General News UK's newest royal

I think that if the British Monarch were to use his / her full powers - by attempting to rule above the PM and Parliament and the appointed Judiciary - then that might lead either to a standoff between him / her and Parliament, a Monarchical takeover supported by the army, or else Parliament sticking to it's guns and then either removing the remaining Royal Powers for good or else even abolishing the Monarchy. So, the powers are there but are not used. Past Monarchs agreed not to use those powers with the ascendency of Parliament.

The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister, but Parliament must agree. If Parliament doesn't agree then the Monarch would have to appoint a different PM or else negotiate with Parliament. But not since the time of Queen Victoria has a British Monarch been one to have the personal clout or will to question Parliament. These days a British Monarch rubber stamps the Prime Minister's will and Parliament's will, Opens and Closes Parliament when asked to do so, speaks with the PM officially once a week. The Monarch is consulted, but that's all. The Monarch is, thus, the ceremonial Head of State.

I think that is the gist of it. And since the Monarchy wants to survive, and since the PM and Parliament tend to want to survive, and since none wants the demise of another, then they continue to work as a system. It's not so different than having a ceremonial President.

And why does it persist? It persists because all of the other players accept it, the electorate included. And Kyle D's explanation makes as much sense as any, too.

 

It makes no sense to me why there still is a royal family at all. European Kings and Queens severely mistreated their citizens for hundreds of years and got tons of people killed in wars just because one king didn't like another king. Why would anyone want to keep those families around? They caused massive amounts of suffering and elitism while becoming rich by stealing money from citizens in the form of arbitrary and unneeded taxes. Now they continue to live in extreme luxury at the expense of taxpayers, having done absolutely nothing to earn it except being born, plus they don't even have to do anything anymore since so much of their governmental powers are handled by other people instead in modern times.

They literally get worshiped, live in palaces, and have endless amounts of money thrown at them just because they were born to the right family. Europeans don't have a problem with this?

 

Some do, some don't. I do get where you're coming from. I also think that in some sense, the concept of royalty is kind of stupid and outdated these days, since it grants you luxury, fame and power, just by being born to the right family (or marrying). And ordinary civilians have no way to choose who will be the head of the country.
I think that in these countries where royalty exists, it's mainly a symbol of tradition. It is something that has been around for hundreds of years. As you mentioned, royal families in Europe do not have as much political power as they used to have, so the main purpose why they were formed (running a country) is slowly fading away. However, they still hold enough power to greatly influence their country, and just transitioning to a republic would require a total reorganization of the political system. It would be such a radical change that not many politicians would even dare to try pushing it through. Not to mention that the royalty itself would be most likely strictly against it.

Also I've noticed that people tend to be much more satisfied with royal families than with ordinary politicians. British queen is much more popular than Theresa May or Donald Trump for example. Why? Well, royal members have different authorities than the rest of politicians, they are not the ones who make radical decisions, like Brexit for example. Basically, they have much less things they can mess up. That automatically makes them less controversial in the eyes of ordinary people. My explanation is, that ordinary people view royalty as some "backup" power that keeps their politicians at bay. They like that there's someone powerful they can look up to.

Also what comes to my mind, almost every European country that abandoned monarchy in the past, did so under some not very nice circumstances. For Central European countries, consequences of the 1st World War. For Germany, it was the creation of politically weak Weimar Republic, that gave the opportunity to Hitler to take over. In Russia, it was the Bolshevik revolution. For France, French Revolution. For Portugal also revolution. Etc. And some people are still subconsciously aware of this, therefore they might worry what such a transition would cause.

Now, if you ask me, I also think that a republic without royalty is a better system, but I think these are the reasons why many people support monarchy.

(Fun fact: There's a royal family of Romania, but Romania is a republic, therefore they have no power since 1947. Now there's a 'princess' who is a heir to the throne that she would probably never claim since there's no throne at all. The last true king, her father, was very popular among Romanian civilians before he died few months ago, but Romanian politicians hated him so much that they even tried to keep him away from the country and not let him enter.)

 

Thanks so much brainwashed!! You are very kind.

 

Thousands of years of subjugation to a divinely chosen ruler is a wild drug.

 

You are so right. When you put Charles besides all of the new Royals then there has been a big shift for the better. If they had continued to be Charles-like I think that the continuation of them as the British Royal Family would be in danger.

I think that Charles will be tolerated as the next Monarch for a period. But at some point he might be asked to abdicate - especially if he causes waves while being Monarch.

 

Well, these are the sorts of powers the British monarch can exercise and during her reign Elizabeth II has exercised some of these powers (not only in the UK, but also parts of the Commonwealth). It's important to remember that the monarch retains the royal prerogative and could exercise even greater powers by use of the prerogative, or refuse royal assent to acts of parliament. Many people regard these as technical powers only, because the sovereign is advised by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Privy Council of the United Kingdom, but the uncodified nature of the British Constitution makes it a grey area.

Every week the monarch meets the Prime Minister for private consultation and nothing is known of their meetings. Records of the conversations are not kept and it's only indiscreet chatter from the Prime Minister that offers any sort of indication of what might be said. During her reign Elizabeth II has been considered relatively benign and careful not to interfere, but we don't know that for certain. We do know that her predecessors were more outspoken and it's entirely possible that her successor will be.

Personally, I regard the British Monarchy as an excessively bloated institution. I wish the new baby good health and happiness but I can only reflect on the fact that the Royal Family has yet another member to add to its many numbers and sphere of influence.

 

You make good point.

 

The birth of a Prince isnt something which can remain apolitical.
It may be a nice fairytale story for Americans to read about in celebrity magazines but it is a little more than that for those of us who are called subjects by such Princes.

On both sides, I see a lot of arguments about the cost, the political power and the goodness of the Royal Family.
But all of these arguments become moot when you realise that the only reason that the Royals are in existence in the first place is because of the belief that they are divinely chosen to rule, that their bloodline is superior and that this entitles the Monarch to be the head of the government, the Church AND military all at once.

How can people like me resist criticising this outdated, undemocratic, theocratic, blood obsessed institution?

I’m not sorry.