Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Samson]

This is the picture the beeb is going with on the news front page:

I am not sure why it makes me think of this:

 

[AmazonQueen]

They were against taxation without representation etc. Not the existence of the monarchy.

A republic is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. Thomas Jefferson.
What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government ... it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which means arbitrary power. Thomas Paine.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depository. Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

This is the picture the beeb is going with on the news front page:

I am not sure why it makes me think of this:

Yeah mock Charles as much as you want he is better than most elected leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro and Yoon.

 

[Arakhor]

A republic is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. Thomas Jefferson.
What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government ... it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which means arbitrary power. Thomas Paine.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depository. Thomas Jefferson.

How ironic that their perfect republic now has an elected king, with far more power than any descendant of George III.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I will yell God save the king over leaders like Yoon and Trump.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I will yell God save the king over leaders like Yoon and Trump.

So long as you don't mind the Neros and Caligulas inherited power gives you too.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

So long as you don't mind the Neros and Caligulas inherited power gives you too.

Not possible in post Victoria monarchies. Not all monarchies are the same you know.
If you think British monarchy is same as Saudi monarchy...

 

[Samson]

How ironic that their perfect republic now has an elected king, with far more power than any descendant of George III.

The elected is a big part of it.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah mock Charles as much as you want he is better than most elected leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro and Yoon.

The point with elected systems is that they're elected. The point with hereditary systems is you're stuffed. One can be fixed (by democratic motion), one cannot. One is fundamentally worse than the other. If your argument is just "there happens to be national leaders that suck more than a specific monarch", it's a very weak argument.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The point with hereditary systems is you're stuffed. One can be fixed (by democratic motion), one cannot

You can in parliamentary democracy. If monarchy of UK were such a tyrant like Yoon or Trump... do you think people would be like. "Ok" and do NOTHING?
Again UK=/= absolute monarchy.

The elected is a big part of it.

You make it sound like as if UK doesn't have elected leader...

 

[Gorbles]

You can in parliamentary democracy. If monarchy of UK were such a tyrant like Yoon or Trump... do you think people would be like. "Ok" and do NOTHING?
Again UK=/= absolute monarchy.

My dude, I didn't vote for Charles III. Nor will I again in a decade or two when he passes and (presumably) William ascends.

But have you seen our Prime Ministers recently? At least I can vote in less than four years (however unlikely it seems we'll actually get the Conservatives out of power). That's still something I can do (without resorting to something like civil disobedience).

Our leaders are a product of the systems that allow them to be elected. Trump was elected. The problem there wasn't Trump. It was the people that enabled him, promoted him, funded him. The electoral systems that made the votes count in the ways that they did. Trump is a symptom. Much in the same way Charles is a symptom. The problem in the former case is US politics (the Electoral College, gerrymandering, two-party state, etc, et al). The problem in the latter case is the British monarchy.

I really don't care that you think Charles is better than Trump, or whoever. I don't care if you thought he was worse. I'm talking about the system itself. Is that so hard to understand?

You make it sound like as if UK doesn't have elected leader...

Technically we don't! Nobody voted for Johnson when he succeeded May, and nobody voted for Truss. We voted a party in back in 2019, and the party has been able to elect its own leaders since then.

Leaders are often important and seen as the driving force of the party, but we technically don't vote for the leader themselves, even if that's who we want in / don't want in. It's not like US politics where they vote on candidates and the like.

Maybe, if you want to offer opinions on the British monarch and UK politics, you should maybe read up on how they work first?

 

[Samson]

You make it sound like as if UK doesn't have elected leader...

We do not have an elected head of state. We elect members of parliament, who choose the Prime Minister who serve at the monarchs pleasure.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

My dude, I didn't vote for Charles III. Nor will I again in a decade or two when he passes and (presumably) William ascends.

But have you seen our Prime Ministers recently? At least I can vote in less than four years (however unlikely it seems we'll actually get the Conservatives out of power). That's still something I can do (without resorting to something like civil disobedience).

Our leaders are a product of the systems that allow them to be elected. Trump was elected. The problem there wasn't Trump. It was the people that enabled him, promoted him, funded him. The electoral systems that made the votes count in the ways that they did. Trump is a symptom. Much in the same way Charles is a symptom. The problem in the former case is US politics (the Electoral College, gerrymandering, two-party state, etc, et al). The problem in the latter case is the British monarchy.

I really don't care that you think Charles is better than Trump, or whoever. I don't care if you think it's worse. I'm talking about the system itself. Is that so hard to understand?

Technically we don't! Nobody voted for Johnson, and nobody voted for Truss. We voted a party in back in 2019, and the party has been able to elect its own leaders since then.

And how many powers does Charles held? Who has more practical power- Charles or Truss?

 

[Gorbles]

And how many powers does Charles held? Who has more practical power- Charles or Truss?

Who cares what practical powers he has? We're talking about the monarchy itself. What about this is so hard for you to understand?

 

[amadeus]

A republic is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. Thomas Jefferson.
What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government ... it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which means arbitrary power. Thomas Paine.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depository. Thomas Jefferson.

Sure but cake has a point here in that many of them just wanted their grievances heard and the “rights of Englishmen” to which they claimed they were entitled; had this been granted, maybe there still would have been a republican revolution over time. I think it would be interesting to find out if as many French, Germans, and Dutch would have moved to the new American republic if it had remained tied to Great Britain. Or if Britain itself would not have ultimately become a colonial subject of the Americas.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

who serve at the monarchs pleasure.

Yeah right. Because she held power over every PM from Churchill to Truss. From Labor PM to Conservative PM every PM was a lapdog for her.

Who cares what practical powers he has? We're talking about the monarchy itself. What about this is so hard for you to understand?

Because not every monarchy is the same? Not every monarchy has absolute power?

 

[Samson]

And how many powers does Charles held? Who has more practical power- Charles or Truss?

I list some of them in the OP. He has a veto on all laws, gets secret say over any law that may affect him before even MP's get to see it, and is in charge of all UK military. In practical terms Truss has more power, but that does not mean he has none.

 

[amadeus]

Yeah right. Because she held power over every PM from Churchill to Truss. From Labor PM to Conservative PM every PM was a lapdog for her.

In a purely legal sense, the Queen very well could have dismissed the PM.

In another monarchial case, the King of Belgium refused to give ascent to an abortion bill so according to local law, he was deemed unable to serve in his capacity for one day so the bill could be passed in his absence.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Queen very well could have dismissed the PM.

That goes against constitution and could create a constitutional crisis which she doesn't want. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And Queen KNEW that perfectly.

I list some of them in the OP. He has a veto on all laws, gets secret say over any law that may affect him before even MP's get to see it, and is in charge of all UK military. In practical terms Truss has more power, but that does not mean he has none.

Technically Truss represents will of the people... and it is something Charles cannot ignore.

 

[Gorbles]

Because not every monarchy is the same? Not every monarchy has absolute power?

Them having absolute power isn't the point in the slightest. Please do keep up and stop moving the goalposts (remember, it was originally "I like Charles more than Trump", to which my reply was "so what").