> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing.
This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished.
Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.
From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right.
On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)
I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc..
My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy.
A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.
A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.
Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)
In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it.
Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.
Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny.
On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside.
On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.
If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.
Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.
Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'.
And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€.
I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards.
These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant.
Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc.
According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited
attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423
I did not write this as a defense of keeping the monarchy around just for the curiosity value, or from the raking-in-cash angle, just highlighting that the experience is quite different for visitors.
A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.
> The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest.
In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.
The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies.
The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency.
> ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch”
Correct.
> “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.”
Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.
"The sovereign grant was increased in 2017, from its previous level of 15%, to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace which are likely to run until 2027."
No, Buckingham Palace and other “occupied” royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate.
”The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate, but nor are they the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.”
Did some research; think I’ve figured it out. See whether this is correct.
Occupied palaces, like Buckingham Palace, are owned by the reigning monarch ‘in right of the Crown’ (like you pointed out).
Similarly, the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’.
“In right of The Crown” means it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne.
So, you are correct (and I was wrong) that Buckingham is not part of the Crown Estate.
Notwithstanding this technicality, would you agree that the overarching point remains that it isn’t as if “the money goes to the monarch for their personal enjoyment” (which is what I interpreted you implied), but towards Buckingham renovations, which is a property of The Crown[1] (i.e the state) and which in turn is embodied by the reigning monarch.
It sounds to me as if the monarch is like a custodian/shepherd of these assets for the benefit of the state (the crown).
Laws still have to respect the rights of the people, no? I’m not well versed in UK law, but the US, the legislature can’t just make a law making criticism of the government illegal because it’s a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.
> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny.
Only because of Hollywood accounting.
Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government does. If the Queen were to disappear tomorrow, tourists would still come to England to see Buckingham Palace.
The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other places kings and queens have lived)
Counterargument: all those grandiose empty buildings. People still come to see our Place of the Parliament in Bucharest and ain't nobody bringing back Ceaușescu :-))
The question isn’t whether people would visit, but rather do they visit more because of the queen’s existence. That is, would be worth a billion rather than billions
The late author JG Ballard once suggested that the monarchy should be abolished, but that the British government should work with Disney to have lifelike robotic replicas made. Cheaper in the long run, and Disney World is quite popular after all.
Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.
Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.
You don't want one person having both.
Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
> Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to?
Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person?
> In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.
I don't think there's much evidence of that.
> You don't want one person having both
Why not?
> Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.
IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then.
In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?
Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.
> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?
In a parliamentary system, the legislative body selects a head of government using a negative process, i.e. they choose the first best alternative that won't lose a vote of no confidence. You don't need 51% approval from parliament, you need to not get 51% disproval.
And depending on country, there are rules for in which order the various players are asked and how much time is allowed to pass for horse-trading and coalition-making, but generally the order is that you first ask the incumbent if they want to continue governing, and thereafter each party leader in order of size in parliament if they have an alternative that they think can pass a vote.
Also, in countries where coalitions are the norm, the various parties have aligned into blocks during the election campaign so that you can be reasonably certain that a vote for party A implicitly is a vote for their block.
> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?
We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).
That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government.
Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats.
The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.
> Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?
Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.
> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?
Why do you need to have someone make a choice? Have a set timeline for one of the other to secure the support of a Parliamentary majority or new elections are called by operation of law.
It is useful to have a hereditary figurehead to open flower shows and the like. It keeps the elected politicians from forming a personality cult, and gives them more time to govern. Pardoning turkeys probably isn't the highest and best use of the us President's time
According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw, the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism
I expect to be downvoted for this but I think there is an appeal in an institution that dogmaticaly upholds a "higher" ideal of human behavior. They try to provide us with an example of how a hypothetical family with essentially unlimited resources that is born into this world with a social duty should theoretically behave. They also show us constant examples that human emotions are a factor regardless of your socio-economic situation. This provides the layman with an answer to the question "what would I do if I won the lottery and was instantly vaulted into the highest social circle?" Would you use your influence for the good of the people while maintaining a scandalous affair? Would you fall into the same emotional traps as the royals?
I think it's an interesting social experiment that may be worth the cost it requires to maintain.
What you describe is noblis oblige. It's a long standing cultural force ofarguable efficacy peculiar in particular to France/Britain.
Elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints. The funny thing is that your proposed institution assumes the layman is the one who needs to be taught or reminded more often than not.
Stripping the Monarchy of their lands goes quite a bit further than just abolishing the monarchy. Removing the right to rule a county is one thing. Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.
>Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.
The concept of personal property can perfectly accommodate of a limit in how much a individual person can personally own, especially in regard to the distribution of wealth in the whole population.
> Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings
An Act of Parliament could just ascertain that the Windsors exempting each other from Inheritance tax was unlawful, and ask the new Republican Revenue & Tax office to assess 40% IHT on every historical generational transfer of assets.
Just redressing the historical injustices that the Windsors benefitted from would strangely make them much less rich.
The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.
We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.
Why would that result in the positions/powers being abolished, rather that succession kicking in?
Monarchy isn't a hot potato, that the current power-holder has to directly pass on lest it get "dropped on the floor" and cease to exist. Monarch is a belief of the people that a position of power exists and is "open" to be taken by a person with a claim on "right to rule." It's a thing you can convince people you deserve, at which point they put the crown on your head rather than shooting at you for wearing it. Succession gives a peaceful path for that transfer of power, but succession isn't the default; a power vacuum being grabbed at by random nobles—usually violently!—is.
If the current monarch stepped down, someone else without the same scruples would just step up. You'd have to, in effect, get every even-barely-theoretically-"righteous" noble to all agree to denounce the power, for the power to truly go away.
I have a bit of a hard time understanding this hobby, but people have traced multiple lines of succession to the same throne out for centuries, even in cases where the throne no longer exists. In many cases pretenders identified by this activity have active supporters even when they don't promote or assert their own claims.
Like there can be some guy living in another country who says "um, that monarchy no longer even exists" or "um, my ancestors lost that war a long time ago and I don't plan to reignite it", but still has some kind of association of enthusiasts who claim to actively want him on the throne. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria who insists that he doesn't actually think of himself as the King of England -- his relative who last actually exercised that position was deposed back in 1688 -- but that doesn't stop other people from thinking of him that way. :-)
Wikipedia has several dozen people listed in the official present-day line of succession to the British throne and notes that a genealogist has claimed to identify over 1,000 people in that line.
It's possible to imagine a France-like republican future for Britain in which people's elaborately detailed and extensively researched pretense claims are not very interesting news for the overwhelming majority of the population, but it probably wouldn't be something that would happen overnight in response to a couple of abdications when a huge number of British people and a substantial number of people with claims to the throne are actively enthusiastic about the monarchy.
> nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation
In theory, it'd then be shared as belonging to the nation. In practice, you'd get the political class lining their pockets in the short term, and leaving us worse off in the long term.
Between letting successive populist governments have free reign over what happens to certain wealth, institutions and freeholdings and spunking it on policies during their 4 or 8 years in charge, and letting a somewhat stable (if sometimes self-serving) hereditary monarchy retain stewardship over the course of centuries - I'm inclined toward the latter.
Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute.
Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships.
Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse The Godfather part II with a good idea.
Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of tax free money.
I don't see it as cute, more as a cancer. Sometimes they are benign but you still want to get rid of it in-case it actually ends up killing you.
It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs).
But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.
Hunting elephants is legal and can help protection for the species. The real problem is in the context. Is going to an african tax heaven with some questionable people, suffering the second strange accident to the royal family in a short time, and justify the travel later claiming that he wanted to shoot an elephant.
EU project is only partially compatible with monarchy, you either have the power or don't and monarchs can only slowly lose more and more power to bankers with time. Thus, the current anti monarchy trend in many countries of Europe would be expectable. British probably see it coming and jumped of the train.
Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality.
Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corruption.
Monarchies are necessary as-long as the region needs them .. i see politics more like an evolutionary process where monarchy is part of a nations dev stages.
In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places.
We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial.
Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy.
Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would likely have had a revolution.
Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different.
But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?
In Britain they don't have a constitution the same way. But I see many events throughout british history where the crown gradually signed away power.
> Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?
Not saying its bad, just saying they wont do it. Theyre already rich beyond imagining- sadism and abuse are rampant, and the public doesnt seem to care.
Like seriously, how much cash will it take to convince the saudis to go ceremonial? Meanwhile another gay person is hung and a dissident is assassinated. That all said .. seems to be what the region “wants” - displeasure isnt high enough yet for regular folk to demand change.
In arabic there is a saying “the people earn the ruler they deserve”.
Beyond the short term moral qualm .. its just a step in the development of these countries - it could - and i was - worse. Better wiser days will come.
It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business.
But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than radical change.
I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyrannical dictator, but usually because it gives some of the population the warm fuzzies.
I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.
The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician.
And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.
Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is.
If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!
The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is:
I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law
After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office.
If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.
In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular...
Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.
Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish.
Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.
> If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.
Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position.
Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons.
The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649.
That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers.
You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.
The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.
Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy.
I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe.
The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.
It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
> The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.
Well that's a straw man.
> It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute
It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship.
What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians).
But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution.
If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic.
(Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)
Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me".
Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it.
So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country.
Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew…
Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.
And parliaments aren't? It's not actually clear to me which is better or worse over the long term.
Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. I postulate that striping the royals of wealth will make no one here materially better off.
I've noticed that in the last five years or so there's been a trend to automatically dismiss any criticism or argument with "you're just jealous" rather than addressing it's merits. Any wealthy person is automatically immune from any sort of criticism - because if you criticize them it's only because you're jealous.
It's an ad hominem attack, nonsensical, tired, and, as someone who has experienced a lot of wealth envy in the past, always strike me as so incredibly insincere.
> Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly.
This idea that criticism of wealth must be just down to envy is really quite a tired stereotype.
It makes even less sense when there's a hereditary class of people whose wealth and power is constitutionally guaranteed and, as we've discovered, who use corrupt means to maintain this by intervening in the lawmaking process to neutralise threats to their income.
It's not envy to realise that there must be a better system than this.
There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.
If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.
Oh, no. I just wanted to share some nuance on what can stand behind a "measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property."
And it’s not like "civilization" was something one might really believe to stand on fairness, reciprocity and mutual care. That kind of things can survive in civilizations, and probably civilizations can’t survive themselves without leaving some room for these feelings.
> It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.
Sure, it might be possible to get a better deal. Or it might not, is it worth the risk?
Giving a ceremonial role is a pretty solid carrot.
And compared to violent revolution it's dirt cheap to offer :)
I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince the Danish king to sign the Danish constitution in 1849.
It's not a given that it could have happened peacefully.
In the end, it might not last forever anyways. It'll last so long as the monarchy remains popular, because at the end of the day the votes can change the constitution.
> I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.
They've already had at it. The French in 1066 and the Irish have invaded Wales and Scotland. So have the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians for that matter, it's time to give someone else a run.
Historically, Ireland and France were England's sworn, mortal enemies (Scotland for a while too, but that's faded). Regardless of current forms of government, they have the best candidates to take the British throne by force.
A French or Irish monarch might also help bring UK back into the EU :)
After giving it some thought, I think I have the right system. After the invasion, the UK monarchy is no longer hereditary. Instead, the French and Irish parliaments, in a joint session, elect the British monarchs.
Everyone's happy. Ireland and France have their democracies. England has its monarchy.
We can even draft a constitution with bounds on who can become monarchs. For example, they might need to be citizens of former British colonies. That might help keep the former colonies happy. Keep in mind both Ireland and most of France were, at one point, colonized by Britain (for France: See Hundred Years War, The Black Prince, and Joan d'Arc).
> Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted.
Well, Karl XIV became king because he was elected by parliament, and then Karl XIII formally adopted him to make him and his family royal, not the other way around.
Either way, his son and grandson both married women that were descendants of Gustav Vasa in an attempt to bolster their claims, and that guy definitely took the throne by force.
So yes, you're right in that not every current reigning monarch has their position due to conquest, but most of them. And then that doesn't really matter, because the point I was making is that "rightful" is actually bullshit, it's 100% made up. It's political theater created to make it harder for presumptive conquerors to keep a throne, even if they have the might necessary to take it.
> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)
You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family.
> A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.
Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk inherent with any concentrated political/wealth power. It is not absolutely safer on all regard to go for a different kind of government of course, it’s a different trade-off.
>A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.
First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. The question is, if the people decide by means of a referendum to get rid of privileges, will the privileged few accept without trying to use violence to maintain their position?
Actually in France, they are several pretender to the throne[1]. It’s just that virtually nobody care.
>Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)
Maths on what? Societies are complex systems with many parameters whose evolution is subject to the butterfly effect. You can throw numbers in-between to decorate any thesis you would like to defend, it doesn’t give it any meaningful scientific credibility.
> Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.
You say that like there was some kind of strictly internal consensus in the people of Syria to go for what happened rather than paying Assad. That sounds like an absurdly simplistic exposition of reality.
Monarchies tend to want to continue the family business. I’d expect them to learn from the tragedies of the 20th century. As a result of the fascist movements, the Italian monarchy lost the crown and the Spanish lost it but only recovered it because of Franco’s whim. If I were a king, I’d use whatever reserve powers I had to oppose that kind of future for my dynasty.
In that article, from an 80 old day comment of mine, you did not understand my comment. You told me to read the article. You don't understand what I mean by justification. There is a difference between prescription and description. That article was descriptive, not prescriptive. You cannot justify universals if you believe only particulars exist. You can only justify universals if you are willing to accept a metaphysical reality and provide a grounding for the metaphysical. Not everything is proven in the same way. The scientific method is good for studying particulars, but it cannot prove a universal. For example, science assumes the laws of logic in its process, which it cannot prove or provide a justification for. Also the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method. You on the other hand will probably say "because it works." Something working is a value-judgement, and that is not independent of ethics. It also assumes induction and regularity in nature, but you obviously haven't heard about the problem of induction. Science cannot provide a justification for induction. Science will also claim things like we know things from observation or what is in the sense data. Did we observe that or sense that in our sense data? I would say not everything is proven the same way. You can use science for some stuff, but not everything.
You cannot divorce Syria's situation from regional geopolitics. Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. Ultimately most of the problems stem from the hard realpolitik fact that the Syrian state have little military power to wield against significant adversaries. Their newfound alliance with Russia may be useful against rebels and terrorists and negating the meddling of the French and US, but it gets problematic when it comes to defending against Russian interests like Turkey and Israel. Syria is being carved up right now and no amount of bribing would help. Take a look at Kashmir if you want a better example of how to properly put down a protest.
> Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy.
True,
I don't think anyone was convinced Assad would step down if given more time or money.
Just saying, that in that calculus offering a ceremonial role is still a cheap bargain -- assuming you can get the people in power to take the offer -- that's not a given.
-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist.
In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had.
Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around.
Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners.
Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course).
The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?
After watching The Crown (it's fiction I know), being royal seems to me to be incredibly tedious, boring and downright limiting. Sure you can jet off to a nice country, but you are very limited in what you can do, where you can go and who you can talk to. Mess up just once and the tabloid media will be all over you.
Honestly would much rather be poor and free than be "royal".
I do think they serve a purpose, and tradition is important to many people (I know the progressive-types want to pull all that down).
The Guardian article of Feb 7th appears to talk at length about something that happened in 1973. It (article) is quite convoluted but it looks like the Queen was trying to preserve her privacy as she perceived it at the time, perhaps in a heavy handed way.
From the other Guardian article:
"The number of tenants on Scilly caught by the exemption is not known but has been estimated at 100.
One of them is a 78-year-old retired oil executive, Alan Davis. He has been prevented from buying the freehold to his 1960s bungalow."
The Royal Family may not be to your taste but these two articles are hardly grounds for insurrection.
I am genuinely sobbing about Alan the retired oil executive's plight.
However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, UK, NZ and Japan.
I don't know why this is, but it gives me pause in overthrowing the monarchy. It might be the existence of a monarch unites society in some way, or it might be that socities that move slowly rather than with revolutions tend to be more stable and comfortable.
I think, as with most things in the UK, we will get rid of the monarchy when it causes a problem that can't be dealt with in an easier way.
> However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, UK, NZ and Japan.
Because it has nothing to do with wealth?
The detrimental financial costs of monarchies are a drop in a nation's budget.
Just as the prime minister gifting his best friend 1 million euro per year from the nation's budget wouldn't really impact matters much overall in a nation that deals with billions each year.
It would still be quite corrupt, of course.
> It might be the existence of a monarch unites society in some way
Of course not, it is almost always a decisive issue in countries that have a monarchy.
In republics, almost everyone agrees that republics are better, but in monarchies the issue divides the population, and those that are in favor of retaining the monarchy are almost always traditionalists who desire to do many senseless things simply because they are tradition and are afraid of change.
History has always sided with the progressives, for no man wants change for it's own sake. When a man desire change, he typically has thought well of it, and desires a change for a reason, but when a man desires that matters stay the same, he very thought little of it, and wishes that they remain so for their own sake.
Sorry, I don‘t buy your last argument. You could argue the opposite:
When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. Yet no system is perfect, and most changes have some tradeoff. When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason.
This line of thought is based on Chesterton‘s fence [1].
Of course, a well thought-out change is still a good thing, and not all reasons for the current system are sensible. I count myself as a progressive as well, but it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
> When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them.
The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own.
If there be legitimately flaws in the system that he wishes to address, it will be far easier to convince the collective by pointing out said flaws.
> When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason.
And the big thing you leave out: that many, many men simply desire inertia for it's own sake and are afraid of change for no other reason than that it be change.
There are almost none in comparison who seek change for it's own sake, simply because they are afraid of matters staying the same.
> The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own.
So political propaganda rarely works? Every political action is sold as beneficial to the many, but how many of them actually are? I feel like political dynamics are rather a bit less straightforward than you're portraying.
I have never successfully seen, or even seen attempted, a sell that the republic be superseded by a monarch, and the orator be put on the throne with special privileges.
Have you ever seen a republic successfully transition to a monarchy by will of the people because someone sold it as an idea in the people's interests?
> Have you ever seen a republic successfully transition to a monarchy by will of the people because someone sold it as an idea in the people's interests?
You can probably squint at the Cambodian restoration and describe it that way.
While not a democratic republic, my understanding of the restoration of the Spanish monarchy to replace Franco’s fascist republic is that it essentially meets that description anyway.
There is no survivorship bias here without an argument that
conservative societies do not die.
My argument that the progressives are usually right is not empirical, but rational.
disclaimer: I should note that with “conservative” and “progressive”, I do not mean the U.S.A. identity politics terminology, that has little to do with either conservation or progression, but the simple definition of aiming for change or for inertia.
I would point out that Sweden is unique on that list, as although they do have a monarchy, the king hold no legal/political power, not even in a "symbolic" sense.
A potential explanation for the phenomena you've observed is that it's uncommon for new monarchies to be started in the 21st century, so the countries that still have monarchies are all countries that for the most part have had stable forms of government for many decades if not centuries.
Also there are plenty of poorer countries with monarchies: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, North Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan, Lesotho, Oman, Qatar, etc. (I'll admit it's a bit suspect to label North Korea as a monarchy).
> the king hold no legal/political power, not even in a "symbolic" sense.
That's not true. The royal family of Sweden have immunity from prosecution, fines etc.
And not just in theory - there are actual examples of royal family members escaping speeding tickets, investigation into hunting accidents, illegally using the secret service to raid the homes of people suspected of possessing potentially embarrassing photographs etc etc. (see eg https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326783/How-King-...)
They also enjoy diplomat status while traveling abroad etc etc.
Not to derail, but I think you're correct in labeling North Korea as a monarchy. It's hereditary. Veneration of current and past leadership is at a level that might have embarassed the Sun King. The internal palace conflicts are practically identical to what monarchies in the past used to endure. They even go as far as to have a variation of "divine right" justified by the Juche ideology.
A Crusader Kings mod that would focus on the internal & external struggles of a cloistered totalitarian regime, like North Korea, would be very interesting.
Not as poor countries, but as poorer countries than the ones the parent comment mentioned. The GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is around $23k - approximately half of that of Sweden, the Netherlands, or the UK.
Qatar is absurdly rich, but the wealth is inequitably distributed (unusually so). Although the GDP per capita is ~60k, the median household income (and the median per-capita income) are considerably lower than the countries the parent comment mentioned.
> The GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is around $23k - approximately half of that of Sweden
Why are you mentioning nominal GDP, not PPP which is $55 grand according to CIA (which is more than Sweden's and UK's and just a bit less than US's)? If they raise their taxes to the level of Sweden they will have larger nominal GDP although without any increase in the purchasing power.
If you're suggesting some kind of causal link between monarchs and nice places, it seems a bit unfair to count "Canada, Australia, UK, NZ" individually, it kinds of pads the numbers a bit since it's all the same monarch.
Also, you haven't mentioned Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Are they not nice places, despite sharing the very same monarch?
Yes, such it is a no-brainer to not remove the foreskin of one's children, or that alcohol is a far more dangerous hard drug than many that are illegal, or that democracy should be proportional, rather than distrct-based, or that fines should be proportional to one's wealth or income, rather than absolute, or that cars should mandatorily have their lights on, even during the day, or that organ donation should be opt-out, rather than opt-in.
Tradition has always been worth more than sanity or even human lives to many men. — as man will resort to absolute madness, so long as the madness be a tradition that has gone on for long enough.
I still remember, all the way back in the Nixon era, my dad grumbling: "Most people just want to be ruled by a king."
But I think a symbolic monarchy could serve a useful purpose by giving those people a ceremonial role in return for promising that they will never attempt to actually govern.
I think the symbolism of the state (in this case embodied by the monarch, but it doesn’t have to be a monarch) as a separate entity from the “government” is very appealing. In this way, you can have certain offices that work for the state and others that work for the government. The state/crown side would be apolitical whereas the government side would be politically appointed. But it would be helpful to have the two sides explicitly separated to have minimal interference.
I have no idea if this is how the British monarchy works in practice, rather just the view from my side of the pond. In the US, we have the concept of career vs political positions in government agencies, but in practice, there is a great risk of interference between the sides.
I'm not going to try to answer the first, but as to the second question: Britain is exactly the example of this. The Queen (or King) is a symbol of national pride and unity. The British people regularly give her an approval rating of over 90%[1], which is astounding for someone who lives off of the public welfare.
I happen to agree with the GP that monarchies should be abolished outright, but it is clear that people feel strongly and build identities around ceremonial roles.
My reading of the article is that it's supposed to be a reveal of something that most of the British public aren't aware of. Given that they aren't aware of it, it's probably safe to say that it doesn't factor into their estimation of her. In other words, she might as well have not reviewed more than 1000 laws, as far as the factors that go into her approval are concerned.
If they weren't rulers, you could simply choose not to comply with those rules you found irrelevant or misguided. I note that you felt constrained to add the bracketed bit -- I would submit that that's the fig leaf.
You can argue that the doctor is being helpful when they tell a four-year-old "this won't hurt a bit", but the naked truth is that it's a lie, and the child has no actual choice in the matter. Similarly, you can argue that your MP or state senator has your best interests at heart (and some may!), but that doesn't mean they don't rule you.
The rule is by consensus in a democracy, law is an expression of that consensus. The constraint comes from the people, the demos, and not from some tyrant.
MPs are supposed to work for us, those with power wish to reduce the scope of "us" and some MPs are there specifically to enable that. But anti-democratic MPs doesn't alter the lack of rulers in a proper democracy it just changes whether our (UK) political system is a proper democracy or not.
What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow?
The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.
Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state.
I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests and as much as the Governor-General is technically the commander in chief I highly doubt if she called for a revolution against the civilian government that would get any traction.
Furthermore I gotta say that given a lot of the other options I LIKE the hoky kind of odd but deeply rooted ceremony that surrounds our governmental proceedings.
Is it silly that the prime minister has to be presented to the Governor-General to get invested and leads a Privy Council (and for that matter is called a Prime Minister)? Yeah, but it's been WORKING that way for a long time and that inertia is important, especially I think nowadays with a lot of uncertainty from the largest democracy in the world.
>Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state.
If we just need somewhere for power to divest from, then hand it over to the royal Corgis. If you have to have the fiction of a figurehead to make your government function, better it be something that has no possibility of corruption.
The whole monarchy thing is BS. We/Canada can easily do without it. And remember we have to pledge allegiance to the "King/Queen and Her Hiers" when taking the citizenship pledge - which includes the wonderful Prince Andrew. Such bullshit to genuflect to such people. And the British empire doesn't exactly have a shining past with all their colonialism and what not. Why not just pledge allegiance to the Canadian flag or the Charter?
But every time we bring it up for removal there are excuses why it cannot be done. The Governor General et all are a cost center - not just federally but in each province. Or worse two factions aligned to removing the monarchy don't disagree on how it should be done and the measure fails (Australia). At least the Australians managed to remove 'Queen/Heirs' from the citizenship pledge and acknowledged that many immigrants who want citizenship came from countries in Africa and Asia that were colonized, whose people were treated like shit, and had their natural resources stolen.
Cute and hoky to some... but others are being asked to pledge to an institution that subjugated many of their ancestors. For no good reason. Even if you have not been subjugated, there is no reason to pledge allegiance to her.
Honestly, I lost all respect for her when she accepted the unlawful suggestion that she should prorogue her parliament. If she won't even speak up for the very democracy we rely then I don't know why we keep her. The £40M a year from the sovereign wealth fund could surely be used to better ends.
We should take the opportunity to get rid of the position of monarch since we claim to be a democracy. We could also modernise parliament when it becomes ours - things like ejecting people for jeering and interrupting would be a start, close the subsidised bars, ... make it at least have a semblance of being a workplace.
As an Australian, wtf are we doing with a monarchy? Makes no sense, it's just a holdover from the colonial past, bring on the republic immediately. (Anecdotally, the general consensus amongst my peers is that the Queen's death will be the trigger for this - no-one wants King Charles again).
As an Englishman - it's too deeply part of our culture to remove just like that. What would we replace it with? A President? How would that be different from the Prime Minister? It's not obvious how it would work, and it's not clear what we'd gain from that (except not having King Charles again). Who would the military swear loyalty to? How do we transfer hundreds of years of strong tradition into a new structure without breaking things? I know that smart people have thought of good answers to all these questions, but they're not part of the public awareness, they haven't had time to steep into the public conciousness (unlike republican ideas in Australia, which are pretty well-formed and accepted).
Because the powers they hold have to be given to someone else. Replacing them with an elected president or parliamentary appointed one potentially create there own issues and sacrifice the long term stability of a monarch.
If the crown was directly replaced with an elected president for instance, that would be an enormous amount of power for a populist leader to wield and the lack of policy responsibility would lead to populists leaders. If the president was appointed by parliament then there is opportunity for corruption.
So there would need to be far more drastic changes and many possibilities (like changing from a parliamentary system) would not be popular. Ideologically I don't think anyone should hold such power based on who their parents we're, but in practice I'm a soft-monarchists or conservative on the matter.
Edit - The powers don't have to be replaced, the holders of those powers do.
> If the crown was directly replaced with an elected president for instance, that would be an enormous amount of power for a populist leader to wield and the lack of policy responsibility would lead to populists leaders.
In practice, all of the powers of the Crown must be exercised, and must only be exercised, by the Monarch as directed by various configurations of notionally-subordinate officials (whether the Parliamentary majority or the Cabinet as executive committee of the Privy Council or...). Simply investing those powers formally in the institutions which direct them in practice would have no noticeable effect. Or investing them, with the same practical constraints, whether together or separately in, like, any random person chosen off the street. The advantage of a ceremonial Presidency in place of a monarch is that they could continue to do the ceremonial functions as well as signing where directed by the Cabinet, etc., without occupying the time of people with real and substantive responsibilities in government.
All abolishing the monarchy would do is enable people with more wealth and status than me, many of which who I can expect to not only hate people like me far more than the current monarch, but to have self and group interests that are directly contradictory to my own wellbeing, along with ideological motivations that, if carried out, would be extremely harmful to me.
At this point people who think the monarchy should be abolished get filed under "malicious actor who wishes to put themselves, or their ideological co travellers, as my master instead, or wishes to use the de facto power vacuum to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense", i.e. they put themselves into the "I would probably be better off if this person were to be dead" category.
Like the monarchy is not already richer than you! They definitely feel their status is above yours.
At least the new rich overlords wont ask me to pledge allegiance to them during a citizenship oath like the do in Canada. Not just the queen, but also to her heirs like the great Prince Andrew The Pedophile.
Just because Americans take their citizenship "oaths" seriously doesn't mean anybody else does. It's a tradition not a contract. Do US citizens genuinely worship their nation?
If you don't want a single person to rule over you then it makes more sense to just select a head of state on a criterium that anyone can see doesn't have anything to do with their right or ability to rule. If you ask me this beats accidentally giving the head of state some degree of legitimacy just because they happen to be elected.
About 40% of the public expresses authoritarian personality traits. From Wikipedia[1]:
> The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people
Considerably more so-called progressive folks (and others) put their faith in US Presidents they favour, than do subjects of most Monarchs, let alone the UK Monarch.
The level of demagoguery I witnessed around 2008 and 2016 in the US was ridiculous, people were spellbound as if their leaders were Disney characters brought to life.
Most Democratic Heads of State are elected on highly superficial and preformative presentations of themselves, effectively the result of giant PR and communications mechanations.
Other Heads of State - like Von der Leyen in the EU, have barely any democratic legitimacy.
QE2 has a narrow range of power, and she's actually done a pretty good job at it frankly, giving legitimacy to the notion that there is likely a lot that people can be brought up into. It's obviously not something that one would create from nothing in 2020, nor would anyone want more power bestowed than they have, but it works fine.
The US has Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump, the UK is stuck with QE2 and Will and Kate. I'd take the later if I could.
I take it you've made the assumption that my 40% figure was somehow related to Trump's approval rating, or something along those lines.
First, I am sorry that you're offended by a statistical figure.
Second, the figure was from research that was done in my grandparents' era, about three quarters of a century ago. About 40% of Americans displayed authoritarian personality traits.
Any assumptions you've made are merely coincidental. Have a nice day.
Everyone want someone to rule over them, except, perhaps, the libertarians.
Any bureaucrat of any government have more power in your life than you think. And over time, we're giving them more and more power to regulate our lifes. (I'm not even talking about politicians here, they're more powerful than any absolutist king of the history).
At best, it means the person a tally ruling over you loses the fig leaf (minor, at this point, because everyone recognizes it such) of doing it in someone else's name who has no real substantial role.
> I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them
There's currently a government in Westminster making laws and dictating to us that the vast majority of the country didn't vote for. The public also has the power to change a monarchy, with the only real difference being that the "election" and transfer of power is less peaceful.
Democracy is of course better, but representative democracies in large nations are about as participatory as a monarchy.
It's more figurehead than actual rule of thumb and the transition from rule-control to being a legacy rubber stamp has been something that shifted a while ago.
Let us not forget the diplomatic aspect they afford and I'd say from that aspect alone - done more good than the elected politicians. Whilst the media love to focus upon the negatives, you can't overlook the positives and initiatives - the prices trust and other chartable involvements and then tourism. Though the diplomacy aspect is something that you have to respect the Queen and been a national asset in that respect.
So far from a no-brainier as you say if you look at their involvements beyond the headlines.
As an aside - if America had a royal family, the prospect of Trump on legal currency bank notes would be zero.
> It's more figurehead than actual rule of thumb and the transition from rule-control to being a legacy rubber stamp has been something that shifted a while ago.
TFA is literally about how it's actually not just a legacy rubber stamp, and the Queen gets involved more than a figurehead would.
> As an aside - if America had a royal family, the prospect of Trump on legal currency bank notes would be zero.
We don't know that. What if the Trump family was the royal family? I don't think this is an unfair question - Prince Philip is probably just as much of a racist as Donald Trump is, if not more so...
I can see you really dislike the whole idea of monarchy, but "grass is always greener on the other side". Republics, including mine, have a lot of corruption woven into their political systems. Many recent presidential elections around the world were very close, with the losing side relentlessly accusing the winners of corruption and conspiracy.
There is no happier afterlife once you get rid of a monarchy. You get a quasi-monarch with an opportunity to change him/her every X years and all the vile, disgusting, hateful polarization that comes with those elections in the era of Twitter.
If you kick out Elizabeth, I would probably offer her Czech throne in my turn. Can't be worse than who sits there today after winning a slim majority.
> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished.
Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.
Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth.
What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?
> What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?
The easiest ways to corrupt someone are offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation; the royals are relatively immune to all of those.
> offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation
The government literally pays them and promotes them as a symbol of the nation - how is that not offering them "wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation"?
Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
> And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake.
They have a tolerance of how much resource can be wasted. President's kickback isn't worth anything when the resource wasted can actually cause problem for the nation(Only at this point the monarch will start paying attention). So i am pretty sure they both are similar in this context.
The President is not the nation, and therefore problems for the nation are not problems for the President. It doesn't matter how much resource the President wastes, it doesn't impact their bottom line. This is especially true in democracies with term limits where the Presidential power has a known end, but the President's personal wealth does not.
That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?
It's axiomatic of monarchy, not a thought process or reasoned argument. If the monarch owns all the wealth in the country, then if the wealth of the country goes down, the wealth of the monarch goes down. If the laborers die, if the resources are mismanaged, etc. then the monarch's wealth and power diminishes (because the laborer's lives and the resources are the monarch's wealth). A monarch may choose to spend their wealth (including your life) to take over more territory, but they are spending their own wealth to achieve that goal.
This is categorically different from a democracy where the leadership's wealth is separated from the nation's. If the laborers die, the President is not impacted in the least. A President may choose to spend your life and money to take over new territory and increase their power, but they are spending your wealth to do it, not their own. If the resources are mismanaged you are harmed, not the President.
Firstly you are pretending that people are rational actors. This isn't necessarily true of people in aggregate and its sure as hell not true of individuals who have many wildly divergent understandings of the world, the probable end results of different actions, and desired outcomes including but not limited to aggregate wealth.
Next this doesn't even work out if we replace the monarch with an automaton which faithfully executes economic theory.
A monarch of 100M people might spend 10,000 people for some end that on net increases his wealth whereas a president of 100M might find the rest of the people so appalled at the 10k corpses that they vote him out of office.
If you look at how monarchs have actually and in fact spent the blood of their people historically we wouldn't have to argue theory. Throughout history monarchies have spent their people liberally in proportion to their ability to do so. You can look at recent history at a bunch of nations that are still technically monarchies you will note that their period of moderation directly coincides with the waning power of the very actor you claim somehow serves to moderate the state.
The rest of what I filled in on my own is reality. The motivations you propose constitute a limited theory on how leaders of nations behave. Comparing your theory to thousands of years of actuality ought to cause a rational actor to conclude your theory is at best so incomplete as to be useless and at worst completely wrong.
You appear to have imagined that I suggested there is one and only one narrow motivation for Presidents/monarchists regarding their own personal wealth and that single narrow motivation would be the only thing impacting their behavior. I made no such suggestion. Therefore all of your extrapolations are invalid.
> Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
This understanding is completely outside of actual reality. The statement "Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way" goes on to explain why you believe the monarch has a greater incentive to avoid wasting the lives of his citizens. This isn't even close to true. A monarch who loses 1% of his "wealth" in the form of dead people still has the other 99%. A President can lose his job, his wealth, and his personal power for less.
A president is incentivized not to put upon the people more than they can bear with the understanding that all they have to do to be rid of him is check a different box next go round. A monarch faces the same risk but only if the anguish of the people is enough for them to spend copious amounts of their own blood in violent revolution.
This difference in resistance is the dominant difference in motivation NOT a proprietary feeling towards a kings subjects. This is well born out by an ocean of blood spilled foolishly by monarchies through history. I don't misunderstand you. I don't think you have properly understood history.
Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament.
Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.
Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first?
The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.
She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course.
As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.
That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.
Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal.
One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.
Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.
Not advocating OPs approach, but I"m pretty sure you could find them guilty of at least one act of treason.
"For unknown reasons, Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home was not advised of Anthony Blunt's spying, although the Queen and Home Secretary Henry Brooke had been fully informed. In November 1979, then PM Margaret Thatcher formally advised Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged"
It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania.
Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence.
Also, the birth of the United Republic should involve a peaceful transfer of power, so doing this in the French style is completely out of the question.
You definitely need grounds to exile them / strip their wealth.
Taking away their political powers / their status as royals is one thing, but exiling someone is punishment. You can't just hand out punishment for no good reason.
If they commited crimes that were illegal at the time they were commited they should stand trial for that, but I very much doubt any of those are serious enough to warrant exile.
It is important to note that these "monarchial disposals" as you call them were used to get rid of monarchs that abused their powers, led their nation into wars, commited horrendus crimes, etc.
While you can take away their powers pretty easily via a law everything else, such as striping their wealth, would be punishment that needs to be justified. The Queen hasn't started any wars or genocides as far as I am aware, so how would you justify this punishment?
Leasehold is extremely common in UK property. Virtually all properties in multiple-unit buildings (flats/apartments) are leasehold, so “buying a lease” is pretty normal.
If the Monarch’s exemption to the normal leasehold laws was secretive and not known to buyers at the time, then it’s a problem.
>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled
I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.
> Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one?
Theoretically yes through parliament, who approves succession issues in a complex system with precedents that about 3 people understand. William of Orange becoming King is probably the most notable example. Recently there was a curios case where succession laws were change so that females inherit equally, but everyone with the Queen as their head of State hate to change their laws at the same time, had one country not done so, or the wrong gender babies been born at the wrong time along with a few untimely deaths, the countries would have ended up with different Monarchs.
I’m surprised, given recent presidential elections in the US and elsewhere, that the advantages of not having an executive that individual citizens can covet hasn’t become more widely appreciated.
I believe they tried that during the English Civil War which led the removal of the monarchy (and execution of Charles I), England being declared a commonwealth and the creation of a short-lived written constitution (the Instrument of Government). Apparently it didn't turn out too well because Charles II was restored to the throne.
As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages:
1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both Houses. Assuming this in itself receives assent, it would remove the monarch's power to veto or refuse a bill (a power that hasn't been used for over 300 years anyway).
2. A Republic Act, that transfers all powers, abolishes the monarchy, strips them of their wealth, exiles them, etc.
The underlying assumption of the parent commenter is that “rule of law” means something other than 50%+1 of the House of Commons voting something into effect.
For instance, if parliament passed a law allowing “The Purge” to happen yearly, would murders committed on that day be “rule of law”? If you don’t think so, perhaps you agree there are some inherent principles to rule of law that aren’t simply a majority vote of a legislature. (For instance, perhaps there’s an assumption that exiling someone who hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of due process rights, rights as a citizen of the country, etc.)
This is the major question that liberalism tries to solve. This is why in a liberal democracy, minority protection all the way to the individual is a top priority -- the 51% are not allowed to do anything they want.
I think what the other commenter was trying to say was not that it would be impossible to do so, but that it would not be "right", so to speak.
While you could of course exile them like other countries have done in the past, why would you do that? What reasoning would you use to justify exiling them, striping them of their personal property etc. ?
Abolishing the monarchy is one thing, it can be justified pretty easily, the interests of the people. Anything beyond that however would be punishment, what have they done that is currently illegal that warrants that punishment? Punishing them simply "because they are royals" doesn't really work out, that isn't illegal after all.
Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice.
It wouldn't have to be deemed a punishment, merely a procedural item as part of establishing the Republic of Britain and eradicating any trace of royal privilege.
> Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice.
It wouldn't suffice, because they still derive a great deal of power from their inherited wealth. What's the point of abolishing the monarchy if we permit them to remain as landlords for huge swathes of the country? Then they're still lording it over people economically, even if no longer doing so constitutionally.
I hope you'll excuse me for phrasing it this way, but it would not be a punishment only because a punishment is a lawful injury, and your "Republic Act" is decidedly unlawful: by interfering with the royals' persons, property, privacy, &c, without any clear finding of wrong-doing on their part, the act is offensive to the common law, the ECHR law, and other fancy international law. (Good legal scholarship has shown us in recent years that most of the ideas in the ECHR and other international conventions are derived from the English common law, a rich tradition of which you should be proud.)
I am no fan of the royals and other nobles and look forward to the day when they all work for a living and wear seat belts like regular people. Yet, we must acknowledge that rule of law means law for the bad, the useless, and the rich. The ends don't justify the means.
Sometimes, what you're describing is called "rule by law" to distinguish it from "rule of law", because one practical aspect of rule of law is that everyone is subject to the law, even lawmakers.
This is not an intuitive concept by any means, but it helps to think about it in terms of the origins of the common law: the underlying idea is that the long acceptance of something or practice of something by regular people is a sound basis for its legitimacy. This still finds expression in the theory (in the US, anyways) that the speed limit should be the speed at which 85% of people drive. On this footing, the legitimacy of law is more about observation than about the decision of a particular person or administrative body.
Some things to contrast with the common law are "positive law" and "statute law". Legislation passed by Parliament is indeed statute law; it's not common law. Yet, to a significant degree, common law ideas and ways of judging remain prevalent in the United States, the United Kingdom and the other English speaking countries. It's the common law that defines most crimes with which you'd be familiar. It's more relevant than you think.
Although Parliament is indeed sovereign and Parliamentary sovereignty is said to mean that Parliament can not be bound even by Parliament, there are contemporary limits recognized to Parliament's law making authority. Sometimes they are even called "constitutional", referencing the unwritten English constitution; and sometimes they are clearly linked to the Convention on Human Rights. Either way, what we see here is an assertion of the old idea of "transcendent law" that binds everyone, even the law makers -- and that is what rule of law is really about.
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.
With regards of being stripped of wealth, what makes the Royal Family different to other cases of inherited wealth? Should I not bother saving up money for my kids?
I think scale of anything makes rules different. How we look at Amazon is not how we look at your small bakery although they are both companies.
But, I think a lot of people are this extremist and abhor any form of inter-generational wealth. Basically, every individual should start from 0 and "prove" themselves. You are free to do anything except sacrifice and save for your own family.
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.
As a more serious response to this: to do so is applying a law change retroactively and flies into the face of any semblance of a nation ruled by laws. — what they are doing is not illegal as they did it, a such, they cannot be punished for it by a retroactive law change.
A new Act of Parliament would be needed anyway to establish the United Republic, it could be included in that. Perhaps as a 100% wealth tax on the first X people in line to the throne, or similar.
Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family?
Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.
> Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family?
The right to not be punished by the state for anything that was legal at the time one did it, by way of a future law change.
Saying “It is not a form of punishment; it is simply a procedural change.” can be used to enable any such matter.
> Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.
The same can be said about anything.
Let us incarcerate all those that have removed the foreskins of their children in the past, when it was still legal to do so; — this is not a form of punishment; this is simply to remove all vestiges of involuntary foreskin removal.
> Saying “It is not a form of punishment; it is simply a procedural change.” can be used to enable any such matter.
Yes but the converse is also true, claiming that something is being done as an unfair punishment, as an argument against it.
In this case, it's also worth noting that most of the monarchy's private assets are vast amounts of property and land, of which they are the landlords. The state seizing and administering this property for the benefit of the country, rather than to perpetually enrich this elite, is a public good.
Rather than taking this to be a punishment on the royals, consider it an anti-punishment on the people afflicted by their predatory rent-seeking behaviour.
> Yes but the converse is also true, claiming that something is being done as an unfair punishment, as an argument against it.
No, in this particular case, it can only be claimed if there be no law against it.
The principle is quite simple: no man can be punished for any act that was not illegal when he committed it, no matter the act.
No matter how unfair the punishment, if it were indeed legal as he committed the act, the argument cannot be raised.
> In this case, it's also worth noting that most of the monarchy's private assets are vast amounts of property and land, of which they are the landlords. The state seizing and administering this property for the benefit of the country, rather than to perpetually enrich this elite, is a public good.
Perhaps it is, and the same argument can be made for seizing the property of the very rich, but this is entirely unrelated.
The difference is that a new law can be passed that the rich should surrender their property, and if they not do so, then they commit a crime, at the time it is so written in the law books.
Likewise, the former monarchs can be punished for being unwilling to surrender their power if ever the law change, and it no longer permit them to monarch; — they simply cannot be punished for their time as monarch when this was still legal, under this scheme.
> Rather than taking this to be a punishment on the royals, consider it an anti-punishment on the people afflicted by their predatory rent-seeking behaviour.
The argument was about their exile, not their assets being seized.
Their assets can easily be seized without any retroactive application of the law.
Of course, if the new law target only the former monarchs, and not every similarly wealthy man, then it goes against the other human right of fair justice and æquality before the law.
> The argument was about their exile, not their assets being seized.
A fair point, I did pivot back from answering this regarding exile.
If we consider why a set of international human rights principles were pushed in the first place, it was to act as a preventative measure against totalitarian governments abusing their citizens, and in particular, was a reaction to how the Nazis brutalized and killed millions of people during and prior to WW2.
What it wasn't intended for, is restricting how exactly to transfer power within a state.
Article 9 of the UHDR states that:
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
The key qualifying word here is "arbitrary". For ordinary citizens, this is taken to mean that due process and the rule of law must be applied. For a head of state who is ordinarily immune from prosecution (as the Queen and her family are), it can't mean this, because the normal due process doesn't apply to them.
So if Britain did abolish its monarchy, the only interpretation of "arbitrary" that makes sense here is that the monarchy be treated according to the protocols decided for establishing the new republic. And if this statute outlines a process for exile, then so be it.
(Conversely, if it says nothing about exile, but the new government attempts to do so anyway, then this may well be in breach of Article 9.)
> Of course, if the new law target only the former monarchs, and not every similarly wealthy man, then it goes against the other human right of fair justice and æquality before the law.
As noted above, this already doesn't apply to the royal family. They are protected from any legal consequences for their actions that would apply to an ordinary citizen.
Targeting them specifically would simply be redressing this imbalance of justice and power.
Considering the loose political funding and lobbying regulations in the US (etc.), both de jure and certainly de facto, the wealthy seem to purchase political power on key issues that benefit them. This isn't the same as the power in a constitutional monarch, but in aggregate it may actually be worse than one.
They "earned" it the same way billionaires earned it. By getting wealthy competitors to fight each other and consolidating their monopoly position whenever possible.
She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl....
This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished.
Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.