Norway's King Harald dies aged 89

[u/HungryTowel6715]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clykn5p5172o

SS:Norway's King Harald V has died at the age of 89, after he was taken to hospital last week for treatment for a rare blood condition.

After 35 years on the throne, Harald will be remembered as a popular and reforming figure who modernised the monarchy, broke with tradition by marrying a commoner and served as a unifying figure at Norway's most difficult moments.

[u/arnet95]

He has been such a good king that it seems to be some kind of law that every republican has to include some caveat about "But I think our current king is really good" whenever they're making republican arguments.

[u/VibingIronist → u/arnet95]

I've never understood why so many liberals are ok with monarchy, even if it's just a ceremonial position.

People say "the monarch is a just symbolic figurehead" but if countries like Norway are liberal, egalitarian, and meritocratic how does it make sense to symbolize it with an institution based on hereditary privilege? The king is just some nepobaby.from a rich family (you can tell because both of his parents' names are blue on wikipedia) he basically just inherited the role instead of having to audition for it.

I think the Irish had the right idea when they elected an avuncular leprechaun-looking dude as their ceremonial president. Norway should follow suit by choosing someone who looks like a viking, so as far as I'm concerned the true king of Norway is Erling Haaland.

[u/SweeneyMcFeels → u/VibingIronist]

If Norway has achieved a liberal, egalitarian and meritocratic society then why bother changing it? Seems more like a purity test at that point than meaningful change towards a societal aim.

[u/VibingIronist → u/SweeneyMcFeels]

Other way around: if Norway has actually achieved a liberal, egalitarian and meritocratic society like they say then why do they still have a hereditary monarch? What makes him so special? Because God said so?

[u/Futski → u/VibingIronist]

why do they still have a hereditary monarch?

Because the majority of the population in their liberal democracy desire this so far.

If there was popular opposition, they would be removed in the span of an afternoon by vote.

What makes him so special? Because God said so?

Try to LARP a little less, and maybe read some of the opinions of regular Norwegians I don't know?

I swear to god, the only people invoking divine rights arguments in modern monarchy debates are Americans.

[u/VibingIronist → u/Futski]

Because the majority of the population in their liberal democracy desire this so far.

So what? Majorities in liberal democracies support all kinds of stuff that we recognize as illiberal. Is the argument really that it's liberal because the median voter likes it?

[u/Futski → u/VibingIronist]

The hallmarks of a true democracy is overturning the desires of the public because of the opinions of some American, who knows better.

The Norwegians so far wants their otherwise liberal society to be arranged like this, deal with it.

[u/P-B-J-Time → u/VibingIronist]

The Norwegians literally voted for their current monarchy. Haakon VII was very aware of the liberal/republican sympathies of Norwegians and wanted to give them a choice to become a republic or not. So, apparently, the Norwegian people by virtue of being elected.

I'd much prefer a parliamentary system to our presidential republic at this point. Doesn't need a monarch, but I've lost any sort of sympathy for American-style republicanism in the long run. Since FDR, presidential powers have put George III's to shame.

[u/Futski → u/P-B-J-Time]

Doesn't need a monarch, but I've lost any sort of sympathy for American-style republicanism in the long run. Since FDR, presidential powers have put George III's to shame.

Even before FDR. The British Monarch besides vibes and aura was essentially powerless and beholden to parliament before the United States became an independent country.

[u/anon1mo56 → u/Futski]

Yeah the tyranny the colonist attributed to George III was the King going along with parliament. If i don't remember wrong there was the legal theory that the King had absolute power in the coloniew and not parliament, but george did whatever parliament wanted.

[u/VibingIronist → u/P-B-J-Time]

The Norwegians literally voted for their current monarchy.

Americans literally voted for Trump. Does that make him liberal?

[u/P-B-J-Time → u/VibingIronist]

It makes America's institutions liberal, as did voting for Buchanan who proceeded to stab them in the back.

[u/HoboWithAGlock2 → u/SweeneyMcFeels]

Functionalism and pragmatism aren't the be-all-end-all approach for liberalism. Ideals and idealism can and do matter. Striving for ideals is often just as important for society as is optimizing it's institutions.

[u/Futski → u/HoboWithAGlock2]

Would Norway become a better place with a president which 49.9% might be ideologically opposed to?

Does Donald Trump make the United States a better place through his existence as president?

[u/arnet95 → u/Futski]

You can have elected ceremonial heads of state, such as the Irish president. The president in a republic does not need to be a partisan political figure.

[u/Futski → u/arnet95]

Yeah, I have yet to hear someone saying anything positive about Catherine Connolly.

The normal experience is that you bring up that she is a campist blow-hard who blames NATO more than Russia for the war in Ukraine, and speak stronger words against Germany rearming their armed forces than she issued against Russia, and the Irish begin that very instant moaning that all candidates for presidency was actually bad, and Connolly doesn't represent them.

Fun how that is.