Prince Harry: Fortnite should be banned

[Sauron]

21 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

Well last time I checked Fortnite or social media doesn't ruin your organs or get you in trouble.

Last I checked, Fortnite wasn't social media at all for that matter. It's like saying

Quote

Large SUVs are bad for the environment. We should really ban those damn trains.

 

Maybe our boy Harry should think before he speaks... but I guess being "royalty" can make one think he's smarter or more competent than he really is. Must be great to live in an environment where people are afraid to tell you you're an idiot.

 

Honestly I don't understand why we give any weight to what the UK royal family thinks - they have virtually no power anymore beyond their cash reserves and none of them are of any use to society. It's almost funny to think that they voted to leave the EU on account of the money they supposedly "wasted" on European institutions and yet don't care about what maintaining the royal family costs to the state while being an utterly dead weight.

18 hours ago, floofer said:

Not really, people have seemingly forgotten how bad it is for you to sit at a computer for hours - or a TV for that matter.

It's more that the idea has been debunked. Sitting for a long time in an improper position can lead to RSIs and other aches but that's not directly connected to watching a screen. You can get some eye RSIs but they're easy to avoid if you properly regulate brightness, set the fonts to a comfortable size and take small breaks every so often - even if you do get them they're pretty easy to treat; you don't risk any permanent damage.

 

So yeah, it's not actually inherently bad for your health to use a computer for hours on end.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Watching TV is basically the same thing as playing video games so it really doesn't make a difference at that point. Yeah I love sking and all but it is expensive and far away. It's not some thing that you can do all the time. Well you need to be 21 to go to a bar so I dont think that would work for alot of people that you are proposing this to. 

He's also ignoring the fact that a high number of people need to stare at a computer for hours every day just to do their job or for their studies.

7 minutes ago, Tilaron said:

Let's face it, he'll be leaving that up to the nanny.

He won't give a damn about Fortnite (or whatever game is popular by then) any more when his kids will be 12. Every parent at some point has to realize they can't control every breath their children take. If he says they can't play Fortnite they'll whine and beg and explain why it's not so bad; they'll bargain for a few hours of play per week, then an hour per day, then Harry will stop thinking it's literally the devil and let them play it if they want to - hopefully not to the point where it affects their lives for the worse, but that's not very common to begin with.

[Mihle]

56 minutes ago, floofer said:

Not really. It would take a good day at the beach with no sunblock for that. 

But authors of books don’t include screens that are bad for your eyes, loot boxes or addiction mechanism. 

Any amount UV light makes the risk of skin cancer higher, how much depends on on how much UV ofc. You could just use powerful sunblock tho and it gets much smaller.

 

There is nothing that proves that screens are permanently bad for your eyes yet.

Blue light makes it harder to fall asleep. (But then just turn it off a while before sleep and you are fine, if its a a problem for you, it's not for me) 

Eye strain can be a problem to some people, but if you have adjusted brightness and text size correctly it's not really a problem.

Books can also cause eye strain, for example very smal text or reading in darkness.

 

If you are in to books and find a book series you think is really good, it can really drag you in, in a way that makes you just want to read and read and read and not stop...

(At least untill the series/book is over)

[mxk]

the prince has a huge brain

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Watching TV is basically the same thing as playing video games so it really doesn't make a difference at that point. Yeah I love sking and all but it is expensive and far away. It's not some thing that you can do all the time. Well you need to be 21 to go to a bar so I dont think that would work for alot of people that you are proposing this to. 

Well look these are just examples. IDK what the world has come to when people think their only option is to watch TV or play games. 

 

Bottom line for my opinion is; Playing addictive games, like fortnite - which are engineered to be addictive, to make you play for hours on end, is not healthy at all. 

 

Not only is sitting at a computer for too long bad for you, but it’s the addictive nature. 

 

All those streamers who do this for a living are not good role models. 

 

Obviously you do you, do what you want with your life.

 

[Brooksie359]

42 minutes ago, floofer said:

Well look these are just examples. IDK what the world has come to when people think their only option is to watch TV or play games. 

 

Bottom line for my opinion is; Playing addictive games, like fortnite - which are engineered to be addictive, to make you play for hours on end, is not healthy at all. 

 

Not only is sitting at a computer for too long bad for you, but it’s the addictive nature. 

 

All those streamers who do this for a living are not good role models. 

 

Obviously you do you, do what you want with your life.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't other things to do your than video games and TV. I am just saying that most of the alternatives aren't much better especially when being outside isn't really a good option due to the weather. 

[Soppro]

I think everything he does in public is scripted to the absolute maximum, I can't even tell if this is his actual opinion on this topic or simply pushing the social agenda of the British royal family. At this point, they probably also think playing violent video games makes children more prone to adopting violent and aggressive behaviour. 

[CarlBar]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

It's almost funny to think that they voted to leave the EU on account of the money they supposedly "wasted" on European institutions and yet don't care about what maintaining the royal family costs to the state while being an utterly dead weight.

 

Know whats even funnier. The Sheer amount of blind ignorance that exists. Leaving aside the whole power question, (which is hugely complicated), you do realise that basically all of the major royal households would be classified as historic buildings where the royals not inhabiting them. Which means we the taxpayer would have to pay for their maintenance and upkeep instead of he royal family, (as is currently the case). I can't say where the balance of funding would fallout without doing a lot of research but it wouldn't fall as cleanly as so many seem to assume because the royal family themselves pay for a lot of things we'd have to pay for if they weren't around.

 

4 hours ago, Tilaron said:

I suppose banning bad parents is too much to ask for.

 

We do. But taking a child into care is itself a hugel disruptive process that can and does damage children's mental health enormously in many cases.

 

At the end of the day every single law that exists does so to regulate the behaviour of society in some way to limit or eliminate things which are so disruptive to society, (in health, cost or other means of measurement), that we cannot leave them to self regulate. Thats why alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, (of which tobacco is technically one), and any number of other things are subject to all kinds of laws.

 

Weather obsessive gaming and social media are that disruptive to society is of course a matter for debate. But what should never be up for debate is weather a sufficiently disruptive element should be subject to legislation. Otherwise we wouldn't have any laws at all.

[Sauron]

6 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Know whats even funnier. The Sheer amount of blind ignorance that exists. Leaving aside the whole power question, (which is hugely complicated), you do realise that basically all of the major royal households would be classified as historic buildings where the royals not inhabiting them. Which means we the taxpayer would have to pay for their maintenance and upkeep instead of he royal family, (as is currently the case). I can't say where the balance of funding would fallout without doing a lot of research but it wouldn't fall as cleanly as so many seem to assume because the royal family themselves pay for a lot of things we'd have to pay for if they weren't around.

You seem to be under the impression that the riches of the royal family don't come directly from taxpayers. They don't magically spawn money, I assure you. By "abolish the monarchy" I mean "take their titles and extreme wealth away" - I'm not asking to see them live in a street, but they definitely don't need or deserve 90% of what they own. Regardless, mere maintenance of such buildings is a lot cheaper than full staffing for the purposes of inhabiting them.

 

I usually don't like referring people to a video when I could present my argument myself but I'm not a brit and, quite frankly, I couldn't explain it any better than this:

 

[HomeBoi]

On 4/5/2019 at 2:11 AM, Techstorm970 said:

Any good game is addictive in one form or another.  Same goes for good books, even!!!  That's where the term "Getting lost in a good book" comes from!

 

Really, really short-sighted and old-fashioned on Prince Harry's part.

Well a book has a fucking end and not an eternal feedback loop that resets every 3 months so you can do it all again..

[Monkey Dust]

56 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You seem to be under the impression that the riches of the royal family don't come directly from taxpayers. They don't magically spawn money, I assure you. By "abolish the monarchy" I mean "take their titles and extreme wealth away" - I'm not asking to see them live in a street, but they definitely don't need or deserve 90% of what they own. Regardless, mere maintenance of such buildings is a lot cheaper than full staffing for the purposes of inhabiting them.

 

I usually don't like referring people to a video when I could present my argument myself but I'm not a brit and, quite frankly, I couldn't explain it any better than this:

 

The monarchy is part of the British brand, the brand that helps sell holidays, cars, fashion etc... and therefore helps keep British workers in jobs. They are not the whole British brand obviously, but they are a pretty big part of it, especially to the older consumer. They are apolitical ambassadors for the country too, very useful when there is a complete lack of anyone competent to vote for.

 

Personally the royals hold no interest for me. I'd rather catch up on my laundry than watch a royal wedding, and when the Queen dies my first thought will probably be 'do we get a day off work?'. But I do acknowledge they have their uses, and they really don't cost that much.

 

The born in to privilege thing, yes they are, but so are lots of other people. Power and wealth travels down the generations, look at the make up of many of the worlds parliaments. People born into wealth are over represented in elected office relative to the population they represent. And fun fact, capital now takes a larger share of GDP than labour, basically owning stuff pays better than working, further expanding the opportunity gap between those born rich and those born average to poor. Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't even put a dent in the issue.

 

And finally back on topic. Games with in game purchases that can be made over and over again, typically the free to play ones but not exclusively, are designed to keep you playing and spending money. Often small amounts because you are more likely to spend lots of small amounts without thinking than the same amount in one go. They utilize may of the same phycological tricks the gambling industry use to get and keep you hooked. I agree that they are potentially problematic in a way that paid for games without micro-transactions aren't, but it feels a bit soon to be pressing the big red moral panic button. Plenty of people have played too many games in their teens/twenties/thirties/forties and turned out ok. Admittedly if a higher than usual percentage of micro-transaction gamers grow up to be say, problem gamblers, then it might be appropriate to look at them more closely.    

 

     

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

The monarchy is part of the British brand, the brand that helps sell holidays, cars, fashion etc... and therefore helps keep British workers in jobs. They are not the whole British brand obviously, but they are a pretty big part of it, especially to the older consumer.

Suuure, 'cause beautiful buildings aren't attractive on their own... they are part of the brand because they're virtually unavoidable, not because anyone actually cares about them outside the UK. People don't come to England to see the royals, not that they actually get to see them most of the time anyway. There are plenty of countries that thrive on tourism, way more than the UK, without having any royalty or really anyone actually using the castles and palaces to live.

6 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

They are apolitical ambassadors for the country too, very useful when there is a complete lack of anyone competent to vote for.

Apolitical? Believing the royalty has no political interest is naive at best. Their mere existence is highly political, they are a force for the status quo and they're hardly of any use to the country at all - they certainly don't add any competence to the government, not that they have actual executive power on the policies that are ultimately enacted.

 

Seriously, what makes any of them more "competent" than the politicians? At the very least, the politicians were voted for by someone, whereas the royals are in that position out of the pure blind luck of being born or marrying into that family.

11 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Personally the royals hold no interest for me. I'd rather catch up on my laundry than watch a royal wedding, and when the Queen dies my first thought will probably be 'do we get a day off work?'. But I do acknowledge they have their uses, and they really don't cost that much.

 

The born in to privilege thing, yes they are, but so are lots of other people. Power and wealth travels down the generations, look at the make up of many of the worlds parliaments. People born into wealth are over represented in elected office relative to the population they represent. And fun fact, capital now takes a larger share of GDP than labour, basically owning stuff pays better than working, further expanding the opportunity gap between those born rich and those born average to poor. Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't even put a dent in the issue.

Please, watch the video I linked. It's not too long and it addresses all of these points. And while I agree that plenty of people are born rich and that's not ideal, at least their riches aren't provided by the government through taxes, nor are they required by law to be unfathomably rich - both of which apply to the royalty.

16 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

And finally back on topic. Games with in game purchases that can be made over and over again, typically the free to play ones but not exclusively, are designed to keep you playing and spending money. Often small amounts because you are more likely to spend lots of small amounts without thinking than the same amount in one go. They utilize may of the same phycological tricks the gambling industry use to get and keep you hooked.

Yes, free to play games are designed to incentivize you to spend money, but:

1. Fortnite is possibly one of the least offenders in this sense.
2. As far as I know, Fortnite has no loot boxes (at least in the popular mode), hence no luck element; this is NOT gambling, you're making a false comparison.
3. Anywhere cigarettes are legal, the addictive nature of stuff like Fortnite should be pretty low on the list of problems.

20 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

I agree that they are potentially problematic in a way that paid for games without micro-transactions aren't, but it feels a bit soon to be pressing the big red moral panic button. Plenty of people have played too many games in their teens/twenties/thirties/forties and turned out ok. Admittedly if a higher than usual percentage of micro-transaction gamers grow up to be say, problem gamblers, then it might be appropriate to look at them more closely.

Again, microtransactions aren't automatically gambling. Paid loot boxes are gambling, the direct purchase of skins is not.

 

Also, gambling regulations already exist - all it takes is to classify games that contain loot boxes under those same terms. There's no need to outright ban them.

[crystal6tak]

Epic: *Makes an incredible successful game

Prince Harry: Ban it.

Epic:

 

Mr Prince, there are much, MUCH bigger fish to fry. Be it gambling, smoking, alcohol, and drugs. Fortnite isn't tearing families apart, causing cancer, causing car accidents, or destroying lives.

 

Quote:  “more addictive than drugs and alcohol”. Oh please, friggin coffee is more addictive than a bunch of codes. Last I checked Fortnite doesn't cause withdrawal symptoms. (Even then, caffeine is arguably not an addictive.)

[Techstorm970]

7 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

Epic: *Makes an incredible successful game

Prince Harry: Ban it.

Epic:

<snip>

 

Mr Prince, there are much, MUCH bigger fish to fry. Be it gambling, smoking, alcohol, and drugs. Fortnite isn't tearing families apart, causing cancer, causing car accidents, or destroying lives.

 

Quote:  “more addictive than drugs and alcohol”. Oh please, friggin coffee is more addictive than a bunch of codes. Last I checked Fortnite doesn't cause withdrawal symptoms. (Even then, caffeine is arguably not an addictive.)

Caffeine isn't addictive by itself; you're correct there.  But it IS a drug that your body builds a tolerance to.  The more caffeine you take in on a regular basis, the fewer stimulants your body produces on its own.  Therefore, if, out of nowhere, you don't drink something caffeinated one day, you'll get a potentially bad headache because your brain is shocked by the sudden stimulant deficiency.  Something doesn't have to be addictive for there to be withdrawal symptoms.

[Techstorm970]

8 hours ago, HomeBoi said:

Well a book has a fucking end and not an eternal feedback loop that resets every 3 months so you can do it all again..

That alone doesn't keep you from quitting.  If it did, I would be addicted to Fortnite, and I'm not.  I've only played it, like, twice in the past month, for only an hour both times.

 

Which brings us back to what I said.  Good games are good because you want to play them.  Anything that you like enough to want can become an addiction if you aren't careful.

 

The bigger problem is (1) the microtransactions, and (2) the fact that underage kids are playing it.  Microtransactions create a sense of reward when you buy them.  Some games, like Clash of Clans, require microtransactions to progress in the game at a reasonable pace.  In Fortnite, buying skins and sh*t doesn't give you an advantage in the game; it just makes you look cool, I guess.  Fortnite microtransactions are addictive in the same way that gambling is, which is why it's a huge no-no.

 

Now, the age issue.  The mode, or most frequently occurring, age of a Fortnite player is 9 years old.  The game is rated 12+ by PEGI and T for Teen by ESRB...for a reason.  Very few individuals under 13 or 12 years old have much impulse control.  So, the gambling aspect of the microtransactions is a metric f**k-ton more effective on them.  The biggest issue with Fortnite is not the microtransactions or the gameplay or the updates.  It's the fact that some parents are dumb or lazy enough to ignore the ratings of the games they let their children play.

[mr moose]

@Sauron I believe the last study done on the royals indicated that they generated several billions more in revenue for the country.

 

http://brandfinance.com/images/upload/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf

 

Even if we ignored some of the more questionable contributions like to media,  They still presents a net profit to the countries that is easily close if not above $1B per year.  

 

 

Also there is the whole MAD and cultural side of the equation. 

 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

@Sauron I believe the last study done on the royals indicated that they generated several billions more in revenue for the country.

 

http://brandfinance.com/images/upload/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf

 

Even if we ignored some of the more questionable contributions like to media,  They still presents a net profit to the countries that is easily close if not above $1B per year.  

 

 

Also there is the whole MAD and cultural side of the equation. 

 

None of those would cease to exist of the royals themselves were stripped of their privileges. You could still market whatever you want using the coat of arms and really anything symbolic related to the monarchy - without maintaining the monarchs themselves. The tourism part, which is the highest "contribution" in that report by far, talks about monarchy related buildings, which again wouldn't up and vanish if the monarchy was abolished.

[Lathlaer]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

None of those would cease to exist of the royals themselves were stripped of their privileges. You could still market whatever you want using the coat of arms and really anything symbolic related to the monarchy - without maintaining the monarchs themselves. The tourism part, which is the highest "contribution" in that report by far, talks about monarchy related buildings, which again wouldn't up and vanish if the monarchy was abolished.

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the role of monarchy because you watched some video.

 

If you want to simplify then why not just focus on the fact that the British are very in favor of maintaining the monarchy and leave it at that?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

None of those would cease to exist of the royals themselves were stripped of their privileges. You could still market whatever you want using the coat of arms and really anything symbolic related to the monarchy - without maintaining the monarchs themselves. The tourism part, which is the highest "contribution" in that report by far, talks about monarchy related buildings, which again wouldn't up and vanish if the monarchy was abolished.

 

That's like saying if you write Disney land on a bit of paper and keep some footage of the rides people will still come to see it.

 

If there are no royals at the royal wedding and there are no royals in an empty castle then you are doing a history tour, not a celebrity tour.

 

 

 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the role of monarchy because you watched some video.

Not really, the video just sums it up very well. None of the arguments you posed in favor of the monarchy make any sense to me.

 

This is why I'm reluctant to posting videos to support my argument, people just assume that's the only reason I believe whatever I'm arguing.

7 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

If you want to simplify then why not just focus on the fact that the British are very in favor of maintaining the monarchy and leave it at that?

Why should I care? I'm in favor of abolishing it and I explained why, and I also noted how it's weird that brits like maintaining the monarchy so much when they complain about the contributions the EU asks of them.

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's like saying if you write Disney land on a bit of paper and keep some footage of the rides people will still come to see it.

No, it's like saying that if Disneyland was sold to a company that isn't Disney but got to keep exactly the same attractions and branding it would be just as successful.

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If there are no royals at the royal wedding and there are no royals in an empty castle then you are doing a history tour, not a celebrity tour.

As if you actually got to meet the royals or even see them from afar when you go see Buckingham Palace. Plenty of countries thrive, again, more than the UK on "history tours". Want to see the tourism numbers for Rome?

 

How often does a royal wedding even occur? Not nearly often enough for it to make a difference, I'm quite sure.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

No, it's like saying that if Disneyland was sold to a company that isn't Disney but got to keep exactly the same attractions and branding it would be just as successful.

So you think if you remove the royals and replace them with actors the amount of people who want to go and experience it will not change? 

 

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

As if you actually got to meet the royals or even see them from afar when you go see Buckingham Palace. Plenty of countries thrive, again, more than the UK on "history tours". Want to see the tourism numbers for Rome?

I don't care about the tourism number for Rome, we are talking about Brittan.  The facts are quite clear, they bring in a huge chunk of cash (easily more than they get in any for of payments from taxpayers) and they proviide something that no actor or other system can,  an internal MAD law of governance.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

How often does a royal wedding even occur? Not nearly often enough for it to make a difference, I'm quite sure.

 

I think you need to look up why they even have royal weddings (or any ceremony for that matter). I think you'll be shocked.

Spoiler

They are a recent thing designed to give the people a massive visual cultural experience and they generate shit tons of moneys both in local economies and in tourism.

 

[Lathlaer]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Not really, the video just sums it up very well. None of the arguments you posed in favor of the monarchy make any sense to me.

Haven't really posted any aside from the one you dissed below.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Why should I care? I'm in favor of abolishing it and I explained why, and I also noted how it's weird that brits like maintaining the monarchy so much when they complain about the contributions the EU asks of them.

Sense of tradition and national identity are important factors which you brush away because you are not British. Ofc. some British also feel that way but they are in minority.

 

The British complaining about EU had nothing to do with monarchy or being hypocritical but rather with being politically misinformed and unaware. To put it simply, they know exactly what the institution of monarchy gives them but they knew what EU gave only from what their leaders told them and unfortunately those who wanted out were the most vocal.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Lathlaer said:

Haven't really posted any aside from the one you dissed below.

I'm sorry, mistook you for someone else.

1 minute ago, Lathlaer said:

Sense of tradition and national identity are important factors which you brush away because you are not British. Ofc. some British also feel that way but they are in minority.

Maybe so, that won't stop me from thinking they're wrong... there are things in my country that I don't like even if they are supposedly part of our "identity".

3 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

They know exactly what the institution of monarchy gives them

I would disagree there - I believe it gives them nothing.

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you think if you remove the royals and replace them with actors the amount of people who want to go and experience it will not change?

That's not what I said. Why would you need anyone to live in the palace for it to be worth visiting? Nowhere in the world is that a problem.

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The facts are quite clear, they bring in a huge chunk of cash (easily more than they get in any for of payments from taxpayers)

I'm arguing that that money would come in with or without them.

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

and they provide something that no actor or other system can, an internal MAD law of governance.

I'm not sure what you mean

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think you need to look up why they even have royal weddings (or any ceremony for that matter). I think you'll be shocked.

Oh I'm quite aware, I'm just saying that I don't think they are worth having a monarchy by themselves - and as I said, I don't think there's any value the monarchy generates outside of this.

 

Besides, the whole thing makes no sense - these people are royal because they were born from royals and that's it. There's nothing that makes them inherently more worthy of a title, power or attention than a random guy you met on the street. Going back to the actor thing - I'm sure an actress would be just as good at being the queen as anyone, though as I said I don't think there's any need for it. In fact, just give her the official title of queen and she'd no longer be acting - her 'performance' would be indistinguishable from the real deal by definition. Hereditary titles are ridiculous and 90% of the western world realizes it. If we can't agree on that, I don't think there's any point in arguing this further; our ideological frameworks are simply too different.

[mr moose]

Just now, Sauron said:

I'm sorry, mistook you for someone else.

Maybe so, that won't stop me from thinking they're wrong... there are things in my country that I don't like even if they are supposedly part of our "identity".

I would disagree there - I believe it gives them nothing.

That's not what I said. Why would you need anyone to live in the palace for it to be worth visiting? Nowhere in the world is that a problem.

I'm arguing that that money would come in with or without them.

I'm not sure what you mean

Oh I'm quite aware, I'm just saying that I don't think they are worth having a monarchy by themselves - and as I said, I don't think there's any value the monarchy generates outside of this.

 

Besides, the whole thing makes no sense - these people are royal because they were born from royals and that's it. There's nothing that makes them inherently more worthy of a title, power or attention than a random guy you met on the street. Going back to the actor thing - I'm sure an actress would be just as good at being the queen as anyone, though as I said I don't think there's any need for it. In fact, just give her the official title of queen and she'd no longer be acting - her 'performance' would be indistinguishable from the real deal by definition. Hereditary titles are ridiculous and 90% of the western world realizes it. If we can't agree on that, I don't think there's any point in arguing this further; our ideological frameworks are simply too different.

 

So even though evidence exists that says they generate billions, you are still adamant that they aren't worth anything?  Totally ignoring the fact that majority of he UK actually want to maintain the Monarchy.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not sure what you mean

 

Mutually assured destruction, it's not just an arms race thing,  If the government try to do something outside of the democratically elected authority, the Monarch can dispose them avoiding a dictatorship, if the monarch try to dispose the government then the people revolt against the monarch, The government is elected by the people.   The system has evolved into a triad of do the right thing or you face the consequences.

 

I'll admit it's not a perfect system but nothing is.  I'll also point out that the system has worked, we have a representative of the queen (the GG) here in Australia who overseas our government which came to a loggerhead in the 70's, by authority of the monarch the GG stepped down the prime minister.  Resulting in democracy once again dictating the government do whats best for the people. 

 

I can't help but wonder how many US citizens would be in favor of a queen if they knew she could step down trump and force another election.

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Mutually assured destruction, it's not just an arms race thing,  If the government try to do something outside of the democratically elected authority, the Monarch can dispose them avoiding a dictatorship, if the monarch try to dispose the government then the people revolt against the monarch, The government is elected by the people. The system has evolved into a triad of do the right thing or you face the consequences.

You can have that even without a monarchy. The role of constitutional arbiter doesn't have to be hereditary or a life long title.

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

I can't help but wonder how many US citizens would be in favor of a queen if they knew she could step down trump and force another election.

I think the US president has too much power in general, but that's not something you solve by arbitrarily giving one family the power of forcing them to step down. Again, nothing about these people makes them inherently more fit for the job than anyone else.