https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkmdd4vevxo
A court in Thailand dissolved "Move Forward", the most popular party that won the most seats their last election. Move Forward's platform included reducing the power of lese majeste laws, which are laws against defaming the monarchies. The Thai court saw the party's platform as an attack on the monarchy and dissolved them. They also banned the party leader from politics for 10 years.
Thailand is not the only monarchy with such laws, European ones like Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Poland, among others, also have laws against insulting monarchs.
Some of these monarchs don't pay taxes, such as the King of the Netherlands:
https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-king-to-be-taxed-nearly-half-his-royal-salary/
There is currently legislation in the works to finally approve taxation of the King's income. But as of now, Royals in the Netherlands also don't have to pay taxes on inherited wealth. Queen Elizabeth didn't start paying taxes until the 1990's, almost 40 years after becoming Queen.
While I'm on Queen Liz: Joe Biden stepped down after concerns of his age from both his political opponents and fellow Democrats. Yet Queen Liz, when she was 91 years old, caused a Constitutional crises after Boris Johnson asked her to suspend Parliament in order to force a no-deal Brexit. The Queen granted Boris the suspension, which was later overturned by the UK Court.
The consequences of a no-deal Brexit could've been dire; just look at the fallout of Brexit *with* a deal. There is no reason why a 91 year old woman whose only qualification to hold power is her birth should have had such power.
In a society where the term "nepo-baby" is a pejorative, how do we allow nepo-babies to hold any power or sway over a government or nation in the is day and age?
I heard one argument that the monarchy can be used as check against a parliament. But you don't need to have that check be from a monarch; just set up another branch that can do the same thing, with elected officials.
Another argument, used for the UK, is tourism. Even then, Royals don't need to have power in order to attract tourists. The history, pomp and glamour of Monarchy is what attracts tourists, not their political duties.
So...is there a single valid reason to keep a monarchy apart from emotional attachment to the idea of a monarchy?
Republics have shown themselves to be potentially as bad or worse than Monarchies.
Oliver Cromwell's Protestant dictatorship was not better than monarchy. Charles II was better.
Robespierre's Terror was arguably not better than Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
The American Republic stole indigenous American "Indian" land and kept slaves when the British monarchy banned both.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/get-involved1/2015-banners-exhibition/maria-amidu/1807-abolition-of-the-slave-trade/
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763
Hutu Republicans were not better than Tutsi monarchists.
You suggested:
Vivify: just set up another branch that can do the same thing, with elected officials.
Has there ever been such a society?
@AThousandYoung saidPlato’s philosopher king ?
[youtube Oliver Cromwell bans fun]jBCxE8tUIWM[/youtube]
[youtube Hello My Name is Charles II]P2kyNbZc7oc[/youtube]
[youtube French Revolution song]pJpL0xSYSZU[/youtube]
Republics have shown themselves to be potentially as bad or worse than Monarchies.
Oliver Cromwell's Protestant dictatorship was not better than monarchy. Charles II was better.
Robespierr ...[text shortened]... h that can do the same thing, with elected officials.[/quote]
Has there ever been such a society?
@moonbus saidIf the government were perfectly benign it wouldn't matter what kind we had.
Yes, but a benign one.
@AThousandYoung saidIf humans were perfectly benign they wouldn’t need to be governed.
If the government were perfectly benign it wouldn't matter what kind we had.
I’m certainly not in favour of a royal family. Especially if they have any actual say in politics.
But, they do attract tourists. And they can be used effectively as top embassadors.
I’m not sure the republic version of a president is any better. They don’t really attract tourists and they’re generally political and, as such, less use in an embassadorical role.
When I was younger I was seriously anti-monarchy. Nowadays I’m more in the “don’t give a damn” camp. So long as they don’t wield any political power, except pomp.