Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Samson]

It is better to measure western constitutional monarchies vs western republics.

How do you do "a statistic comparison" with that size of dataset?

 

[really]

Are these constitutional monarchies?

Kuwait? Bhutan? Bahrain?

It is better to measure western constitutional monarchies vs western republics.
Becuase this is what's relevant for the UK's political traditions and culture.

It wouldn't make any sense just as much to count Socialist republics as republican examples.

Well the bit of Ireland that is a monarchy and where many actively profess loyalty to that monarchy isn't exactly stable or well governed compared to the part that became a republic.

 

[Samson]

How do you do "a statistic comparison" with that size of dataset?

Trying to answer my own question, I found this paper. Seriously, if I wrote a paper where it was so hard to find the answer as that I would not get it past my boss. Here is the dataset description and the "answer", I cannot say any more than it is not at all clear that stats can answer which is more stable. If you can get any more out of it feel free to share.

Spoiler Data and results :

 

[Mega Tsunami]

As one writer in the Telegraph put it:

Here are the states I can think of that abolished their monarchies during the late Queen’s 70-year reign: Afghanistan, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Rwanda, Tunisia, Vietnam, Yemen. Of that list, I reckon only Greece can be said to have made a success of the change. In all the others, there have been times when ordinary people longed for a neutral referee who was neither a politician nor a general.

CS Lewis, as so often, expressed it beautifully: “Where men are forbidden to honour a king, they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

It is striking to see how many of the world’s most liberal, tranquil, contented and egalitarian countries turn out to be constitutional monarchies: Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway. Even more striking is how many of these states share the same monarch: King Charles III, 34th great-grandson of Kenneth MacAlpin, 33rd great-grandson of Brian Boru, and 33rd great-grandson of Alfred the Great – and, according to some genealogists, the 41st great-grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. Not a bad record, all told.

 

[Farm Boy]

How much credit does the prodigal son(nation) get? That list reads maybe slightly differently depending on perspective. Not sure.

 

[sophie]

Wow, shocking. Who’d’ve thought that countries:

1) Whose entire economy was constructed as a bespoke extraction machine for the benefit of a European sovereign
2) who were subjected to in some cases decades-long, brutal, violently destructive wars for independence and liberation, wherein the sovereign frequently resorted to genocidal acts to hold onto their territory
3) who post-independence were frequently locked out of the global economy, subjected to coups organized and perpetrated by the former sovereign
4) entrapped in spiraling debt obligations to compel a return to an extractive economic orientation

Would have had a tough go of it post-liberation.

 

[Samson]

Iran on that list is particularly appropriate. It clearly would have been better of if the Shah had stayed.

 

[Kyriakos]

The girl with the (irish?) accent in the end also mentions the elephant in the room, which is people to freeze to death not being talked about because the country has to revere the gone queen for half a month.

 

[really]

Not a native English speaker but someone who does speak with an Irish accent.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Switzerland, which undoubtedly has the world’s most stable and democratic constitution, where the people can write their own laws and which – almost unique amound the community of world nations – has not been to war since the 1800s.

The "people" being mostly men; women were shockingly late in getting the right to vote compared with other countries with a constitution. The last holdout canton only granted voting rights to women in 1990.

 

[uppi]

It looks like people have tried to do this, but it is difficult to use appropriate stats as there are too many confounding factors. I did find this:

The stability of monarchy myth disproved empirically
[...]

Likewise, the ‘magic of monarchy’ did nothing to prevent the dissolution of the Kingdom of Serbia into civil war. It also did not stop the coups in Germany after WWI that gave rise to Hitler; or Portugal in 1910; or the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom; or the Mexican Crown that lasted only three years, from 1864 to 1867 or many other example of failed constitutional monarchies. Of course, monarchists fail to mention any of these examples, whether out of convenience or sheer ignorance.​

Wait what? There were no monarchies in Germany after WWI so how were they supposed to stop Hitler?

 

[Absolution]

Wow, shocking. Who’d’ve thought that countries:

1) Whose entire economy was constructed as a bespoke extraction machine for the benefit of a European sovereign
2) who were subjected to in some cases decades-long, brutal, violently destructive wars for independence and liberation, wherein the sovereign frequently resorted to genocidal acts to hold onto their territory
3) who post-independence were frequently locked out of the global economy, subjected to coups organized and perpetrated by the former sovereign
4) entrapped in spiraling debt obligations to compel a return to an extractive economic orientation

Would have had a tough go of it post-liberation.

Hence it is better to judge Britain's case in comparison to the western world (in its traditional definition), not to Middle Eastern or post-socialist countries.

 

[sophie]

Rather, it’s silly to treat these things in isolation. European monarchies are stable because they enact systems of extractive violence abroad, and postcolonial republics are unstable because they are subjected to violence, systems of extraction and direct political interference by those same “stable” monarchies.

So if we treat the whole, European monarchies as a system are violently unstable, it’s just black and brown people in the global south who bear the brunt of the violence and the instability, and white people in the core who benefit from that extraction.

 

[Absolution]

Rather, it’s silly to treat these things in isolation. European monarchies are stable because they enact systems of extractive violence abroad, and postcolonial republics are unstable because they are subjected to violence, systems of extraction and direct political interference by those same “stable” monarchies.

So if we treat the whole, European monarchies as a system are violently unstable, it’s just black and brown people in the global south who bear the brunt of the violence and the instability, and white people in the core who benefit from that extraction.

Possibly it is part of it.
But still, I don't know - Republican France or the Netherlands, weren't they more colonially oppressive than the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway?

It is not that monarchies have been colonially oppressive - it is western European nations (with an Atlantic access).

 

[Joij21]

Rather, it’s silly to treat these things in isolation. European monarchies are stable because they enact systems of extractive violence abroad, and postcolonial republics are unstable because they are subjected to violence, systems of extraction and direct political interference by those same “stable” monarchies.

So if we treat the whole, European monarchies as a system are violently unstable, it’s just black and brown people in the global south who bear the brunt of the violence and the instability, and white people in the core who benefit from that extraction.

There's only violence because they refuse to bend over and let the master take their stuff for free.

I also wouldn't say they are unstable, but they are hungry for ever more resources. A tiny island being very resource constrained. The European continent fairing no better since the entire area has been divided up into much smaller plots of land ruled by tribalistic leaders who refuse to share. Hence instead of sharing the fruits of the European continent, all the polities wherein chose instead to keep their own stuff, never share with neighbors, and make up for any shortfalls by conquering and enslaving the "primitives" of other lands in order to be lazy and not have to fight as hard to get more product.

A great zero sum strategy if I say so myself.

 

[Lexicus]

Possibly it is part of it.
But still, I don't know - Republican France or the Netherlands, weren't they more colonially oppressive than the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway?

It is not that monarchies have been colonially oppressive - it is western European nations (with an Atlantic access).

A fatuous comparison. Belgium and Germany, both monarchies at the time, were probably the most vicious colonizers of Africa. Norway and Denmark barely had colonial empires to be brutal in.

 

[Kyriakos]

Leopold II was another good german (also Saxe-Coburg, like the british royals) monarch ^_^

 

[W|M]

As one writer in the Telegraph put it:

Here are the states I can think of that abolished their monarchies during the late Queen’s 70-year reign: Afghanistan, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Rwanda, Tunisia, Vietnam, Yemen. Of that list, I reckon only Greece can be said to have made a success of the change. In all the others, there have been times when ordinary people longed for a neutral referee who was neither a politician nor a general.

CS Lewis, as so often, expressed it beautifully: “Where men are forbidden to honour a king, they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

It is striking to see how many of the world’s most liberal, tranquil, contented and egalitarian countries turn out to be constitutional monarchies: Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway. Even more striking is how many of these states share the same monarch: King Charles III, 34th great-grandson of Kenneth MacAlpin, 33rd great-grandson of Brian Boru, and 33rd great-grandson of Alfred the Great – and, according to some genealogists, the 41st great-grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. Not a bad record, all told.

Currently existing monarchies include eSwatini, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan and Qatar while republics include France, Mexico, South Korea and Chile.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The discussion seems to focus on the symbolic aspects of the leaderhead, but British monarchy isn't as neutral on society as some pretends. There's still an aristocracy in the UK. The British Upper Chamber is still held by Lords. The British aristocracy remains extremely wealthy, owning vast amount of lands, and extremely influencial in British political life.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The discussion seems to focus on the symbolic aspects of the leaderhead, but British monarchy isn't as neutral on society as some pretends. There's still an aristocracy in the UK. The British Upper Chamber is still held by Lords. The British aristocracy remains extremely wealthy, owning vast amount of lands, and extremely influencial in British political life.

A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the House of Lords