Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Snorrius]

The British problem is that the British aristocracy turned out to be great at capitalism already in the 18th c.

Maybe it is not problem but blessing. After all, Russians did expel their own aristocracy but I would not say it turned out for good. France as well went through much turmoil as the result and finally became a boring nation (though not the worst outcome).

 

[Samson]

If Charles III wants to make his mark on history, other than by being the last monarch

I did think that one of the features shared by the last two Charlies we had is that neither were immediately followed by their children. I wondered if that could have been the reason for the choice of name (whether in '48 or '22) could be related to that.

Maybe it is not problem but blessing. After all, Russians did expel their own aristocracy but I would not say it turned out for good. France as well went through much turmoil as the result and finally became a boring nation (though not the worst outcome).

It seems to me that both are probably better off for getting rid of their royals.

 

[Verbose]

yeah that's fine in capitalistic society. Owning a land is a fine thing in capitalistic society. Unless you want communist revolution... that won't happen.

Liberal revolution worked just fine for other countries. The UK missed out, and possibly lucked out.

 

[Verbose]

Maybe it is not problem but blessing. After all, Russians did expel their own aristocracy but I would not say it turned out for good. France as well went through much turmoil as the result and finally became a boring nation (though not the worst outcome).

Russia never quite got the original liberal revolution, Bolsheviks kind of took it and ran with it.

Otoh Russian liberals today are also Russian imperialists, for the most part. The original 19th c. Liberalism was anti-imperialist by being nationalist. The empires were "the prisons of the nations". Russia is the only remnant example for that – truncated by the collapse of the USSR. But hey, it is trying to make up for it in a big way as we speak...

 

[really]

Agreed - I was thinking what might be best for Charles, to make his mark.

If it was me I'd take a pressure washer to the political structures, blast out all the cobwebs.
(Monarchy, lords, established church, the city, first past the post)

 

[Verbose]

As for the OP, having or not having a monarchy isn't really the deciding issue. The UK might need to make up for a shortfall of 19th c. Liberal revolutions others had, and make its monarchy match current needs.

Maybe it is not problem but blessing. After all, Russians did expel their own aristocracy but I would not say it turned out for good. France as well went through much turmoil as the result and finally became a boring nation (though not the worst outcome).

Boring? That just one man's opinion. And the French don't care.

 

[Snorrius]

Russia never quite got the original liberal revolution, Bolsheviks kind of took it and ran with it.

Otoh Russian liberals today are also Russian imperialists, for the most part. The original 19th c. Liberalism was anti-imperialist by being nationalist.

So, you think Russian liberals should be nationalists?

As for the OP, having or not having a monarchy isn't really the deciding issue. The UK might need to make up for a shortfall of 19th c. Liberal revolutions others had, and make its monarchy match current needs.

But is it prudent in 21th century to make something so 19th? Liberalism is obsolete after all.

 

[Verbose]

So, you think Russian liberals should be nationalists?

But is it prudent in 21th century to make something so 19th?

It's a problem that they are imperialists.

If you haven't fixed aspects of a country that some others sorted out in the 18th c already – then yes, it might be a good idea. Apply with caution if it bother you, but not sorting things is like assuming that lump on your back is probably just harmless, and will go away by itself.

 

[Arwon]

Among the countries of the Anglosphere, I find it surprising that Australia and New Zealand still have the British monarch as head of state (for some weird reason I don't find it so surprising in Canada's case, don't ask me why). Something tells me that they should have become republics somewhen between 1980 and 2010 and that now they are something like 20-ish (or is it 20ish? What's the spelling here?) years ago.

I mean, we had a referendum in 1999. They're hard to win unfortunately.

 

[Snorrius]

It's a problem that they are imperialists.

Tbh, liberal Russia would be much more dangerous for Europe, if we look at Dutch Republic or USA. At least, if we talk about 18-th-19th century vigorous liberalism and not about its modern anemic shadow.

 

[Zardnaar]

Among the countries of the Anglosphere, I find it surprising that Australia and New Zealand still have the British monarch as head of state (for some weird reason I don't find it so surprising in Canada's case, don't ask me why). Something tells me that they should have become republics somewhen between 1980 and 2010 and that now they are something like 20-ish (or is it 20ish? What's the spelling here?) years ago.

It was popular in Australia back in 80's iirc.

NZ has Treaty of Waitangi which raises issues.

 

[Verbose]

Tbh, liberal Russia would be much more dangerous for Europe, if we look at Dutch Republic or USA. At least, if we talk about 18-th-19th century vigorous liberalism and not about its modern anemic shadow.

That's again just your opinion about liberalism.

The institutional strengths of it are what is keeping us both free and safe, relatively, in Europe at this point. It's what is holding up, still, against Trump in the US too.

Same is not the case with Russia, which is a sham-version of it at best (institutions are in place, they just don't do the job, having been co-opted and repurposed).

The Ukranian case is one of shooting for that kind of development, against which Russia has gone to open war even.

The Ukranian case is interesting also because it highlights the original connection between nationalism and liberalism. In most of Europe that occurred so long ago now, people have forgotten that this was an original compact – the nations against imperialism. People find it troubling – since after WWII both the conservative and revolutionary fascist versions of nationalism were discredited, and everyone has forgotten the original Liberal phase of nationalism (so long ago).

And Russia has not gotten around to anything like it. (Russia needs to work through the back-log on the Soviet era too, and has not yet quite begun – and will not be able to under Putin either.) This is the bit where Russia is actually stuck in history, unable to move either forward or even backwards. Ukraine could be a forerunner, but clearly the current Russian conception of Russia cannot accept that the solution would come from Ukraine, with Russia following its lead. So Russia is stuck.

That these institutional arrangements have enemies and are being attacked – by the likes of Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, CCP China, Trumpism in the US – only says they matter like all hell.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

It was popular in Australia back in 80's iirc.

NZ has Treaty of Waitangi which raises issues.

I heard that current MP of Australia Albanese is working to make Australia a republic by seeing what he can change the rules.

 

[Zardnaar]

I heard that current MP of Australia Albanese is working to make Australia a republic by seeing what he can change the rules.

It's probably easier there. No treaty either.

 

[Verbose]

Tbh, liberal Russia would be much more dangerous for Europe, if we look at Dutch Republic or USA. At least, if we talk about 18-th-19th century vigorous liberalism and not about its modern anemic shadow.

Not if Russia actually supports the international system, and upholds the international agreements it has signed. This Russia under Putin does neither. It has broken pretty much every agreement Russia has signed, and it actively wants to kill the international system. If Putin's war on Ukraine fails, then the international system can possibly be salvaged. If it is successful however, it is dead and gone.

Beside, anything that gives Russia stable Russian borders within which the Russians are OK with being Russian in, is a good thing – because the problem with Russia these days is the borderless quality, and the Russian propensity to attack others for not recognizing limitations on what is Russia and what is non-Russia.

"Strong fences make good neighbors". Russia not quite noticing the fences, or regarding them as some kind of insult, is a problem.

 

[Snorrius]

Beside, anything that gives Russia stable Russian borders within which the Russians are OK with being Russian in, is a good thing – because the problem with Russia these days is the borderless quality, and the Russian propensity to attack others for not recognizing limitations on what is Russia and what is non-Russia.

That's actually an unfortunate consequence of unthoughtful dissolution of Soviet Union. Ukraine got a lot of Russian lands under Soviets, and it was a time-bomb that exploded now. (Similar to other territorial disputes on post-Soviet Union territory). That's why if Russia would undergo a liberal transformation, than by the nationalism logic (and you yourself noted link between liberalism and nationalism) it means that first territorial disputes has to be solved.

 

[Verbose]

That's actually an unfortunate consequence of unthoughtful dissolution of Soviet Union. Ukraine got a lot of Russian lands under Soviets, and it was a time-bomb that exploded now. (Similar to other territorial disputes on post-Soviet Union territory). That's why if Russia would undergo a liberal transformation, than by the nationalism logic (and you yourself noted link between liberalism and nationalism) it means that first territorial disputes has to be solved.

They are not Russian lands. They're just not. Russia already has recognized borders. It just doesn't accept them. As soon as Russia does, this problem dissolves. (And Russia is still the biggest country in the world – remains to be seen if the Russians are actually numerous and competent to hold it together even – not a given. Russia needs more land and captive populations like a fisk needs a bicycle.)

But this is also why the current war is also a Soviet civil war. Russia is however the party pushing this as-if-Soviet agenda. Ukraine is the victim of it. Others look on in the anticipation they would be next, unless Russia fails in Ukraine.

The USSR's brand of internationalism cause a lot of havoc. It played fast and lose with ethnicity and nationality issues, and this is part of the consequences. Part of the problem also being that internationalism in the Soviet format was also always Russian.

The way it was set up, and the way you seem to want to set it up (very current Russian opinion) just means this Russia resurrects the empire, and with it the "prison of the nations" problem. Ukraine is set up to become the next inmate of it.

Which is why Russian actual liberalism shorn of imperialism, is an attractive possibility for everyone bordering Russia, and beyond.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Apparently, we are having 10-12 days of mourning which seems excessive to me.

 

[EnglishEdward]

You can have as many days of mourning as you like.

It is really up to you.

If one doesn't like the pomp and pageantry, one
can just ignore it and carry on with what you enjoy.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You can have as many days of mourning as you like.

It is really up to you.

If one doesn't like the pomp and pageantry, one
can just ignore it and carry on with what you enjoy.

Hard to ignore it when it dominates the news and media