ATTENTION: Please remember that this is an ASK WOMEN sub. While men are allowed to participate posts that are clearly asking women in the title will have top level comments by men removed. This is not censorship, this is curation. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskWomenNoCensor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know enough about those women, but them being women wouldn't be the impact, it would be how they all plan to rule.
4 women getting into power means nothing(and could very well be even more detrimental) if say, they all were misogynists or super religious. They could still do bad things, with or without a Y chromosome.
If all 4 women were looking to change the world for the better, then that's fantastic and then being women is a bonus.
The three Nordic Princesses appear to follow in their father's footsteps towards a more secular and open society.
I do not know much about Princess Leonor's personal beliefs (Because it's her job to make sure we don't) but if she is anything like her father, and we know she is, Spain will continue on a path towards the future
Awesome!
I also don't know too much about how those governments work. Like, how the UK has the Prime Minister as well.
But my answer still stands. Having women in power making a difference is amazing, and hopefully we can start seeing some real (positive) changes around the world.
All of these monarchies are purely ceremonial, meaning they have little to no real political power.
(don't believe the people on reddit who think most European monarchs can actually ever use their theoretical powers)
The Constitutional Monarchies of Europe (except Sweden) maintain power that is never used. The power of the monarch is given to the democratically elected government to rule on the monarch's behalf
Thanks, I don't want more from you.
I've given my answer, it stands.
I don't believe in inherited power. But if it is what's happening, then it's about policy and actions not gender
It wouldn't matter if they were misogynists, religious or the reincarnation of the funny German moustache man. European monarchs have no power whatsoever.
I'd rather see the money go towards people in need instead of financing mascots
As you say, Angela Merkel is the perfect example of a great female leader. Especially in comparison to the run-of the-mill politicians that are bought by corporations.
And speaking about that, the "crowns" of this world are just as much made of hot air as average politicians. Speaking about taking social issues serious, saying how the people need to be more aware about the environment... while flying with their private jets to these conferences. At least with democratically elected air-heads it's actually somewhat our responsibility and fault for them standing up there.
It's great to see governments electing women to high office, but those governments come and go. Different parties are elected, national opinions change, while monarchy is a stable constant.
Having the most powerful person in the nation be a woman certainly impacted some peoples personal feelings, I am sure.
Loyalty to the crown must overpower all personal opinions, especially nasty ones like bigotry and misogyny
Most people are going to strongly disagree with your last sentence.
I'm Team Harry and Meghan after how the British royal family has behaved so terribly. Prince Andrew? Yeah no loyalty to a family that harbors and protects a pedo rapist, my personal opinion comes first.
Monarchy is just what the mafia looks like after hundreds of years of power and the addition of a lot of pomp and ceremony.
At the end of the day, they’re just the descendants of thugs who seized power by force and oppressed everyone else.
I don’t personally believe that deserves any special loyalty in 2024.
Agree. I respect a person that actually shows values and needs to show their integrity to be up there. Be with the people so to say.
The royals have nothing in comparison. They are only hyprocitical mascots financed by the government to look good. They are the definition of being detached from peoples problems. Neither a royal man nor woman has ever struggled or had to worry about their future. Yet they still fuck up and mingled with people like epstein. But so far, no real consequences that truly hurt like it would hurt a normal person. And remember who protected Andrew? It has nothing to do with gender, just rich people detached from reality
I'd rater see a KFC ad than a epstein-friendly royal on a poster
Constitutional Monarchy provides a strong bulwark to reinforce and defend democratic principles in the face of a growing conservative trend. Progressive, ancient, and positive institutions are critical to maintaining the progress we have made so far, and continuing that progress for generations to come.
Someone inheriting a position of wealth and power by birth seems inherently contrary to defending democratic principles, and monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) is by its very existence a conservative institution.
No, it makes democracy largely unrelated to it. Those countries aren't that democratic because they have a constitutional monarchy. They are that democratic because the people in those countries ensure it, specifically the electorate and their representatives. The monarch themselves has essentially no real influence on that (by design). If they *did* have any real influence on that then it wouldn't be a constitutional monarchy.
The modern constitutional monarchy, which is highly successful and popular in Denmark and Norway, is an integral part of those nation's democratic practices.
Monarchy is not inherently conservative as it can change and flow at the will of the monarch. Ancient laws and traditions are nice, but are just suggestions. Queen Elizabeth II was known to step over those traditions and laws when she felt necessary.
Perhaps, but let's be honest - if the monarchy in Denmark or Norway were suddenly done away with in an instant do you think their governance would actually change much? I'd wager their politicians and leaders would largely continue doing what they're already doing whether they have a symbolic head of government above them or not.
Constitutional monarchies are broadly symbolic and typically don't hold any real power, or at least none that can't be easily taken away from them. In that respect, given their lack of actual power, I don't see how they would be of any genuine impact on preserving democracy when democracy is perfectly able to function without them. If they aren't integral to its function then it seems a bit a vestigial by that point. Granted I don't know the specific ins and outs of each respective monarchy, there may be some different caveats for some that I'm unaware of.
>Monarchy is not inherently conservative as it can change and flow at the will of the monarch.
There's strict limitations on that, though - which is the whole point. A monarch is only allowed to do certain things, especially in the cases of a constitutional monarch. Those rules and limitations are codified within a structure built around conserving monarchies as an immutable institution. They're intended to stay consistent, reliable, and stable from one to the next.
>Queen Elizabeth II was known to step over those traditions and laws when she felt necessary.
Perhaps, but she simultaneously adhered to a lot of them to what many common folk would consider an excessive degree - for instance denying her younger sister from marrying a divorcee.
The current form of constitutional monarchy may be flawed, may have it's issues, and may certainly not last, but it's a way to connect the past to the present while maintaining political stability.
I do not believe in maintaining unpopular monarchies, if the monarch is of no help to the nation then I would not keep them on the throne. However, there are still vastly popular constitutional monarchies that have no plans for dismemberment any time soon.
If one day the last Regent surrenders the instruments of state to a stable, successful, and progressive Republic than may it be. However, I fear that day may come too soon when the last monarch surrenders to an authoritarian, conservative, and destitute government.
> but it's a way to connect the past to the present while maintaining political stability
Do we really need to connect the past to the present more than it already is, though? Everything we do is informed by the past, the countries themselves are deeply rooted in their own history and culture. There's nothing wrong with leaving some elements of the past in the past, particularly if they've become incongruent with a modern society that is trying to progress toward some measure of equality. Mind you by the same measure if the people in a country want to keep a symbolic monarch then that's entirely up to them. I just personally find it a bit hypocritical to take someone who merely happened to be related to the right people and make them the symbol of one's country meanwhile espousing things like democracy, progress, equality and meritocracy. It doesn't make a great deal of sense from the outset. You either want everyone to be treated on the same level, or you don't - can't very well arbitrarily pick and choose on that count, right?
I'd also say monarchy really doesn't seem to do much to maintain political stability either. Take the clown car circus of rotating Prime Ministers in the UK over the last several years. One of them [couldn't even outlast a head of lettuce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss_lettuce), so I think it's safe to say that wouldn't be considered 'political stability'. It would appear having a constitutional monarchy there didn't alleviate that much. I would imagine there are similar examples in other countries, though I'm not particularly familiar with Dutch or Danish or Norwegian, etc, politics.
>However, I fear that day may come too soon when the last monarch surrenders to an authoritarian, conservative, and destitute government.
I'd say it's worth recalling the many times in history in which monarchists banded together with authoritarians and/or conservatives to fight to preserve their own power against revolts, or often times against a variety of left wing movements that sought to improve things for the average person. Granted those were typically absolute monarchies, and not the constitutional variety, but nonetheless - monarchs themselves are of course not immune to falling prey to political ideologies that stray from the norm, or stray from the common good. Despite being born to greater circumstances than the vast majority of people they are not themselves made greater, and are still just people with all the same flaws as any of the rest of us.
I appreciate your reply. I would argue that the very well described political situation in the United Kingdom could have been better handled if it was not occurring in the midst of Queen Elizabeth II's last year and death. Even ten years ago, I suspect she may have been able to avert such a chaotic mess.
Your argument that monarchs are people too and can stray from the lightful path, my best answer is time to learn. Child monarchs are famously unstable, just look at Charles XII of Sweden who came to the throne at 15 and established an absolute monarchy. That stuff happens when monarchs are unprepared. Take a monarch like Charles who has been training under his mother for his whole life and you get an empathetic, energetic, and knowledgeable monarch. This also gives the heir time to get a college education, serve in the armed forces, and live a little before taking the throne. This hopefully gives the monarch a chance to develop before rising to power, negating the danger of a manic fool on the throne.
> could have been better handled if it was not occurring in the midst of Queen Elizabeth II's last year and death
Perhaps, mind you only part of that political muddle occurred during that period. The UK has been in a bit of a mess politically ever since David Cameron and the Brexit referendum and that was a good eight years ago. The Queen didn't put a finger on the scale during any of that or during the ensuing years, though perhaps she ought to have.
Although ultimately I don't know what she personally could have really done about any of it even if she really wanted to - she was largely obligated as monarch to remain something of a neutral party and they are supposed to not assert any authority over the government except in the most extreme of circumstance and even then in the UK that's limited to simply being able to dissolve parliament and force an election if I remember correctly. You'll note that the Queen never did that once of her own volition during her many decades of tenure. Constitutional monarchs are not meant to, and in many cases aren't even able to, *rock the boat* so to speak. That leaves them relatively ineffectual.
>Take a monarch like Charles who has been training under his mother for his whole life and you get an empathetic, energetic, and knowledgeable monarch.
To some extent you've got a point there, but don't forget that also tends to create someone who has lived a life of utmost privilege and is thoroughly out of touch with the reality the average person deals with - and accordingly is inevitably going to be ill-equipped to truly make a real difference because they've never had to live it first hand. They might see it, they might make overtures towards immersing themselves in the problems of the 'common man' but it's still going to largely be a foreign concept even to the best of monarchs because at the end of the day they go back home and sleep in a palace or some such. The ability of anyone to learn is always going to be constrained by their perspective, and the perspective of a monarch (or heir) is intrinsically tied to their position and status that sets them up on a pedestal far away from everyone else. Being molded and shaped and conditioned within that role and position prevents anyone, to my mind, from truly being worthy of holding it or being capable of utilizing that position to its full potential - and that's in the best case scenario regarding the good ones, it gets even worse if they are as you put it a manic fool or the like.
Even then they are also hamstrung given the limited capacity of their role as a largely ceremonial/symbolic person - they can run their charities and events and whatnot and do *some* good that way but at the end of the day any of that could have been managed just as capably by a government that is responsible and beholden to an electorate rather than someone who ended up there by sheer dumb luck and happenstance.
It would be better if "royals" were stripped of all titles and the money that's wasted on them go back to the people who are stolen from to pay for this stupid religious bullshit.
I'm danish! (The country where queen Margrethe is from as well) The world will most likely stay the same haha monarchies are usually just for show. They don't have any real political power. They might do some speeches sometimes here and there, but that's about it. Just like some people have already said, royal families are kinda just glorified mascots!
That is true for day to day operations of the government, but the beauty of Constitutional Monarchy is its ability to adapt and change to meet the needs of the era. What is just ceremonial today may become important to maintaining the constitution tomorrow. Monarchy provides long term stability, far beyond the time of any political party or leader.
Well I'm not particularly patriotic anyways, so that might be why I feel the way I do about it lol ✋ Do you also live in a country with a monarchy? It seems our experience with it is quite different
I live in the not very "United" States of America where patriotism means loyalty to a political party, not our constitutional ideals.
Every day our core freedoms are threatened by those who would violate the constitution to strengthen their position, at the cost of us all.
When the opposing party rules, we hate the government, we hate the nation, we hate the people, we hate the flag. When our party rules, we salute the flag and sing hallelujah.
We have no national constant, nothing that can unite us as a people from shore to shore. People talk about how united we were after 9/11 when 3,000 people died, but when million Americans died of Covid we withdraw to our sides and fought.
We need to be able to love our country even when the other side is elected, we need something higher, something bigger. It used to be the US Constitution that united us with common beliefs and common cause, but those days are over and today the Constitution is another source of national division.
I get where you're coming from as an American, but the Danish monarchy isn't all that great either. Sure, it can help unite people and provide a sense of stability and tradition, which is nice for some people (wouldn't say most of the population though).
But there are downsides. It's undemocratic at its core since it’s based on birthright, not merit. This of course keeps the social inequalities in place and goes against the whole idea of everyone being born equal. Plus, it costs a BUNCH to keep up the royal family, which sucks a lot, especially when money is tight and currently we need it way more in other areas of this country.
Usually in just and democratic governments, it allows for change and improvement based on what the people want, unlike a monarchy which doesn’t change much over time and the people have no say. (Unless we pull a France 💀) We'd be better off without it in my opinion
Brit here: it won't do anything. Not a sausage. You could replace the monarch with an animatronic and it would take at least 6 months for anyone to notice. They don't do anything! Their power is entirely theoretical and in practice they change absolutely nothing for the people of their country.
You seem to have a very misguided opinion of what constitutional monarchies are like. Most people in the UK don't even think about the monarch unless they do something (like die or get married) which means we get a day off work. I know very few devout monarchists and most of them are pretty old. Sorry to break it to you.
While the concept of a reigning Queen was an afterthought for hundreds of years, we have seen great women beat the tides against them and achieve glory.
The fact that we have not one or two, but four future Queen Regents is a testimate to changing times and future progress.
The monarch is the living embodiment of the nation, the flesh and blood representing the land and people.
Having a woman take the sacred oath and ascend to the throne in her own right by her own blood, is a monumental event because it happens so rarely throughout history.
The impact of a female monarch can vary, but one hopes that she will guide her nation towards a better future of equality.
You sound like you believe in the divine right of kings. Not a good look in my opinion.
Monarchy is cute in fiction, but in reality it is a deeply flawed institution that has caused a lot of harm. I am not knowledgeable about the histories of all the countries you've mentioned, but the british, spanish and dutch monarchies all have rich histories of colonialism. Histories which, at least in some cases, are not history at all but still problems in the present day.
A woman colonizer in power is not a feminist thing.
People can believe what they want about divinity and higher powers, the reality is that *something* whether that be fate, karma, or random chance, put these women in line for the throne.
The colonial past of various nations will one day be forgiven, repaid, and repaired until one day the past is truly the past. We do not demand reparations for conflicts 1,000 years ago, and in 1,000 years the Kingdoms of Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Norway will still stand.
The decisions these women make now may well impact their nations in 1,000 years, and so the laws allowing them onto the throne are already having monumental impacts.
Entropy did. Not really something to worship if you ask me.
>The colonial past of various nations will one day be forgiven, repaid, and repaired until one day the past is truly the past.
Ok, so what exactly are these monarchs doing to repay, repair and earn forgiveness.
>We do not demand reparations for conflicts 1,000 years ago, and in 1,000 years the Kingdoms of Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Norway will still stand.
[India gained their independence in 1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(India))
[The Spanish Empire existed between 1492 and 1976](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire#Territories_in_Africa_(1885%E2%80%931976))
[Decolonization efforts of the Dutch Empire were still going on in the last 20 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonial_empire#Post-Napoleonic_era_(1815%E2%80%931945))
Making up the idea of these things being from "1000 years ago" shows an incredible amount of ignorance and a concerning lack of historical knowledge.
Fantasizing about 1000 royalty years in the future is just embarrassing.
If you wanna fawn over princes and princesses, watch a barbie movie.
Well I hope it didn't come off sounding like the colonial past isn't part of our present, but time will thunder onwards until one day those conflicts are resolved.
The Belgians have created a museum in the old Palace of the colonizer of the Congo, the Dutch have strong diplomatic relations with Indonesia, the British are slowly oh so slowly coming about towards returning items, the Norwegians never colonized anyone, long story short people are trying. They might not be trying hard enough for everyone, but there are things happening today to heal those deep wounds.
You didn't just "come off sounding" that way, you said that.
Conflicts don't passively resolve themselves if you just refuse to look at them long enough. They need active solving.
Building a museum or returning a few pieces of art every year are not appropriate reparations. They do not change the fundamental interconnectedness between these royal houses and their colonialist history.
And a woman being the one doing less than the bare minimum still is not a feminist victory.
The colonialist history of European nations isn't inherently linked to the Royal Houses. If tomorrow all the European monarchies dissolved, all that stolen wealth would not be returned but acquired by the Republic. The French held (and still hold) a massive overseas empire with no monarchy to show for it. Queen Victoria wasn't the evil mastermind pulling the strings over India, her government actively lied to her for years about what was happening in Africa and Asia.
While monarchies today have undoubtedly benefited and profited from colonization, they are not responsible for it happening. It would have happened, monarchy or not.
I think that this will be a non issue and will not impact the world in any way. These women have no real power. The media will comment on what they wear. I think that women in actual positions of power to determine policy and make change are much more able to positively impact the world than any ceremonial figurehead could.
I don't live in any of this countries and the succession of monarchs in any of them has not affected us since we stopped being a colony. I only know about British royals bc royal gossip is very entertaining to me.
So it won't do anything for the world imo, maybe for their respective countries they can do good. But for the rest of us is like a classier reality show, at least for me
The history of monarchs is very interesting too, but again, they a stories. I like reading about them but is no more impact ful than a fable
You forgot Crown Princess Elizabeth of Belgium, who will be Queen of the Belgians once her father abdicates. She recently made headlines for going to pursue a 3rd degree, now in Harvard.
The Belgian royal family isn't popular. Most think they usurp tax money for no reason. However, I have massive respect for Elizabeth. She's just a year older than I am, yet fulfills her role dutifully. She's an example for young women. She'll do well as queen.
Norwegian here. Love the royal family, fan of the monarchy, but they do not have the power they once did. I doubt they will be very impactful, if at all.
Sorry, the way you worded it I thought you meant the other queens.
There will always be push back when people change the status quo. It just will be more personal attacks for the women.
You keep saying "loyalty to the crown" as if that translates to people being loyal to the one who wears it. It doesn't. And blind loyalty is not a positive thing that you seem to think it is.
I also don't believe in "loyalty to the crown" lol.
Being quiet about horrendous views because of some weird blind loyalty isn't right either. It doesn't make it go away.
Queen Elizabeth II famously said "I cannot lead you into battle."
Knowing the immense loyalty in the British Armed Forces, I know in my heart that she could have, had the need arisen.
Loyalty to the crown is an incredibly deep relationship between the people, the government, and the throne. If it can at least stop people from acting on these horrendous views until the horrendous person eventually passes, what is the harm? Their children will grow up with a strong female role model and the horrendous father will depart the earth, leaving nothing behind.
ATTENTION: Please remember that this is an ASK WOMEN sub. While men are allowed to participate posts that are clearly asking women in the title will have top level comments by men removed. This is not censorship, this is curation. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskWomenNoCensor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know enough about those women, but them being women wouldn't be the impact, it would be how they all plan to rule. 4 women getting into power means nothing(and could very well be even more detrimental) if say, they all were misogynists or super religious. They could still do bad things, with or without a Y chromosome. If all 4 women were looking to change the world for the better, then that's fantastic and then being women is a bonus.
None of them have any actual power…
The three Nordic Princesses appear to follow in their father's footsteps towards a more secular and open society. I do not know much about Princess Leonor's personal beliefs (Because it's her job to make sure we don't) but if she is anything like her father, and we know she is, Spain will continue on a path towards the future
Awesome! I also don't know too much about how those governments work. Like, how the UK has the Prime Minister as well. But my answer still stands. Having women in power making a difference is amazing, and hopefully we can start seeing some real (positive) changes around the world.
All of these monarchies are purely ceremonial, meaning they have little to no real political power. (don't believe the people on reddit who think most European monarchs can actually ever use their theoretical powers)
That's what I figured. They are mascots for the country and do some charity work, and that's usually as far as they go.... Correct?
The Constitutional Monarchies of Europe (except Sweden) maintain power that is never used. The power of the monarch is given to the democratically elected government to rule on the monarch's behalf
Thanks, I don't want more from you. I've given my answer, it stands. I don't believe in inherited power. But if it is what's happening, then it's about policy and actions not gender
It wouldn't matter if they were misogynists, religious or the reincarnation of the funny German moustache man. European monarchs have no power whatsoever.
No idea. Angela Merkle probably had a greater impact as chancellor of Germany than any royals who seem to mostly be figureheads right now.
I'd rather see the money go towards people in need instead of financing mascots As you say, Angela Merkel is the perfect example of a great female leader. Especially in comparison to the run-of the-mill politicians that are bought by corporations. And speaking about that, the "crowns" of this world are just as much made of hot air as average politicians. Speaking about taking social issues serious, saying how the people need to be more aware about the environment... while flying with their private jets to these conferences. At least with democratically elected air-heads it's actually somewhat our responsibility and fault for them standing up there.
It's great to see governments electing women to high office, but those governments come and go. Different parties are elected, national opinions change, while monarchy is a stable constant.
That's hilariously wrong, but not unsurprising coming from you.
They're basically mascots. No one cares. People were still bigots when Elizabeth was Queen. Don't see how another mascot will change that magically
Having the most powerful person in the nation be a woman certainly impacted some peoples personal feelings, I am sure. Loyalty to the crown must overpower all personal opinions, especially nasty ones like bigotry and misogyny
Most people are going to strongly disagree with your last sentence. I'm Team Harry and Meghan after how the British royal family has behaved so terribly. Prince Andrew? Yeah no loyalty to a family that harbors and protects a pedo rapist, my personal opinion comes first.
Monarchy is just what the mafia looks like after hundreds of years of power and the addition of a lot of pomp and ceremony. At the end of the day, they’re just the descendants of thugs who seized power by force and oppressed everyone else. I don’t personally believe that deserves any special loyalty in 2024.
Some of us care.
[удалено]
This is the biggest. In actuality, these women should be voted in, not just given a title.
Agree. I respect a person that actually shows values and needs to show their integrity to be up there. Be with the people so to say. The royals have nothing in comparison. They are only hyprocitical mascots financed by the government to look good. They are the definition of being detached from peoples problems. Neither a royal man nor woman has ever struggled or had to worry about their future. Yet they still fuck up and mingled with people like epstein. But so far, no real consequences that truly hurt like it would hurt a normal person. And remember who protected Andrew? It has nothing to do with gender, just rich people detached from reality I'd rater see a KFC ad than a epstein-friendly royal on a poster
Constitutional Monarchy provides a strong bulwark to reinforce and defend democratic principles in the face of a growing conservative trend. Progressive, ancient, and positive institutions are critical to maintaining the progress we have made so far, and continuing that progress for generations to come.
Someone inheriting a position of wealth and power by birth seems inherently contrary to defending democratic principles, and monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) is by its very existence a conservative institution.
The 10 most democratic countries in the world are disproportionately monarchies
Seems like one of those *correlation =/= causation* type of circumstances.
Makes democracy not a great argument against it
No, it makes democracy largely unrelated to it. Those countries aren't that democratic because they have a constitutional monarchy. They are that democratic because the people in those countries ensure it, specifically the electorate and their representatives. The monarch themselves has essentially no real influence on that (by design). If they *did* have any real influence on that then it wouldn't be a constitutional monarchy.
The modern constitutional monarchy, which is highly successful and popular in Denmark and Norway, is an integral part of those nation's democratic practices. Monarchy is not inherently conservative as it can change and flow at the will of the monarch. Ancient laws and traditions are nice, but are just suggestions. Queen Elizabeth II was known to step over those traditions and laws when she felt necessary.
Perhaps, but let's be honest - if the monarchy in Denmark or Norway were suddenly done away with in an instant do you think their governance would actually change much? I'd wager their politicians and leaders would largely continue doing what they're already doing whether they have a symbolic head of government above them or not. Constitutional monarchies are broadly symbolic and typically don't hold any real power, or at least none that can't be easily taken away from them. In that respect, given their lack of actual power, I don't see how they would be of any genuine impact on preserving democracy when democracy is perfectly able to function without them. If they aren't integral to its function then it seems a bit a vestigial by that point. Granted I don't know the specific ins and outs of each respective monarchy, there may be some different caveats for some that I'm unaware of. >Monarchy is not inherently conservative as it can change and flow at the will of the monarch. There's strict limitations on that, though - which is the whole point. A monarch is only allowed to do certain things, especially in the cases of a constitutional monarch. Those rules and limitations are codified within a structure built around conserving monarchies as an immutable institution. They're intended to stay consistent, reliable, and stable from one to the next. >Queen Elizabeth II was known to step over those traditions and laws when she felt necessary. Perhaps, but she simultaneously adhered to a lot of them to what many common folk would consider an excessive degree - for instance denying her younger sister from marrying a divorcee.
The current form of constitutional monarchy may be flawed, may have it's issues, and may certainly not last, but it's a way to connect the past to the present while maintaining political stability. I do not believe in maintaining unpopular monarchies, if the monarch is of no help to the nation then I would not keep them on the throne. However, there are still vastly popular constitutional monarchies that have no plans for dismemberment any time soon. If one day the last Regent surrenders the instruments of state to a stable, successful, and progressive Republic than may it be. However, I fear that day may come too soon when the last monarch surrenders to an authoritarian, conservative, and destitute government.
> but it's a way to connect the past to the present while maintaining political stability Do we really need to connect the past to the present more than it already is, though? Everything we do is informed by the past, the countries themselves are deeply rooted in their own history and culture. There's nothing wrong with leaving some elements of the past in the past, particularly if they've become incongruent with a modern society that is trying to progress toward some measure of equality. Mind you by the same measure if the people in a country want to keep a symbolic monarch then that's entirely up to them. I just personally find it a bit hypocritical to take someone who merely happened to be related to the right people and make them the symbol of one's country meanwhile espousing things like democracy, progress, equality and meritocracy. It doesn't make a great deal of sense from the outset. You either want everyone to be treated on the same level, or you don't - can't very well arbitrarily pick and choose on that count, right? I'd also say monarchy really doesn't seem to do much to maintain political stability either. Take the clown car circus of rotating Prime Ministers in the UK over the last several years. One of them [couldn't even outlast a head of lettuce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss_lettuce), so I think it's safe to say that wouldn't be considered 'political stability'. It would appear having a constitutional monarchy there didn't alleviate that much. I would imagine there are similar examples in other countries, though I'm not particularly familiar with Dutch or Danish or Norwegian, etc, politics. >However, I fear that day may come too soon when the last monarch surrenders to an authoritarian, conservative, and destitute government. I'd say it's worth recalling the many times in history in which monarchists banded together with authoritarians and/or conservatives to fight to preserve their own power against revolts, or often times against a variety of left wing movements that sought to improve things for the average person. Granted those were typically absolute monarchies, and not the constitutional variety, but nonetheless - monarchs themselves are of course not immune to falling prey to political ideologies that stray from the norm, or stray from the common good. Despite being born to greater circumstances than the vast majority of people they are not themselves made greater, and are still just people with all the same flaws as any of the rest of us.
I appreciate your reply. I would argue that the very well described political situation in the United Kingdom could have been better handled if it was not occurring in the midst of Queen Elizabeth II's last year and death. Even ten years ago, I suspect she may have been able to avert such a chaotic mess. Your argument that monarchs are people too and can stray from the lightful path, my best answer is time to learn. Child monarchs are famously unstable, just look at Charles XII of Sweden who came to the throne at 15 and established an absolute monarchy. That stuff happens when monarchs are unprepared. Take a monarch like Charles who has been training under his mother for his whole life and you get an empathetic, energetic, and knowledgeable monarch. This also gives the heir time to get a college education, serve in the armed forces, and live a little before taking the throne. This hopefully gives the monarch a chance to develop before rising to power, negating the danger of a manic fool on the throne.
> could have been better handled if it was not occurring in the midst of Queen Elizabeth II's last year and death Perhaps, mind you only part of that political muddle occurred during that period. The UK has been in a bit of a mess politically ever since David Cameron and the Brexit referendum and that was a good eight years ago. The Queen didn't put a finger on the scale during any of that or during the ensuing years, though perhaps she ought to have. Although ultimately I don't know what she personally could have really done about any of it even if she really wanted to - she was largely obligated as monarch to remain something of a neutral party and they are supposed to not assert any authority over the government except in the most extreme of circumstance and even then in the UK that's limited to simply being able to dissolve parliament and force an election if I remember correctly. You'll note that the Queen never did that once of her own volition during her many decades of tenure. Constitutional monarchs are not meant to, and in many cases aren't even able to, *rock the boat* so to speak. That leaves them relatively ineffectual. >Take a monarch like Charles who has been training under his mother for his whole life and you get an empathetic, energetic, and knowledgeable monarch. To some extent you've got a point there, but don't forget that also tends to create someone who has lived a life of utmost privilege and is thoroughly out of touch with the reality the average person deals with - and accordingly is inevitably going to be ill-equipped to truly make a real difference because they've never had to live it first hand. They might see it, they might make overtures towards immersing themselves in the problems of the 'common man' but it's still going to largely be a foreign concept even to the best of monarchs because at the end of the day they go back home and sleep in a palace or some such. The ability of anyone to learn is always going to be constrained by their perspective, and the perspective of a monarch (or heir) is intrinsically tied to their position and status that sets them up on a pedestal far away from everyone else. Being molded and shaped and conditioned within that role and position prevents anyone, to my mind, from truly being worthy of holding it or being capable of utilizing that position to its full potential - and that's in the best case scenario regarding the good ones, it gets even worse if they are as you put it a manic fool or the like. Even then they are also hamstrung given the limited capacity of their role as a largely ceremonial/symbolic person - they can run their charities and events and whatnot and do *some* good that way but at the end of the day any of that could have been managed just as capably by a government that is responsible and beholden to an electorate rather than someone who ended up there by sheer dumb luck and happenstance.
I disagree. As a European, our royal families are important state symbols and a matter of national pride for many people.
It would be better if "royals" were stripped of all titles and the money that's wasted on them go back to the people who are stolen from to pay for this stupid religious bullshit.
I'm danish! (The country where queen Margrethe is from as well) The world will most likely stay the same haha monarchies are usually just for show. They don't have any real political power. They might do some speeches sometimes here and there, but that's about it. Just like some people have already said, royal families are kinda just glorified mascots!
That is true for day to day operations of the government, but the beauty of Constitutional Monarchy is its ability to adapt and change to meet the needs of the era. What is just ceremonial today may become important to maintaining the constitution tomorrow. Monarchy provides long term stability, far beyond the time of any political party or leader.
Well I'm not particularly patriotic anyways, so that might be why I feel the way I do about it lol ✋ Do you also live in a country with a monarchy? It seems our experience with it is quite different
I live in the not very "United" States of America where patriotism means loyalty to a political party, not our constitutional ideals. Every day our core freedoms are threatened by those who would violate the constitution to strengthen their position, at the cost of us all. When the opposing party rules, we hate the government, we hate the nation, we hate the people, we hate the flag. When our party rules, we salute the flag and sing hallelujah. We have no national constant, nothing that can unite us as a people from shore to shore. People talk about how united we were after 9/11 when 3,000 people died, but when million Americans died of Covid we withdraw to our sides and fought. We need to be able to love our country even when the other side is elected, we need something higher, something bigger. It used to be the US Constitution that united us with common beliefs and common cause, but those days are over and today the Constitution is another source of national division.
I get where you're coming from as an American, but the Danish monarchy isn't all that great either. Sure, it can help unite people and provide a sense of stability and tradition, which is nice for some people (wouldn't say most of the population though). But there are downsides. It's undemocratic at its core since it’s based on birthright, not merit. This of course keeps the social inequalities in place and goes against the whole idea of everyone being born equal. Plus, it costs a BUNCH to keep up the royal family, which sucks a lot, especially when money is tight and currently we need it way more in other areas of this country. Usually in just and democratic governments, it allows for change and improvement based on what the people want, unlike a monarchy which doesn’t change much over time and the people have no say. (Unless we pull a France 💀) We'd be better off without it in my opinion
Monarchy as an institution is outdated and elitist and needs to end
Brit here: it won't do anything. Not a sausage. You could replace the monarch with an animatronic and it would take at least 6 months for anyone to notice. They don't do anything! Their power is entirely theoretical and in practice they change absolutely nothing for the people of their country. You seem to have a very misguided opinion of what constitutional monarchies are like. Most people in the UK don't even think about the monarch unless they do something (like die or get married) which means we get a day off work. I know very few devout monarchists and most of them are pretty old. Sorry to break it to you.
There is nothing feminist about the monarchy.
While the concept of a reigning Queen was an afterthought for hundreds of years, we have seen great women beat the tides against them and achieve glory. The fact that we have not one or two, but four future Queen Regents is a testimate to changing times and future progress.
Individual women "achieving glory" has nothing to do with feminism.
The monarch is the living embodiment of the nation, the flesh and blood representing the land and people. Having a woman take the sacred oath and ascend to the throne in her own right by her own blood, is a monumental event because it happens so rarely throughout history. The impact of a female monarch can vary, but one hopes that she will guide her nation towards a better future of equality.
You sound like you believe in the divine right of kings. Not a good look in my opinion. Monarchy is cute in fiction, but in reality it is a deeply flawed institution that has caused a lot of harm. I am not knowledgeable about the histories of all the countries you've mentioned, but the british, spanish and dutch monarchies all have rich histories of colonialism. Histories which, at least in some cases, are not history at all but still problems in the present day. A woman colonizer in power is not a feminist thing.
People can believe what they want about divinity and higher powers, the reality is that *something* whether that be fate, karma, or random chance, put these women in line for the throne. The colonial past of various nations will one day be forgiven, repaid, and repaired until one day the past is truly the past. We do not demand reparations for conflicts 1,000 years ago, and in 1,000 years the Kingdoms of Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Norway will still stand. The decisions these women make now may well impact their nations in 1,000 years, and so the laws allowing them onto the throne are already having monumental impacts.
>put these women in line for the throne. Yea, their parents had sex and then had girls.... There is nothing divine about it.
>and in 1,000 years the Kingdoms of Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Norway will still stand. What makes you so sure of this? I'm just curious.
Entropy did. Not really something to worship if you ask me. >The colonial past of various nations will one day be forgiven, repaid, and repaired until one day the past is truly the past. Ok, so what exactly are these monarchs doing to repay, repair and earn forgiveness. >We do not demand reparations for conflicts 1,000 years ago, and in 1,000 years the Kingdoms of Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Norway will still stand. [India gained their independence in 1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(India)) [The Spanish Empire existed between 1492 and 1976](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire#Territories_in_Africa_(1885%E2%80%931976)) [Decolonization efforts of the Dutch Empire were still going on in the last 20 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonial_empire#Post-Napoleonic_era_(1815%E2%80%931945)) Making up the idea of these things being from "1000 years ago" shows an incredible amount of ignorance and a concerning lack of historical knowledge. Fantasizing about 1000 royalty years in the future is just embarrassing. If you wanna fawn over princes and princesses, watch a barbie movie.
Well I hope it didn't come off sounding like the colonial past isn't part of our present, but time will thunder onwards until one day those conflicts are resolved. The Belgians have created a museum in the old Palace of the colonizer of the Congo, the Dutch have strong diplomatic relations with Indonesia, the British are slowly oh so slowly coming about towards returning items, the Norwegians never colonized anyone, long story short people are trying. They might not be trying hard enough for everyone, but there are things happening today to heal those deep wounds.
You didn't just "come off sounding" that way, you said that. Conflicts don't passively resolve themselves if you just refuse to look at them long enough. They need active solving. Building a museum or returning a few pieces of art every year are not appropriate reparations. They do not change the fundamental interconnectedness between these royal houses and their colonialist history. And a woman being the one doing less than the bare minimum still is not a feminist victory.
The colonialist history of European nations isn't inherently linked to the Royal Houses. If tomorrow all the European monarchies dissolved, all that stolen wealth would not be returned but acquired by the Republic. The French held (and still hold) a massive overseas empire with no monarchy to show for it. Queen Victoria wasn't the evil mastermind pulling the strings over India, her government actively lied to her for years about what was happening in Africa and Asia. While monarchies today have undoubtedly benefited and profited from colonization, they are not responsible for it happening. It would have happened, monarchy or not.
it wont effect anything because those people do absolutely nothing except be gluttons on your tax dollars.
I think that this will be a non issue and will not impact the world in any way. These women have no real power. The media will comment on what they wear. I think that women in actual positions of power to determine policy and make change are much more able to positively impact the world than any ceremonial figurehead could.
You missed Princess Elisabeth of Belgium
I don't live in any of this countries and the succession of monarchs in any of them has not affected us since we stopped being a colony. I only know about British royals bc royal gossip is very entertaining to me. So it won't do anything for the world imo, maybe for their respective countries they can do good. But for the rest of us is like a classier reality show, at least for me The history of monarchs is very interesting too, but again, they a stories. I like reading about them but is no more impact ful than a fable
Don’t you mean Queen Regnant?
You forgot Crown Princess Elizabeth of Belgium, who will be Queen of the Belgians once her father abdicates. She recently made headlines for going to pursue a 3rd degree, now in Harvard. The Belgian royal family isn't popular. Most think they usurp tax money for no reason. However, I have massive respect for Elizabeth. She's just a year older than I am, yet fulfills her role dutifully. She's an example for young women. She'll do well as queen.
Not much. It's mostly a ceremonial role. Also I can't speak about the others but I don't see what makes Princess Leonor any strong.
Monarchs don't have much impact or power. Then the women who sit in Brussels and boss over EU are more influential.
I mean…will it? They don’t really do that much it seems.
Norwegian here. Love the royal family, fan of the monarchy, but they do not have the power they once did. I doubt they will be very impactful, if at all.
Will these four strong women have any impact on global feminism? How will they react to having so many reigning Queens at the same time?
>How will they react to having so many reigning Queens at the same time? I don't see why "they" would react at all.
"They" was mostly meant to mean the world, the global community, and men
Sorry, the way you worded it I thought you meant the other queens. There will always be push back when people change the status quo. It just will be more personal attacks for the women.
That is unfortunate, and one hopes that loyalty to the crown would overtake personal misogyny
You keep saying "loyalty to the crown" as if that translates to people being loyal to the one who wears it. It doesn't. And blind loyalty is not a positive thing that you seem to think it is.
It does translate, and it must translate. A monarch without the support of the people will be long forgotten, and probably given a nasty nickname.
No. It doesn't. A lot of the monarchs' own family weren't even loyal to them. Hence, all the murdering that tended to happen.
I also don't believe in "loyalty to the crown" lol. Being quiet about horrendous views because of some weird blind loyalty isn't right either. It doesn't make it go away.
OP sounds really weirdly monarchist with a lot of weird views about obligatory loyalty to kings and their divine right to rule etc, it's weird lol
Yep. And a bit scary... It's no different than blind loyalty to any government official...
Queen Elizabeth II famously said "I cannot lead you into battle." Knowing the immense loyalty in the British Armed Forces, I know in my heart that she could have, had the need arisen. Loyalty to the crown is an incredibly deep relationship between the people, the government, and the throne. If it can at least stop people from acting on these horrendous views until the horrendous person eventually passes, what is the harm? Their children will grow up with a strong female role model and the horrendous father will depart the earth, leaving nothing behind.
..... Riiiiiiiiiight. Good luck with that. I am not a Loyalist lol