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?
There are many reasons that American democracy is lunatic; neglecting to have unelected, money-burning, divinely-appointed, inbred shitbirds squatting atop the thing is not among them.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.
Nah, what I was getting at is that the UK has a monarchy with a likeable transcendent figurehead at the top. That doesn't stop partisan politics from making absolutely terrible decisions and I don't see those citizens having much pride over these massive changes because the Queen is on the tele.
I've said this before, but preventing a slide into authoritarianism is less a defence of a monarchy (especially when an appointed head of state can serve in a similar manner) and more an argument against an elected head of state.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.
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.
well it may be to hint at his PR team that his popularity is not where it should be. So it may be best for him to step aside for another ruler.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.
Disappointed this is the 5th reply lol
My point isn't to feel pride over the choices made by the politicians. Why would you think I was saying that? I'm genuinely confused here.
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.
They project themselves in them. They want to be them. They want to rule. To have people serving them. They're egoistical scum. Just like the royals.
I've said this before, but preventing a slide into authoritarianism is less a defence of a monarchy (especially when an appointed head of state can serve in a similar manner) and more an argument against an elected head of state.
Simply put, an elected head of state is by definition a partisan figure - and given the state of modern politics, it is exceedingly likely that whoever controls the legislature will also have one of their own as head of state. Hence, this weakens the separation of powers required to keep a democracy stable.
As an example, if say, there's a BLM protest and the Conservative Party wants to send tanks in the street, then the likely President Boris will sign off without a second thought regardless of how illegal such an action may be as he's part of said party - whereas the chances that this occurs with any non-partisan head of state is (whilst not zero) dramatically lower.
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.
In unprecedented times, it can stop that slide though. The Dutch queen Wilhelmina reportedly was the single barrier against a compromise with the German's in the second world war. All of the prime ministers during that period wanted to make a deal at one point.
The threat of a constitutional crisis was practically gone, and she had a lot of personal political capital that she could even excercise outside had she been removed as queen.
Being outside of the zeitgeist can be invaluable during a period of regression. A chosen president is still a product of his time and of the majority in parlement at that time. He also wouldn't have time to grow into a symbolic role per se.
In theory I'm a republican, but in practice I can see the value of having a mother or father figure during wars and natural disasters.
The UK royals aren't impartial. They're just good at playing impartial on TV. They can and have intervened on policy before, particularly with regard to their finances. They meet regularly with the PM to discuss the operations of the government, a luxury afforded to no regular UK citizen. It seems naĂŻve to think those meetings have never had an impact on UK government policy.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.
The UK royals aren't impartial. They're just good at playing impartial on TV. They can and have intervened on policy before, particularly with regard to their finances. They meet regularly with the PM to discuss the operations of the government, a luxury afforded to no regular UK citizen. It seems naĂŻve to think those meetings have never had an impact on UK government policy.
With trust in democracy eroding around much of the world, who's to say a populace would side with their government over their monarch if a monarch overstepped? What if the monarch takes the morally correct stance and the government takes the immoral stance? (Not too hard to envision with someone like Johnson leading the UK.) Would the populace be justified in siding with the monarch at the expense of democracy? It's kind of a frightening scenario when you game it out a bit.
The UK monarch is de facto powerless but de jure powerful. Relying on precedent is dangerous. Charles is considerably more opinionated than his mother, and people in the UK should have some concern that he could push boundaries when he assumes the crown from her.
Yeah, I can't even begin to understand why the monarchy still exists in Canada, Australia, and NZ.Sure, no one is actually impartial, that's true. From a Canadian perspective, if there was a constitutional crisis in Canada, say a military coup, then the British monarchy while not impartial is at least detached from the situation and could potentially be used to enforce that any legal shenanigans that would-be coup-ers used to legitimize their actions, were never actually signed in to law.
Most modern royal families are excellent ambassadors for their countries and for charitable or otherwise worthy causes. Yeah it's shit they get so much money for being born into a privileged position but they also live a life of service, whether they want to or not. They're also nearly always under the scrutiny of the media which is an awful way for anyone to live.
I'm not saying they're massively essential or anything but they do still have roles to play, and generally they're an asset to their countries, especially diplomatically. King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands visited Ireland last year and they signed a treaty of double taxation between the two countries, visited members of the Men's Shed organisation and similar initiatives and discussed the possibility of starting it in the Netherlands. They also met with Dutch emigrants who settled in Ireland. None of the above activities necessitated a monarch to perform them but they clearly are still useful for some roles.
Someone once explained to me that it does have a positive unintended consequence of removing all the deference and ceremonial pomp and circumstance that would otherwise be placed on an elected official. From what I understand, in the UK, there's no deference due to the Prime Minster the way there is to the President of the US; he's just the head of government, not the head of state. In the US, since the President is also Head of State as well as Head of Government, there's a much greater aura of deference and ceremony placed on him that I think, in a healthier society, should rather be placed on a politically powerless, non-partisan figure.
While OP is questioning why some countries still have their monarchies, I am here wondering why US still uses imperial system.
There's a lot of advantages to constitutional monarchies. The head of state being a powerless, non-partisan (in theory) figurehead is a feature, not a bug.
Is that really true, though? You trade your right to express your political opinion (not the right to practice it; and not all monarchs even bind themselves to this limitation to begin with), but you also gain a greater access to housing, healthcare, nutrition, education, security and safety. Among other services I don't really care to name, because you get the point. Even if all people are entitled to these same rights, not all people have equal access to them. A monarch gains far greater access to rights than they lose. So I would say that statement is misleading, at best.The irony here is that the average symbolic monarch in a western country has far less freedom than the average Joe Sixpack.
Is that really true, though? You trade your right to express your political opinion (not the right to practice it; and not all monarchs even bind themselves to this limitation to begin with), but you also gain a greater access to housing, healthcare, nutrition, education, security and safety. Among other services I don't really care to name, because you get the point. Even if all people are entitled to these same rights, not all people have equal access to them. A monarch gains far greater access to rights than they lose. So I would say that statement is misleading, at best.
Who quickly replaced himself with a gorram military dictatorship. So much of the UK's parliamentary system arose from desperate situations that I think the beast is quite rightly sceptical about changing stuff for the sake of it. I'm not a monarchist, but cannot think of a worse replacement than a partisan head of state.A shame the one time we chopped our kings head off we replaced him with a puritan dictator
Who quickly replaced himself with a gorram military dictatorship. So much of the UK's parliamentary system arose from desperate situations that I think the beast is quite rightly sceptical about changing stuff for the sake of it. I'm not a monarchist, but cannot think of a worse replacement than a partisan head of state.
Don't forget the arms deals!It seems like they have no actual power and they just sit in their palaces being royalty.
Wat? Did you forget the /s?No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, we should always respect other countries' culture.
*pleure en Québécois*
Rien contre nos GGs, mais fuck la reine pareil
I used the phrase "access to (rights)", because that is the literal definition applied in law. Depending on your country of residence, human rights are also divided into different tiers or sections. You don't necessarily have the right to a house, but you have the right to buy a house or to be protected from eviction. The average Joe is not, however, protected from eviction in all cases. Even though the average Joe has the right to (access) health, the average Joe does not necessarily have healthcare to begin with, and, if he does, his healthcare is not necessarily comparable to the healthcare enjoyed by monarchs.There's a difference between luxury and freedom. Yes, monarchs get access to all kinds of anemities, but at the same time it's not just their ability to express political opinions they agree to give up, it's also the right to... kind of live their life without every single misstep resulting in a thousand tabloid stories. You essentially live with the knowledge that you're under a gigantic microscope for the biggest part of your life and it's not just you they'll be judging but the institution of monarchy as a whole. That constriction's something our current king's probably lived with ever since his teens. It's quite a burden and it's not for everyone. Michelle Obama hated it and Barrack Obama joked that if the constitution didn't prevent him from seeking additional terms, it'd be the threat of her divorcing him.
Considering the state of the UK, I don't think that the difference is worth all that much, tbh.Someone once explained to me that it does have a positive unintended consequence of removing all the deference and ceremonial pomp and circumstance that would otherwise be placed on an elected official. From what I understand, in the UK, there's no deference due to the Prime Minster the way there is to the President of the US; he's just the head of government, not the head of state. In the US, since the President is also Head of State as well as Head of Government, there's a much greater aura of deference and ceremony placed on him that I think, in a healthier society, should rather be placed on a politically powerless, non-partisan figure.
But do you have to pay to protect ex-Primer Ministers? tone: sincere
While OP is questioning why some countries still have their monarchies, I am here wondering why US still uses imperial system.
There's a lot of advantages to constitutional monarchies. The head of state being a powerless, non-partisan (in theory) figurehead is a feature, not a bug.
Yeah, I can't even begin to understand why the monarchy still exists in Canada, Australia, and NZ.
I recall seeing a statistic that Canadians actually pay more per capita than the British to support the monarchy.