re: #246 wheat-dogghazi-mailgate

There can be a problem when the monarch is either too stupid or feeble to be of any help. When he was of sound mind and body, the current king of Thailand was able to stop a civil war by calling in the leaders of two opposing parties and telling them under no circumstances would he allow such a thing, so they’d better mend their fences or be looking at imprisonment. Since Thais worship the Royal Family almost as gods, his intervention was useful. Now the old sucker is barely hanging onto life, and the military is using the public’s adoration of the king to the junta’s advantage, by saying they are acting with his approval.

The Crown Prince, from all reports, is a bubble-headed idiot, so it’s hard to say how he’d handle a similar situation.

Better to keep these royals around as decorations and national symbols than let them near the reins of power.

Besides, I believe Queen Elizabeth has her own special influence on the PM and MPs, short of actual intervention.

I think the problem of having a royal family in any state that has basically cut off their access to exercising power directly is that of its very heredity.
There’s really nothing that makes the spawn of a queen or king special and yet it would seem unfair to strip these rarified and brittle creatures of the very titles and privileges that make them powerful. What society is prepared to send such people to the breadline because their very existence demonstrates that our capitalistic system isn’t a meritocracy at the high end of town.
If we disinherit the crown prince because his wealth and power are both unearned, why shouldn’t we do something similar to the children of other very wealthy non-royal dynasties in order to be consistent?

I think the royal family exists because we haven’t been able to deal with the basic conundrum of inheritence.