The UK is already a Constitutional Monarchy who wield no Political Power that cannot be overturned by parliament. So that part of your argument doesn't add up. As they (the Monarchy) have no power then there is no need to have 2 sets of Monarchy
Yes, most of us know that Britain has a constitutional monarchy. Lucky Britain.
Frank Merton, on 30 January 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:
Well no one reads carefully but instead reads what they think. I did not say that a royal family would do the electing; I left that unstated but imagine it would either be a popular referendum or parliament.
I misread this as in the family members would be the ones voting for one of their own:
That's why the successor would be elected from within the members of the family[...]
Also why the fear of a constitutional monarch; I spelled out that any political power they had would be extremely limited.
Fear? It's more of a question why we do not only need a single person, but one (or in your idea two) whole families who are in need of lots of money for their pompous lifestyle who do not have any real power or function besides having some sort of "class".
The reason for two royal families is to serve as an additional check on them; they couldn't act unless both agreed.
I do not think this could even put into practice. You forgot the mindset of these people. Do you think one family would agree on two or three consecutive kings from the other family? No way.
There are many other ways this could be done, of course, and the monarch would not necessarily have to come from a specific family. Still, doing it one of these other ways loses a lot.
Then why call it king? In Germany we have a president who serves this very function: He cannot be the member of a political party, he appoints and dismisses the chancelor and his ministers, he can refuse signing a law and thus reactivate the legaslative process, and has primely the function of guiding and representing the country. He is also doing that for "only" 199.000 € contrasting the millions a royal family costs. Who needs kings and queens? They do not fit into modern politics and are a relict from the past. What useful work can they be put to that a person of common birth cannot?
I think having a king and queen works better psychologically, aesthetically, serves better as a symbol of the nation, is given more attention by foreigners (and they are more pleased with royal visits than with anything else) and brings in lots of tourists.
Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England
Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:09 PM
Hilander, on 29 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:
The problem with royalty is while one may be a wise and fair ruler the next in line may be a tyrant or a sociopath.
That never happens in a republic, does it?!?!
And it's worse in a republic because in a republic such a ruler has the politicial power, whereas Queen Beatrix and Queen Elizabeth II don't have political power. I'd rather have a sociopath becoming a constitutional monarch than becoming a president.
Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 30 January 2013 - 04:10 PM.