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.

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.
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.More people will die over the issue in the future I garuntee it. Especially since the UK is in decline. Has been ever since they gave up on empire.
Only now after ditching the EU and bearing the brunt of high costs while being a measly island (populated by peoples who historically don't get along well with the English who rule the UK) will they realize that their failure is complete.
Wales doesn't even have any oligarchs? SerfsActually 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.
Then how could you possibly know what is is going on and what has changed over time?I've only lived in England, Scotland and Wales all my life.
Why not extend this to include abolishing parliament; they are populists and opportunists too, while the royals are there forever.
This type of argument is pretty much like saying "I know x killed someone, but other people kill too, the majority of them not royals, and royals have less practical reason to kill".
Ah yes, absolutionism justified through popular nihilism.
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.
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.Yes, but it is a result of political stability.
With the exception of Spain, all of the current European monarchies still exist only because these countries remained relativley stable in the past 300 years or more.
Being stable and being governed better can go hand in hand, one feeding the other and vice versa.
The survival of their monarchies is simply a result and a mark of stability.
It's not like these nations uniquely liked monarchs more than others.
And the exception of Spain helps demonstrate it - the only recently-restored monarchy in Europe (aka the leasy stable of them) is indeed the only of them that is certainly not governed well.
JFCOASB, you're full of assumptions about my family, aren't you?Could have gotten a heart attack or blood clot in it's sleep. The precise mechanism of death can never be known. But it was old...soooo.
I mean he was hated for what he did to Diana. Queen probably kept him on a too tight leash after that.
But seriously why do you care about Charles' feelings? The whole family is a representation of elitism, imperialism, white supremacy, etc. And honestly knowing how rational you are I doubt you stand for any of these. So why do you respect them? Old loyalist tendencies?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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: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.
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.
![]()