The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
On constitutional monarchies
V1m
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I would make the following argument for Britain's constitutional monarchy
(1) It's an example of and an incentive to emulate the peaceful transition from an autocracy to a representative government. An autocrat who expects the guillotine will not relinquish any power under any circumstances; one who can expect a peaceful handover and an assurance of honour and safety for his family will be much more inclined to do so. In short, it's a small price to pay to avoid the horrors of revolution. The crown also provides a living link to a thousand years of British history.
(2) The Queen is still the head of state, and in my personal opinion, it's valuable to remind the head of government that it's not all about him, that he's accountable (our Prime Minister has to meet the Queen every week) for his actions and performance, and that, in the final analysis, he's an employee.
(3) The monarchy is paid for via the Civil List, which in turn is funded through the personal property of the Royal Family. In fact it's more than funded by the crown estates - the surplus is paid into the treasury.
(4) The Royal family is a huge tourist attraction for Britain, and generate far more in national revenue than they cost the civil list. Even if they weren't paid for by the crown estates, they'd still be a good investment, and I'd argue that their attractive value is enhanced by being a "real" royal family. In addition, the senior royals do a considerable amount of diplomatic and PR work for the nation. They're not completely idle.
(5) The monarch as head of state is our final line of defence against a coup or an attempt by the government to become a tyranny. The Queen has the right to veto any bill passed by parliament, on the understanding that she does not use it. In other words, she can pretty much only do it once. It's also worth noting that the armed forces and the police both swear alleigence to the Crown, not the government, and let me tell you that I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of servicemen would have no problems at all in siding with the Crown in the event of an open conflict. Nor would most of the population, come to that. That's a powerful deterrent to excessive abuse of what is otherwise a pretty open and flexible consitution.
(1) It's an example of and an incentive to emulate the peaceful transition from an autocracy to a representative government. An autocrat who expects the guillotine will not relinquish any power under any circumstances; one who can expect a peaceful handover and an assurance of honour and safety for his family will be much more inclined to do so. In short, it's a small price to pay to avoid the horrors of revolution. The crown also provides a living link to a thousand years of British history.
(2) The Queen is still the head of state, and in my personal opinion, it's valuable to remind the head of government that it's not all about him, that he's accountable (our Prime Minister has to meet the Queen every week) for his actions and performance, and that, in the final analysis, he's an employee.
(3) The monarchy is paid for via the Civil List, which in turn is funded through the personal property of the Royal Family. In fact it's more than funded by the crown estates - the surplus is paid into the treasury.
(4) The Royal family is a huge tourist attraction for Britain, and generate far more in national revenue than they cost the civil list. Even if they weren't paid for by the crown estates, they'd still be a good investment, and I'd argue that their attractive value is enhanced by being a "real" royal family. In addition, the senior royals do a considerable amount of diplomatic and PR work for the nation. They're not completely idle.
(5) The monarch as head of state is our final line of defence against a coup or an attempt by the government to become a tyranny. The Queen has the right to veto any bill passed by parliament, on the understanding that she does not use it. In other words, she can pretty much only do it once. It's also worth noting that the armed forces and the police both swear alleigence to the Crown, not the government, and let me tell you that I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of servicemen would have no problems at all in siding with the Crown in the event of an open conflict. Nor would most of the population, come to that. That's a powerful deterrent to excessive abuse of what is otherwise a pretty open and flexible consitution.
V1m on
+5
Posts
Otherwise it mostly just strikes me as silly tradition but my country just had a ceremony involving the president pardoning two turkeys so who am I to say anything about that.
Monarchies are a thing of the past, but there is no reason to abolish the current ones as they bring in more than they spend in terms of revenue and cultural worth.
Of course you can have bad traditions as well, like parading marching bands through residential areas as an expression of religious dominance.
Holy shit, the hats are so stupid though. Painfully stupid.
But I mean, it's not like the US doesn't have its own divisive and entrenched class system, but it's completely private and pay-to-play. And Donald Trump isn't the Pope of America.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
None of them are content to rest on their laurels and they do a tremendous amount of work for charities. Lets not forget Harry asked to go fight on the frontlines in Afghanistan twice and William saves peoples lives for a living.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
There is something to be said for this, but I'm not sure what.
I've always admired the British habit of publicly shaming celebrities for exposing their ignorance. Whereas the US tends to champion loudly outspoken morons for their "realness," as if being authentically stupid is some kind of virtue.
Musika kai gymnastika, and all that.
We also have a privatised "pay-to-play" elite in the UK. One of the defining characteristics of most of the old school hereditary nobles in the UK is that they're dirt fucking poor. Sure they have large estates, but they're selling them off piecemeal to pay the bills. Every society has a rich elite sitting at the top. Every single one. Where there's money, there will be rich people.
The main cost for our state is actually the security, if our Royalty had to provide that out of their own pocket the cost would be negligible.
It also remains very popular with the people, even though we've had our share of questionable events (Such as Bernhards Lockheed bribary scandal, Julianas faith healing, a prince marrying the ex-girlfriend of one of the biggest criminals in the Netherlands, a sister of the queen who believes she can talk to trees etcet.)
People keep saying this. Why does it matter? Will it affect most peoples lives that much that we have a new face on the stamps?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Giving that it's an entirely ceremonial position, the fact that the person in the ceremonial position is a widely despised cretin is kind of a big deal in that context, yes.
The royal family is a pretty good tourist attraction, they bring in some tens of millions annually at least. When the crown princess had her wedding the state made billions.
On the down side:
They cost a few hundred millions every year, though it's still an unnoticeable part in the state budget all things considered.
The king regularly likes to drive 200km/h on public roads when he thinks nobody's watching and can't be charged with breaking the law. That would give any commoner prison time in this country, for real. Though he is forbidden to speak publicly regarding politics - under all circumstances - he frequently likes to compliment royal dictatorships he visits on national/international interviews. Approves of Saudi Arabia and Brunei for instance "Brunei has a good form of government". Nice!
Royal children have limited choice of what to do in life.
Having a citizen that is immune to criminal prosecution is absurd. Though it is unlikely a king will shoot me in the head, the bare principle of someone being unequal under the law is completely wrong in all ways.
I suppose it's a rather subtle, almost ineffable difference in practice, but idealogical the idea that you are not acting on the whim of the government, or mob demand, and there's that step between underlines the nature of the relationship as it should be.
I get that but we don't really have a choice, ceremonial or not this is how hereditary monarchies work, and given that I don't agree the UK would be better as a republic I'd rather have ol Charlie as monarch than abolishing the crown. Besides, it looks like Liz will live forever so by the time she snuffs it we'll probably have ten years tops of Charlie before his far more media friendly son takes the throne.
I think this says pretty much it all: the British state, as a whole, benefits from the monarchy in a matter that vastly outweighs the inconveniences.
The economic argument doesn't work, and it's the only "mathematical" argument you can make unfortunately. The only comparable option, economically, would be to nationalize the entire establishment and hope that tourism doesn't suffer, which it obviously would. Indeed, there's a case to be made that the harm to the tourism industry itself ensures the survival of the British monarchy (also true in Japan and the few kingdoms of Western Europe).
I'm not a fan of monarchies personally, but the Windsors are not the Romanovs (who, quite frankly, deserved either die or be arrested and deposed, depending on which Romanov we're talking about). Coincidentally, all that awesome tourist-luring hermitage stuff left over from Russia's monarchy only became tourist-luring (public) after the monarchy was obliterated and the Soviets nationalized them and opened some of them to visitors.
Well call me mr pessimistic but I'm not sure that getting rid of the royals would do one tiny bit to change our class system
Gloom compared to seeing Milliband's face on the money?
Fuck no
You're not alone. The UK seems to be at least flirting with the same road as the US has long since taken (long meaning decades)--an obsession with the wide tent middle-class that is simply reinforcing class distinctions (and the inability to move between them) by fucking over the working poor, while pretending they don't exist in the political sphere. Everyone is "middle-class", which is about as useful as saying "everyone is healthy" when addressing the state of health care.
Functionally, I'm not sure either. But it would be a fairly large rhetorical blow, and in the long term things would likely normalize.
In the US, we have exceedingly few people who are specifically legally entitled to anything merely for being born into a certain family. None, as I nearest recall.
No, but you do have political dynasties. I fail to see the difference other than that the American political families inherit real power instead of ceremonial power.
[Pendant] Secret Service protection. Carolyn Kennedy has lifetime protection for having been born to her father.[/Pendant] Though that's changed as of Bush the second.
At least our aristos are out in the open where we can keep an eye on them, you guys seem to be blissfully and arrogantly unaware that yours even exist.
Despite being a Monarchy, the UK and the US actually have pretty comparable rates of social mobility.
Which wouldn't happen. Elect a purely ceremonial president. Have the most beloved actors in the land stand for election in their twilight years. Judi Dench already has an Oscar. Now she can have a throne.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You're not acting on the whim of a government, or mob demand, you're acting on the whim of a... Queen?
Color me uninspired.
Or to put it another way, does anyone here think it's a coincidence several members of the Kennedy family, the Bush family and the Romneys, to name a few, just happened to be elected when theoretically anyone born in the US can run for office? If so, think again.
Yes I'm sure this wouldn't immediately be taken over by party politics, much like the US presidency wasn't
Conversely, I tend to favor the general British sentiment towards being comfortably middle-class, whereas in the US you're constantly reinforced with encouragement to measure yourself by your income and the achievements they unlock.
People in the US waste their lives trying to break into the upper-class when they could arguably be much more comfortable and stable where they're at.
As much as I like the idea of swearing an oath of loyalty to serve Stephen Fry (no really, I do), I fail to see the practical difference between that and what we have now.
You're not appreciating the subtlety of the arrangement here, the Queen acts as a personification of the state. It's less about swearing undying loyalty to her personally and more about swearing yourself to the nation rather than the government specifically.
Eh. They're all rich. I think that's more relevant than lineage but doesn't really undermine your point.