Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[EnglishEdward]

They couldn't even have waited a few weeks?

In the UK if a significant employer knows that there are going to be redundancies,
that employer has a legal duty to communicate that to the employees promptly.

This advance notice is so that employees have more time to prepare to look for alternative work,
may avoid making house moves that the redundancy might make irrelevant, or entering into
commitments to purchase things, e.g. cars that they would no longer be able to afford.

While King Charles III could argue that the law does not apply to him as sovereign,
UK judges have the habit of overturning such claims for exceptionalism.

 

[innonimatu]

Police in backwards island nation in Europe's periphery arrests man for asking who elected the new puppet head of the regime there.

Some apologists of the regime downplay the incident, saying that the island's rulers must repress anything perceived as "breaches of the peace" due to a recent history of tribal conflict, where the army and regime militias waged a repressive war agaist a rebels with ethnic links to a tribe of a neighboring island and massacred a number of civilians who sympathized with these rebels. The regime still claims to wage "wars on terror" to this day.

 

[emzie]

Police in backwards island nation in Europe's periphery arrests man for asking who elected the new puppet head of the regime there.

Some apologists of the regime downplay the incident, saying that the island's rulers must repress anything perceived as "breaches of the peace" due to a recent history of tribal conflict, where the army and regime militias waged a repressive war agaist a rebels with ethnic links to a tribe of a neighboring island and massacred a number of civilians who sympathized with these rebels. The regime still claims to wage "wars on terror" to this day.

I've always been rather apathetic about the monarchy -- I liked the queen, and had mild philosophical objections to the concept of any monarchy. This changed my mind. It was a reasonable question.

 

[Arwon]

It's funny the monarch supposedly has no power and is a harmless and meaningless bit of ceremonial theatre... but monarchists squeal like little piggies over the idea of removing this non existent power from these harmless doe-eyed decorative creatures.

 

[innonimatu]

I've always been rather apathetic about the monarchy -- I liked the queen, and had mild philosophical objections to the concept of any monarchy. This changed my mind. It was a reasonable question.

"His majesty's" government seems to have taken Monty Pyton's King Arthur scene "Help! He's repressing me" as instructions for the current age.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Which is hilarious considering how much you're getting wrong.

what am I getting wrong?
convince me how Prime Minister= hard power Monarchy= soft iconic power is wrong.
In NZ and other Commonwealth nations ( like Canada and Australia) our PM has all the power while Governor General and Monarchy has symbolic power.
I expect that to be same in UK ( of cause obviously without Governor General)

 

[sophie]

Wealth and property are not soft power. Nor are direct legal powers or royal prerogatives.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

what am I getting wrong?
convince me how Prime Minister= hard power Monarchy= soft iconic power is wrong.
In NZ and other Commonwealth nations ( like Canada and Australia) our PM has all the power while Governor General and Monarchy has symbolic power.
I expect that to be same in UK ( of cause obviously without Governor General)

The PM has power in a majority government when they have so many seats that even a coalition can't defeat a bill. Canada currently has a minority government and it is mathematically possible for the opposition parties (federally we have a 4-party system; one of the parties is the separatist party in Quebec that doesn't run candidates in any other province) to defeat the government on a budget or other money bill. If this happens, a new election is triggered because the opposition parties have expressed non-confidence in the government.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Money and property are not soft power.

you make it sound like royals are only ones to own lands in UK... and is it a crime to own lands?
So the crown owns lands big deal...
Wealthy owns unfair amounts of lands in a nation without monarchy like US. what are you going to say "eat the rich" and get them expelled too? ( smells... RED)

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The PM has power in a majority government when they have so many seats that even a coalition can't defeat a bill. Canada currently has a minority government and it is mathematically possible for the opposition parties (federally we have a 4-party system; one of the parties is the separatist party in Quebec that doesn't run candidates in any other province) to defeat the government on a budget or other money bill. If this happens, a new election is triggered because the opposition parties have expressed non-confidence in the government.

and? how many powers dose a monarch hold in politics? not much unless you are into conspiracy theory that every PM is in cohort with monarch in keeping secret powers like Thailand

 

[sophie]

you make it sound like royals are only ones to own lands in UK... and is it a crime to own lands?
So the crown owns lands big deal...

Stay on topic. You said the sovereign is entirely reliant on soft power. This is flatly not true given their vast wealth, their status as the largest landholder in the United Kingdom, their status as the head of the Church of England, and their direct legal powers like the power to convene and dismiss parliament, to appoint peers, etc.

Do not deflect. Acknowledge that you were wrong.

 

[Ajidica]

Not all monarchies are the same. Does anyone have actual objections to the Swedes keeping a guy who looks like a funny grandpa around to serve as head of state and man the grip-and-grimace line at diplomatic receptions?

 

[Arwon]

That kind of presupposes being on board with the concept of Sweden to begin with

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Stay on topic. You said the sovereign is entirely reliant on soft power. This is flatly not true given their vast wealth, their status as the largest landholder in the United Kingdom, their status as the head of the Church of England, and their direct legal powers like the power to convene and dismiss parliament, to appoint peers, etc.

Do not deflect. Acknowledge that you were wrong.
firstly their head as church of England is part of their "soft power" as they symbolize as "religious head" in UK ( but then again with UK increasingly becoming Atheist I wonder how meaningful that is)

their direct legal powers like the power to convene and dismiss parliament,

In theory YES they can but they really can't unless they want to cause a something that is called "constitutional crisis" and if they did that Parliament will not stand and people in UK will outcry for end of monarch.
Right now only thing that saves British monarch from abolishment is Public support. If they even say something that might seem constitutionally wrong is a day that British royal dies.

to appoint peers

Again it is 100% purely symbolic jester. That happens in other consitutional monarchy nation like Japan- and Japanese Emperor has even LESS power than British royals. Heck in fact they are required by the law to sign the document otherwise they are "fired"

 

[Kupe Navigator]

honestly despite their wealth the Queen isn't even wealthiest person in UK anyway.
Do a simple google search and ask for wealthiest person in UK and surprise surprise it ain't Queen or any of royals.

Rishi Sunak and Akshata Murty make Sunday Times Rich List

Chancellor Rishi Sunak and his wife make the Sunday Times Rich List for first time with £730m fortune.

www.bbc.com

The Sunday Times Rich List 2025

The Rich List 2025 is our definitive guide to the wealth of the UK’s richest people. Read profiles and interviews, and see all the facts and figures

www.thetimes.co.uk

Royals are not even in top 5 ( unless you are in a conspiracy theory and say BBC is in cohort with royals in hiding their wealth and are spawn of Satan)

 

[Gorbles]

honestly despite their wealth the Queen isn't even wealthiest person in UK anyway.

Nobody said she was. Why should people bother answering your questions when you keep deflecting, like has already been pointed out?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Nobody said she was. Why should people bother answering your questions when you keep deflecting, like has already been pointed out?

Then what is the problem? Sure she has a lot of wealth but she isn't even wealthiest so according to people like you she has less power than wealthiest people in UK. Plus even when you abolish monarchy the wealth system in UK will not change as the wealthiest will remain wealthy. Unless you go full on "eat the rich" mode and confiscate all the wealth from the wealthy.

 

[sophie]

Forbes placed the royal family’s net worth at 28B and Fortune says 18B. The Duchy of Cornwall on its own is valued at 1.8B and that’s wealth the crown controls directly, tax free and without any say-so from Parliament. Unwilled property in Cornwall passes directly to the Duchy.

 

[Gorbles]

Then what is the problem?

The problem has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[AmazonQueen]

View attachment 639312

Much like the ottoman Empire until Suleiman introduced the cage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafes