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
Do you guys want to bring back King Constantine? He seems like a good guy.
Tbf, he could hardly be worse than the utter garbage we have as prime minister.
Still, unless Constantine or Paulos came with serious connections (extremely doubtful) and meant (and were able to) fight corruption (also extremely doubtful; why would they), it would be a ridiculous move :)
And although I haven't read on his role in what ultimately led to the 7 year dictatorship, afaik he was instrumental in that (by forcing elected governments to resign- unless he was still prince at the time and it was his father).
 
Last edited:
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".
True, but electing non-Tories would at least open us up to PMs from a wider range of elite schools.
 
I think the question should be: How do you consistently get the best people in the highest levels of government? Categorizing people into royalty, privileged, educated, common, etc. only muddies the issue.
 
I think the question should be: How do you consistently get the best people in the highest levels of government? Categorizing people into royalty, privileged, educated, common, etc. only muddies the issue.
to me that question boils down to how do we best achieve meritocracy (as a) smarts aren't genetic and therefore b) we need to best allocate the smarts in a flexible way reflecting reality). and to me monarchy is completely antithetical to that
 
to me that question boils down to how do we best achieve meritocracy (as a) smarts aren't genetic and therefore b) we need to best allocate the smarts in a flexible way reflecting reality). and to me monarchy is completely antithetical to that
Different questions will generate different answer paths. Identifying the goal up front is better than just focusing on what is not to like. Once one knows (or guesses) the best path to a meritocracy, then the issues change and becomes how do we get there? Removing a monarch may be a point on that path, but not necessarily at the beginning. Knowing and describing the desired end enables figuring out how to get there nd the necessary changes required along the way. A meritocracy doesn't auto start with "the killing of the king". :)
 
Last edited:
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.
1. Everyone is inbred, to some extent. Google "Pedigree collapse".
2. That's an opinion, and the Mountbatten-Windsors are not the most privileged or wealthy family in the UK.
3. Prince Andrew will never become king, and neither will Prince Harry.
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".
Because it is so important to have rule by the unwashed masses, isn't it?
 
Different questions will generate different answer paths. Identifying the goal up front is better than just focusing on what is not to like. Once one knows (or guesses) the best path to a meritocracy, then the issues changes and becomes how do we get there? Removing a monarch may be a point on that path, but not necessarily at the beginning. Knowing and describing the desired end enables figuring out how to get there nd the necessary changes required along the way. A meritocracy doesn't auto start with "the killing of the king". :)
yep and that was kind of my thoughts too. yes, monarchy is antithetical to meritocracy. but we still haven't figured out to do a meritocracy anyways (wayyy too much heritability - not genetic - in society atm). so yes monarchy is antithetical; but the rest from there, how to accomplish the meritocracy, is a larger question.
 
As soon as you have figured out how to get the meritocracy going, then one has an actual pitch to make to ditch whatever is currently in place.
 
Rather like Henry VIII and Charles I were always the spare, until the unexpected happened.
And the father of that queen who died only last month…

Anyway, can we just stop feeding the apartheid apologist who wants white people to rule the world:tm: and have a serious discussion?
 
Charles was 34 years old before he produced an heir. A lot of time for potential accidents/diseases. We were lucky to escape King Andrew I.
Andrew's not that bad. Once again, his accuser was the age of consent, and she never accused him of forcing himself on her. At worst, what he did was kind of icky and distasteful. Charles was 33 when William was born.
And the father of that queen who died only last month…

Anyway, can we just stop feeding the apartheid apologist who wants white people to rule the world:tm: and have a serious discussion?
I have already admitted that apartheid was a flawed system, and that it was unsustainable in the long run.
 
As soon as you have figured out how to get the meritocracy going, then one has an actual pitch to make to ditch whatever is currently in place.
oh i agree. it's kind of veneering off-topic for the thread though as meritocracy's a complex issue, however
the argument is about how to figure out how to get competent people ruling; monarchy is demonstratedly not the solution. guarantee of such concentration of power is always bad, it's seen in faux democracies across the world today, and historically elsewhere. in regards to modern western parliamentary monarchies, it's not that one has to foundationally make up what meritocracy is in the question of monarchy; there is a semblance of a system to default to after the monarch is gone (because it's already there). SO. if the monarchy is powerful, it is inherently anti-meritocractic; and if the monarchy is incapable, it is wasteful.

i think the latter two sentences is how i think i'll answer the post of yours i picked up on. yes the question is how to put capable people in charge. no the monarchy is not the way to go about it, because of either antimeritocracy or waste.
 
How do you consistently get the best people in the highest levels of government?

Due to human nature, this has never happened, and is unlikely ever too happen. Maybe when an AI takes over?
 
Meritocracy merely to replace the people in power with smarter people is a poor argument for doing away with monarchy.

The point of democracy is to put the people in power.
don't get me wrong, i agree with this, but i'm going by the premise that we're still gonna have a state.

if we want a state (and a know a lot of people do, i have my own thoughts on it), we want people there because of competence, not because of blood or bribes
 
Top Bottom