Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

Should the UK get rid of the Monarchy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 41.6%

  • No

    Votes: 26 33.8%

  • Radioactive monkeys should rule all countries

    Votes: 19 24.7%
  • Total voters
    77
No, the ridiculous pretense is in the notion that their keeping their opinions to themselves constitutes a neutral or apolitical act.

They have a giant friggen golden hat studded with gems stolen from their colonies which they wear in official proceedings to represent their right to literally reign over people who happen to live around them. Nothing they do is apolitical.
 
Last edited:
^Yes, I was getting to that.

Since the British monarchy is, by definition, a one-man state, i.e. the man is the state, i.e. the polis, then the opinions of that man are, by definition, political.
To pretend that he has no opinions and/or that they are not political is simply a contradiction in terms.
 
Last edited:
Arwon said:
One of the absurdities of our monarchy - "King Charles III will not attend the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month, after reports he was advised not to by British Prime Minister Liz Truss."

Tough luck if any of the other 15 countries he's king of wanted him there supporting climate action, the British told everyone else's head of state not to. You reckon if the PM of the Solomon Islands or Granada asked him to attend on their behalf, he would?
Click to expand...
‘Hello everyone, my name is Charles Windsor, duke of Normandy!’ - how does that sound?
 
Takhisis said:
‘Hello everyone, my name is Charles Windsor, duke of Normandy!’ - how does that sound?
Click to expand...
Whats wrong with: "His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Solomon Islands and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."?

Having a monarch as a head of state is one thing, but I don't get having a head of state that can be ordered around by the government of a foreign country.
 
Kyriakos said:
Why would anyone put "King of Solomon Islands" first in his title, if he also is king of semi-first world entities? ^_^
Click to expand...

That seems to be his official title in the Solomon Islands. If he was serious about being head of state of Solomon Islands, that is the title he should use when being on official Solomon Island business.
 
uppi said:
That seems to be his official title in the Solomon Islands. If he was serious about being head of state of Solomon Islands, that is the title he should use when being on official Solomon Island business.
Click to expand...
But maybe the Solomon islanders themselves don't think more of their own territory than the glorious British Empire :mischief:
 
Last edited:
Well, both Downing Street and the Palace have denied the story that Truss ordered the King not to go, but given that so much of Prime Ministerial advice is better termed as "advice", it's not hard to imagine that's what she intended.
 
Could it be that specifically denying that he was ordered not to go is a typical Windsorish way to highlight that a) nobody orders the king to do anything and b) they ‘advised’ him not to go?
 
An example of Charlie's power in the news today:

King Charles allowed to vet proposed Scottish rent freeze law

King Charles has been allowed to vet and potentially lobby for changes to emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because the measures could affect tenants on his private Highland estate at Balmoral.​
​
A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week.​
​
The King’s involvement, under rules known in Scotland as crown consent, can be revealed after the rules at Holyrood were changed following a Guardian investigation into the monarch’s power to influence and amend the UK’s laws.​
​
The Guardian revealed last year that ministers in Edinburgh had allowed Queen Elizabeth to vet at least 67 pieces of legislation that affected her personal property and public powers under the arcane custom, inherited from Westminster. A Scottish government memo revealed it was “almost certain” draft laws had been secretly changed to secure the Queen’s approval.​
 
^Exactly. Step one: the king doesn't participate in the legislative process i.e. the king doesn't vote, so of coruse if a law has to affect him it is fair that he be given the chance to represent the entire estate of the realm that crosses the box titled ‘kings’.
Step two: the man happens to be one of the largest landowners in the country (let alone his immediate family) so, hey, he gets a right to object to a lot.
 
Takhisis said:
^Exactly. Step one: the king doesn't participate in the legislative process i.e. the king doesn't vote, so of coruse if a law has to affect him it is fair that he be given the chance to represent the entire estate of the realm that crosses the box titled ‘kings’.
Step two: the man happens to be one of the largest landowners in the country (let alone his immediate family) so, hey, he gets a right to object to a lot.
Click to expand...
If you don't have a monarch as head of state, and you want an elected head of state, your options are politicians or celebrities. If you have the head of state be the head of government, it will be a politician, if you want a non-political head of state, it has to be a monarch, or else a celebrity who wins a popularity contest vote.
A politician cannot be a non-political head of state, even if they have retired from politics.
Some random citizen couldn't gain the traction to become a head of state, since how would you decide who to vote for if they weren't political, and weren't previously famous?
So, if you want a head of state that isn't political, you will end up with a bunch of egotistical celebrities trying to win a popularity contest to become head of state.
A dignified monarch is a lot better than that.
 
Uncle Paul said:
If you don't have a monarch as head of state, and you want an elected head of state, your options are politicians or celebrities. If you have the head of state be the head of government, it will be a politician, if you want a non-political head of state, it has to be a monarch, or else a celebrity who wins a popularity contest vote.
A politician cannot be a non-political head of state, even if they have retired from politics.
Some random citizen couldn't gain the traction to become a head of state, since how would you decide who to vote for if they weren't political, and weren't previously famous?
So, if you want a head of state that isn't political, you will end up with a bunch of egotistical celebrities trying to win a popularity contest to become head of state.
A dignified monarch is a lot better than that.
Click to expand...
No guarantee you will get a dignified head of state.
We would probably be better off choosing your head of state by lottery then by letting an over-privileged inbred person with no experience of real life be head of state.
 
AmazonQueen said:
No guarantee you will get a dignified head of state.
We would probably be better off choosing your head of state by lottery then by letting an over-privileged inbred person with no experience of real life be head of state.
Click to expand...
1. Elizabeth II wasn't inbred. William V isn't inbred. George VII isn't inbred. Charles III is only mildly inbred, his parents shared ~2% of their DNA. Many people from endogamous groups (Afrikaners, Amish, Ashkenazi Jews, for example) have almost that amount of shared DNA with random other members of their group.
2. There's nothing wrong with people being privileged
3. Choosing a head of state with a lottery would be absurd, you'd get all sorts of unsuited people. The royals are trained for their role from childhood.
 
Uncle Paul said:
1. Elizabeth II wasn't inbred. William V isn't inbred. George VII isn't inbred. Charles III is only mildly inbred, his parents shared ~2% of their DNA. Many people from endogamous groups (Afrikaners, Amish, Ashkenazi Jews, for example) have almost that amount of shared DNA with random other members of their group.
2. There's nothing wrong with people being privileged
3. Choosing a head of state with a lottery would be absurd, you'd get all sorts of unsuited people. The royals are trained for their role from childhood.
Click to expand...
1. They're not that inbred isn't the most convincing argument.
2. There is something wrong with your head of state being from the most privileged family in the country.
3. There have been all sorts of members of our royal family who were unsuited to the role. They aren't really trained for anything.
 
I agree with that, AQ, but having almost all our Prime Ministers from the most privileged school in the country is just as wrong, if not more so, because they're supposedly elected from "the masses".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll
What aspects of computing tech should we further criminalise?
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
4K
Arwon
Arwon
Samson
  • Poll
How should we allocate the cost and benefit of medical technology?
Replies
2
Views
435
amadeus
amadeus
Samson
  • Poll
Monkeypox thread
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
7K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-66) Revision of the Celtic Pantheons
Replies
14
Views
2K
dostillevi
D
Top Bottom