every year [1], having massive

> The King has no meaningful power at all, Please define "meaningful power". Because getting millions of pounds from the state every year [1], having massive media attention, having the ear of international leaders in politics, and having ones face on currency, sounds pretty impactful to me, especially given the fact that all this is conferred by being born to certain parents, and not by, say, something like an election. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011

afavour 3y ago
In this context by "meaningful power" I mean "ability to override democracy". I'm not saying the Royal Family are not impactful (I'm certainly not defending them at all!) but I'm specifically refuting the notion that the presence of a King means that the country is not democratic. Kim Kardashian has millions, draws massive media attention and in all honesty could probably have the ear of international leaders. None of that means she can override what US voters do.
kypro 3y ago
It's so much more complicated that this. In modern times the UK monarch fulfils the role of an apolitical leader of the UK and commonwealth nations. Just imagine for a moment if the PM was head of state... Who would be leader of commonwealth? Liz Truss? Boris Johnson? Can you see how this would cause conflict? Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Electing someone would introduce politics and that isn't feasible when you need someone who can represent such a diverse range of views. I also think the UK monarch serves as a unifying voice for the UK. No matter our political differences we can still all turn to the monarch as voice of unity for the nation during difficult times. I think this lack of an apolitical leader is quite noticeable in the US and other nations. I don't like all of the tradition and baggage that comes with the Royal Family and I think they would benefit from trying to modernise their public perception, but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. I think the question really is how much we should be spending on that. At the moment it does seem a bit excessive...
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > Who would be leader of commonwealth? Does it need one? For doing what exactly? And why is a hereditary position better for this than one elected by democratic means? > Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Why? > , but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. Such as? Because tons of countries in the world don't spend huge sums of money on such an institution, and don't seem to miss out on anything.

afavour 3y ago

In this context by "meaningful power" I mean "ability to override democracy". I'm not saying the Royal Family are not impactful (I'm certainly not defending them at all!) but I'm specifically refuting the notion that the presence of a King means that the country is not democratic. Kim Kardashian has millions, draws massive media attention and in all honesty could probably have the ear of international leaders. None of that means she can override what US voters do.

kypro 3y ago

It's so much more complicated that this. In modern times the UK monarch fulfils the role of an apolitical leader of the UK and commonwealth nations. Just imagine for a moment if the PM was head of state... Who would be leader of commonwealth? Liz Truss? Boris Johnson? Can you see how this would cause conflict? Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Electing someone would introduce politics and that isn't feasible when you need someone who can represent such a diverse range of views. I also think the UK monarch serves as a unifying voice for the UK. No matter our political differences we can still all turn to the monarch as voice of unity for the nation during difficult times. I think this lack of an apolitical leader is quite noticeable in the US and other nations. I don't like all of the tradition and baggage that comes with the Royal Family and I think they would benefit from trying to modernise their public perception, but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. I think the question really is how much we should be spending on that. At the moment it does seem a bit excessive...

usrbinbash 3y ago
> Who would be leader of commonwealth? Does it need one? For doing what exactly? And why is a hereditary position better for this than one elected by democratic means? > Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Why? > , but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. Such as? Because tons of countries in the world don't spend huge sums of money on such an institution, and don't seem to miss out on anything.