It's a quite interesting subject. Constitutional monarchy. When the Queen or King may be said to reign, but not to rule. Then why even bother with a monarch? To me it doesn't really make sense. It's such an expense. The monarch does not vote, because he or she is supposed to be natural. I mean, sure if the monarch had anything to actually do with society other than just be a popular symbol combined with big ceremonies.. I don't say it is wrong to keep old traditions, but why when they don't fill a function? Wouldn't it be better to focus on todays society as it is? And since we are said to be living in such a 'fair' and 'equal' society today, how come monarchy is something you are born to be? If that is so, that certain persons are born to be certain famous figures for an entire nation, then why doesn't the same rule apply to Prime Ministers?
The UK isn't alone. Along with the Britain there is Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Norway that are practising constitutional monarchy.
Humankind has developed so incredibly much the last century, and the entire society with it. Isn't it finally time for the monarchy to change with the society as well?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Monarchy is not rational or logical, but pragmatic. Sweden has had centuries of peace under a constitutional monarch, whereas nearby Russia has been tragic under absolutist rulers and form od republic. This is a conservative viewpoint of course - order before all else.
please update
Post a Comment