Parody to be expected. There will be memes too. Comparing the Queen to one of the Kims is quite delicious and likely enhances her image.
Time to get rid of the Monarchy?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Actually we gave up on empire because we were in decline and couldn't hold on to it, we aren't in decline because we gave up on empire. I think you exaggerate the dislike between the English and the other inhabitants of these islands, but what would I know, I've only lived in England, Scotland and Wales all my life. It isn't the English who rule the UK, its a small subset of the population that includes some Scots who rule.
Wales doesn't even have any oligarchs? Serfs
There's also the colonial border region, in Ireland.
Then how could you possibly know what is is going on and what has changed over time?
It is far more a condemnation of the current government than it is the Royal Family, which is how I intended it.
I never mentioned absolutism, but yes, you can justify lots of things if you invoke public apathy. Many corrupt politicians rely on it.
Welsh nobility was wiped out whereas Scottish nobility joined the system. The Scots colonised Northern Ireland.Wales doesn't even have any oligarchs? Serfs
There's also the colonial border region, in Ireland.
Interesting point about the power of royalty, being exercised by the PM to overrule the judiciary. From stackexchange so CC-SA-BY:
As an example, consider the case of the Chagossians. For those who don't know, the Chagos Islands is an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, controlled by Britain as a remnant of the British Empire. In the late 60s and early 70s, the native population of the islands were forcibly expelled, in order to make way for a US military base that remains there to this day.
In 2000, the British courts ruled that the Chagossians should be allowed to return to their homeland. However, in 2004, the Blair government used Royal Prerogative powers to overturn the earlier decision, and prevent any return. A number of legal cases since have examined that use of the Royal Prerogative and, long story short, have said that although the question is judiciable, ultimately it was a perfectly legal use of the Royal Prerogative powers.
Now, on the one hand, this sort of ruling is hard to generalize, given the nature of colonialism as allowing a State to create exceptions for how it treats colonial subjects versus how it treats people in the metropole.
But on the other hand, consider what this means in the abstract: in theory an autocratic British government could commit illegal acts (as dictators are wont to do), and when a court finds against the dictator and orders their actions be remedied, the government can simply use the Royal Prerogative to overturn the court's decision and carry on with their abusive regime.
And this is before you even notice that under international law, the UK is not recognised as sovereign over the Chagos Islands, and has been ordered by the ICJ and UN General Assembly to hand over the territory so as to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius!
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
What. No. Belgium has existed for less than 200 hundred years, and had to endure two World Wars fought on its soil with terrible occuptions, the latter of which also affected Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. Norway itself has only been independent for little over a hundred years. Denmark last lost territory 150 years ago to Prussia and Austria. The Swedish monarchy in the 18th century was a comedy of errors until they did install a Napoleonic marshal as heir then king, again, barely 200 years ago. It's almost a mystery to me that the Riksdag did not dispose of monarchy altogether after assassinating a king and then deposing his son, if not because they were all aristocrats.
I would not say that Europe was characterised by stability for most of those 300 years, and yet republics only flourished in the last century. It really is a matter of ideals in the end.
JFCOASB, you're full of assumptions about my family, aren't you?
First you toss out the assumption that my dad couldn't keep his "story" straight with the cops (there was no "story"), and now you just assume my cat died in HER sleep (my cats are family, not inanimate objects, so please refrain from the word "it" or "its")?
I was here. You were not. I know what happened. You do not. And not that you care, but my cat died right next to me. She'd curled up beside me when I was on the computer, and she suddenly started to shake. She was gone in less than a minute. I held her, then took her over to my dad's part of the house, he held her, we both cried, and she was buried the next day. I'd had her since she was born under the back porch. So far she is the longest-lived cat I've had. My current cat is 15, so I am expecting to go through quite a bit of grief at some point in the next year or two (I've had Maddy since she was less than 2 months old). When the time comes, I'll very likely post about it, I'll be an emotional wreck, so at that point try not to be rude, 'k?
As for Charles, I don't actually care much how he feels. Yes, he treated Diana abominably. His popularity in Canada took quite a nosedive after all that, and even some monarchists would have preferred Charles to abdicate and have William take the crown. But that doesn't mean I can't have empathy for someone being unjustly accused, as you did earlier. I know what it's like, see, and it is possible to prefer unjust accusations not be tossed around even against people I don't like.
I've already explained my monarchist point of view. I don't intend to keep on explaining. Do a search of my posts if you want to know.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
30 hours in line to see the Queen, not as bad as a deal as you’d think. Michael Jordan’s jersey is up for sale at $10,000,000.
That’s more than $300,000/hr.
To buy Jordan’s jersey, you’d have to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at $50/hr for over twenty years.
For a shirt.
That’s more than $300,000/hr.
To buy Jordan’s jersey, you’d have to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at $50/hr for over twenty years.
For a shirt.
The British Queue is rapidly becoming legendary.
Still not sure if the Brits can beat the Germans or Soviets for the gold medal in line standing, but it's possible.
...
Just to be clear: I don't mean the purpose of the queue. I don't mean the outpouring of emotion or collective gried or the event at the end and around the queue or the people in the queue. I mean, literally, the queue. The queue itself. It's like something from Douglas Adams.
It is the motherlode of queues. It is art. It is poetry. It is the queue to end all queues. It opened earlier today and is already 2.2 miles long. They will close it if it gets to FIVE MILES. That's a queue that would take TWO HOURS TO WALK at a brisk pace.
It is a queue that goes right through the entirety of London. It has toilets and water points and websites just for The Queue.
You cannot leave The Queue. You cannot get into The Queue further down. You cannot hold places in The Queue. There are wristbands for The Queue.
Once you join The Queue you can expect to be there for days. But you cannot have a chair and a sleeping bag. There is no sleeping in The Queue, for The Queue moves constantly and steadily, day and night. You will be shuffling along at 0.1 miles per hour for days.
There is a YouTube channel, Twitter feed and Instagram page, each giving frequent updates about The Queue. Because the back of The Queue, naturally, keeps moving. To join The Queue requires up to the minute knowledge of where The Queue is now.
The BBC has live coverage of The Queue on BBC One, and a Red Button service showing the front bit of The Queue.
NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD JOIN THE QUEUE AND YET STILL THEY COME. "Oh, it'll only be until 6am on Thursday, we can take soup.
And the end of the queue is a box. You will walk past the box, slowly, but for no more than a minute. Then you will exit into the London drizzle and make your way home.
Tell me this isn't the greatest bit of British performance art that has ever happened? I'm giddy with joy. It's fantastic. We are a deeply, deeply mad people with an absolutely unshakeable need to join a queue. It's utterly glorious...
Last edited:
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Size queen queue.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
No no no.
It's a "Queen-sighs queue"
Or possibly a "Queen's sighs-queue"
(I'll get my coat...)
It's a "Queen-sighs queue"
Or possibly a "Queen's sighs-queue"
(I'll get my coat...)
Last edited:
Absolution
King
Thanks, I learned some.
But still - if we make two groups, which of those is the more
stable and well governed in recent generations?
1. UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain
2. Germany ,France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal
As a statistic comparison of group vs group, how would you see it?
If focus in internal stability, less abiut foreign invasions.
Once again, this is not to say that Monarchy promotes stability (which is still optional), but to speculate that stability reduces the chances of republican revolutions.
Given that the UK has had a parliament for most of the last 350 years, it's kind of hard to rate "stability in recent generations" with regards to having a royal family or not.
When the monarchy still had considerable power we certainly weren't stable. It was rare for a reign to go by without a revolt, sometimes a fully fledged civil war.
Absolution
King
The whole discussion here is about democracies with a monarch as a head of state. His authorities may vary, but there's is no point in comparing with Jordan or Morocco.
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
History shows that too many constitutional monarchies are politically unstable systems of government in the world for the statistics cited above to have statistically significance. Note the following constitutional monarchies (U.N. ranking in brackets): Cambodia (124), PNG (137, low development), Brunei, Thailand (92), Tonga (85), Lesotho (141, low development), Fiji (86) , Ceylon (91), Bhutan, Nigeria (particularly, during the lead up to civil war), Nepal (138, low development until recently), the Solomon Islands (123), Jordan, Malaysia, Tuvalu, Bhutan (132), Kuwait, Grenada (74), Belize (78), Antigua and Barbuda, Samoa (94), Bahrain, Barbados, St. Lucia (69), St. Vincent and Swaziland (121). All these countries have histories rifle with at least one of genocide, insurrection or revolution. 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.
Contrast these failed monarchies with the enduring stability and prosperity of ‘the Most Serene Republic of San Marino’, founded 223 AD and which has the world’s oldest running constitution, spanning a total of 1800 years. Compare it to 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. Nor have there been any riots or coups there, unlike under a politicians’ monarchy, or in other words the Westminster governance in place in countries such as Grenada, Fiji, Nigeria and Pakistan where power resides in the elected dictatorship that involves the Crown acting only on advice from the Prime Minister. Compare this to Finland or Iceland, the latter of which has the world’s oldest Parliament. Compare it to Austria, Singapore, Hong Kong, post-war Germany and France. Indeed France, much derided by monarchists because of its numerous attempts at creating a workable republican system before the current one, has in fact the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the Western world. And of course, no monarchy anywhere has ever been able to show the consistent prosperity and stability of the Swiss system of government.
Absolution
King
Are these constitutional monarchies?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
History shows that too many constitutional monarchies are politically unstable systems of government in the world for the statistics cited above to have statistically significance. Note the following constitutional monarchies (U.N. ranking in brackets): Cambodia (124), PNG (137, low development), Brunei, Thailand (92), Tonga (85), Lesotho (141, low development), Fiji (86) , Ceylon (91), Bhutan, Nigeria (particularly, during the lead up to civil war), Nepal (138, low development until recently), the Solomon Islands (123), Jordan, Malaysia, Tuvalu, Bhutan (132), Kuwait, Grenada (74), Belize (78), Antigua and Barbuda, Samoa (94), Bahrain, Barbados, St. Lucia (69), St. Vincent and Swaziland (121). All these countries have histories rifle with at least one of genocide, insurrection or revolution. 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.Contrast these failed monarchies with the enduring stability and prosperity of ‘the Most Serene Republic of San Marino’, founded 223 AD and which has the world’s oldest running constitution, spanning a total of 1800 years. Compare it to 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. Nor have there been any riots or coups there, unlike under a politicians’ monarchy, or in other words the Westminster governance in place in countries such as Grenada, Fiji, Nigeria and Pakistan where power resides in the elected dictatorship that involves the Crown acting only on advice from the Prime Minister. Compare this to Finland or Iceland, the latter of which has the world’s oldest Parliament. Compare it to Austria, Singapore, Hong Kong, post-war Germany and France. Indeed France, much derided by monarchists because of its numerous attempts at creating a workable republican system before the current one, has in fact the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the Western world. And of course, no monarchy anywhere has ever been able to show the consistent prosperity and stability of the Swiss system of government.
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.
Similar threads
- Poll
