The British Monarchy

Winston Hughes · Apr 24, 2010

Parliament is remarkably unpopular right now, and none of the reasons for that can be attributed to the Monarchical element of our constitution (which, as mentioned several times already, is extremely popular).

The idea that we should concentrate any effort on replacing the part that actually works is quite bizarre, given the scale of the problem with other, unrelated parts of the constitution.

That the arguments in favour of scrapping the monarchy are based, as usual, in airy political abstractions rather than any real, practical concerns shows exactly why there is such limited public support for abolition: it's only that small section of the populace who obsess over such abstractions who have any interest in it at all.

Of course, if we were starting afresh, constructing a totally new constitution with a blank canvass to write upon, then it's more than likely we'd avoid having any hereditary element. But we are not in that situation, and tinkering with the parts of an existing constitution that do their jobs properly, whilst there are other parts which desperately need attention, would be pure folly.

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

lovett said:
Except we aren't expected to pay homage to the Queen and we don't exist to facilitate her rule. She exists because she is useful to us. Quite simply her position could not be filled by an elected official. Such a person could not carry out her duties. In a constitutional monarchy, hereditary inheritance is of moral parity with sortition. It is simply the best way in which one can choose someone to fulfill a particualr function.

This, I think, is where we differ; you seem to propose democracy is a pragmatically motivated system, I as an ideologically motivate one. You feel that allowing the public to support an hereditary aristocrat, enshrine her as ceremonial President-for-Life and obliging us to kowtow and call her "your majesty" is worth the benefit which it lends us; I adhere to the belief that no benefits as yet offered are worth the compromise of our principals. You argue that the monarch is a route to fulfilling such principals, I contest that such principals deny that route by their very nature. In many ways, I think, we may be arguing somewhat at cross-points...

Sortition has no element of 'deserving' in it and we could form the same arguments about a personage chosen in such way: that they're elevated by arbitrary criteria. This time chance, rather then blood. Yet is sortition contrary to our 'democratic principles'? In certain circumstances probably; it would be questionable to determine the composition of the legislature via sortition. But in other circumstances, juries being the most obvious, sortition is perfectly compatible with democracy. Similarly hereditary inheritance is perfectly compatible with democracy, where it is useful.

Framing hereditary monarchy as sortition is, I feel, disingenuous; that system is one by which citizens, equal with each and before the law, are selected at random to perform a civic duty. There is no preference of bloodline, no assertion of superiority. Monarchy is one in which an individual invokes right of birth to assert themselves as the personal incarnation of a sovereign state, the fount of justice, honour and legitimacy, assert dominion over all "subjects" and place themselves above and beyond the rule of law. They are hardly the same thing.

Sure, monarchy is unegalitarian. But the entire concept of meritocracy is unegalitarian, Liberalism is unegalitarian. Yet these are things don't stand in direct opposition to 'the democratic principle'. That because our democracy requires equality only of a very particular kind; the ability to broadly determine who wields political power. By definition a constitutional monarch does not wield political power. They do not stand contrary to this egalitarian principle because they operate in a different space.

You read "egalitarian" in a sense which I had not intended; I meant to suggest that it subverts our otherwise universal conviction of equality-of-opportunity. Of course, that is regularly and routinely subverted by our social and economic system, but nowhere else in British life is so deeply carved into stone, or so appalling a precedent does it set for injustice. That the monarch is effectively powerless is neither here nor there; it is a matter, as I have said, of principal.

On the subject of which, I find it interesting you bring up America and its lack of monarchy. America, I assume, you would rate as democratic. Yet its entire political system runs contrary to 'political and social equality, and democracy in all public matters'. The upper house of it's legislature grants massively disproportionate power to a resident of Wyoming compared to one of California; A senator for the former requires but 200,000 votes whilst one for the latter ten million. The country is run according a document hundreds of years old the amendment process of which requires enormous political support. This is hardly strict 'power to the people'. In turn a bunch of unelected judges have the power to enforce sweeping societal change with little reference to public opinion (E.g Roe V. Wade) and they themselves are appointed by a head of state who has been elected through a firmly disproportional system (the electoral college). There is vast and official inequality in how much political power an American citizens have; yet America is still a democracy. How can this be?

My point was that Americans view themselves as democratic, and hold that their republican nature is an important factor of that; whether or not they fully adhere to democratic principals is not exactly relevant. Democracy was traditionally and necessarily anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic and pro-republican, as so many revolutions demonstrated. That it was later compromised in much of Europe is not a comment on the malleability of democratic principal, but on our lack of it.

I would contend that democracy and 'democratic principles' are far looser terms then you would have them be. They do not bear strict definition and do not fall into a firmly bounded framework. Democracies bear family resemblance to eachother and the assertion that monarchy is in direct opposition to democracy is not credible.

Perhaps I exaggerate to suggest that they are incompatible, or that they are necessarily opposed; however, I feel that it is a plain truth that any combination involves a compromise for both parties. Can we believe that the monarch may compromise their traditional authority in respect to democracy, but that we do not? The burden lies heavily on the monarchical side, granted, but the comprise is necessarily bilateral. The monarch would not lend de facto sovereignty to a democratic parliament if parliament did not make it's own concessions to the monarchy.

spryllino · Apr 24, 2010

Traitorfish said:
Frankly, that's an argument against monarchy, rather than for it; if our nation relies so heavily on the Crown to perpetuate itself, then I would suggest that it is a dangerous and malign habit which we are best rid of. Any monarchy which is so ceremonial as to be acceptable in the modern era must be as disposable as, say, the position of Poet Laureate.
Anyway, I think you exaggerate things. The Crown fulfils little more than the role of a rubber stamp, nothing necessary; indeed, the very fact that we choose to sustain this farce demands it. We have, at least, that much loyalty to democratic principal.
Now, I can see that it would be a fuss going around tip-exxing out "the Crown" and writing in "the People" on all the forms, but it's not exactly impossible, is it?

In which case, what do you do, I repeat, with the diplomatic and ceremonial functions of the queen? Someone has to get them. I find an entirely ceremonial elected president to be obnoxious, as I have said and say below.

Did I mention Ireland? I'm pretty sure I mentioned Ireland. Smallish place, across the sea a bit? Have a thing about green? Remember?

She's a partisan, nominated by Fianna Fail. The parallel in Britain would be Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. I find that very objectionable that an openly partisan figure should be head of the whole state.

Discrimination need not be written in to law to be existent. I mean, let's be honest here, will a royal with a shot of succession ever marry, ever be permitted to marry anyone other than a high-ranking Christian aristocrat? Technicalities certainly to not free the monarchical tradition from it's extremely discriminatory nature.
If the a senior civil servant was found to be denying employment to Afro-Britons, Catholics or Jews, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so. That this "employment" takes the form of marriage, and that the civil servant has a crown really shouldn't change this.

A royal could very well marry anyone and hold it up to the people as an indication of their non-racism. On the other hand, if the system prevents the royal, it's hardly the royal's fault; they don't deserve to be got rid of for that.

Beauty does not demand legal enshrinement. Certainly, the British monarchy, perhaps the ugly and most hateful tradition that our nation is able to boast, does not!

Why not have beauty in law and politics? Any beauty in royalty demands the backing of the state just as any beauty in carol services demands the backing of the Church and any beauty in paintings needs the backing of galleries.

Their numbers are irrelevant. My point was that monarchy, much like religion, is something best kept to the private individual. They are free in their private beliefs, but to inflict them upon the nation at large is simply unacceptable.

What private beliefs? What do monarchists believe about the queen apart from that she is the queen? To let her sit there doing no real harm is not passive liberalism: the parallel in religion would be to destroy churches.

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
In which case, what do you do, I repeat, with the diplomatic and ceremonial functions of the queen? Someone has to get them. I find an entirely ceremonial elected president to be obnoxious, as I have said and say below.

She's a partisan, nominated by Fianna Fail. The parallel in Britain would be Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. I find that very objectionable that an openly partisan figure should be head of the whole state.

That's an argument against partisan politics, not against a democratically elected head of state. The choice, however it may seem, is not necessarily as stark as "partisan tool" and "hereditary aristocrat".
And, frankly, I would prefer a partisan tool to a monarch. No matter how obnoxious I may find them or their political views, there is some comfort in the knowledge that they hold their position because I, among others, allow them to, rather than because they, as my natural and legal superior, have asserted that they shall. A president is accountable and removable; a monarch is not.

A royal could very well marry anyone and hold it up to the people as an indication of their non-racism. On the other hand, if the system prevents the royal, it's hardly the royal's fault; they don't deserve to be got rid of for that.

It wasn't a comment on race, per se, merely a more obviously stark example of how separate this class of people really are from society at large, and questionable it is to validate them as such. In a nation where a family of rich old-money Anglos are held by law to be the natural superiors of the rest of the population, it becomes hard not to infer a broader social hierarchy from this. Certainly, "All men are created equal, except for the Windsors, of course, who are just plain better than we are" doesn't have the right ring to it.

Why not have beauty in law and politics? Any beauty in royalty demands the backing of the state just as any beauty in carol services demands the backing of the Church and any beauty in paintings needs the backing of galleries.

Well, aside from the fact that, as I mentioned, monarchy is an ugly, hateful business that is best buried so deep it couldn't claw it's way back up in a thousand years, I find your analogy unconvincing. Artistic endeavour hardly compares to the establishment of hereditary monarchy, in any sense that I can think of.

What private beliefs? What do monarchists believe about the queen apart from that she is the queen? To let her sit there doing no real harm is not passive liberalism: the parallel in religion would be to destroy churches.

I do not pay for churches, nor I am expected to bow for them, to swear allegiance to them, or to accept them as the source of all justice, honour and political legitimacy. If she wants to assert herself as monarch, so be it, I don't care if we have our own Emperor Norton. It's when something like that is enshrined in the law of a nation that I take issue.

Shekwan · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
She's a partisan, nominated by Fianna Fail. The parallel in Britain would be Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. I find that very objectionable that an openly partisan figure should be head of the whole state.

You've talking out of your ass here I'm afraid.

There is no parralel in Britain. She is head of the defense forces, but her main job is to protect the constitution. To do this she has the power to refer bills to the Supreme Court to question their constitutionality. She is partisan I suppose, being a formerFianna Fail member, but she is officially an independent now. But the President is by no means nominated by the main government party. They are popularly elected.

spryllino · Apr 24, 2010

Traitorfish said:
That's an argument against partisan politics, not against a democratically elected head of state. The choice, however it may seem, is not necessarily as stark as "partisan tool" and "hereditary aristocrat".
And, frankly, I would prefer a partisan tool to a monarch. No matter how obnoxious I may find them or their political views, there is some comfort in the knowledge that they hold their position because I, among others, allow them to, rather than because they, as my natural and legal superior, have asserted that they shall. A president is accountable and removable; a monarch is not.

The queen is better, in my opinion, because no-one elects her, but no-one has any reason to hate her either (much as they may hate the concept of her position).

It wasn't a comment on race, per se, merely a more obviously stark example of how separate this class of people really are from society at large, and questionable it is to validate them as such. In a nation where a family of rich old-money Anglos are held by law to be the natural superiors of the rest of the population, it becomes hard not to infer a broader social hierarchy from this. Certainly, "All men are created equal, except for the Windsors, of course, who are just plain better than we
are" doesn't have the right ring to it.

Well, getting rid of natural supremacy as a legal concept wouldn't be a bad idea, but the queen is not defined by supposed superiority. Nobody thinks she possesses it. Having something buried in the law that everyone ignores doesn't harm anyone. Getting rid of the concept that the queen is superior doesn't mean getting rid of the queen.

Well, aside from the fact that, as I mentioned, monarchy is an ugly, hateful business that is best buried so deep it couldn't claw it's way back up in a thousand years, I find your analogy unconvincing. Artistic endeavour hardly compares to the establishment of hereditary monarchy, in any sense that I can think of.

If you see no beauty in otherwise meaningless and pointless constitutional oddities, then it doesn't really compare, no.

I do not pay for churches, nor I am expected to bow for them, to swear allegiance to them, or to accept them as the source of all justice, honour and political legitimacy. If she wants to assert herself as monarch, so be it, I don't care if we have our own Emperor Norton. It's when something like that is enshrined in the law of a nation that I take issue.

You gain economically through the queen, and nobody's compelling you to do any of the things you mentioned. Have you sworn allegiance to the queen? Only immigrants, politicians and soldiers do that. If you have, that doesn't really have any practical consequences anyway. You don't bow to her unless you decide to visit her. You very clearly don't accept her as the source of all justice, honour or political legitimancy either.

Shekwan said:
You've talking out of your ass here I'm afraid.

There is no parralel in Britain. She is head of the defense forces, but her main job is to protect the constitution. To do this she has the power to refer bills to the Supreme Court to question their constitutionality. She is partisan I suppose, being a formerFianna Fail member, but she is officially an independent now. But the President is by no means nominated by the main government party. They are popularly elected.

No, you're right. I never pretended to know anything about Irish politics. If I were Irish, the last thing I would want in my constitution would be an English Queen. I have no doubt that the presidency is a fully functional and useful institution in Ireland, but given a queen, I'd rather have that.

Shekwan · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
No, you're right. I never pretended to know anything about Irish politics. If I were Irish, the last thing I would want in my constitution would be an English Queen. I have no doubt that the presidency is a fully functional and useful institution in Ireland, but given a queen, I'd rather have that.

Nah its not really a useful institution. Its more of an "in case of emergency" institution. Its there to ensure that the army is ultimately loyal to the President and not the government, and to ensure the government doesn't pass any acts that are contrary to the ideals of the constitution.

For what its worth, the Senate is the pointless Irish governmental institution. We might replace it with a People's Assembly which is an awesome idea in my opinion.

I don't want to tackle the wall of text, so why briefly do you think that having a Queen is better?

I won't pretend I know what the Queen actually does in British government, but from what I've gathered the argument for keeping her seems more based on practicalities more than anything else. Which I totally understand. But I don't get why in theory you wouldn't want to remove hereditary rule.

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
The queen is better, in my opinion, because no-one elects her, but no-one has any reason to hate her either (much as they may hate the concept of her position).

But why hereditary monarchy? Why not some sort of lottery, if you're determined to throw such a senior civil position to the wind? Or perhaps appointment by a neutral party? Perhaps we should merely place less emphasis on the role of head of state, given that our current system does tend to exaggerate it's ceremonial value. Either way, I'd prefer "first among equals", whatever form that takes, to "just plain better than everyone else".

Well, getting rid of natural supremacy as a legal concept wouldn't be a bad idea, but the queen is not defined by supposed superiority. Nobody thinks she possesses it. Having something buried in the law that everyone ignores doesn't harm anyone. Getting rid of the concept that the queen is superior doesn't mean getting rid of the queen.

It would rather undermine the whole thing. A monarchy who does not hold sovereignty is nothing more than a high ranking aristocrat which, while perhaps tolerable in itself, is hard to reconcile with hereditary appointment to a high ranking civil position. We're in the process of tossing out hereditary peers, so why would we choose to retain the grandest of the lot if we did not cleave so certainly to the assertion that they are ordained by right of birth to sovereignty?
And it's not exactly "buried" or "ignored"; it is, to this day, impossible for a British citizen to take legal action against the personal figure of the monarch. That may not be a pressing issue, but it is still inarguably wrong in a modern society.

If you see no beauty in otherwise meaningless and pointless constitutional oddities, then it doesn't really compare, no.

Yes, it seems that this is something on which we simply cannot agree.

You gain economically through the queen...

Questionable, and another debate altogether, one, I'll admit, that I'm not really fit to take part in. My objection to the monarchy is one of moral and political principal, not of economic or financial outlook.
It may be worth noting, of course, that I don't necessarily argue for the complete abolition of the monarchy, merely it's abolition as a political entity; the Crown, essentially, rather than the monarchy itself. If it were just another hereditary title that happened to get the nicest seat at aristocratic dinner parties, I really couldn't care less. Let them have their trinkets, and let the tourists get their snapshots. All I ask is that I am saved the obligation of referring to her as "Her Majesty"; that Americans find it quaint isn't going to move me very much.

...and nobody's compelling you to do any of the things you mentioned. Have you sworn allegiance to the queen? Only immigrants, politicians and soldiers do that. If you have, that doesn't really have any practical consequences anyway. You don't bow to her unless you decide to visit her. You very clearly don't accept her as the source of all justice, honour or political legitimancy either.

True enough, I suppose, but the very fact that the law expects such things is, I think, contrary to democratic principal. I can concede that, in the case of the military, swearing an oath to the Queen as commander-in-chief may not be unusual (although the ethics of such things itself another debate), but to expect that such things are prerequisites of citizenship or involvement in public life is at least a little insulting to Britain's supposedly "free" citizens. Democracy demands popular sovereignty; to engage in the open assertion of a contrary position is, frankly, embarrassing for a modern state.

I think Plotinus summed it up better than I ever could the last time we had this debate; a clumsy paraphrase is something along the lines of "If it's an important enough role that we must perpetuate it, then it cannot be left to an hereditary monarch, and if it's so irrelevant that we can leave it to a hereditary monarch, then why do we bother to perpetuate it?"

spryllino · Apr 24, 2010

@ Shekwan

The Queen is not worth getting rid of, in my opinion, because she is

a. hard to get rid of
b. harmless
c. interesting.

@ Traitorfish

Not much wrong with lottery ... except the winner might be stupid, bigoted etc. .

The queen as first among equals would be ideal in my opinion. I agree that legal immunity should be removed too. I don't really like oaths of allegiance either, for a variety of reasons, but given that you take them on the clear understanding that you're doing something for society and Britain and not really personally for the queen, I think that the problem lies in the concept of the oath and not in the concept of the monarchy.

Nobody makes you call her Her Majesty either.

My real problem with your position is that enacting the reforms that you want to enact would not do any good (or harm) politically, and would only serve to remove interest from our constitution.

Moreover, all the oaths of allegiance and national anthems are done on the effective tacit understanding that you're not actually doing anything for the queen, but rather for the state and, thus, for yourself. In fact, the concept that the queen is the state and the state is the queen is a central tenet of absolutism.

Thus, to swear allegiance to the queen is to swear allegiance to the state. To an extent, this is blatant rubbish, because everybody knows that the queen is a person, but if you must take the angle that the queen is bad because she is enshrined in law, then you must also acknowledge that it is equally enshrined in law that the queen is the state itself.

The problem with Plotinus's quote is that we don't have to actively perpetuate the position: it is easier to let it exist.

Shekwan · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
@ Shekwan

The Queen is not worth getting rid of, in my opinion, because she is

a. hard to get rid of
b. harmless
c. interesting.

I meant as opposed to a President?

I accept that in the UK's case it would be difficult to reform, and not worth it.

But you said that "given a Queen I'd rather have that" - (at least it appears to me from your wording) if you were given the option independent of the UK's specific situation, you would choose a Queen over a President?

So if you were starting from scratch you'd still want a hereditary position in your government as opposed to an elected/nominated one?

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
@ Traitorfish

Not much wrong with lottery ... except the winner might be stupid, bigoted etc. .

As opposed, say, to a biological lottery, which inevitably turns out wonderful, admirable human beings? :crazyeye:

The queen as first among equals would be ideal in my opinion. I agree that legal immunity should be removed too. I don't really like oaths of allegiance either, for a variety of reasons, but given that you take them on the clear understanding that you're doing something for society and Britain and not really personally for the queen, I think that the problem lies in the concept of the oath and not in the concept of the monarchy.

....

Moreover, all the oaths of allegiance and national anthems are done on the effective tacit understanding that you're not actually doing anything for the queen, but rather for the state and, thus, for yourself. In fact, the concept that the queen is the state and the state is the queen is a central tenet of absolutism.

Thus, to swear allegiance to the queen is to swear allegiance to the state. To an extent, this is blatant rubbish, because everybody knows that the queen is a person, but if you must take the angle that the queen is bad because she is enshrined in law, then you must also acknowledge that it is equally enshrined in law that the queen is the state itself.

And I oppose this more than any facet of monarchical rule. A hereditary first-among-equals I could perhaps tolerate, but the very idea that sovereignty is vested in an hereditary title of nobility is an insult to the British people. Any democratic state is comprised of it's citizenry before all else, and to deny this most basic of truths to the nation is simply incompatible with the principles of democratic society.

Nobody makes you call her Her Majesty either.

Well... Yes, they do. All the time. That's how your address her, apparently.

My real problem with your position is that enacting the reforms that you want to enact would not do any good (or harm) politically, and would only serve to remove interest from our constitution.

Well, there is certainly an argument as to the good or harm it would do- that's rather the entirety of the debate, actually- but "interest"? Really? Isn't politics a little too important for that sort of thing to be so enshrined in law?

The problem with Plotinus's quote is that we don't have to actively perpetuate the position: it is easier to let it exist.

And as I said, I don't oppose that. I merely oppose the perpetuation of the monarchy through enshrinement in law. I've not more objection to the title "Queen of England" than I have to "Duke of Kent" or "Chief of Clan Donald", I just don't expect to be asked to validate it, explicitly or implicitly.

spryllino · Apr 24, 2010

Shekwan said:
I meant as opposed to a President?

I accept that in the UK's case it would be difficult to reform, and not worth it.

But you said that "given a Queen I'd rather have that" - (at least it appears to me from your wording) if you were given the option independent of the UK's specific situation, you would choose a Queen over a President?

So if you were starting from scratch you'd still want a hereditary position in your government as opposed to an elected/nominated one?

If I had a large untouched island that emerged, complete with population and modern economy, from the North Sea, then I wouldn't give it a monarch. I wouldn't know the right person for the job. I wouldn't give it a useless President, either, though.

spryllino · Apr 24, 2010

Traitorfish said:
As opposed, say, to a biological lottery, which inevitably turns out wonderful, admirable human beings?

No, but at least you know in advance, and there's time to educate the heir.

Well... Yes, they do. All the time. That's how your address her, apparently.

All the time? Like when?

Well, there is certainly an argument as to the good or harm it would do- that's rather the entirety of the debate, actually- but "interest"? Really? Isn't politics a little too important for that sort of thing to be so enshrined in law?

Your reforms would be useless and profligate, but not really harmful as such. Interest isn't worth writing into law but it isn't worth erasing from law either.

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

spryllino said:
No, but at least you know in advance, and there's time to educate the heir.

Well, for someone to. Doubt I'd get much say and how they turn out.

All the time? Like when?

Whenever she is addressed in a formal context? Whenever she is referred to by something other than her title? Whenever you mention the government, treasury, armed forces, any naval ship and a number of senior civil positions in a formal context?

Your reforms would be useless and profligate, but not really harmful as such. Interest isn't worth writing into law but it isn't worth erasing from law either.

Well, to be honest, I would assume that these reforms would merely be a facet of grander, far sweeping reforms, and so would be a rather minor change above the rest. For all my rhetoric, I will readily conceded that the immediate abolition of the monarchy alone simply isn't worth the fuss; it's not that we aren't compelled by principal to do so, but that there are far, far bigger fish to fry.

I suppose it's just something I get a bit... Excited about. The whole thing is incredibly distasteful to me, and something that, widely ignored as it is, I sometimes feel compared to issue admittedly rather futile rants about.

PiMan · Apr 24, 2010

Addressing the queen as "your majesty" is not really any different than addressing Obama as "Mr President". You're not forced to, but it is impolite and a political faux pas not to.

Traitorfish · Apr 24, 2010

PiMan said:
Addressing the queen as "your majesty" is not really any different than addressing Obama as "Mr President". You're not forced to, but it is impolite and a political faux pas not to.

Surely, the equivalent of "Mr President" would be "Madam Queen"? "Your Majesty" is in an altogether different class, one reserved specially for sovereign monarch.

That said, I can almost forgive the more formal "Most Excellent Majesty", for, I hope, obvious reasons.

PiMan · Apr 25, 2010

Traitorfish said:
Surely, the equivalent of "Mr President" would be "Madam Queen"? "Your Majesty" is in an altogether different class, one reserved specially for sovereign monarch.

That said, I can almost forgive the more formal "Most Excellent Majesty", for, I hope, obvious reasons.

A title is a title. The exact phrasing of the title isn't important to my point.

nonconformist · Apr 25, 2010

Traitorfish said:
Surely, the equivalent of "Mr President" would be "Madam Queen"? "Your Majesty" is in an altogether different class, one reserved specially for sovereign monarch.

That said, I can almost forgive the more formal "Most Excellent Majesty", for, I hope, obvious reasons.

Welp, we do call our Judges "My Lord"

spryllino · Apr 25, 2010

Traitorfish said:
Well, for someone to. Doubt I'd get much say and how they turn out.

A lottery is probably even less accountable.

Whenever she is addressed in a formal context? Whenever she is referred to by something other than her title? Whenever you mention the government, treasury, armed forces, any naval ship and a number of senior civil positions in a formal context?

In my opinion, that's not demeaning: it's quite entertaining.

Well, to be honest, I would assume that these reforms would merely be a facet of grander, far sweeping reforms, and so would be a rather minor change above the rest. For all my rhetoric, I will readily conceded that the immediate abolition of the monarchy alone simply isn't worth the fuss; it's not that we aren't compelled by principal to do so, but that there are far, far bigger fish to fry.

I suppose it's just something I get a bit... Excited about. The whole thing is incredibly distasteful to me, and something that, widely ignored as it is, I sometimes feel compared to issue admittedly rather futile rants about.

I agree. But I don't really want grander, more sweeping reforms at the moment, anyway. The system works well enough (except for first past the post, which I would love to scrap).

Traitorfish · Apr 25, 2010

PiMan said:
A title is a title. The exact phrasing of the title isn't important to my point.

Yes and no. A title certainly isn't much without the clout to support it, but how one styles themselves does have certain implications as to how one expects to be treated. "Your Majesty" and "Mr. President" obviously reflect very different views of one station, beyond the station to which they actually pertain. And, petty as it may perhaps be, I resent being asked to acknowledge someone as "majestic" simply through accident of birth.

nonconformist said:
Welp, we do call our Judges "My Lord"

Yes, but that's an appointed title, and, despite it's archaic nature, one with rather different connotations than "Majesty". It's probably not ideal either, but
Honestly, the title itself isn't really that important, it's the social structure which it validates and enforces which bugs me. It doesn't help that it is a snotty little thing to ask to be called, but it's the snottiness of the crown itself to which I really object.

spryllino said:
A lottery is probably even less accountable.

True, but I never really argued for a lottery. It was really just a rather vapid rhetorical point...

In my opinion, that's not demeaning: it's quite entertaining.

I suppose that's quite possibly matter of taste. I'm just a bit more... Awkward than most folk.

I agree. But I don't really want grander, more sweeping reforms at the moment, anyway. The system works well enough (except for first past the post, which I would love to scrap).

Fair enough.

The British Monarchy

Wrathful Warlock

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Kim Chi Quaffing Celt

Deity

Kim Chi Quaffing Celt

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

Kim Chi Quaffing Celt

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

Miserable

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Similar threads