4 ms·

> but having a hereditary monarch is bananas. My country has been a kingdom for over a thousand years and has enjoyed unbroken sovereignty for five hundred. Th

> but having a hereditary monarch is bananas. My country has been a kingdom for over a thousand years and has enjoyed unbroken sovereignty for five hundred. The current royal house has reigned for two hundred years, and they can trace back their ancestry to the ancient kings. There's value in that. The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? Like it or not, it's an excellent source for national pride. Yes, it's ridiculous blood magic, but the pomp and circumstance and ceremonies of any nation state can be just as ridiculous. I'll take that over an elected populist divisive asshole any day.

vore 3y ago
What is the "value" in that? In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive. And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
- henrikschroder 3y ago
  > What is the "value" in that? It is incredibly valuable to a nation state to be able to project longevity and stability. Are you seriously questioning the value of a thousand years of unbroken tradition? Every country has a founding mythos, and to be able to connect the current head of state to its founding has immense symbolical value. Imagine that the US were to elect a president who was a descendant of George Washington. As silly as it is, Americans would cream their pants en masse at the thought. ...while vehemently arguing that they absolutely don't do that royalty thing, of course. > In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive. Yes? What? Boris was the elected head of government, of course they'd get a populist asshole now and then. Are you saying it would be better if both the head of government and the head of state could be populist assholes? > you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it? Well, the answer to that bulk was simply no, there's no contradiction, because you're conflating different kinds of power. And again, if your country has always combined the two roles and their powers, it might be hard to understand the separation of and difference between them.
returningfory2 3y ago
> The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? There's no universal answer to that question. It depends on what you think the state represents. In your case you attach a lot of importance to your state's longevity, in which case your rationale for the monarchy is consistent. But the defining feature of republican states (US, Ireland, France, most of South America) is definitely not their longevity. It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. In this case a monarchy is the wrong symbol, and the correct symbol is an elected head of state. (The head of state doesn't need to have power, e.g. Ireland's president.)
- henrikschroder 3y ago
  > It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. And yet the first line of the constitution of this constitutional monarchy is that "all power derives from the people". These things are not mutually exclusive. Rex dei gratia hasn't been a thing for centuries, it's rex populi gratia these days. If any royal family fucks up too much, they're out on their asses, and they know it.

vore 3y ago

What is the "value" in that? In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive. And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?

henrikschroder 3y ago
> What is the "value" in that? It is incredibly valuable to a nation state to be able to project longevity and stability. Are you seriously questioning the value of a thousand years of unbroken tradition? Every country has a founding mythos, and to be able to connect the current head of state to its founding has immense symbolical value. Imagine that the US were to elect a president who was a descendant of George Washington. As silly as it is, Americans would cream their pants en masse at the thought. ...while vehemently arguing that they absolutely don't do that royalty thing, of course. > In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive. Yes? What? Boris was the elected head of government, of course they'd get a populist asshole now and then. Are you saying it would be better if both the head of government and the head of state could be populist assholes? > you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it? Well, the answer to that bulk was simply no, there's no contradiction, because you're conflating different kinds of power. And again, if your country has always combined the two roles and their powers, it might be hard to understand the separation of and difference between them.

returningfory2 3y ago

> The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? There's no universal answer to that question. It depends on what you think the state represents. In your case you attach a lot of importance to your state's longevity, in which case your rationale for the monarchy is consistent. But the defining feature of republican states (US, Ireland, France, most of South America) is definitely not their longevity. It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. In this case a monarchy is the wrong symbol, and the correct symbol is an elected head of state. (The head of state doesn't need to have power, e.g. Ireland's president.)

henrikschroder 3y ago
> It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. And yet the first line of the constitution of this constitutional monarchy is that "all power derives from the people". These things are not mutually exclusive. Rex dei gratia hasn't been a thing for centuries, it's rex populi gratia these days. If any royal family fucks up too much, they're out on their asses, and they know it.