Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Uncle Paul]

You are wrong, though.

17 isn't illegal, and it isn't immoral.

No, there's a reason I said "breaking the law", buddy.

Which there is no proof that Prince Andrew did.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I am right, though. The accuser was 17 at the time, 17 is legal in England, where it allegedly happened. Modern society is weird about 16-17 year old women, anyway...historically, that's a perfectly respectable age to take a bride.

It was a bad decision, but not one that qualifies as criminal...if I got super drunk before going to my brother's wedding, that would be a bad decision, but not criminal.

England on the 1st alleged occasion. New York and the US Virgin Islands on the other alleged occasions.
Nothing was ever proved but Prince Andrew certainly did not want his day in court.

 

[sophie]

England on the 1st alleged occasion. New York and the US Virgin Islands on the other alleged occasions.
Nothing was ever proved but Prince Andrew certainly did not want his day in court.

Also on the Epstein flight logs.

 

[Uncle Paul]

lmao

"she is benign and benevolent, free of political baggage"

"she used her political power for personal ends"

reconcile these statements for me.

It's not political power, she didn't change the British laws or anything. Rich people in America do the same thing to protect their children. Andrew did nothing wrong. 17 isn't a child, 17 isn't illegal, 17 isn't immoral. My great-aunt married a 20-something guy at 15, and it worked out great.

England on the 1st alleged occasion. New York and the US Virgin Islands on the other alleged occasions.
Nothing was ever proved but Prince Andrew certainly did not want his day in court.

AoC is 17 in New York, she was already 18 by the time it allegedly happened in the US Virgin Islands.

 

[Takhisis]

she didn't change the British laws or anything.

You're free to support or detest any ideology you like, but I have already explained how the monarch can and does intervene in legislating in many ways, even to the point of toppling the occasional government.

Also, I'm not going to dispute how your family ‘worked out’ because I have never met a single one of them but, please, you're advocating for sexual activity at an age which makes it a serious crime in the countries of several of the posters here and, regardless of your personal preferences, you might get us in hot water regarding legalities so I suppose that at some point the mods will come down on us.

 

[sophie]

It's not political power, she didn't change the British laws or anything. Rich people in America do the same thing to protect their children. Andrew did nothing wrong. 17 isn't a child, 17 isn't illegal, 17 isn't immoral. My great-aunt married a 20-something guy at 15, and it worked out great.

Rich people in America don't wear a gaudy crown that is the literal physical representation of the right to rule the country. Rich people in America don't have their personal seal inscribed on every passport, every stamp, every coin, and every government building in the country.

But once again, reconcile:

"she didn't do anything"

and

"she protected her children"

 

[Uncle Paul]

You're free to support or detest any ideology you like, but I have already explained how the monarch can and does intervene in legislating in many ways, even to the point of toppling the occasional government.

Also, I'm not going to dispute how your family ‘worked out’ because I have never met a single one of them but, please, you're advocating for sexual activity at an age which makes it a serious crime in the countries of several of the posters here and, regardless of your personal preferences, you might get us in hot water regarding legalities so I suppose that at some point the mods will come down on us.

I'm not advocating for anything, merely pointing out that Andrew's accuser was over the age of consent in the jurisdiction where it allegedly took place. If he was accused of molesting an actual child, I would support locking him up.

Rich people in America don't wear a gaudy crown that is the literal physical representation of the right to rule the country. Rich people in America don't have their personal seal inscribed on every passport, every stamp, every coin, and every government building in the country.

But once again, reconcile:

"she didn't do anything"

and

"she protected her children"

She didn't do anything political. She didn't interfere in the political process. She didn't "rule" Britain. She was a figurehead.

 

[sophie]

She didn't do anything political. She didn't interfere in the political process. She didn't "rule" Britain. She was a figurehead.

So she serves no practical purpose and we ought to get rid of her (now his) titles, royal trappings, and privileges. Glad we are in agreement.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm having a bit of a laugh seeing all the things old Liz Windsor managed to save us from by outliving BoJo's premiership.

 

[Uncle Paul]

So she serves no practical purpose and we ought to get rid of her titles, her royal trappings, and her privileges. Glad we are in agreement.

She is a figurehead and a diplomatic figure (see Ireland, 2011), not a politician. The monarchy is part of British culture, and I don't want it to ever go away.
Don't you get it? I'm very right-wing, I will never endorse anti-monarchism, anti-colonialism, Marxism, socialism, etc...
Britannia rule the waves...

 

[sophie]

Don't you get it? I'm very right-wing, I will never endorse anti-monarchism, anti-colonialism, Marxism, socialism, etc...
Britannia rule the waves...

Cool dude!

 

[W|M]

Bbc should have known better.

View attachment 639745


Googled it and he was born in 1967, which is 6-7 years before the monarchy ended in Greece.
Still, in what way is he a "crown prince"?

Nice mustache/beard/hair though

ex-royal families everywhere like pretending their former titles still matter and convincing the media to use those titles

 

[Takhisis]

And most of them, like the Windsors, are Djerman.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: If you want to talk about Andrew and his situation, please start a new thread.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Here’s Jordan Peterson’s take on the Monarchy.

Thank God for Elizabeth II, whose reign kept tyranny at bay
Freedom under a symbolic monarch, guided by a distributed system of government, is a gift from Britain to the world

There are only a few figures who are recognised nationally, and even fewer who are known internationally. But it’s a very small number – a handful – who are known by everyone, everywhere in the world. Fame, like everything else, comes in tiers, and the sky’s the limit.

Queen Elizabeth II was one such figure. American presidents sometimes come close, but none have been as enduringly popular or as instantly recognisable as the Queen. But Elizabeth II was far more than the world’s most famous woman. She was the defender of the most effective system of government that has yet been created: that of constitutional monarchy.

No system has proved as effective as a bulwark against tyranny. The United States has its solutions – dividing power between the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches – but none have proven as enduringly successful or popular as the model pioneered in Britain.

America's tripartite division is, perhaps, insufficient: a fourth branch is necessary, for reasons that are psychological and social, simultaneously. Someone independent (and worthy) needs to carry the symbolic burden. It is for this reason that those who clamour for the dissolution of the great drama of the monarchy, so well played by the Commonwealth’s great former sovereign, risk destabilising the societies they purport to support.

Every country needs someone to shoulder the symbolic burden of the state. If that person is not a monarch, set up explicitly to manage that role, the responsibility (and temptation) tends to fall on the head of state, the leader of the executive branch.

Why is that a problem? Because the proclivity for pharaonic leadership makes itself manifest; because the temptation to dynasty re-emerges; because the role of president or prime minister (or dictator, for that matter) and, simultaneously, star is too much of a part for any one person to play without significant and often deadly moral hazard.

In the US, a remarkable and free country, the president can too easily slide into the role of Tsar – and not just the president, but the “First Family,” with the wife an ersatz queen, and the children princes and princesses. All people need someone to look up to; need someone to serve as a model for emulation – but it’s useful to separate those who could formally serve that role from those who have to make the administrative and practical decisions.

Everything in its proper place. And that’s something that Queen Elizabeth II knew very well.

For 70 years, she ruled not only over her people, but her prime ministers. Is it not a very good thing to have someone elected to what would otherwise be the highest position in the land still be required to defer to something else; something superordinate and higher – and, if not God, at least the Queen, at least a Queen such as Elizabeth, a dutiful, responsible, careful, judicious, calm and dignified steady hand at the wheel; someone capable of and willing to perform that complex function. And, with her doing that, her prime ministers did not have to and were also unable to (as she was perfectly capable of most properly stealing the stage, and keeping them in their proper place).

The monarchical system therefore fulfils a vital psychological (spiritual) and social purpose. It’s of great practical utility, as well. The Americans are a great and attractive people, not least because of their remarkable tendency to mythologise and dramatise their culture, political and individual.

The Brits have the same propensity: to play out a great story – and the monarchy can play the leading part, just as Queen Elizabeth did so well. That’s a great benefit, culturally – and economically. Who can deny the tremendous attraction of the traditions of the UK, say, to the tourist trade – to those who can come to this great island and watch the drama unfold, in the pomp and circumstance that make the UK of great interest (particularly when it is, as it is in the UK, allied with the ability to also satirise and make light of that same tradition, and to take the edge off in that sophisticated manner).

It will of course be very difficult to sustain the monarchy, in the absence of the great and ever-reliable and stalwart Elizabeth. I sincerely hope that Charles III, waiting so long in the wings, will rise to the occasion, and that the rest of the Commonwealth will recognise and appreciate what they have in the shared historic, philosophical and cultural bonds that unite them, grounded in the miraculously valuable principles of English common law and the great democratic traditions of individual sovereignty, so remarkably allied as they are with the symbolic monarchical tradition.

I hope that this recognition and appreciation is managed in an unapologetic and forthright manner. We should all remember, in the aftermath of the passing of our great monarch, that it was the UK and its traditions and freedoms that produced the industrial revolution that has made us all wealthy beyond even the imagination of our forebears, and that fought the long battle to make slavery not only untenable on the political and economic fronts but clearly wrong from the moral position. Slavery was universally practiced, as far back into history as we can see, and as widely as any other economic practice. Abolition was the exception and, while abolitionist sentiment emerged in other jurisdictions, no country did more to enforce the strictures against slavery on the international scene than the UK.

Free men and free women under a symbolic monarch, guided by a distributed system of governmental, artistic and entrepreneurial responsibility: that’s a great system, and a gift, in a very real sense, from the UK to the world.

And the Queen held her hand at the helm of that remarkable system for seventy years. And thank God for that. And God Save the King.

For all our sakes.

Thank God for Elizabeth II, whose reign kept tyranny at bay

Freedom under a symbolic monarch, guided by a distributed system of government, is a gift from Britain to the world

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kyriakos]

Peterson sticking his oar into this too? :/
Anything to back his claim that constitutional monarchy is "the most effective system of government" ever created? I struggle to see how (eg) the government of the UK is better than the government of the US.

 

[Gorbles]

Wow, Peterson writing for the Telegraph. I've seen everything at this point

 

[Uncle Paul]

Peterson sticking his oar into this too? :/
Anything to back his claim that constitutional monarchy is "the most effective system of government" ever created? I struggle to see how (eg) the government of the UK is better than the government of the US.

Because Britons who achieve great things can be knighted or receive a peerage. Americans who achieve great things cannot attain any kind of meaningful distinction. Americans cannot become Baron, Duke, Earl, not even Sir.

 

[Kyriakos]

Because Britons who achieve great things can be knighted or receive a peerage. Americans who achieve great things cannot attain any kind of meaningful distinction. Americans cannot become Baron, Duke, Earl, not even Sir.

They can become senator - or buy one or more. Also, isn't there some honorary title given by the potus?
The monarch giving someone a title for (say) scientific excellence, clearly presents how the title-giver isn't tied to the actual order the title is a distinction in.

 

[really]

Because Britons who achieve great things can be knighted or receive a peerage. Americans who achieve great things cannot attain any kind of meaningful distinction. Americans cannot become Baron, Duke, Earl, not even Sir.

They can become president though.