Note how in historiography being powerless is actually THE heaviest accusation historians can have towards a monarch. But it change when the current ruling class coming onto the scene and into power, then it’s suddenly became just a cute tradition.

One of the good things about being an American born and raised in Norway is that growing up, one day I’d be expected to celebrate a declaration overthrowing monarchical rule, and then the next day I’d be expected to celebrate a constitution entrenching monarchical rule — hell, even for a child, the contradiction on display there was readily apparent, right? So I’m proud to say that I’ve been a republican for as long as I can remember, although not always as actively and “intelligently” for lack of a better word, as I should’ve been… But I was a child, anyways.

Republicanism isn’t necessarily that fringe in modern Norway, however. In 2019 a whole 20% of Storting representatives were in favor of abolishing the monarchy, and I hope and expect that the number will only continue to grow.

Its precisely because the monarchies and their wealth were never fully destroyed in these countries.

These royals have a lot of power in their local economies because in a lot of cases they still own a shitton of estates and land (not to mention investments, connections and as you said institutions).

It is in the interest of the local bourgeois to at least support the continued existence of the royal family as that gives them potential access to these resources.

The royals also create a shitton of propaganda, so some people see them as a needed part of the countries culture or some historical artifact in need of maintaining. A “living monument” or something like that.

very important

that we keep these powerless

figureheads

The monarchy is institutionalized parasitism, it should have gone extinct when the middle ages ended.

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

~ attributed to Denis Diderot

Not only do most of these monarchs have actual institutional power, but they also typically derieve incredible wealth and income at taxpayer’s expense. But liberals love parasites, so this is not too surprising.

Even in the cases where they don’t have much legal clout the modern royal still gets a load of cutouts and are sitting on an assload of money, don’t they?

Nothing new for liberals… when their power is threatened by the working class of wage labor, from the 1848 revolution and around it, they critically support every reactionary force against them, in case they rise up…

The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself. More than three thousand insurgents were butchered after the victory, and fifteen thousand were deported without trial.

Remember especially, in monarchist countries like those in Europe, many capitalists that derived from the pre-capitalist landed aristocracy and aristocracy of finance in feudalism, besides the monarchy, still predominate…

Yeah the real power, their wealth and land was never taken from them. Iirc in the UK some bill that would’ve helped tenants in some way was quietly quashed brcause it wouldve affected the one of the royals feudal profits.

If you actually believe in a meritocracy how can you defend someone getting a job because of their lineage

Bourgeois ideology

-They don’t have any power.
-It’s important we keep them.

European here: it’s true.

Ffs, in Spain the king was virtually untouchable despite being a sex pest and incredibly corrupt. One of his lovers (17 and pregnant at the time) supposedly jumped off a balcony. He would also “request” meeting popular actresses and singers and could ruin the career of all of them or any journalist who dared say anything at all.

And those journalists who shut up are the same ones now talking about the dangers of the far right (or left!!!), populism or how the new king is definitely a good person (unlike his father, grandfather, sister and brother in law, nephews…).

Back in the day (or today with the new king) you had plenty of liberals all going: “yes, i’m a republican, but i’m also a JuanCarlist”, which translated means “i have to be a republican because i call myself left and i live in Spain, but now it’s not the time to push for a republic because i don’t have that many principles and i love cozying up to power”.

idk if they really did actually not have any legal/institutional/political power like most of they do i wouldnt really care any more than i care about any rich asshole and their family. Having ceremonial positions be hereditary is not crazy and if people wanna keep those traditions around i dont see the problem again as long as the very real powers that many of the still have today get taken away and it really was just ceremonial like that king in Bolivia for example. I think the real problem is that most people dont know how much power these people actually have.