After President von Hindenburg's death, there was no one left in Germany for Hitler to answer to, not even in theory. That meant there was no legal mechanism to remove him, he could only be removed by violence – and the plot to assassinate him failed. The world could easily have been a better place if Germany had remained a monarchy – even if Hitler still became Chancellor and started World War II and all the rest of his horrid crimes, it would have been far easier to remove and replace him with a new German leader. Germany's generals knew they had lost, and many of them wanted to focus on making sure they surrendered to the Western allies not the Soviets - but Hitler forced them to keep on fighting unwinnable battles instead. With Hitler imprisoned (or maybe even summarily executed to eliminate the risk that devout Nazis would try to free him), the generals could have done as they wanted. Possibly the division of Germany could have been avoided, and large swathes of Eastern Europe could have escaped communism. It also could have resulted in much better treatment of German civilians and POWs, for while the Western allies weren't perfect in that regard, they were significantly more humane than the Soviets were.
von Hindenburg being President or Wilhelm being Kaiser changes little assuming a death - in both cases there's a process to get someone to replace them (new elections for President, coronation of the heir apparent). Hitler's popularity and power allowed him to skip the whole process and just assume the position of Parliament too. I think that it would have been harder to do with the position of Kaiser (there were still plenty of monarchists even in Nazi Germany), but he still would have done so or at least done a Horthy, preventing the coronation and keeping himself as regent.
There were actually numerous plots to assassinate him; the July 20th plot is just the most famous (probably because it came the closest to success).
This guy came very close just a few months after WWII started: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser
Japan also had a monarch, and it took 2 nuclear bombs to get him to surrender.
Though nothing is stopping the cult of personality from forming around the leader of the government (prime minister).
Not really. The cult gives its focus power regardless of the formal structure; that's the point. And in the case of England, the formal structure still supports the king! Forming a personality cult around the King of England is more likely to lead to the King of England reclaiming a lot of power people thought he had lost long ago than it is to defuse the cult when they learn the king isn't supposed to use his formal powers.
I assure you there's nothing even CLOSE to that insanity in European monarchies.
Edit: I haven't been able to turn up good numbers for the original cost of Versailles without spending more time than I have to spare at the moment, but on an ongoing basis the annual budget for Versailles is about €100 million, while the annual budget for Mount Rushmore is about $5 million.
Edit #2: Looks like the Brits spend around £50 million annually for the maintenance of royal palaces, and those are still in active use.
Which is great! There's enormous value in having a ceremonial national institution which isn't politicised and doesn't split opinion along the typical partisan lines. It's a part of our national identity, something that we all have in common, something that unites us - and in these polarised times we desperately need more things that unite us.
If we replace the monarch with an elected head of state, even a "powerless" and "ceremonial" one, there's no way it won't lead to more polarisation and division.
The other good argument I've heard for keeping the monarchy is that abolishing the monarchy means rewriting the British constitution from the ground up. You can be sure that whichever party is in power will take this opportunity to subtly tweak things to favour themselves. Do you trust them to do it fairly?
Better the devil you know.
It's possible (but admittedly difficult) to construct a mythology where you make a rock the national identity, and celebrate the rock on special occasions. It lasts for thousands of years, you don't run into problems of succession, and it never betrays anyone, much less express political opinions.
So, why don't you make a rock your King? It seems to fit all your arguments about why a human king is good, and the rock does the job better.
PS: apparently in the US the equivalent is a piece of paper called the constitution. The president, despite what monarchists think, is generally disposable and often just for lols.
This is a loose tradition, and is often broken. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
Why express political opinions in public like a pleb when you can directly express them to the Prime Minister (who is bound by oath to serve you)?
https://www.royal.uk/audiences : The King holds a weekly Audience with the Prime Minister to discuss Government matters. The Audience is entirely private. Though The King remains politically neutral on all matters, he is able to 'advise and warn' his ministers - including his Prime Minister - when necessary.
I presume you are from the US? It seems a substantial number of US citizens believe the British monarchy to be an outlier and the only one worthy of comment.
1. English language and media being more widespread than e.g. Danish
2. The commonwealth - the English monarch is also the (figure)head of the commonwealth which is another ten or so countries spread across the globe.
There are other reasons too - perhaps tourism plays a big part. If you visit London then you'll almost certainly go to Buckingham palace to see the stupid palace guards and all that pomp. Millions of people do it every year and are told the Queen/King is living right there. Especially if you're a child that puts them into an important position in your imagination.
I don't think this amount of pompous touristy bullshit surrounds any other modern monarch.
And finally, a large swath of English people either love or hate the monarch, while a large swarth of Irish also hate them, both of which fuel attention. Most other European monarchs are just sort of... there, to my understanding.
> I don't think this amount of pompous touristy bullshit surrounds any other modern monarch.
Ahem.
Hans Majestet Kongens Garde (Norway): https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=29281
Den Kongelige Livgarde (Denmark): https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/palaces-and-the-royal-yacht/cha...
Livgardet (Sweden): https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/activities/events/the-royal...
Guardia Real (Spain): https://www.esmadrid.com/en/whats-on/changing-guard-royal-pa...
What is the purpose of an army? To defend their nation. What is the essence of a monarchic nation? ... Armies in monarchies tend to have these type of honour guards and traditions, even if their typical audience is tourists. Armies in republics also love a bit of pomp and circumstance and will gladly show off their troops marching, their aerial acrobatics, their latest hardware, etc.
Also mostly stupid and hilariously anachronistic, in my opinion. The videos of Indian and Pakistani border guards showing off to each other comes particularly to mind.
France does. But then it is often said we elect a monarch, not a president.
But to your other point, yep, the French Fifth Republic has a very strong President figure (not a monarch on a few important distinctions like succession, but still). And after the failures of the Third and Fourth Republics that showed that compromise is complicated to achieve and without a strong position somewhere there is just pure chaos and instability, it was the only way forward.
People pay attention to the King because he's part of their history, not just the UK's.
*Not just "English"
Japan's monarchy was a Meiji invention; he had no power before that and has no power now. He's more like the opposite, a prisoner we specifically wrote into the constitution to have no human rights.
This is true to the extent that North Korea is a republic.
Hey, could you do us all a favour and update Wikipedia[0] to reflect your research on this matter? Sadly it still lists the government as a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
To have a constitutional government, you should first have a constitution.
Sure they do. The constitution doesen't have to be a single document.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The American constitution has basically become immutable at this point while meaningful reform is still possible in Britain.
The US changes its constitution by just having the Supreme Court make things up. As you can see from the Lochner era, this has rarely worked well.
Here’s another page that could probably use the fruits of your research:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People's_R...
Not to claim it's the same situation, but there's a difference between things that are officially true and things you should actually respect. You shouldn't respect most of the US judicial system either.
Could you relate that back to your initial claim that "the UK still has an absolute monarchy", which appears to be both officially untrue and untrue in practice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
Especially
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/01/26/tom-adams-royal-c... + https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
They don't even make the monarch get a driver's licence or pay taxes.
Maybe they could try writing some of that down in a constitution.
If you've ever eaten Indian curry (of the tikka masala variety in particular), chances are, its recipe was British in origin.
While traditional British food might not appear particularly appealing to the discerning palate, Great Britain is home to many a culinary innovation.
Britain always led the fight against absolutism in Europe (well more or less anyway..) so most of these constitutions that were designed to curtail the power of the monarch during the revolutions of the 1800s merely brought other countries inline with where Britain already was.
US is in a similar state.It was one of the first "democratic" states so its system if full of out of date anachronisms like the electoral college, the second amendment and near absolute freedom of speech (well yeah some are bad and some are good..).
Japanese emperors have (had) lots of indirect power (akin to Charles lobbying). E.g. during WW2 Hirohito participated in some very high level decision making (and should have been hanged for it).
The British monarch has all those powers on paper. They never agreed to relinquish them. Then, random commoners (with no authority) keep asserting that the monarch has no powers, or no intention to use/abuse those powers. Nobody seems to agree which ones are not supposed to be used ever, which ones are supposed to be used sparingly, and which ones are OK to use recreationally. Then, occasionally somebody discovers some secret privilege the monarch has, and the people have to decide on the spot whether that's OK or not.
Compared with the actual constitutional monarchy, where there are actual rules spelled out clearly. The Brits are masters of wordplay, but "unwritten constitution" is really unironically "trust us, we're making this up as we go along".
I'd salute a King before I'd meditate under a macdonalds.
The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office. I wonder if that contributes to Americans always having weird takes like this?
The purpose of the head of state is to act as a check on the legislature and the chief executive, that's typically the only real power they have, the rest is just ceremonial. And yet many Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US and has executive powers?
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
Johnson didn't want to go, so he announced (via a leak to a tame newspaper, another part of our unwritten constitution) that he would advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, in order that new elections be held. He hoped to bring rebellious Tory MPs in line by threatening those in marginal seats with defeat, and those in secure seats with the prospect of a lengthy spell in opposition.
The Palace put paid to this plan by informing the PM that the Queen would be unavailable to meet with him, in the event of him perhaps wanting to to her in order to dissolve parliament.
And the rest is history!
That relationship really is hard to define... As a Brit my defining memory of the now King was - as an 8 year old - learning of his desire to be a tampon in his then mistress and current Queen.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a41913184/tamp...
Monarchy is absurd but it has been particlarly difficult to take him seriously since.
I mostly just feel sorry for him. No-one should have to live their life in the public eye like that.
Nationalise their considerable private wealth (which only exists due to their role) and let them live their lives in peace.
Ireland and Germany both show that we can enjoy the benefits of a ceremonial head of state without having to put up with the nonsense of monarchy.
The rest of the time, the check on the legislature is only theoretical.
It still counts as a coup if somebody in a legitimate position of authority uses the military to seize more power in a manner not permitted by law
I think a split premier/president system where they are democratically elected makes enough sense 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.
And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
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.
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.)
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.
The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King. To make it worse, Hamilton argued to have a President for life and Adams argued to address the President as "His Majesty".
Those early years are fertile soil for any fiction writer interested in alternative realities.
This is basically what happened in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. King James was unpopular due to being Catholic and a set of unpopular decisions, so the upper class wrote to the Dutch stadholder William of Orange and invited him to stage a coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_William . Which succeeded without resistance.
This (and subsequent incidents with the Georges) is an important part of how the English monarchy is effectively "leashed" by requiring a certain minimal amount of consent of the governed.
As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country. It literally says I must pledge allegiance to him on my citizenship certificate. Yes, of course I understand the whole thing is theater and he has no actual power, but that's why I think the whole charade is bizarre to begin with.
The comment I was responding to, which makes no sense, made the non sequitur that "Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US" because he only read the first half of my sentence.
QE II wasn't a bad monarch, and that was probably a big factor in the UK keeping its monarchy during the 20th century where democracy was the big trend.
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in general.
Still though, using the words "supreme leader" about any constitutional monarch in a liberal democracy sounds so weird to me, that's a title for dictators, which is the complete opposite of what they are. They're heads of state, and they are completely dependent on popular support for their reigns.
> As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country.
I agree, I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
The case for the UK is that they've been doing the king thing for 1100 years now, it's an integral part of the land and the people and the history, and that gives it symbolic value that contributes to the power or cohesiveness of the nation state.
> I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
Me neither, but Canada was specifically formed by people who wanted to keep that. Otherwise they would have just joined the USA at the start...
The Dutch king earns a few million euro per year. His clever brother prins Friso, with no royal duties, became a businessman in London and amassed a fortune without being stalked by a hundred reporters.
Mind you I prefer the monarchy because I shudder to think what absolute clown the people would elect as president. My faith in democracy has been shattered thanks to America.
He used to fly KLM cityhopper which is KLM's "regional airline" in US terms, going across most of Europe. Then he transitioned to the 737 because the government bought a 737 BBJ as their new private jet. The government jet is operated by KLM, so the king can fly it as first officer together with a KLM captain.
Fun fact: There is an agreement with the pilots union that the first officer that got replaced by the king operating a flight gets paid as if they flew it.
i don't know about now, but certainly in the 90s you could get a flight from Eindhoven to Schiphol.
i remember trying to get from Eindhoven to London on the phone and being told there were no seats - i'd have to fly to Schiphol (deep gloom on my part). Luckily, when i turned up at check-in, the lovely KLM girl on the desk said "No you don't need to do that - we'll fit you in on the Heathrow flight"
I must say that of all of the airlines i flew with, I probably liked KLM the best
I first read about this in an in-flight magazine; the other story was about the PM who arrived on bicycle and left it outside the palace while paying the King a visit after the election.
My god, I weep for him. A pathetic millionaire instead of glorious billionaire. How torturing.
Hard to imagine the US equivalent to the British football stadium crowds chanting "stick the coronation up my arse": https://twitter.com/herecelts/status/1652687767942443009
I wouldn't use Celtic is an example of "British Football" or British attitudes. They would likely be offended by that! They are the republican side of the Irish sectarian divide in Glasgow and will sing pro-IRA songs and such.
There is plenty of anti/disinterest in Britain about the Monarchy but probably not enough vitriol to get that chant elsewhere. There would probably need to be a specific catalyst e.g. if Prince Andrew turned up at a game then chants calling him a Paedo would be guaranteed. For most Brits, if you don't like the Monarchy, it's very easy to just ignore it. Celtic is on a different level.
That said the point was that it's unimaginable that supporters at a US sporting event chanting about how they hate their head of state. I disagree - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
> I disagree with that - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
The US system is "fine" with 49% of the population hating the elected president. The president is not the monarch, nor representing the supreme political ideal. AFAICT the equivalent of anti-monarchy in the US is denouncing the US constitution.
That's true for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the original union of the crowns had the Scottish king becoming the king of both England and Scotland.
But yeah the US equivalent might be insulting the constitution or even the flag.
The equivalent you might be looking for is the clowns expect us to swear allegiance to them and their offspring on Saturday. I'll happily swear at them but it won't be my allegiance.
Time to end this scam.
If you wanted to frame it as a tax rate it'd be high than a normal citizen's.
I'm not ideologically royalist, but I'd rather have the current system than an elected president.
Got a source? According to The Guardian they use no end of smoke and mirrors so the plebs can't find out how much they're worth. Not to mention them not being subject to inheritance tax.
So their tax rate is 75% - 85%.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/...
The Gruanidad has been running a series on this (especially nice to see in the run up to the coronation) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/cost-of-the-crown
In particular, from here, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/07/british-roya...
> Elizabeth II and Charles III have extracted cash payments worth more than £1.2bn from two hereditary estates that pay no tax, in addition to the millions they receive in public funding for their official duties. In 2022, they received £21m each from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively, despite a centuries-old debate over whether the two estates in fact belong to the British nation.
Case in point, "The Black Spider Memos":
And John Lydon getting knifed and nearly lynched by a mob for writing God Save the Queen is still somewhat fresh in the British psyche.
Since there's little chance of that happening, we'll stick with inducting politicians into the Privy Council in order to allow them to receive intelligence briefings.
But this is of little practical consequence. What I find more bizarre is how conservative the US is around its constitution and political system. Norway may be a Monarchy but has gone through far more modernization in terms of how the political system works, elections and government than the US for instance.
I look at how voting and representation works in the US today and it is basically Norway in the 1880s or something. Back when we also had a two party system of liberals and conservatives. When there was a winner take all system. Censuses had to be done semi regularly as citizens were not fully and completely registered and kept up to date on a continuous fashion.
I would bet Britain in quite a number of ways is more modern in its constitution than the US. E.g. they don’t have å gerrymandering problem. That got reformed and fixed long ago.
On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country, to the point that his subjects need to pledge allegiance to him on official documents, but on the other hand, he has no power. One might argue he has even less power than a commoner as he is forbidden from offering a political opinion. He is the titular owner of "Crown Lands", but he can't actually do anything with that ownership.
The whole thing is just so bonkers that if I were an alien and I landed on Earth and someone explained the situation to me I'd just say "Y'all are too f'n weird for me, I'm gonna peace out."