Monarchies in 2020....why?

[Ravensmash]

You can argue for the role as head of state being separate from the leader of your parliment-equivilent. And I suppose I would agree.

Whats harder to justify is the family's riches, taxpayer funding and history of behaviour that would villainse anyone else.

The Queen of England in particular is good at coming across like a sweet old nan so people adamantly opposed to the royal family have a hard time hating her. The rest of her children however I feel would provoke a far more antagonist relationships with the general public. As in to say I feel once she abdicated (or passes on) public opinion of that family will sink.

I would prefer head of states to be elected. Above all I find most people who are in a monarchy (from all countries, not jsut mine) tend to be colossal scumbags.

Click to shrink...

I think Prince Charles is seen as more divisive, but William seems very popular indeed.

At least based on this YouGov survey:

William, Prince of Wales popularity & fame | YouGov

William, Prince of Wales is the 2nd most popular royalty and the 2nd most popular public figure. Explore the latest YouGov polling, survey results and articles about William, Prince of Wales.

yougov.co.uk

 

[Unclebenny]

The UK press is still angry one of our monarchs married a black woman but not angry that another maintained a relationship with a known peadophile.

I think about it, try to come up with some insightful comment but are really just left facing the reality that a lot of Britain is still racist and having a monarchy is both a support for and call back to our historical and structural racism.

Also, when you dig into how much land and private investments the wider royal family own (there's a lot of them) I find it impossible to justify, especially when we have increasing amounts of children in poverty,.

 

[Cats_Schrodinger]

The royal family makes tons of money for the UK.

France has tons of castles. They are not really interesting when they are empty.

 

[Arkanim94]

The royal family makes tons of money for the UK.

France has tons of castles. They are not really interesting when they are empty.

Click to shrink...

france is the most visited country on the globe.

 

[John Dunbar]

france is the most visited country on the globe.

Click to shrink...

no one has ever been to versailles

 

[Arkanim94]

no one has ever been to versailles

Click to shrink...

verwhat?
never heard of it.

 

[Kthulhu]

Over these last few years, I've come to believe that many of the United States' problems might have been avoided if it was a monarchy (without getting rid of the office of the President, just to be clear). Right now, the most powerful person in that country is, by default, partisan. With how votes are divided, almost half of the country will feel as if the President does not represent them, and they will feel little to no attachment or pride in him/her. The only thing that might bind people together outside of the political party they support is the country itself, which is a nebulous concept that is swiftly losing its importance.

Click to shrink...

So instead of rectifying systemic issues we should just paint over them by having a bunch of inbred people get on TV and make us think everything is fine?

Replace it with "constitution" in America for the exact same effect.

Click to shrink...

The resistance to constitutional changes in the US is very much a recent trend, not historical precedent. The constitution may be difficult to change, but you never really saw the GOP utterly and totally resist any alterations until a few decades ago.

 

[DryCreek]

.

 

[Rosebud]

france is the most visited country on the globe.

Click to shrink...

I would say that Eiffel tower and Louvre have more impact than the castles, but Loire Valley was my favorite place by far.

 

[Ramsay]

You can argue for the role as head of state being separate from the leader of your parliment-equivilent. And I suppose I would agree.

Whats harder to justify is the family's riches, taxpayer funding and history of behaviour that would villainse anyone else.

The Queen of England in particular is good at coming across like a sweet old nan so people adamantly opposed to the royal family have a hard time hating her. The rest of her children however I feel would provoke a far more antagonist relationships with the general public. As in to say I feel once she abdicated (or passes on) public opinion of that family will sink.

I would prefer head of states to be elected. Above all I find most people who are in a monarchy (from all countries, not jsut mine) tend to be colossal scumbags.

Click to shrink...

I'd argue that a monarchy is far from ideal on a moral perspective, and that a republic can work similarly well in preventing authoritarianism with an appointed head of state (similar to Germany, which has the advantage of appointing someone on the basis of distinguished merit) - but only with an appointed head of state (ideally by a supermajority in a legislature). A republic with an elected head of state, paradoxically, is the form of liberal democracy most vulnerable to authoritarianism.

The fundamental issue with an elected head of state is that a non-partisan or bipartisan head of state can act as a check to authoritarianism as people tend to vote for populists and other authoritarian politicians promoting simple "solutions" in times of crisis - with potentially dire results in the long-term. Conversely, an elected head of state, by definition, is a partisan figure - and almost always either part of or allied to a party with control of the legislature and/or the head of government - and will rarely have bipartisan support from both the left and the right, as you only require 50% of the vote to be elected. Hence, the separation of powers that allows a democracy to remain stable is greatly diminished.

It's what allowed Erdogan to turn Turkey into a dictatorship. Even in the West, Austria came within 1% of electing a neo-Nazi as their President in 2016.

 

[Deleted member 27246]

France has tons of castles. They are not really interesting when they are empty.

Click to shrink...

Castles are only interesting when no one lives there. Because then you can actually visit them

 

[Deleted member 2328]

These days most monarchies exist only for cerimonial purposes and as another symbol for the nation.
As long as they are not burden on the people and national sentiment is high then the people are happy to put up with them.

 

[Ravensmash]

How do people want the future of the Royal family to look? | YouGov

Brits want the monarchy to continue but are split about succession to the throne after Queen Elizabeth II

yougov.co.uk

Some interesting recent polling here.

Seems in line with what you'd expect - people broadly want the monarchy to continue, but there's deviation between age groups.

 

[Herr Starr]

So instead of rectifying systemic issues we should just paint over them by having a bunch of inbred people get on TV and make us think everything is fine?

Click to shrink...

So, instead of unifying figures or concepts, you'd rather have... what? Civil war? A massive divide with nothing to build a bridge with?

And I said nothing about pretending everything is fine. I talked about giving the people something solid to unite over, a reason for them to work together instead of against each other.

Really, your post is the kind of thing I often expect from those who adamantly oppose the monarchy on principle. It seems like more of a knee-jerk reaction to the privileged monarchy from the old days (which is not the same as the modern monarchy in any way) and opposition to the "elite" rather than an attempt to discuss the topic.

 

[Izzard]

Monarchs or presidents..

The UK wants a monarch, so we remain a monarchy. It decided it didn't a long time ago and executed the king, but the monarchy returned. I expect at some point public opinion will change, and something will happen, but not for a while.

 

[Arkanim94]

It seems like more of a knee-jerk reaction to the privileged monarchy from the old days (which is not the same as the modern monarchy in any way)

Click to shrink...

now they are just born into tons of privilege just because.

hey, at least they can't chop your head off on a whim.

 

[Ramsay]

For those of you who want an elected head of state, let's put it this way: King Charles is going to be bad, but would you take a potential King Donald or King Boris over him?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I have been binging on The Crown on Netflix and I can't help but think why in the fuck does the UK or any other country in this day and age still have royalty?

Click to shrink...

If you consider a Monarchy just a situation were the power structure is such that a tiny elite rules over the rest, many countries nowadays are Monarchies. Just not based on "blue blood" but based on extreme wealth now.
We will see if dynasties manage to arise from that.

 

[Martinski]

I am perfectly fine with constitutional monarchy like we have in Sweden where it's just symbolic.

 

[Kalamoj]

They are not 'real' monarchs, just tourist attractions. I guess they even make money for their country at the end of the day.
The only remaining real monarch in Europe is the Pope.

 

[Herr Starr]

now they are just born into tons of privilege just because.

hey, at least they can't chop your head off on a whim.

Click to shrink...

Having lived in a monarchy all my life, everything I have seen indicates that the life of the royal family is not exactly something most of us would want for ourselves, which makes the word "privilege" not really ring true. Imagine being born into a life where you can't have any public political opinions whatsoever, where everything you do from childhood to old age is documented publicly by the media, where you have no opportunity to pursue the career of your choice without completely abandoning your titles first (and possibly tossing your country into a constitutional crisis, depending on where you are in the inheritance order). Imagine not being able to choose a romantic partner without having his or her life scrutinized down to the finest of details and judged by the entire nation, knowing that any children you have are most likely going to have to go through everything you have. Imagine not being able to move around freely because of your status, having to rely on others to provide basic services to you like going to the store, not because you choose to but because it's the only alternative.

Sure, they might not ever have to fear poverty, but then again, very few people in countries like Norway do.

 

[My Blue Heaven]

 

[Mr. Poolman]

A free person should have no king. Ever.

Even symbolic monarchies lie on the idea that someone is "more" than other people. Fuck that mindset.

 

[Patriiick]

Nationalism.

 

[Timelord19]

I am perfectly fine with constitutional monarchy like we have in Sweden where it's just symbolic.

Click to shrink...

Here in Spain we have something like that, but our ex king has a lot of cases of corruption, but our constitution doesn't allow to properly judge him...so I'm still at the "fuck monarchies boat".

 

[Fallout-NL]

Sure, a purely ceremonial title who gets millions of euros for being born in the right family which sucks

Click to shrink...

Myeah, the older I get, the more that bothers me.

 

[Cats_Schrodinger]

Castles are only interesting when no one lives there. Because then you can actually visit them

Click to shrink...

You can visit Buckingham Palace. I did.

It's crazy expensive and much more interesting than Versailles. Which is at least somewhat interesting for its historical significance. Schoenbrunn is a fucking bore.

There are nice palaces all over Europe, yet they are still much less visited compared to UK stuff.

I agree with CGP Grey here. The monarch is a stabilizing force as head of state and and an asset for tourism.

And we haven't even talked about royal weddings which pull some fucking crazy money.

 

[Grain Silo]

To separate the role of head of state from head of government. Before Donald Trump and Boris Johnson I would've asked the same question, but when your head of government is an absolute clown I start to see the point of someone like the queen.

Still sucks that they hoover up public funding just because they have a surname, though.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

The resistance to constitutional changes in the US is very much a recent trend, not historical precedent. The constitution may be difficult to change, but you never really saw the GOP utterly and totally resist any alterations until a few decades ago.

Click to shrink...

Yes and it is a few decades ago that religion started to really decline in America.

Especially since same sex marriage, conervatives have really gone off the deep end trying to cling to the past and stay relevant.

 

[Herr Starr]

Still sucks that they hoover up public funding just because they have a surname, though.

Click to shrink...

The irony being that most royalties don't have a surname.

 

[Arkanim94]

That video yet again:

 

[FliX]

UK here and I'm the exact opposite of a monarchist. They do however bring in the tourist money and provide xenophobes and nationalists more fuel.

Click to shrink...

The word you're looking for is republican. I realise the GOP kinda poisoned that well. But it is what it is.

Republic

We want to see the monarchy abolished and the King replaced with an elected, democratic head of state. In place of the King we want someone chosen by the people, not running the government but representing the nation independently of our politicians. An elected, effective head of state. The...

www.republic.org.uk

 

[Erpy]

A free person should have no king. Ever.

Even symbolic monarchies lie on the idea that someone is "more" than other people. Fuck that mindset.

Click to shrink...

The irony here is that the average symbolic monarch in a western country has far less freedom than the average Joe Sixpack.

 

[FliX]

How do people want the future of the Royal family to look? | YouGov

Brits want the monarchy to continue but are split about succession to the throne after Queen Elizabeth II

yougov.co.uk

Some interesting recent polling here.

Seems in line with what you'd expect - people broadly want the monarchy to continue, but there's deviation between age groups.

Click to shrink...

It always beggars belief.
"yes let's totally have a hereditary monarchy"
"Yes let's totally skip Charles because he is unpopular and go with the next generation instead"

plonkers. Just have an elected head of state.

 

[Kthulhu]

So, instead of unifying figures or concepts, you'd rather have... what? Civil war? A massive divide with nothing to build a bridge with?

And I said nothing about pretending everything is fine. I talked about giving the people something solid to unite over, a reason for them to work together instead of against each other.

Really, your post is the kind of thing I often expect from those who adamantly oppose the monarchy on principle. It seems like more of a knee-jerk reaction to the privileged monarchy from the old days (which is not the same as the modern monarchy in any way) and opposition to the "elite" rather than an attempt to discuss the topic.

Click to shrink...

First off the idea that without monarchy all we have is civil war is completely baseless and borderline fascistic.

You're conflating a shared love of monarchy with solidarity. A strongman leader or royal family will not stop or even reduce bigots from being hateful or the rich from rigging the economy against the poor and middle class.

 

[Uzzy]

For the UK at least, no one wants to spend the political capital to get rid of them and establish some new form of constitutional governance, a task that would likely take years, when there's far more pressing matters to attend to (like schools, hospitals etc etc etc).

The reality is that the Queen is not politically neutral, but politically compliant towards the current head of the Government. So why get rid of her? She sat on her hands and did nothing when Boris shuttered Parliament last year, so there's no chance she'll stand up to the Government over anything. Why would any Government get rid of a useful figurehead at that point?

 

[PAFenix]

Because no one cares enough to change anything. Even my neighbours in Sweden, Norway and Denmark are more than happy to have these useless welfare families at the top. Then there's Australia, Canada, New Zealand all sharing the same monarch that isn't even their own.

Click to shrink...

I never thought of it but they are essentially welfare families holy shit.

 

[Dan Thunder]

The word you're looking for is republican. I realise the GOP kinda poisoned that well. But it is what it is.

Republic

We want to see the monarchy abolished and the King replaced with an elected, democratic head of state. In place of the King we want someone chosen by the people, not running the government but representing the nation independently of our politicians. An elected, effective head of state. The...

www.republic.org.uk

Click to shrink...

Nope. I don't want any kind of head of state beyond whoever is in charge of the current government at the time.

 

[FliX]

Nope. I don't want any kind of head of state beyond whoever is in charge of the current government at the time.

Click to shrink...

fair enough. So you want a presidential system? I still think that would count as republicanism?

 

[Hollywood Duo]

The real question is why is there a Queen of Canada

 

[Shake Appeal]

Monarchies are, indeed, insane and deeply immoral.

On the other hand, the kind of neutered tourist-attraction monarchies that now exist in Europe actually serve as a weird vestigial buttress to the stability of parliamentary democracies, so I kind of reluctantly see their value. (Just to note, I am not saying monarchies are "profitable," because they are an extravagant waste of money.)

But I'd still cosign stripping all aristocratic titles and appropriating their assets in a heartbeat.

 

[InkyVulture]

I guess this will be a controversial statement of sorts, but honestly, I would like to see the Norwegian monarchy carry on at least until we have had a queen who actually gets to become regent without being passed over in favor of a younger brother or other male relative. Luckily, we currently have a princess holding the second place in the line of succession.

Its not the most important issue in the world by a long shot, and it I know that it is childish and short sighted of me. But I feel that a gender neutral succession law isn't truly valid until we get to see it applied at least once by a successful coronation.

On the other hand, I think everyone in Norway, me included, are happy that this specific case of gender inequality was not fixed in time for Märtha Louise to be the Crown Princess.

 

[Herr Starr]

First off the idea that without monarchy all we have is civil war is completely baseless and borderline fascistic.

You're conflating a shared love of monarchy with solidarity. A strongman leader or royal family will not stop or even reduce bigots from being hateful or the rich from rigging the economy against the poor and middle class.

Click to shrink...

So, what's your alternative here? I mean, you basically just want to rip off the bandaid without offering any other solutions. Even worse, you want to do it without even explaining why the bandaid is a problem, to begin with. If your argument is that, theoretically, the same problems that occur in other systems might also happen with monarchy under certain circumstances, then... that's not really a compelling argument.

 

[yongeandcollege]

With the lunacy of American democracy and the fact that things seem to be hurtling towards endless claims of fraud by all parties in the future, I think having an impartial overseerer is more relevant than ever.

 

[Unclebenny]

It's blowing my mind that (as far as I'm reading it) some of the defence of the monarchy seems to be that it helps prevent a slide into authoritarianism?

The UK is literally, right now, ruled by a bunch of chancers who are working against the national interest. At best, having a monarchy may have slowed this down.

In it's current state the monarchy is useless. If the queen ever actually used any of the powers she still has, then the monarchy as an institution would be (rightly) torn down. that just means she has to follow exactly what the ruling party want and never be seen to stand against it.

Having a monarch is of no benefit to the political process.

Having lived in a monarchy all my life, everything I have seen indicates that the life of the royal family is not exactly something most of us would want for ourselves, which makes the word "privilege" not really ring true. Imagine being born into a life where you can't have any public political opinions whatsoever, where everything you do from childhood to old age is documented publicly by the media, where you have no opportunity to pursue the career of your choice without completely abandoning your titles first (and possibly tossing your country into a constitutional crisis, depending on where you are in the inheritance order). Imagine not being able to choose a romantic partner without having his or her life scrutinized down to the finest of details and judged by the entire nation, knowing that any children you have are most likely going to have to go through everything you have. Imagine not being able to move around freely because of your status, having to rely on others to provide basic services to you like going to the store, not because you choose to but because it's the only alternative.

Sure, they might not ever have to fear poverty, but then again, very few people in countries like Norway do.

Click to shrink...

A prominent member of the royal family has very recently been reasonably linked to a global peadophile ring and his punishment is he is not allowed to do any batshit interviews anymore.

This excuse doesn't wash. The royal family enjoy all the trappings of wealth and that includes freedom for repercussions of their actions.

Yes they have problems brought on by their situation but so does everyone. However, if I was to take actions that make me effectively lose my job my whole family would fall into poverty. My employer wouldn't be forced to keep paying me while I slink into the background.

 

[Lurcharound]

Same reason US has outdated constitution - we haven't been bothered or able to change it.

I don't mean that snarkily, just practically. Monarchies, like laws, customs, etc, don't just "go away" you have to decide to consciously remove or change them.

They're a legacy from the past. Consider, if it hadn't been for a specifc set of circumstances, which is bigger than the PR message of "we won independance" US could still have one too.

 

[BossAttack]

Over these last few years, I've come to believe that many of the United States' problems might have been avoided if it was a monarchy (without getting rid of the office of the President, just to be clear). Right now, the most powerful person in that country is, by default, partisan. With how votes are divided, almost half of the country will feel as if the President does not represent them, and they will feel little to no attachment or pride in him/her. The only thing that might bind people together outside of the political party they support is the country itself, which is a nebulous concept that is swiftly losing its importance.

That's why I feel like the monarchy still serves a purpose. Here in Norway, the position of Prime Minister might change based on elections, but there's always, always a person at the very top, even if only ceremonially, that ascends politics and serves as someone everyone in the country can feel pride in. The position of King has little practical value in daily politics, but the value to the national image is vital.

Click to shrink...

How much pride did you feel when Brexit passed? When Boris Johnson took office?

 

[Herr Starr]

On the other hand, I think everyone in Norway, me included, are happy that this specific case of gender inequality was not fixed in time for Märtha Louise to be the Crown Princess.

Click to shrink...

That's the kind of event that would have forced Norway's hand and made it move away from the monarchy. These past few years have shown us that idiots can be voted into power, but idiots can also inherit. The monarchy isn't bulletproof.

 

[Herr Starr]

How much pride did you feel when Brexit passed? When Boris Johnson took office?

Click to shrink...

What? Are you sure you're replying to the correct person? I clearly identified myself as Norwegian, not British. Norway hasn't even been a British colony in the past, so why would I feel pride over their dumb election results?

 

[Kthulhu]

So, what's your alternative here? I mean, you basically just want to rip off the bandaid without offering any other solutions. Even worse, you want to do it without even explaining why the bandaid is a problem, to begin with. If your argument is that, theoretically, the same problems that occur in other systems might also happen with monarchy under certain circumstances, then... that's not really a compelling argument.

Click to shrink...

Build real solidarity, organize at every level to elect better politicians, advocate for systemic reform, etc.

If violence is truly inevitable then a monarchy will just create a false peace at best and most likely will enable whoever preserves it (which is typically the far right and do nothing moderates). Such a peace can only be maintained by hurting the already vulnerable populace.