4 ms·

The main reason why the Netherlands at least doesn't care so much about their monarch is because the role is completely neutered by the Dutch constitution. The

The main reason why the Netherlands at least doesn't care so much about their monarch is because the role is completely neutered by the Dutch constitution. The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped). This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still. Its less "people approve of the system" and more "people don't have any issues with the system". Anti-monarchism just isn't really a thing here because the monarchy is just... kinda bland? The most solid argument here is that it's a money sink, which is a fair point but not enough for most to protest it.

mtsr 3y ago
There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.
- vasco 3y ago
  It's a strange world when you can be convinced that voting is worse than "God's appointments". Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    The rationale goes like this: If you don't like the monarch, who has this job purely as an accident of birth, well, too bad, they're a person, that's all you were guaranteed. They might have a grating voice, or love hot pink way too much, or insist on calling people "Mate" for no god damn reason, but nobody picked them. And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them. They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol. Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People. Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Well, in the US, Supreme Court appointments are for life. That's for a reason - it's supposed to be isolated from politics so as to judge justly. It's not, but it would be even more subject to politics if judges were appointed to four-year terms (or worse, elected).
    - 988747 3y ago
      [dead]
- orhmeh09 3y ago
  This rising tide of populism you speak of implies people in the Netherlands would prefer the "greater evil" of an elected head of state. Why not give people what they actually want?
kaanski 3y ago
> The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped). This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.
- hnhg 3y ago
  It is actually rather opaque in the UK. It took a lot of work to find out the following, which not be the full of extent of what goes on: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
  - kaanski 3y ago
    So the Queen read bills and gave her opinion on them, which is public record, before they were debated? And that constitutes political power? It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it. I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way. I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did. Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc. I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.
andruby 3y ago
I'm not entirely sure about the money sink. It's probably hard to build an honest accounting of the financial benefits of having a monarch. The diplomatic missions and relations they maintain probably have some (hard to measure) benefit. They have an entertainment value (for some). Tourism income (especially in the UK)?
tialaramex 3y ago
> This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still. It's exactly like you've described for the Netherlands. Our Monarchs have no actual power, beyond the power that comes with being famous wealthy old white people anyway. English Kings haven't had real power over the Westminster Parliament since it executed King Charles in 1649. Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted, Parliament disagreed, Parliament won and since he didn't accept that outcome they executed him. That's pretty definitive. He was dead, they were not.
- eternalban 3y ago
  Monarchy is a system, and like all systems it has all sorts of parts, including the lonesome fellow wearing the crown. "Our king has no power" yet there is all that machinery of state and you think it is just for 'sentiment and aesthetic' reasons? That song and dance to beguile the masses is how the ruling keep ruling. Does this really need to be spelled out? Charles was executed because he, as king, was in conflict with his own set: the ruling class. It was a civil war. But if he was in accord with his class you can bet your pretty neck that it would be in jeopardy if you went againt that ruling class. > Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted That is right. A monarch is there so that an entire class can do whatever it wants. But s/he will not fare well if they act against the class that upholds their reign. It is the same exact precise equation the world over modulo some rare historic exceptions.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    > "Our king has no power" yet there is all that machinery of state and you think it is just for 'sentiment and aesthetic' reasons? No, it's operated for and on behalf of the Government. Notionally "His" Government, but we elected it, so it's ultimately our fault.

mtsr 3y ago

There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.

vasco 3y ago
It's a strange world when you can be convinced that voting is worse than "God's appointments". Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  The rationale goes like this: If you don't like the monarch, who has this job purely as an accident of birth, well, too bad, they're a person, that's all you were guaranteed. They might have a grating voice, or love hot pink way too much, or insist on calling people "Mate" for no god damn reason, but nobody picked them. And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them. They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol. Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People. Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Well, in the US, Supreme Court appointments are for life. That's for a reason - it's supposed to be isolated from politics so as to judge justly. It's not, but it would be even more subject to politics if judges were appointed to four-year terms (or worse, elected).
  - 988747 3y ago
    [dead]
orhmeh09 3y ago
This rising tide of populism you speak of implies people in the Netherlands would prefer the "greater evil" of an elected head of state. Why not give people what they actually want?

kaanski 3y ago

> The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped). This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.

hnhg 3y ago
It is actually rather opaque in the UK. It took a lot of work to find out the following, which not be the full of extent of what goes on: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
- kaanski 3y ago
  So the Queen read bills and gave her opinion on them, which is public record, before they were debated? And that constitutes political power? It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it. I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way. I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did. Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc. I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.

andruby 3y ago

I'm not entirely sure about the money sink. It's probably hard to build an honest accounting of the financial benefits of having a monarch. The diplomatic missions and relations they maintain probably have some (hard to measure) benefit. They have an entertainment value (for some). Tourism income (especially in the UK)?

tialaramex 3y ago

> This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still. It's exactly like you've described for the Netherlands. Our Monarchs have no actual power, beyond the power that comes with being famous wealthy old white people anyway. English Kings haven't had real power over the Westminster Parliament since it executed King Charles in 1649. Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted, Parliament disagreed, Parliament won and since he didn't accept that outcome they executed him. That's pretty definitive. He was dead, they were not.

eternalban 3y ago
Monarchy is a system, and like all systems it has all sorts of parts, including the lonesome fellow wearing the crown. "Our king has no power" yet there is all that machinery of state and you think it is just for 'sentiment and aesthetic' reasons? That song and dance to beguile the masses is how the ruling keep ruling. Does this really need to be spelled out? Charles was executed because he, as king, was in conflict with his own set: the ruling class. It was a civil war. But if he was in accord with his class you can bet your pretty neck that it would be in jeopardy if you went againt that ruling class. > Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted That is right. A monarch is there so that an entire class can do whatever it wants. But s/he will not fare well if they act against the class that upholds their reign. It is the same exact precise equation the world over modulo some rare historic exceptions.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  > "Our king has no power" yet there is all that machinery of state and you think it is just for 'sentiment and aesthetic' reasons? No, it's operated for and on behalf of the Government. Notionally "His" Government, but we elected it, so it's ultimately our fault.