Yeah that part of Belgium is too divided to do anything quickly.

The abdication of an emperor (almost never happens) and the ascension of a new one are (I assume) pretty huge rituals, because they happen so rarely.

I've seen a few very intricate and long rituals so far, so I'm interested how this one will be.

Yeah, for those that think that the monarchy is just a symbol, well not really, at least not on the Westminster system. The Crown had to step up and fix stuff many times on Commonwelth kingdoms like Canada, UK and Australia.

Of course some agree that it wasn't exactly the Queen acting, but some people on her behalf. However these people is still the Crown, they're not elected and act on behalf of the Queen.

So, while in republics deadlocks and stuff have to be fixed by a war between parties and complicated agreements, in a monarchy, the Crown can act and fix it.

The Crown can also guarantee that the gov will not stop by reasons like budget disagreement and the Crown can also protect the people against a tyrannical head of gov.

So, to sum up, the monarch don't act everyday, but he and his/her institution can act when it's necessary.

I'd have called it the Chazwazza!

Yeah the Crown is used to unite when there is too much disagreement, does it have power itself or is it a mere tool?

Because when the Crown refuses to sign important laws then its power can be taken away to be able to pass that law.

No head of state or gov has no reall power in itself and never had. Even in the middle ages, a king that crossed the line would be removed or attacked by the dukes and other peerage.

So, yeah, the Crown could be attacked by the gov if they refused to pass a law but at the same time the power to refuse to pass a law can be the last resource to protect a country against tyrany.

We don't think much about such things, because those countries are stable and unlikely to get in any huge constitutional problem, but it can happen. In a huge war or something like that, the parliament could cross the line and the Crown could be the last resource to protect the people. To remove the Crown, the gov could have to use force, but the armed forces as they're loyal to the Crown and not to the head of gov, could stay with the Crown and people could agree with that. This is possible.

The Crown has also the benefit of not being elected and not be part of any party. The head of state of the USA is republican while the head of state of NZ has no party affiliation, doesn't work with lobbyists and don't need to be re-elected. You can't buy the Queen, you can't buy the Crown, and that could matter in a state of rebellion, war or any other major crisis.

One example: King Rama IX was instrumental in fixing many crisis in Thailand, including avoiding civil war. No other political role would be able to do that.

Lol. In Russian Era Reiwa literally means 'The Era of Rave'. Whoop-whoop