5 ms·

> the prime minister has to convince the king that it's something worthy of military action. As the king is well fed, it's difficult to bribe or blackmail kings

> the prime minister has to convince the king that it's something worthy of military action. As the king is well fed, it's difficult to bribe or blackmail kings into acting against the state. This only works on paper, and on paper congress or SCOTUS would've stepped in much sooner. In practice, the monarch either has a lot of power, or does whatever the real head of government wants. Especially with how Trump can claim that he has the mandate of the people given that he won the election, and it's not like he doesn't wrap his motives behind legitimate claims. It's pretty easy to just claim that he has to do X for the security of the nation. In reality, if the US had a monarch, they too would've gone along with whatever Trump wanted because to not do so is the nuclear option. It would be the equivalent of states trying to secede or not recognizing the current administration as legitimate and choosing to declare Harris as the real POTUS.

bombcar 1y ago
The mere existence of a king does provide some check, because at the back of the mind of the “real” government is the question - if the king rebelled against us, would we win?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  That depends on whether or not you make your king the head of the military.
muzani 1y ago
We can't really speculate what the US would be like as a constitutional monarchy, as it's just very culturally anti-monarchic. The Second Amendment and free speech, for example. In a monarchy, laws often restrict people from insulting the monarch. Not in UK, I believe, but even British culture pays their respects to the king. As a result, the king's words hold a lot of power. A president can "talk down" to congress, but a PM is still a servant of the king. Let's say someone like Sir Richard Branson decides to do a Trump. If he claimed that he had to do X for the security of the nation, the king would be able to call him out on it. As head of military, the king has access to all the confidential data. The Supreme Court and Congress may be missing data. As the PM has to get the king to rubber stamp military actions, the king still has the right to veto it.

bombcar 1y ago

The mere existence of a king does provide some check, because at the back of the mind of the “real” government is the question - if the king rebelled against us, would we win?

jacquesm 1y ago
That depends on whether or not you make your king the head of the military.

muzani 1y ago

We can't really speculate what the US would be like as a constitutional monarchy, as it's just very culturally anti-monarchic. The Second Amendment and free speech, for example. In a monarchy, laws often restrict people from insulting the monarch. Not in UK, I believe, but even British culture pays their respects to the king. As a result, the king's words hold a lot of power. A president can "talk down" to congress, but a PM is still a servant of the king. Let's say someone like Sir Richard Branson decides to do a Trump. If he claimed that he had to do X for the security of the nation, the king would be able to call him out on it. As head of military, the king has access to all the confidential data. The Supreme Court and Congress may be missing data. As the PM has to get the king to rubber stamp military actions, the king still has the right to veto it.