Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain
by henrikschroder on Monday May 01, 2023 @04:47PM
(#35778935)
> 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.
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.
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.)