The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
For definiteness, imagine Charles had the charisma of Diana and intelligence to match, and
that he was willing to lead on environmental causes
with the full powers of the monarchy. Such a king could carve out a real (ie non-ceremonial) role
in politics in a relatively short time, and a new concensus on the acceptability of (perhaps limited at first) political
interference by the monarchy. It would require no new laws to make that change, just shift the unwritten rules of conduct.
Would you agree, or does this sound too crazy?
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
They have a position of visibility, and if a monarch were to seize some power they could argue that it was not a formal change. Just like Bush argued that enemy combatants were not covered by conventions. But since all their lines of command would go through positions appointed by parliament or an executive appointed by parliament, chances are that they would quickly face a reaction.
Last time a swedish monarch tried anything was during world war one. Parliament quickly obstructed and teh king was forced to back down.
One might note that the risk/benefit analysis for a king to interfere is not very positive. On the risk side is abolishment of monarchy - thus of cushy very well-paid position - and going down in history as the one that failed. On the benefit side is getting real power, but unless the king actually has an agenda that might turn out to just be a lot of work.
Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
And, after all, its not like they have to reason this out from scratch ... this is social evolution at work. Those monarchies that survive are those that have learned the lesson that they get to survive as long as they stay above the fray.
I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 20 12 comments
by Oui - Oct 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 16 31 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 14 29 comments
by Oui - Oct 19 19 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 1 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 6 39 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1 3 comments
by Oui - Oct 2214 comments
by Oui - Oct 21
by Oui - Oct 211 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2012 comments
by Oui - Oct 1919 comments
by Oui - Oct 183 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1631 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1429 comments
by Oui - Oct 1322 comments
by Oui - Oct 1014 comments
by gmoke - Oct 9
by Oui - Oct 713 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 639 comments
by Oui - Oct 511 comments
by Oui - Oct 412 comments
by Oui - Oct 332 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 13 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 18 comments
by Oui - Oct 116 comments
by Oui - Sep 299 comments