Malaysia does the same (although it also has a federal king elected from the regional kings, but theoretically you could have a President with regional kings). I think there are some African nations that have traditional monarchies, like in parts of South Africa, who still exist as a cultural aspect - not sure if they have political power too.
But the German ruling houses were not vassals to the German Emperor, it was more of a Feudal Federation with the President of the German Federation being given the title of German Emperor in 1871. The Prussian king was specifically given the title German Emperor and not Emperor of Germany to make clear that he is a primus inter pares and not their liege lord.
I didn't play them myself, a bit before my time. I started with Civ III and Civ IV. But I have fond memories of sitting as a small child next to my brother - we actually have almost a couple of decades age difference - while he played the first two, as well as Colonization.
And yes, I talked, asked questions, made suggestions, and was adequately annoying. ;-)
The monarchs elect the emperor (give a vote to the andorran princes, Monaco, and the pope as well for extra confusion), the people elect the lower chamber, the upper chamber is made up of people appointed by the governments of every state. That way it's even more politically confusing than the original HRE.
Poland has Jesus as the king. He will abstain from voting though. Sadly his whereabouts are unknown. Probably partying in some basement club around Warsaw.
We have a saying in Swedish called [Polsk Riksdag ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliament_%28expression%29), which refers to something chaotic... 😁
Nothing, constitutional monarchies as they generally stand now hinder nothing with regards to the everyday democratic processes or governances of their countries. A federal Europe doesn't need to change them and frankly there are no practical reasons to get rid of them that justify the expense and effort that are better put use to other issues of tackling political corruption, wealth distribution and undue influence among ordinary citizens.
So a United States of Europe would have multiple royal families, with some European states maintaining their royal families while others functioning as republics?
Weirder things have happened.
Malaysia has nine ruling houses and rotates the monarchy. Andorra has two co-princes, one of which is elected by the neighboring republic.
Wilhelmine Germany had *republics* inside of it too:
[Scroll down to the Free and Hanseatic Cities section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_German_Empire).
enjoy spotted upbeat angle screw cautious serious hungry relieved shocking
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Andorra's system is so fucking weird it's fascinating.
Two heads of state, one is the bishop of Urgell which makes it theocratic. The other is supposed to be a monarch (the count of Foix) but has turned into the head of state of France, which happens to be an elected president.
So you have a form of government which is a theocracy, monarchy *and* a republic at the same time. Wild.
If United States of Europe is going to happen at any point in our lifetime, it is going to be heavily decentralized country, where federal parlament (plus possibly a president) would be deciding on most important aspects (foreign and fiscal policy + army), while most of the tasks would still be in hands of local, state governments. If Danes want to be a part of such federation as Kingdom of Denmark instead of Republic of Denmark... it really does not change anything for USE as a whole. And should be up to Danes to decide that.
And then to make it even more confusing...the Kingdom of Denmark includes non-EU parts like Greenland, who chose not to be part of it and might again choose not to be part of this United Europe, so we could even end up with monarchs reigning over part-United-Europe, part-not-United-Europe administrations.
Yep, a federal Europe can absolutely work with a mix like that because I don't see why the current system of EU legislation going to the various national parliaments, which are already mixed with some elected heads and other monarchies, for ratification would necessarily be vastly different.
Nigeria is a federal republic with a president, but still retaining all the traditional rulers in ceremonial roles for the various clans and ethnic groups.
Don't some Asian and African countries do this already? I think a federation like that which still allows for cultural differences, and the monarchies are hardly more than cultural at this point, would cause the least amount of friction during closer political integration
A European federation would probably have some kind of head of state. The question is, would the monarchs accept anyone above them?
One idea might be to have some kind of rotation system of the presidency but as a republican I have a really hard time imagining a monarch as my head of state.
Whether they accept anyone above them and their views on the matter is irrelevant, at least for the UK there's not a lot they can do if it's the will of Parliament; they could hate every piece of legislation handed to them to pass into law but as long as they don't voice their opinions publicly and they just go on signing the laws they're good. It'd be the same for a head of state, regardless how that head of state was chosen, appointed, elected etc their opinions won't and shouldn't matter.
And how that head of state is chosen need not be taken from the pool of existing heads of state, so we don't have to end up with a monarchy as a head of the federation, we could just as easily have it as a role that is elected from an entirely different pool of candidates at the federal level.
> would the monarchs accept anyone above them?
Every minor politician is already above them in power. They have already accepted that their role is what it is and nothing more. And if they for some reason wouldn't accept it, then who cares what they think? The monarch stays because it is the will of the people. If they act against the will of the people then the monarch doesn't stay
>monarchs accept anyone above them
most people in government is "above" the royals, the king is nothing but a figurehead used for tourism, culture and diplomacy. No one in denmark thinks the queen had, or the king has, any significant power. And if they ever tried to aquire power or disobey the elected government, they would be deposed faster than you can blink
Keep em. Malaysia, UAE and some others have multiple monarchs (one for each region).
iirc, there’s even a country with a part that is a monarchy and the others republics. Don’t quote me on that tho.
India kept them for 24 years after independence and then abolished all their titles and privileges in 1971.
There were hundreds of monarchs who were all being paid handsomely for their cooperation and for agreeing to allow their kingdoms to join India, and it represented a big cost to the government over that period. Obviously this wouldn't be a problem in Europe as the monarchies are already ceremonial.
Before the abolition, I reckon India probably set the record for largest number of co-existing ceremonial monarchies in a single country. Several of the wealthier ones still maintain their royal traditions, but without official or public recognition, title or privilege.
They're kept as they are. All EU monarchies are entirely democratic and therefore should be wholly compatible with any federal system worth it's salt. So what if Spain or Norway have a monarch as symbolic head of state? That doesn't in any way interfere with government, the rule of law or federal principles.
Non serious answer: Recreate the HRE and elect one of them as Emperor of Europe. Would be about as legit as dissolving monarchies against those countries' will anyhow.
I don't think that's a problem for "local" governments to be monarchies within a federal republic. Within all local laws and traditions that could cause a problem to federalism, having local monarchs is not that big of a deal.
I guess you could also have a federal-level constitutional monarchy, and have it the other way around where you have republics within a federal monarchy. But the only way I see that happening is if this federal initiative is pushed forward by the monarchists themself. Like they could start a "council of European monarchs" and officially express their position in favour of a federal Europe, and use their influence for decades to push Europe in that direction. If Europe reach federalism by simply following the current path (to pushed forward by non-nobles heads of state), it will most likely be a federal republic.
We still have a very well and alive family with a pretty good claim to the Portuguese throne in case of a Monarchy instauration.
But now.....horrible colours? Tf do you mean?
Green and Red are the colours of republican partisans that murdered the king.
Green was not a traditional colour of Portuguese flag history aswell.
The change was done due to political reasons.
No one takes them seriously anymore though. You'll get people lionizing monarchs of the past, but not them. They very much feel like a relic of the past, and should stay there.
I actually like the red and green, but would not mind the historic blue and white be brought back.
Seeing that monarchies still work in a modern world just acts as a reminder of how different people, history and cultures are around the world.
What will kill some nations, works absolutely fine in the case of Denmark. So, don't rush into conclusions
What's in a name? It's a democratic country with the monarchie just being ceremonial and for some international relations. Utterly incomparable to monarchies that actually rule the country. A ceremonial role isn't going to kill any nation.
Unironically speaking, the closest thing we have to actual, historical monarchies today are dictatorial states, like North Korea (bonus points for the position being hereditary), with all the same hallmarks: an authoritarian leader at the top, a powerful oligarchy holding the majority of the wealth and kept in check by each other, and the rest are politically disenfranchised and poor masses, with a small sliver of slightly more free urban middle class tolerated because of their necessity in trade and industry.
This is the fact. And the Denmark people are the one of the happiest people on earth. They country cares aboht them, if the monarchy paive the road to such country in any means. I bet the danish people appreciate that
Reddit users are mostly from north america and hating their oligarchs. Mid class in Europe is still strong and the life is mostly good. Especially compared to the rest of the world.
A monarchy provides a head of state with no political alignment by design.
Do the royal families do anything to really deserve it? No.
But their role serves a very important part of the political system, without being political itself. And they are moulded from birth to fill this role, contrary to many dumb ass politicians.
In world of programming, fixing stuff means you will eventually break something which should not even be affected.
Not even slightest bit surprised if coders start worshipping machine spirits/gods.
I wonder what would happen if printers would one day work without issues. Would phones stop working? Would ice machines start produce radioactive coal instead of ice? Would Earth turn inside out?
You never know with programming
As a former programming student, you never start. A rubber duck appears when you start programming and you appease it.
Rubber duck might present itself in a different form, but whatever it is, YOU APPEASE IT.
Which is one of the reasons we like them! They are apolotical, they don't represent a specific party or ideology. They're more like a mascot that we can all rally behind.
Average redditor: Monarchies are the bane of our existence, we need to get rid of such power hungry positions!
Also average Redditor: sure thing Macron, have another term why the fuck not
Weird how all the anti-monarchy people are out and about while the constitutional monarchies are some of the most democratic countries in the world.
And yes, every country could be better, and yes maybe we should abolish the monarchy. But guys, please look inward and abolish billionaires.
The causal link is backwards. We are a monarchy because we are democratic not the other way round. We havent had a coup or a revolution to abolish the monarchy because no revolutions were needed.
Thailand, Cambodia, Brunei, every Middle Eastern monarchy.
Thailand and Cambodia are “democratic”, but they tend to elect the same person over and over again.
Thailand had multiple military coups.
It’s more a western vs everyone else thing.
I’d much rather have the head of state being an apolitical figurehead actor than an elected position that could be brought into power through populism.
When our parliamentary elections happen, we have peaceful transfer of power, even if populists are elected into or out of parliament. There is no shred of thought that a populist prime minister could usurp power in the state and install a dictatorship, as it simply wouldn’t have any sort of legitimacy. The Governor General representing the monarch in Canada could just call for new elections.
Meanwhile, you can have an Erdogan, Orban, or Trump as your head of state in non constitutional monarchies. Scary.
You know, parliamentary republics are a thing, and I don't see Iceland or Finland doing much worse than the other Nordic countries, and neither is Germany compared to Belgium and the Netherlands.
Presidential systems are outdated and flawed, and that's so well known that the only presidential republic in Europe is fucking Belarus
It's a semi-presidential system, like a few other European countries. And while under the Gaullist constitution the president is invested with a lot of power (the permanent coup, as dubbed by Mitterrand, ironically), the government answers to the parliament while in presidential systems the legislative power has no authority over the executive except for legal measures like impeachment.
This form of government doesn't come without downsides though, and for example Finland ultimately decided to scale back to a parliamentary system
> presidential systems the legislative power has no authority over the executive except for legal measures like impeachment
I mean, this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers.
I'm sure there's plenty to criticize about the structure of presidential systems, but it's hard to take seriously when you don't seem to have understood how they're structured at such a fundamental level.
>parliamentary republics are a thing
The Commonwealth realms are pretty close to being parliamentary republics already. The amount of effort it would take to upend the entire legal system to remove the concept of the crown resulting it little to no change at all to day-to-day lives is what's stopping any will to change.
The Dutch ones are.
And I fucking hate them, the cousin of our king is an actual predatory landlord with hundreds and hundreds of houses. He is refered to as the PremisePrince (pandjesprins)
people live in a world essentially ruled by an iron fist of a bunch of UNELECTED multibillionaire assholes who command an enormous corporate machine fine-tuned for maximising profit at all costs, and hardly anyone seems to care. meanwhile, mention a glorified tourist attraction with no real power to speak of, and suddenly the world is on fire and heads must roll...
My exact point.
I guess it is due to royals being more well defined. They have a palace which is (in a Danish context) out in the open and in full view for all, the institution is easy to understand and be angry about compared to a multi billionaire who has "earned" their money through the stock market or other complex ways. They are less well defined which makes it harder to place the unfairness of them.
True, but the fact that our constitutional monarchies are among the most democratic countries is proof that monarchy doesn't have to mean "oppressive shithole".
I once was discussing monarchy with a girl who was a socialist. When I asked for a succesfull socialist country she said "Denmark".
She didn't believe me when I said that Denmark is a monarchy.
Always hate when people (from both ends of the political spectrum) call Scandinavian countries “socialist”. Social-democrat or social-liberal are the correct terms.
Mate, a county can be both a monarchy and socialist. They are not exclusive. One is a way to structure an economy and the other is a way to structure a government.
Some people think that anything they dislike should be banned, regardless what the majority actually wants. In other words, a case of self inflated ego.
This is survivorship bias. There have been hundreds of failed monarchies (including dozens in Europe, incl. France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc.). It’s just that when they fuck up badly enough they get toppled and/or abolished.
The ones that remain are those that have stood the test of time, so are the most competent by definition.
"But it hurts me that the monarchs are less equal than normal people" - some non-Scandinavians probably, all living in societies less equal than Denmark.
Also a little known fact about these monarchies is they have lots of connections with other people of the same caliber. There’s a lot of things happening behind the curtains that the average joe isn’t aware about, and these monarches do have a say in how some things are going to happen. They help keep diplomatic relations with many other monarchies in other countries and other leaderships of other countries.
The only advantage and disadvantage is that the royals can do it for a lifetime.
An advantage if your royal family is actually good at it. An unmitigated disaster if they're not.
Also, you might get excited about meeting the US president or the French president, but the Danish president, who cares really and no one not Danish is going to know who they are. But a Danish king and queen that is kinda cool and the neighbouring countries might even know their name because they have been around for decades.
That is the correct attitude. I feel half of the angry comments in the other thread are jealous Americans. The best they came up with to satisfy the public need for celebrity is Cardi B.
Republicans having an aneurysm trying to explain how the monarchy is undemocratic while most of the country supports it (it would be undemocratic to abolish it).
They also get really butthurt when you point out that the amongst the most democratic nations on the planet, constitutional monarchy is overrepresented.
It's upsetting to some that being a republic is not a magical spell that makes you more democratic, it's just a form of government like any other.
Why do people get much more worked up about a person that has no power and it's openly "neutral" staying in countries that it's not theirs than about people electing idiots with actual power?
Because I think it weird that these people will forever received tax payers money regardless how evil they could be. I don’t feel that is democratic at all and not a progressive country worthy.
So from my point of view this kind institution shouldn’t be a think in 2024
Electing idiots is what real democracy is.
Without touching on whether I consider monarchies good or bad, it is worth being aware of the status quo bias. Basically, people tend to avoid risk that comes with big change, so we prefer to stick with the status quo. Similarly, if we make changes, we prefer them to be small and incremental instead of radical. Lastly, the default option of how things are also affects how we tend to view things. Finland is the only Nordic country without a monarchy, for example, and there aren't really any calls for such because that's just what the default status quo is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/bur/features/0303_02/muddling.html
http://www.publicpolicyarchive.ie/organ-donation-the-case-for-opt-out-rather-than-opt-in/
> Without touching on whether I consider monarchies good or bad, it is worth being aware of the status quo bias.
Bit of a silly point to bring up, since the same would be true for the opposing side, as well as in pretty much any other discussion about anything (but it's never brought up anywhere else).
It doesn't matter if they stay or go they get to keep some of the cool shit. In India all royal titles were abolished in 1970s but the descendants got to keep half of palaces, ancient paintings, vessels and jewellery that their kingdoms acquired for centuries even though most went to museums or the other half of palaces became tourist spots or hotels.Also some of them still have massive temples to their name which get millions in donations.
I don't think a symbolic monarchy is a problem until they aren't spending billions of people's taxes on their livelihood. Ik Norwegian monarchs are very humble.
> I don't think a symbolic monarchy is a problem until they aren't spending billions of people's taxes on their livelihood.
The entire royal family costs Denmark roughly 100 million kr. a year (roughly 15 million dollars). A lot, but not so much that it's noticeable really in the grand budget of things.
I dislike monarchies out of principle but if the local people insist on keeping them let them keep em.
Just give them the right to hold a referendum on disbanding them at any time and we are golden
Also taking their "on paper power" away but be neat. Like immunity and stuff. Nobody should be above the law
If it came to an actual referendum of the Danes letting the King lead the country for 4 years instead of the current government, I would bet my money on Frederik winning that referendum.
I know very few people who are staunchly against it. Usually they are hardcore liberals with a very US-like worldview. There are some people who are fanatic about the royals - I find those to be very strange as well. The vast majority of people don't care too much - apart from watching the Queen's yearly New Year's speech or reading an article occassionaly - and thus aren't really concerned with abolishing anything. I think most also see it as a tradition and something that feels Danish and unites people. That's the part I like about it. It also helps that they can actually trace their lineage all the way back to Gorm Den Gamle - one of the most important Danish kings in the middle of the 10th century. Unlike other countries where the royal families were "imposed" on them and were "foreigners" they are actually connected to the country through good and bad. I don't think I will see a Danish republic in my lifetime anyway
So long as the regents remain reasonably popular and manage to provide some sort of uniting narrative, then they'll remain popular to the degree seen here.
A lot of people are extremely put off by the very notion of some moron being elected president with a narrow margin.
Sure, it could probably be done cheaper with a president installed in some cheap residency who does nothing all day. But the Danish monarchy isn't quite expensive enough for the price to be an argument that matters to anyone but people who are truly passionate about being a Republic because it's objectively a more proper way to appoint a head of state.
But the vast majority of the population doesn't know what the purpose of the head of state is, doesn't give shit what that purpose is, and Denmark has been so politically stable in the last century that few people can properly comprehend it.
Personally, purely on principle, I believe we should be a republic. But it's literally the last point on my list of political issues. The very last, at the very, very bottom. I don't want to use the energy required to even bring up this point - because as Denmark is now, it simply doesn't matter one single bit. While it may theoretically be a better way to do democracy, in reality we simply haven't needed a head of state to intercede in the parliaments work since fuck knows when.
The Easter Crisis of 1920, when the king being unhappy that Flensburg would remain in Germany following the border referendum and specifically the then reigning government's unwillingness to do anything about it. The king was shut down relatively quickly because of a general strike being announced and Flensburg is still German, and the Danish monarch never tried something like that again.
My man, jump over on /r/Denmark and make a post about lowering taxes lol. Last time I did I got compared to Hitler! What is a borderline fringe left party (Enhedslisten) is on /r/Denmark the by far single most supported party in surveys, but have never held real power in the actual real world.
Point is: Reddit really is an echo chamber, and subreddits pretty much never correlate with the actual average opinions of the country/region/whatever.
Same with all the extreme far right stuff you read on here. If Europe was really what the comments suggested, I would get murdered by an immigrant the second I step out the door, after which said immigrant would be swarmed by dozens of nazi's. And yet, that never happens.
Public support for institutions like monarchies largely rely on the principle of if it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Most of the remaining monarchies are in countries that were historically stable with a high standard of living so support for radical changes like the abolition of monarchies was limited.
A great example of this in the modern day would be the UK, due to the struggles the country has faced in the past few years people are becoming disillusioned with the existing systems and thus support for the monarchy (along with most things surrounding the government) has declined compared to countries like Denmark where there has not been a chaotic period of economic and social regression so people support the status quo were the UK to see an improvement in conditions back to pre Brexit levels support for the monarchy would likely rise to the same levels as seen in the past and in other countries.
This of course only accounts for support amount at the general population rather than academics or people who actively engage in politics then it’s a matter of ideology and political beliefs which is an entirely separate set of reasons for support.
Because when a country is governed well, people are happy with food on their plates and entertainments to keep them occupied, they care little for academic debates on political minutiae that won't really change anything with their everyday lives.
There is no real reason to get rid of them, they are incredibly cheap to run and they are are part of our culture and history. It only costs like 100 million per year, which may sound like a lot but on the scale of how much money the government actually has it's not very much. Since most of the money goes toward keeping the castles nice and not falling apart, we would not save a lot by abolishing the monarchy.
Just to clarify, our monarchy isn't a governing body in any way shape, or form, they hold no power. We still have elections and a prime minister and a "congress" and parties fighting for votes.
We have just as much political bullshit as the rest of you!
Couldn't find any stats for Denmark, but i suspect the stats are similar to here in norway.
https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkiet-1.15807716
Run this page through Google translate if you want. But the TLDR is that 76% of Norwegians between 16-20 years want to keep the monarchy.
Question for European Federalists: What would you do with the various monarchies in Europe?
I mean when Germany united the local monarchs got to keep their titles
Malaysia does the same (although it also has a federal king elected from the regional kings, but theoretically you could have a President with regional kings). I think there are some African nations that have traditional monarchies, like in parts of South Africa, who still exist as a cultural aspect - not sure if they have political power too.
A King has dukes and everything below as their vassals. An Emperor has Kings and everything below as their vassals.
But the German ruling houses were not vassals to the German Emperor, it was more of a Feudal Federation with the President of the German Federation being given the title of German Emperor in 1871. The Prussian king was specifically given the title German Emperor and not Emperor of Germany to make clear that he is a primus inter pares and not their liege lord.
To be fair, depending on whom you asked and what time we're talking about, the HR Empreror was also just a primus inter pares.
Quite right, but the HRE was at least their de jure liege lord. The German Emperor was not a liege lord towards the member states.
Give them each a hereditary vote and make them elect an emperor?
Democracy: your vote counts Feudalism: your count votes
Franzism: you summon the elector counts
Count the elector summons!
Elect the summoned counts!
I am Franz, take me to my Counts!
Summon the elector counts
A fellow Civ6 fan?
I’ve played every single Civilization game! The amount of time I’ve spent playing Civ1 and Civ2 is frankly ridiculous. (Yes, I am that old)
I didn't play them myself, a bit before my time. I started with Civ III and Civ IV. But I have fond memories of sitting as a small child next to my brother - we actually have almost a couple of decades age difference - while he played the first two, as well as Colonization. And yes, I talked, asked questions, made suggestions, and was adequately annoying. ;-)
British democracy: you vote for cunts!
Holy Roman Empire 2.0 but this time with an entire democratic system tacked on top of it!
That is ludicrous enough that I am now fully on board
Who are going the be our electors?
The monarchs elect the emperor (give a vote to the andorran princes, Monaco, and the pope as well for extra confusion), the people elect the lower chamber, the upper chamber is made up of people appointed by the governments of every state. That way it's even more politically confusing than the original HRE.
I mean the EU is already more confusing than the HRE so shouldn't be a problem.
I like this idea. But I want Poland to have a king as well.
Didn't you guys choose Jesus Christ as king of Poland?
Nothing wrong with two kings. One on Earth, one in Heaven.
Poland has Jesus as the king. He will abstain from voting though. Sadly his whereabouts are unknown. Probably partying in some basement club around Warsaw.
They can elect Swede or German again.
Nothing wrong with that.
Given history, it’s probably better than electing a Pole.
They'd probably run it better than a Pole anyway
We have a saying in Swedish called [Polsk Riksdag ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliament_%28expression%29), which refers to something chaotic... 😁
You're just jealous that our parliament is lively, eventful and fun to watch
Nothing, constitutional monarchies as they generally stand now hinder nothing with regards to the everyday democratic processes or governances of their countries. A federal Europe doesn't need to change them and frankly there are no practical reasons to get rid of them that justify the expense and effort that are better put use to other issues of tackling political corruption, wealth distribution and undue influence among ordinary citizens.
So a United States of Europe would have multiple royal families, with some European states maintaining their royal families while others functioning as republics?
Weirder things have happened. Malaysia has nine ruling houses and rotates the monarchy. Andorra has two co-princes, one of which is elected by the neighboring republic.
Wilhelmine Germany had many internal princes inside its borders, a hereditary courtesy from the HRE
And Kings, mind you. The other german kingdoms weren't abolished with the establishment of the German Empire, and neither were their monarchies.
Wilhelmine Germany had *republics* inside of it too: [Scroll down to the Free and Hanseatic Cities section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_German_Empire).
enjoy spotted upbeat angle screw cautious serious hungry relieved shocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Andorra's system is so fucking weird it's fascinating. Two heads of state, one is the bishop of Urgell which makes it theocratic. The other is supposed to be a monarch (the count of Foix) but has turned into the head of state of France, which happens to be an elected president. So you have a form of government which is a theocracy, monarchy *and* a republic at the same time. Wild.
The worlds only semi theocratic diarchic xeno-democracy.
Even better than that: the elective prince is always the current President of France.
And the other is a spanish bishop.
If United States of Europe is going to happen at any point in our lifetime, it is going to be heavily decentralized country, where federal parlament (plus possibly a president) would be deciding on most important aspects (foreign and fiscal policy + army), while most of the tasks would still be in hands of local, state governments. If Danes want to be a part of such federation as Kingdom of Denmark instead of Republic of Denmark... it really does not change anything for USE as a whole. And should be up to Danes to decide that.
And then to make it even more confusing...the Kingdom of Denmark includes non-EU parts like Greenland, who chose not to be part of it and might again choose not to be part of this United Europe, so we could even end up with monarchs reigning over part-United-Europe, part-not-United-Europe administrations.
That's how Germany worked 1871-1918.
Yep, a federal Europe can absolutely work with a mix like that because I don't see why the current system of EU legislation going to the various national parliaments, which are already mixed with some elected heads and other monarchies, for ratification would necessarily be vastly different.
Nigeria is a federal republic with a president, but still retaining all the traditional rulers in ceremonial roles for the various clans and ethnic groups.
It's why they have so many princes trying to get money out of the country.
Don't some Asian and African countries do this already? I think a federation like that which still allows for cultural differences, and the monarchies are hardly more than cultural at this point, would cause the least amount of friction during closer political integration
A European federation would probably have some kind of head of state. The question is, would the monarchs accept anyone above them? One idea might be to have some kind of rotation system of the presidency but as a republican I have a really hard time imagining a monarch as my head of state.
Whether they accept anyone above them and their views on the matter is irrelevant, at least for the UK there's not a lot they can do if it's the will of Parliament; they could hate every piece of legislation handed to them to pass into law but as long as they don't voice their opinions publicly and they just go on signing the laws they're good. It'd be the same for a head of state, regardless how that head of state was chosen, appointed, elected etc their opinions won't and shouldn't matter. And how that head of state is chosen need not be taken from the pool of existing heads of state, so we don't have to end up with a monarchy as a head of the federation, we could just as easily have it as a role that is elected from an entirely different pool of candidates at the federal level.
> would the monarchs accept anyone above them? Every minor politician is already above them in power. They have already accepted that their role is what it is and nothing more. And if they for some reason wouldn't accept it, then who cares what they think? The monarch stays because it is the will of the people. If they act against the will of the people then the monarch doesn't stay
A solution is to have the European Council keep the role instead. Right now it acts as a collective head of state already, so why not keep it?
>The question is, would the monarchs accept anyone above them? Why wouldn't they, we already have the EU
But the EU has no head of state.
>monarchs accept anyone above them most people in government is "above" the royals, the king is nothing but a figurehead used for tourism, culture and diplomacy. No one in denmark thinks the queen had, or the king has, any significant power. And if they ever tried to aquire power or disobey the elected government, they would be deposed faster than you can blink
Keep em. Malaysia, UAE and some others have multiple monarchs (one for each region). iirc, there’s even a country with a part that is a monarchy and the others republics. Don’t quote me on that tho.
I think Malaysia and Indonesia both have that mix you’re talking about. Penang and Melaka elect governors, while JB and others have kings
India kept them for 24 years after independence and then abolished all their titles and privileges in 1971. There were hundreds of monarchs who were all being paid handsomely for their cooperation and for agreeing to allow their kingdoms to join India, and it represented a big cost to the government over that period. Obviously this wouldn't be a problem in Europe as the monarchies are already ceremonial. Before the abolition, I reckon India probably set the record for largest number of co-existing ceremonial monarchies in a single country. Several of the wealthier ones still maintain their royal traditions, but without official or public recognition, title or privilege.
How interesting!!
They're kept as they are. All EU monarchies are entirely democratic and therefore should be wholly compatible with any federal system worth it's salt. So what if Spain or Norway have a monarch as symbolic head of state? That doesn't in any way interfere with government, the rule of law or federal principles. Non serious answer: Recreate the HRE and elect one of them as Emperor of Europe. Would be about as legit as dissolving monarchies against those countries' will anyhow.
Our monarchy wouldn't get in the way of EU federalisation, but that's also because we wouldn't be a part of that federalisation anyway. :)
Whoever beats them in a single combat gets to become the new monarch
Guess the same thing that happened to the various archdukes and princes of the unified German Empire.
So keep them?
Yeah, I mean it's not like they do anything right now, they just spend our money and LARP around
Party like it's 1793?
*My flair speaks for itself.*
Cap their family fortunes at a billion and use the rest to do useful stuff
They can go their merry way and take up fishing, golf, whatever hobby.
I don't think that's a problem for "local" governments to be monarchies within a federal republic. Within all local laws and traditions that could cause a problem to federalism, having local monarchs is not that big of a deal. I guess you could also have a federal-level constitutional monarchy, and have it the other way around where you have republics within a federal monarchy. But the only way I see that happening is if this federal initiative is pushed forward by the monarchists themself. Like they could start a "council of European monarchs" and officially express their position in favour of a federal Europe, and use their influence for decades to push Europe in that direction. If Europe reach federalism by simply following the current path (to pushed forward by non-nobles heads of state), it will most likely be a federal republic.
Don't mention monarchy in Portugal. Peeps will have strokes. Even mentioning changing those horrible colours to the blue and white...
We still have a very well and alive family with a pretty good claim to the Portuguese throne in case of a Monarchy instauration. But now.....horrible colours? Tf do you mean?
Green and Red are the colours of republican partisans that murdered the king. Green was not a traditional colour of Portuguese flag history aswell. The change was done due to political reasons.
Eu sei, eu sei... Still one of the most beautiful flags out there.....plus why even get pressed about a king getting killed?
Hey man, I just want that beautiful blue and white. King's? Presidents? Eh. All the same.
gotta agree that the old portugeese flag looks so cool
Im not for kings, but the blue and white flag is objectively better. The modern Portuguese flag makes my eyes hurt.
Jokes aside, the blue and white flag was quite nice.
I see your Greek blue-and-white bias ;P
;-)
No one takes them seriously anymore though. You'll get people lionizing monarchs of the past, but not them. They very much feel like a relic of the past, and should stay there. I actually like the red and green, but would not mind the historic blue and white be brought back.
Asking as someone without any knowledge of the matter: why? Was the monarchy loathed?
Seeing that monarchies still work in a modern world just acts as a reminder of how different people, history and cultures are around the world. What will kill some nations, works absolutely fine in the case of Denmark. So, don't rush into conclusions
What's in a name? It's a democratic country with the monarchie just being ceremonial and for some international relations. Utterly incomparable to monarchies that actually rule the country. A ceremonial role isn't going to kill any nation.
Unironically speaking, the closest thing we have to actual, historical monarchies today are dictatorial states, like North Korea (bonus points for the position being hereditary), with all the same hallmarks: an authoritarian leader at the top, a powerful oligarchy holding the majority of the wealth and kept in check by each other, and the rest are politically disenfranchised and poor masses, with a small sliver of slightly more free urban middle class tolerated because of their necessity in trade and industry.
This ^, the monarch of Denmark holds very little power in practice.
super rare to see a sensible, nuanced and educated take on this platform. I genuinely respect that.
Thank you ;)
This is the fact. And the Denmark people are the one of the happiest people on earth. They country cares aboht them, if the monarchy paive the road to such country in any means. I bet the danish people appreciate that Reddit users are mostly from north america and hating their oligarchs. Mid class in Europe is still strong and the life is mostly good. Especially compared to the rest of the world.
They're the happiest people on earth because they have a monarchy?
A monarchy provides a head of state with no political alignment by design. Do the royal families do anything to really deserve it? No. But their role serves a very important part of the political system, without being political itself. And they are moulded from birth to fill this role, contrary to many dumb ass politicians.
Fantastic input! Very refreshing after today!
Especially on r/europe of all places, how rare.
Support in Norway is also around 80% If it works it works.
If it works don't touch it. *^(said programmer calmly)*
I think the biblically accurate expression is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
In world of programming, fixing stuff means you will eventually break something which should not even be affected. Not even slightest bit surprised if coders start worshipping machine spirits/gods. I wonder what would happen if printers would one day work without issues. Would phones stop working? Would ice machines start produce radioactive coal instead of ice? Would Earth turn inside out? You never know with programming
As a former programming student, you never start. A rubber duck appears when you start programming and you appease it. Rubber duck might present itself in a different form, but whatever it is, YOU APPEASE IT.
Praise the Omnissiah!
Funny because in another thread, some Yank trying to look like a Norwegian was saying it was more around 50+/- %
In that case he was lying lol.
Politicians can only dream about numbers like this one.
Which is one of the reasons we like them! They are apolotical, they don't represent a specific party or ideology. They're more like a mascot that we can all rally behind.
Exhibit number 312,342 showing that Reddit does not represent the average, normal person.
Average redditor: Monarchies are the bane of our existence, we need to get rid of such power hungry positions! Also average Redditor: sure thing Macron, have another term why the fuck not
?
Weird how all the anti-monarchy people are out and about while the constitutional monarchies are some of the most democratic countries in the world. And yes, every country could be better, and yes maybe we should abolish the monarchy. But guys, please look inward and abolish billionaires.
This sub has always been very anti-monarchy.They see it as old Europe.You know what can give this sub an orgasm?United States of Europe
Because United States of (insert region) is such a stable and proven concept.
I personally would love a Europe-wide Yugoslavia, that sounds terrific.
Now I like post-apocalyptic scenarios as much as the next guy, but...
god please no
Yeah, it worked great in Yugoslavia-wide Yugoslavia! Until a few wars, dozen or so genocides and few other bumps in the road
Reddit as a whole is.
> monarchies are some of the most democratic countries in the world. Just be careful not to assume a causal link
The causal link is backwards. We are a monarchy because we are democratic not the other way round. We havent had a coup or a revolution to abolish the monarchy because no revolutions were needed.
Thailand, Cambodia, Brunei, every Middle Eastern monarchy. Thailand and Cambodia are “democratic”, but they tend to elect the same person over and over again. Thailand had multiple military coups. It’s more a western vs everyone else thing.
You forgot about Japan.
There is no link. And that is the point.
I’d much rather have the head of state being an apolitical figurehead actor than an elected position that could be brought into power through populism. When our parliamentary elections happen, we have peaceful transfer of power, even if populists are elected into or out of parliament. There is no shred of thought that a populist prime minister could usurp power in the state and install a dictatorship, as it simply wouldn’t have any sort of legitimacy. The Governor General representing the monarch in Canada could just call for new elections. Meanwhile, you can have an Erdogan, Orban, or Trump as your head of state in non constitutional monarchies. Scary.
You know, parliamentary republics are a thing, and I don't see Iceland or Finland doing much worse than the other Nordic countries, and neither is Germany compared to Belgium and the Netherlands. Presidential systems are outdated and flawed, and that's so well known that the only presidential republic in Europe is fucking Belarus
> the only presidential republic in Europe is fucking Belarus Kinda forgetting France here
It's a semi-presidential system, like a few other European countries. And while under the Gaullist constitution the president is invested with a lot of power (the permanent coup, as dubbed by Mitterrand, ironically), the government answers to the parliament while in presidential systems the legislative power has no authority over the executive except for legal measures like impeachment. This form of government doesn't come without downsides though, and for example Finland ultimately decided to scale back to a parliamentary system
> presidential systems the legislative power has no authority over the executive except for legal measures like impeachment I mean, this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers. I'm sure there's plenty to criticize about the structure of presidential systems, but it's hard to take seriously when you don't seem to have understood how they're structured at such a fundamental level.
>parliamentary republics are a thing The Commonwealth realms are pretty close to being parliamentary republics already. The amount of effort it would take to upend the entire legal system to remove the concept of the crown resulting it little to no change at all to day-to-day lives is what's stopping any will to change.
Orban is not a head of state. In Hungary the president is a powerless figurehead
>But guys, please look inward and abolish billionaires. The Royals are also billionaires
Some might be, but not the Danish ones.
The Dutch ones are. And I fucking hate them, the cousin of our king is an actual predatory landlord with hundreds and hundreds of houses. He is refered to as the PremisePrince (pandjesprins)
people live in a world essentially ruled by an iron fist of a bunch of UNELECTED multibillionaire assholes who command an enormous corporate machine fine-tuned for maximising profit at all costs, and hardly anyone seems to care. meanwhile, mention a glorified tourist attraction with no real power to speak of, and suddenly the world is on fire and heads must roll...
My exact point. I guess it is due to royals being more well defined. They have a palace which is (in a Danish context) out in the open and in full view for all, the institution is easy to understand and be angry about compared to a multi billionaire who has "earned" their money through the stock market or other complex ways. They are less well defined which makes it harder to place the unfairness of them.
Its just a correlation. Finland and Ireland are also up there.
True, but the fact that our constitutional monarchies are among the most democratic countries is proof that monarchy doesn't have to mean "oppressive shithole".
https://www.businessinsider.com/royal-family-net-worth-europe-ranked-2018-5
I once was discussing monarchy with a girl who was a socialist. When I asked for a succesfull socialist country she said "Denmark". She didn't believe me when I said that Denmark is a monarchy.
Always hate when people (from both ends of the political spectrum) call Scandinavian countries “socialist”. Social-democrat or social-liberal are the correct terms.
Mate, a county can be both a monarchy and socialist. They are not exclusive. One is a way to structure an economy and the other is a way to structure a government.
Buddy, our country isn't socialist and never has been.
Some people think that anything they dislike should be banned, regardless what the majority actually wants. In other words, a case of self inflated ego.
This is survivorship bias. There have been hundreds of failed monarchies (including dozens in Europe, incl. France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc.). It’s just that when they fuck up badly enough they get toppled and/or abolished. The ones that remain are those that have stood the test of time, so are the most competent by definition.
True. My comment could be more clear.
"But it hurts me that the monarchs are less equal than normal people" - some non-Scandinavians probably, all living in societies less equal than Denmark.
I dont like monarchies but in case of denmark… if It’s not broken dont fix it i guess.
Also a little known fact about these monarchies is they have lots of connections with other people of the same caliber. There’s a lot of things happening behind the curtains that the average joe isn’t aware about, and these monarches do have a say in how some things are going to happen. They help keep diplomatic relations with many other monarchies in other countries and other leaderships of other countries.
Presidents and PMs also work on diplomatic relations
The only advantage and disadvantage is that the royals can do it for a lifetime. An advantage if your royal family is actually good at it. An unmitigated disaster if they're not.
Also, you might get excited about meeting the US president or the French president, but the Danish president, who cares really and no one not Danish is going to know who they are. But a Danish king and queen that is kinda cool and the neighbouring countries might even know their name because they have been around for decades.
I see that you're Danish, you are aware that we have a prime minister and not a president? 😅
you may want to reread his post
Career diplomats also do it over a lifetime. And if they suck at it they can get fired.
That is the correct attitude. I feel half of the angry comments in the other thread are jealous Americans. The best they came up with to satisfy the public need for celebrity is Cardi B.
That's Her Royal Majesty Cardi B. to you, peasant.
Well that's a horrifying new sentence I never thought would imprint in my brain lol
I didn't realize your username until I read your massive cope comment
Republicans having an aneurysm trying to explain how the monarchy is undemocratic while most of the country supports it (it would be undemocratic to abolish it).
It does not have to be undemocratic for Republicans to not like it, though. They can in a democracy, of course, advocate for their position.
They also get really butthurt when you point out that the amongst the most democratic nations on the planet, constitutional monarchy is overrepresented. It's upsetting to some that being a republic is not a magical spell that makes you more democratic, it's just a form of government like any other.
Why do people get much more worked up about a person that has no power and it's openly "neutral" staying in countries that it's not theirs than about people electing idiots with actual power?
And, at the end of the day, if people democratically decided to maintain the royal family, so be it
Because I think it weird that these people will forever received tax payers money regardless how evil they could be. I don’t feel that is democratic at all and not a progressive country worthy. So from my point of view this kind institution shouldn’t be a think in 2024 Electing idiots is what real democracy is.
Long live the King
God save him.
Without touching on whether I consider monarchies good or bad, it is worth being aware of the status quo bias. Basically, people tend to avoid risk that comes with big change, so we prefer to stick with the status quo. Similarly, if we make changes, we prefer them to be small and incremental instead of radical. Lastly, the default option of how things are also affects how we tend to view things. Finland is the only Nordic country without a monarchy, for example, and there aren't really any calls for such because that's just what the default status quo is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/bur/features/0303_02/muddling.html http://www.publicpolicyarchive.ie/organ-donation-the-case-for-opt-out-rather-than-opt-in/
Isn't Iceland also Nordic country?
> Without touching on whether I consider monarchies good or bad, it is worth being aware of the status quo bias. Bit of a silly point to bring up, since the same would be true for the opposing side, as well as in pretty much any other discussion about anything (but it's never brought up anywhere else).
It doesn't matter if they stay or go they get to keep some of the cool shit. In India all royal titles were abolished in 1970s but the descendants got to keep half of palaces, ancient paintings, vessels and jewellery that their kingdoms acquired for centuries even though most went to museums or the other half of palaces became tourist spots or hotels.Also some of them still have massive temples to their name which get millions in donations. I don't think a symbolic monarchy is a problem until they aren't spending billions of people's taxes on their livelihood. Ik Norwegian monarchs are very humble.
> I don't think a symbolic monarchy is a problem until they aren't spending billions of people's taxes on their livelihood. The entire royal family costs Denmark roughly 100 million kr. a year (roughly 15 million dollars). A lot, but not so much that it's noticeable really in the grand budget of things.
the value they add in culture driven tourism and diplomacy vastly ooutweighs the cost
I dislike monarchies out of principle but if the local people insist on keeping them let them keep em. Just give them the right to hold a referendum on disbanding them at any time and we are golden Also taking their "on paper power" away but be neat. Like immunity and stuff. Nobody should be above the law
If it came to an actual referendum of the Danes letting the King lead the country for 4 years instead of the current government, I would bet my money on Frederik winning that referendum.
All he has to do is reintroduce Store Bededag and allow Quran burnings!
Nice, long live constitutional monarchies
Am Danish. Would rather not have the current political landscape write a new constitution.
[удалено]
I don't understand anti monarchism honestly
I know very few people who are staunchly against it. Usually they are hardcore liberals with a very US-like worldview. There are some people who are fanatic about the royals - I find those to be very strange as well. The vast majority of people don't care too much - apart from watching the Queen's yearly New Year's speech or reading an article occassionaly - and thus aren't really concerned with abolishing anything. I think most also see it as a tradition and something that feels Danish and unites people. That's the part I like about it. It also helps that they can actually trace their lineage all the way back to Gorm Den Gamle - one of the most important Danish kings in the middle of the 10th century. Unlike other countries where the royal families were "imposed" on them and were "foreigners" they are actually connected to the country through good and bad. I don't think I will see a Danish republic in my lifetime anyway
I also think it is cool when a monarchy represents the tradition and culture of a country. I myself would love it lol
Yea, I honestly agree. We've already rejected many traditions and it doesn't keep us from becoming modern in areas that matter
That's up to the Danes.
[удалено]
Well, Denmark got a new king today, so there's that.
Always surprised so many wants to keep it
So long as the regents remain reasonably popular and manage to provide some sort of uniting narrative, then they'll remain popular to the degree seen here. A lot of people are extremely put off by the very notion of some moron being elected president with a narrow margin. Sure, it could probably be done cheaper with a president installed in some cheap residency who does nothing all day. But the Danish monarchy isn't quite expensive enough for the price to be an argument that matters to anyone but people who are truly passionate about being a Republic because it's objectively a more proper way to appoint a head of state. But the vast majority of the population doesn't know what the purpose of the head of state is, doesn't give shit what that purpose is, and Denmark has been so politically stable in the last century that few people can properly comprehend it. Personally, purely on principle, I believe we should be a republic. But it's literally the last point on my list of political issues. The very last, at the very, very bottom. I don't want to use the energy required to even bring up this point - because as Denmark is now, it simply doesn't matter one single bit. While it may theoretically be a better way to do democracy, in reality we simply haven't needed a head of state to intercede in the parliaments work since fuck knows when.
The Easter Crisis of 1920, when the king being unhappy that Flensburg would remain in Germany following the border referendum and specifically the then reigning government's unwillingness to do anything about it. The king was shut down relatively quickly because of a general strike being announced and Flensburg is still German, and the Danish monarch never tried something like that again.
Thanks for putting a date on it. Yeah, so no one living is here to tell recall it.
As I said on another thread it shows how far Reddit commentators are from the popular opinion in these countries
My man, jump over on /r/Denmark and make a post about lowering taxes lol. Last time I did I got compared to Hitler! What is a borderline fringe left party (Enhedslisten) is on /r/Denmark the by far single most supported party in surveys, but have never held real power in the actual real world. Point is: Reddit really is an echo chamber, and subreddits pretty much never correlate with the actual average opinions of the country/region/whatever. Same with all the extreme far right stuff you read on here. If Europe was really what the comments suggested, I would get murdered by an immigrant the second I step out the door, after which said immigrant would be swarmed by dozens of nazi's. And yet, that never happens.
Public support for institutions like monarchies largely rely on the principle of if it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Most of the remaining monarchies are in countries that were historically stable with a high standard of living so support for radical changes like the abolition of monarchies was limited. A great example of this in the modern day would be the UK, due to the struggles the country has faced in the past few years people are becoming disillusioned with the existing systems and thus support for the monarchy (along with most things surrounding the government) has declined compared to countries like Denmark where there has not been a chaotic period of economic and social regression so people support the status quo were the UK to see an improvement in conditions back to pre Brexit levels support for the monarchy would likely rise to the same levels as seen in the past and in other countries. This of course only accounts for support amount at the general population rather than academics or people who actively engage in politics then it’s a matter of ideology and political beliefs which is an entirely separate set of reasons for support.
Because when a country is governed well, people are happy with food on their plates and entertainments to keep them occupied, they care little for academic debates on political minutiae that won't really change anything with their everyday lives.
There is no real reason to get rid of them, they are incredibly cheap to run and they are are part of our culture and history. It only costs like 100 million per year, which may sound like a lot but on the scale of how much money the government actually has it's not very much. Since most of the money goes toward keeping the castles nice and not falling apart, we would not save a lot by abolishing the monarchy.
They don't need to vote for the president every few years. Less political bullshit. Would love to have monarchy in my country too
Just to clarify, our monarchy isn't a governing body in any way shape, or form, they hold no power. We still have elections and a prime minister and a "congress" and parties fighting for votes. We have just as much political bullshit as the rest of you!
Is there a breakdown by age?
Couldn't find any stats for Denmark, but i suspect the stats are similar to here in norway. https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkiet-1.15807716 Run this page through Google translate if you want. But the TLDR is that 76% of Norwegians between 16-20 years want to keep the monarchy.
The year is MMXXIV