3 ms·

And they are able to use all of their clout to give themselves advantages while ignoring their country, like any leaders - only these also lack oversight.

• jacknews 3y ago
  It's not as though they are some shadowy government agency free from scrutiny. In some ways they are better than elected leaders. They have a long-term reputation to uphold, whereas elected leaders might be gone in a term - Almost like one of those supermarket 'free smash and grabs' where competition winners get 5 minutes to grab and keep whatever they can from the supermarket shelves. I'm not particularly a fan of monarchy, but if we're going to abolish it, we should just do that, not put up some other kind of clown show.
  • Timon3 3y ago
    > It's not as though they are some shadowy government agency free from scrutiny. Maybe not shadowy, but the rest? How do you have anything comparable to democratic scrutiny in a monarchical system? > They have a long-term reputation to uphold, whereas elected leaders might be gone in a term You're putting it like the politicians don't have a reputation to uphold. Can you clearly explain why the long-term reputation of monarchs is more important than that of politicians? The politician will have to face re-election, the monarch will stay in power.
    • jacknews 3y ago
      heredity
      • Timon3 3y ago
        So due to heredity a monarch is more interested in upholding their reputation, which the politician (who needs good reputation to be re-elected) is less interested? I don't see how this position makes sense.