Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,896
Your secret is safe with me.
Time to get rid of the Monarchy?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Let's be honest; Elizabeth did little to modernize the House of Windsor and the Royal Court the last 40-50 years or so. Charles won't either by the look of things. Ultra-Conservatism is still considered a virtue in the UK.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The way I see it:
Charles III spent the first 63 years of his life waiting to be King and the last 10 years dreading it.
He ain't go be King for 70 years unless the whizzkids perfect cryogenics.
Frankly I think he will be lucky to last five years.
Many here see him as stopgap placeholder for William.
No doubt, he'd like to change a good few things.
But he's probably accepted that tinkering is too dangerous.
So he's doing a straight copy from his mother's book.
Problem is crises may force change.
Charles III spent the first 63 years of his life waiting to be King and the last 10 years dreading it.
He ain't go be King for 70 years unless the whizzkids perfect cryogenics.
Frankly I think he will be lucky to last five years.
Many here see him as stopgap placeholder for William.
No doubt, he'd like to change a good few things.
But he's probably accepted that tinkering is too dangerous.
So he's doing a straight copy from his mother's book.
Problem is crises may force change.
What kind of crisis would impact the Monarchy? The fall of the Empire didn't and that was significant.
On average, Europe's monarchies are better governed than its republics.
And not by a small margin.
Most of the causality here is probably negative: they remain monarchies because they've been governed well enough that there hasn't been the impetus for a republican revolution.
For those of us living in constitutional monarchies right now, It's not a choice between monarchy and republicanism as ideals.
It's a choice between the monarchy we now have, and the republic we'd get from our current political culture.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,896
What is with this monarchist belief that their monarchs are moral stalwarts who protect the realm from political decay? It is weird. And pretty obviously untrue. The royal family you're propping up as defenders of stability engage in extreme cover-ups (stuffing undesirable relatives into asylums, racial purity, and rampant pedophilia) and backdoor politicking to protect their wealth and standing.
I also don't see the logic in believing royalty prevents the UK from going from BoJo to BoJo with a bad moustache. Or that royalty, in any way, has a vested interest in preventing political corruption, when their very existence is dependent on exactly that.
I also don't see the logic in believing royalty prevents the UK from going from BoJo to BoJo with a bad moustache. Or that royalty, in any way, has a vested interest in preventing political corruption, when their very existence is dependent on exactly that.
This is pretty much the only decent argument for monarchy IMO. Being an optimist however, i still think there are better ways. And i just cant stomach the way monarchy operates. If we are striving for some sort of meritocratic society, which i think in general most people would agree with, regardless of their political persuasion. Then monarchy is an anachronism, whichever way you slice it. So there simply must be a better way. Whether a republic is it i dont know. But i dont think perpetuating the myth of a divine right of monarchs is in any way compatible in the 21st century.
Vast numbers of rich people engage in politicking to protect their wealth and privilege. Taking down the monarchy but refusing to address the shady millionaires and corporate billionaires who actually run our society is being unable to see the wood for the trees.
It's a matter of priorities.
The unfairness of the monarchic element of our constitution is the least of our problems.
Which is one reason why Liz was so popular.
She recognised the absolute importance of staying in her lane, avoiding anything that would compromise her constitutional function.
I wish I was more confident that Chuck will do the same.
But, yes, there ought to be a better way.
Two and a half thousand years working on it, though, and we're still deep in the reeds.
Two and a half thousand years working on it, though, and we're still deep in the reeds.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,896
Why does it need to be one or the other? Why are royals this class separate from the ultra-wealthy corporates? They operate similarly. And as far as I can tell, everyone here who has said "sod off" to the idea of divine blood has also said the same about late-stage capitalism.
Im content with a fairly non committal way of moving forward. And that includes having a monarchy at the end result. Obviously i would want its complete abolition. I would be willing to accept a huge slimming down and removal of property rights for the nobility however. In fact, i would consider that a win.
Aristocracy sort of was a different system from oligarchy, since ancient times
Keeping some aristocrats, because there are many oligarchs, isn't much of an argument.
FTFY. There is no indicator that we are in late stage anything. We might be in "the end of the beginning" stage of capitalism.
Last edited:
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Monarchies may bring stability, but they don't necessarily better unite their country. The three Western European countries which face the strongest independentist movements are Spain (Catalonia, Basque Country), Belgium (Flanders) and the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland). All three are kingdoms. Many people living in those regions have a poor perception of the royal family, not feeling represented by it.
Republics considering the whole people as sovereign, allow more flexible representation, with heads of state coming from different parts of the country. Countries such as Switzerland, Italy, Germany or France may have cultural and socio-economic divides between regions, but the sense of belonging to the country feels less disputed.
In this regard, I really appreciated King Charles III first speech, as he showed pretty cleverly his empathy for the country in all its diversity, as well as his intention to work for its unity. That wasn't as easy as it may sound.
That's a mark in their favour imo.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
What do you mean?
Minorities in most of our republics are buried in the mass of popular opinion.
In our monarchies they do better at representing their interests.
In our monarchies they do better at representing their interests.
I would say that’s more coincidence than a feature. Spain was twice a republic and Belgium was carved out of the old Spanish Netherlands. Russia and Yugoslavia had monarchs, then republics, then crumbled; however, I wouldn’t say those two cases are an indictment of republicanism as a style of government.
Similar threads
- Poll
