For most people, the monarchy just means a bunch of state-sponsored celebrities who participate in weird rituals. They don't bother opposing it for ideological reasons, because it's pretty inconsequential. The monarchy is a symbol, like the flag or the national anthem. It costs some money, but people don't see any particular reason to get rid of it, because there is no obvious harm in it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

> 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.

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-vette...

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.

> 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.

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.

> "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.

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)?

There is indoctrination and manipulation going on at all levels. Can't speak about the Netherlands or Denmark, but in Spain the press never published anything remotely negative about the previous king, we typically had to find out from foreign press or minority separatist press. At one point, there was so much stench of degeneracy and corruption from that king (plus the ascent of a left-wing party with anti-monarchy tendencies in polls) that the powers that be apparently decided that it wasn't possible to keep the people content about him anymore, so they made him abdicate.

Now the press does talk somewhat about his exploits (probably disproportionally little, but it does) while the current king is reported as basically a saint and nothing remotely bad is ever said about him (to his credit he doesn't seem as much of a thief as his father, but if you read the mainstream Spanish press, you would think he pisses gold).

That's at least definitely not the case in NL. There's been quite vocal criticisms about the kings choice to go on holiday during the pandemic, about subsidies for royal estates that are closed to the public, etc.

History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it.

Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.

Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much.

That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.

No, not that I recall. I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner.

Who is maintaining this "status quo" according to you? The media? The monarchs?

Society as a whole maintains it. As long as not enough people object strenuously enough, it simply doesn’t get discussed and continues on the way it is - that’s pretty much the definition of status quo, “the existing state of affairs”.

> I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner.

I doubt that. What’s an example? Objectively, the existence of a monarchy is opposed to the ideals of an egalitarian society. Any discussion of a monarchy’s mere existence without covering such topics serves to reinforce the status quo - it normalizes its existence and lies by omission about its negative impacts.

In Australia I don't really hearing much of an anti-monarchy argument in school, but also not a pro-monarchy argument either. There was just a statement of fact about the monarchy that we live in.

Have you hear pro-caulk arguments in class? Caulk at least might have some relevance to those kids lives, the vestigial monarchy has none.

In Australia, I think fear of getting something like the US political system is why the monarchy is somewhat tolerated. (Though it wouldn’t survive a simple popular vote, the question is what is the “better” thing to replace it with, which monarchists successfully use as a wedge to divide the republican supporters)

And yet Australia voted not to become a republic in 1999. Seems like it did survive a simple popular vote at that time.

Can something like a Royal Commission exist without that connection? Probably I would guess, in some other form. They seem to have real teeth.

That lack of self awareness in this post is amazing.

Fyi your modern views are not that modern, anymore than a monarchist views are modern.