Comment on What's the point of constitutional monarchies? Why even keep the monarchy in place if they aren't even doing anything?

lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  That’s less of a “monarchy” power, more of a “rich people can bribe politicians” power

  source

  • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Not wrong but they are rich because they are part of the monarchy and they are very rich. And the meeting between king and Prime Minister is a scheduled thing in the UK

    source
  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Influencing their subjects (especially other aristocrats) through their economic power was always important for monarchs, though. The medieval period had lots of weak kings who had substantial trouble bringing the aristocrats under them in line, a lot of the time they weren’t even able to collect taxes at the kingdom-level (in part because you kind of need a money-based economy for that, which was not a given).

    source
• rumschlumpel@feddit.org ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Which king?

  source

  • angelmountain@feddit.nl ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, koning der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg for instance does.

    source
  • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I was talking about the UK but pretty sure it exists in other countries in a similar fashion

    source
  • Jojowski@sopuli.xyz ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yes, of Angmar

    source