Question about monarchies and rebuplics.

[RevolverLynx]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

[freezion]

Not really.
Most Scandinavian countries has constitutional monarchy, but the king/queen don't really have any power.
Western countries with monarchy usually has a prime minister and a parliament that governs the country.

The royal family is mostly kept around for tourist appeal, diplomatic and cultural reason.

[ranzino]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

in the sense of being head of state: yes
for example they are the ones who signs bills into laws finally

but other than POTUS who is also head of government those monarchs do not have a say in politics. they may hold speeches and adress the public in times of strife and disaster, but otherwise their power is very limited.

[PC2]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

No. The defining feature of a republic or democracy is that it's based on the consent of the governed which allows people to remove a leader without violence. This changes the nature of leadership under the two systems.

[RevolverLynx]

in the sense of being head of state: yes
for example they are the ones who signs bills into laws finally

but other than POTUS who is also head of government those monarchs do not have a say in politics. they may hold speeches and adress the public in times of strife and disaster, but otherwise their power is very limited.

Yes as head of the state but with very limited power both represent the country mostly, and prime minister runs the parliament.

[Endus]

in the sense of being head of state: yes
for example they are the ones who signs bills into laws finally

but other than POTUS who is also head of government those monarchs do not have a say in politics. they may hold speeches and adress the public in times of strife and disaster, but otherwise their power is very limited.

The big difference is that, in most of these countries, "head of state" and "head of government" are two different roles. Combining them is the kind of thing that you see in true monarchies, or dictatorships.

Or the USA. Take from that what you will.

In countries where it's separated, "head of state" is a mostly ceremonial position with no real power. It's a symbol. Queen Elizabeth is a great example; she's a head of state, but not a head of any government. She has no real power to affect policy. She has some implicit power, but that's almost entirely due to the goodwill of the people towards her and popular respect for her as an individual, not so much her title itself; if she were to come out against a leader in the Commonwealth, it would be a huge negative, but not because she has any actual legislative power to effect change.

- - - Updated - - -

No. The defining feature of a republic or democracy is that it's based on the consent of the governed which allows people to remove a leader without violence. This changes the nature of leadership under the two systems.

Which is how those western monarchies work, as they're all democracies of one flavour or another.

The head of state does not govern, so your clause isn't even relevant, even it if were accurate. Which it's not.

[dextersmith]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

I think Queen Elizabeth still gets a dollar/citizen every year, can bestow knighthood, and can get away with a lot more than a president. I can't remember if she can execute people too.

[PC2]

Which is how those western monarchies work, as they're all democracies of one flavour or another.

The head of state does not govern, so your clause isn't even relevant, even it if were accurate. Which it's not.

No duh, in 2020 there aren't any significant Western monarchies. They mostly only exist symbolically, in name only.

[Endus]

No duh, in 2020 there aren't any significant Western monarchies. They mostly only exist symbolically, in name only.

Then you should have made your point about how Western "monarchies" are better described as "parliamentary democracies" or whatnot. Instead, you made up stuff about the definitions of "republic" and "democracy" that are fundamentally and deeply false, apparently solely to attack something that, in your own mind, is a fiction anyway.

[PC2]

Then you should have made your point about how Western "monarchies" are better described as "parliamentary democracies" or whatnot. Instead, you made up stuff about the definitions of "republic" and "democracy" that are fundamentally and deeply false, apparently solely to attack something that, in your own mind, is a fiction anyway.

Well I view "Western monarchies" as not really existing to any significant extent in 2020. This question is only meaningful when you compare the actual Western monarchies of the past to our modern republics. Which I already gave the key distinction between the 2 systems on post #4.

[Tuor]

Im living in a Republic, and the nearby country is a monarchy, from what ive seen the there aren't much differences, the one that effectively runs the country is the prime minister.

Sorrz for typos, writing this on this Linux and the keyboard inst properly set up.

[Elegiac]

Well I view "Western monarchies" as not really existing to any significant extent in 2020. This question is only meaningful when you compare the actual Western monarchies of the past to our modern republics. Which I already gave the key distinction between the 2 systems on post #4.

By this metric England hasn't been an "actual monarchy" since Charles I, so what the hell were y'all declaring independence from a century later?

[Endus]

Well I view "Western monarchies" as not really existing to any significant extent in 2020. This question is only meaningful when you compare the actual Western monarchies of the past to our modern republics. Which I already gave the key distinction between the 2 systems on post #4.

Like I said; you deliberately reframed the question without being open and honest about it, to attack an issue completely separate from that question. And in so doing, made up some stuff about how republics and democracies are defined, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Most obviously, you said they have to have the "consent of the governed". This is false. At best, they need the support (not the same as "consent", because they're generally not given another option) of a plurality (not the entire body, nor even a majority) of the electorate (which, basically everywhere, does not constitute all of "the governed". As an obvious example, children are governed by the law, but are not generally given any say in governance, nor are their parents deputized to do so on their behalf, even.)

The support of a plurality of that portion of the governed who make up the electorate.
Not really at all the same thing as "the consent of the governed".

Edit: It occurs to me that you or someone else might further shift goalposts to the concept of a popular rebellion against the government as the lack of "consent". But that's got fuck-all to do with republics and democracies; it's a baseline principle underlying all systems of government, and is heavily reliant on that government's ability and willingness to oppose that uprising with force.

[Daedius]

Er... not even close. One is elected, the other is passed down through lineage... monarchy are typically just figurehead nowadays where as presidents and PMs actually have a job to do.

[Elegiac]

Like I said; you deliberately reframed the question without being open and honest about it, to attack an issue completely separate from that question. And in so doing, made up some stuff about how republics and democracies are defined, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Most obviously, you said they have to have the "consent of the governed". This is false. At best, they need the support (not the same as "consent", because they're generally not given another option) of a plurality (not the entire body, nor even a majority) of the electorate (which, basically everywhere, does not constitute all of "the governed". As an obvious example, children are governed by the law, but are not generally given any say in governance, nor are their parents deputized to do so on their behalf, even.)

The support of a plurality of that portion of the governed who make up the electorate.
Not really at all the same thing as "the consent of the governed".

Edit: It occurs to me that you or someone else might further shift goalposts to the concept of a popular rebellion against the government as the lack of "consent". But that's got fuck-all to do with republics and democracies; it's a baseline principle underlying all systems of government, and is heavily reliant on that government's ability and willingness to oppose that uprising with force.

Americans really be out here thinking they invented the Mandate of Heaven, lol.

[Milchshake]

I'm still confused. When European countries were brutalising their African and Asian colonies.
Was it a Constitutional thing? Or a monarchy thing?

It's weird if Leopold II was just a figurehead back in Belgium. But parliament let him treat the Congo as his personal torture playground.

[Forogil]

So are the kings/queens of western monarchies same as presidents of the republic countries nowadays?

It depends.

How is president Emmanuel Macron, the president of the Republic of France different from the Co-Prince Emmanuel Macron, of the Principality of Andorra?

[ranzino]

It depends.

How is president Emmanuel Macron, the president of the Republic of France different from the Co-Prince Emmanuel Macron, of the Principality of Andorra?

Co-Prince Emmanuel doesnt interfere in dealings of Andorra AFAIK; even less than the other Co-Prince, the bishop of the region who influences religious life.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

As aforementioned, outside of countries that have a presidential political system (eg. US, France), many states have their head of state and head of government separated, with the former often barely more relevant than a constitutional monarch, and usually more obscure.

For example, have you ever heard of the president of Germany?

So on a functional point of view, there is no need to change, while the need for stability, and essential component of socio-economical prosperity, heavily disincentivize the idea of change (particularly in the case of countries that are barely holding together). Add in the added soft-power provided by monarchs.

But do note that in the case of microstates, their Monarch, the Prince of Liechtenstein and the Prince of Monaco, do retain significant power in their Constitutional Monarchy settings, while the Pope is the absolute monarch of Vatican.

[Muzjhath]

As aforementioned, outside of countries that have a presidential political system (eg. US, France), many states have their head of state and head of government separated, with the former often barely more relevant than a constitutional monarch, and usually more obscure.

For example, have you ever heard of the president of Germany?

So on a functional point of view, there is no need to change, while the need for stability, and essential component of socio-economical prosperity, heavily disincentivize the idea of change (particularly in the case of countries that are barely holding together). Add in the added soft-power provided by monarchs.

But do note that in the case of microstates, their Monarch, the Prince of Liechtenstein and the Prince of Monaco, do retain significant power in their Constitutional Monarchy settings, while the Pope is the absolute monarch of Vatican.

In Sweden we've gone so far that our head of government is ranked below our head of legislature in the "head of state rankings".
Monarch #1, the figurehead. He opens the Riksdag (parliament) every year but can't exactly choose not to open it, and he chairs an important comittee (The Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs) but has no vote (I believe, not even a tiebreak) The comittee in question dealing with informing parliament of forgein policy and details from government. The comittee is the organ that can in the event of war declare that The War Delegation takes over for Parliament. Which consists of the speaker of the riksdag and 50 MPs.
The Delegation or the Government can jointly or separetly declare that Parliament is back in charge. (Should be taken asap).

So our Head of State is very much a figure head. He cuts ribbons, represents Sweden at sports so our head of government can actaully work.

But, the point. We put our head of legislature above our head of government in importance. And it's the legislature that appoints the PM.