The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I also see people wanting the crown to skip down to William as the same category as wanting Billo to get a third term.
I get it, some days I might even agree, but it just ain't gonna happen and it probably shouldn't.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Disregarding everything else, I think swearing oaths to uphold the Queens peace, rather then serving parliament or the people (and I guess whatever the military version is) is almost worth it in and of itself.
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.
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.
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.
In the USA, our elected officials swear to uphold the constitution. That's like what you're talking about, except we don't have a person who embodies the state, since, well.
That's the fundamental difference between the US and the UK, our governmental ethics are a product of tradition and centuries of precedent over adherence to a written constitution or a set of rules. That's why we skip the middleman and go right to swearing ourselves to acting in the welfare of the people rather than a document designed to protect the welfare of the people.
Is the Queen not a middleman here? If you want an oath to the welfare of the people, why involve the Queen?
History, tradition, ceremony, pantomime... Take your pick.
Regardless of whether those are good reasons, if you give them you can no longer claim the thing you originally set out to--that there is a direct relation between the oath to the Queen and the welfare of the people, one not captured by e.g. the American framework in which one swears to uphold the constitution.
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.
The "economic" argument only doesn't work if you respect the idea that the Crown actually owns anything. If we simply said "Right my ducks, you're out on your ear, you can have $1,000,000 pounds as recompense." then A) we'd be being generous and the economic counter argument is dead in the water.
Except that's total crap because the Windsor family actually owns things. Things your grubby republican fingers* have no right to seize just because you're feeling the proletariat zeal of liberal democracy. That's the biggest mistake the anti monarchy crowd makes in these arguments. You don't own everything that royal family owns, and have no more right to take it than they would to seize your house or your car.
*meant to be playful, not insulting
It strikes me that the people have every right to sieze crown assets. They are quite obviously ill-gotten; history is a chronicle of the ways in which illegitimate force was exercised to accrue wealth to the monarchy. You might respond, as you do to Apo, that anyone with wealth that traces back to days of yore is implicated in some form of illegitimate acquisition. This is all well and fine, but it ignores the fact that the monarchs are not just another set of citizens. They are people who claim, by right of birth, a special set of legal immunities and privileges. They are, as they have fought to be, separate from any other random citizen. As long as that is so, I can see no argument for why their assets should be immune from confiscation. It is precisely because they are Kings and Queens that they are not entitled to these assets.
I'm a big fan of the UK royal family specifically, I think they're cool cats for the most part and I've never heard a convincing argument for getting rid of them that wasn't based in "hurr durr democracy".
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the argument "hurr durr democracy". Care to elaborate? Do you mean democracy without an impotent monarch is better, because? At some point it boils down to personal preference right?
I'll take that to be your meaning and as specifically relating to the Queen as monarch of the UK, as opposed to the Queen as the monarch of NZ, Australia , Canada, Jamaica etc; despite her being one and the same person, because you lived in the UK and the op reference.
I would agree that the above system works, in the UK and NZ as a resident of one, citizen of the other, with close family in most of the others I'm glad, but why does it work? That is what bothers me.
On a narrow legal sense there isn't any simple written legislative or constitutional rule that sets out the Sovereign monarch's power or duties as distinct from the sovereign Parliament, yet there is general agreement amongst politicians or constitutional lawyers or academics as to roughly what the rules are. That worries me. It seems to presuppose everyone gets on and generally agrees on rules and how to resolve disputes. Which does seem to work. Except when it doesn't. It relies entirely on good faith.
So it works because it works, fine, society and good governance is not always understandable. I am loath to change what works, even though I have republican sympathies. There are plenty of useful models that could be adopted, more so in NZ's case perhaps, but when is the right time for that discussion?
Why do I have sympathies? Here is my wharglebargle
Republican or monarchial democracies can both be worthwhile for the average citizen, but the latter rests actual sovereignty on the citizens. That to me is a worthy goal in of itself.
I also dislike their potential influence, as opposed to actual reserve powers. The latter rarely get used but the former does, as does it for her Heir, Charles. Now I don't necessarily disagree with their opinions and the outcomes achieved but I dislike that it is necessary to listen to them purely by virtue of position.
Which leads to hereditary power and wealth. People and families often manage to accrue vast wealth or power that they manage to pass down to their descendants, which can convert into more wealth, power and influence. All very much part of human nature in most systems. A monarch is usually a member of such a family who, in many forms, ours included, gains divinely sanctioned authority. So now we have a leader who is rich beyond measure and who's supreme rank can be passed to her heir. There is no election amongst peers to kingship, change due to war or usurpation. Parliament does have authority to change succession though, but only within the authorised family.
Now in the UK the monarch owns plenty of land in her own right in addition to the "Crown" lands which is vested in the relevant state authority across her realms, then there is of course the feudal concept of land in the fee simple. Now clearly she only has direct influence and reward over the first category, but again, I'm offended by the concept that all public land is vested as an expression of her office (for which she receives compensation) and all land is measured in relation to her office. It doesn't really have a discernable impact on my life and the US shows that this can be converted to a republican land model, so maybe I shouldn't be offended?
Anyway, there is more to it than that, but I want to finish eating dinner
What I mean are arguments that just resort to "Well we can't have a king/queen because democracy." "Okay, tell me how the existence of Elizabeth Regina II interferes with your right to participate in parliamentary and local elections?" "Well, uh... because democracy, man."
In the end you're right and it does go to personal preference to some degree, but I feel if you're going to fundamentally change how your country is set up you need a better and more reliable reason.
1) Putting the words 'hurr durr' in your opponents' mouth is neither useful nor worthwhile.
2) There are many understandings of liberal democracy on which it is inconsistent with monarchy--even monarchies on which subjects are allowed to vote in parliamentary and local elections. For instance, John Rawls construes liberal democracy as involving a commitment to fair equality of opportunity, which holds that citizens must have all careers and offices equally available to them. This is obviously unsatisfiable in a monarchy. Whether that is a genuine requirement of social justice is a separate question, but it's silly to pretend that one must be stupid or unsophisticated to think monarchy inconsistent with democratic social justice. Many of our most celebrated political philosophers have thought as much.
3) Some have suggested that the Queen's power serves as a helpful bulwark against illegitimate tyranny. If there is ever danger of a fascist government seizing control, the Queen could stand against them. I see absolutely no reason to think that, if there ever were a moment of political turmoil in which the monarch's power could make a difference, they would side with democracy over fascism. Monarchism and fascism are both reactionary-conservative political movements, and they have historically had fluid borders and drawn on allied constituencies. Keeping a Monarch is the last way to guard against reactionary-conservative political takeover.
Disregarding everything else, I think swearing oaths to uphold the Queens peace, rather then serving parliament or the people (and I guess whatever the military version is) is almost worth it in and of itself.
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.
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.
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.
In the USA, our elected officials swear to uphold the constitution. That's like what you're talking about, except we don't have a person who embodies the state, since, well.
That's the fundamental difference between the US and the UK, our governmental ethics are a product of tradition and centuries of precedent over adherence to a written constitution or a set of rules. That's why we skip the middleman and go right to swearing ourselves to acting in the welfare of the people rather than a document designed to protect the welfare of the people.
Is the Queen not a middleman here? If you want an oath to the welfare of the people, why involve the Queen?
History, tradition, ceremony, pantomime... Take your pick.
Regardless of whether those are good reasons, if you give them you can no longer claim the thing you originally set out to--that there is a direct relation between the oath to the Queen and the welfare of the people, one not captured by e.g. the American framework in which one swears to uphold the constitution.
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.
The "economic" argument only doesn't work if you respect the idea that the Crown actually owns anything. If we simply said "Right my ducks, you're out on your ear, you can have $1,000,000 pounds as recompense." then A) we'd be being generous and the economic counter argument is dead in the water.
Except that's total crap because the Windsor family actually owns things. Things your grubby republican fingers* have no right to seize just because you're feeling the proletariat zeal of liberal democracy. That's the biggest mistake the anti monarchy crowd makes in these arguments. You don't own everything that royal family owns, and have no more right to take it than they would to seize your house or your car.
*meant to be playful, not insulting
It strikes me that the people have every right to sieze crown assets. They are quite obviously ill-gotten; history is a chronicle of the ways in which illegitimate force was exercised to accrue wealth to the monarchy. You might respond, as you do to Apo, that anyone with wealth that traces back to days of yore is implicated in some form of illegitimate acquisition. This is all well and fine, but it ignores the fact that the monarchs are not just another set of citizens. They are people who claim, by right of birth, a special set of legal immunities and privileges. They are, as they have fought to be, separate from any other random citizen. As long as that is so, I can see no argument for why their assets should be immune from confiscation. It is precisely because they are Kings and Queens that they are not entitled to these assets.
As I said before the Queen acts as a personification of the nation, swearing an oath of loyalty to her is swearing to serve and protect her subjects and realm.
I think old Thatcher said it best "America was shaped by philosophy, Europe by history", and the UK is more a product of it's history than most. I really couldn't bring myself to turn my back on such a prominant living link to our past, not without a really good reason. No one here in this thread has presented a compelling reason beyond "it's unfair they're born into wealth and fame", well yeah it is, but that's going to keep happening regardless of whether we have a royal family or not. And to be frank I don't think they lead the charmed existence some people think they do, it's a lot of work being a cultural and diplomatic asset of a state like the UK, I almost feel bad for them being born into that role. But they're good at it and they do it well, they serve the nation.
I have an intangible argument against the monarchy that is in regard to how their continued existence in the UK helps perpetuate a divisive and entrenched class system that is still very much in existence even today while giving credence to the various contentious nationalistic movements in Scotland and (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland.
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.
The UK has wealth and income inequality that is among the worst in the first world - they rival us for the dubious honor of the most inequal nation. As far as I can tell, though - and I am by no means an expert on this - the reason for this is similar to the US. Conservative economic policies favoring bankers and investors; combined with severe racial stratification (in their case, Indians, Pakistani, and other subcontinental ethnicities). I don't think the monarchy or the peerage system contribute much to this inequality; however there may be a shared cultural notion among Brits that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Put a different way, the same cultural values that lead them to see the monarchy as no-big-deal also lead them to see economic inequality as no-big-deal.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I have an intangible argument against the monarchy that is in regard to how their continued existence in the UK helps perpetuate a divisive and entrenched class system that is still very much in existence even today while giving credence to the various contentious nationalistic movements in Scotland and (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland.
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.
The UK has wealth and income inequality that is among the worst in the first world - they rival us for the dubious honor of the most inequal nation. As far as I can tell, though - and I am by no means an expert on this - the reason for this is similar to the US. Conservative economic policies favoring bankers and investors; combined with severe racial stratification (in their case, Indians, Pakistani, and other subcontinental ethnicities). I don't think the monarchy or the peerage system contribute much to this inequality; however there may be a shared cultural notion among Brits that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Put a different way, the same cultural values that lead them to see the monarchy as no-big-deal also lead them to see economic inequality as no-big-deal.
I agree with most of this post. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone more angry about the lack if wealth distribution and social mobility in the UK today than me, but the Royals and the old school nobility are absolutely the wrong target for that outrage. For that you need to look toward the Tory party, organisations like the CBI, business lobby groups, the entire fucking banking industry and the monied south eastern voters. In many ways directing the outrage for these social ills at the people who would have been to blame two hundred years ago rather than the people who are to blame today is a remarkably successful conservative red herring.
Feral, I think that analysis would severely undersell the sentimental attachment and instinctual deference to the monarchy many have, an attachment absolutely not awarded to others who are simply rich. The urge to tug the forelock in their presence doesn't extend much past her to the rest of her family any more, but it's there. Someone like Edward is widely ridiculed, as it's obvious he's an utter berk, but off-colour jokes about Her Maj still stir up tabloid outrage.
It tends to take a lot to get the public behind a substantial change (as AV showed), and kicking the monarchy out is a substantial change to the perceived fabric of the country. I doubt it'll happen any time soon, for a variety of reasons. The Queen is widely regarded as competent by those who don't support the idea of a monarchy, and having centuries of a monarch seems to have ingrained the idea somewhat in our minds. It's difficult to imagine the country without a monarch, though given a bad one (her uncle, perhaps) that might change.
I can almost see the fear-mongering campaign to save the monarchy that'll run in the tabs now: DO YOU WANT PRESIDENT BLAIR?
What public functions does the monarchy actually serve? Overseeing the crown-owned properties presumably, presiding over the house of lords (?) and like, cutting ribbons and going to dinners?
I don't really see a problem with it existing and even with it being publicly funded/subsidized, it just seems weird for it to have actual like, diplomatic duties or something. If a PM ever has a serious dispute with the monarchy, do they just tell them to fuck off anyway, or is there some protocol?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I have an intangible argument against the monarchy that is in regard to how their continued existence in the UK helps perpetuate a divisive and entrenched class system that is still very much in existence even today while giving credence to the various contentious nationalistic movements in Scotland and (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland.
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.
The UK has wealth and income inequality that is among the worst in the first world - they rival us for the dubious honor of the most inequal nation. As far as I can tell, though - and I am by no means an expert on this - the reason for this is similar to the US. Conservative economic policies favoring bankers and investors; combined with severe racial stratification (in their case, Indians, Pakistani, and other subcontinental ethnicities). I don't think the monarchy or the peerage system contribute much to this inequality; however there may be a shared cultural notion among Brits that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Put a different way, the same cultural values that lead them to see the monarchy as no-big-deal also lead them to see economic inequality as no-big-deal.
I agree with most of this post. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone more angry about the lack if wealth distribution and social mobility in the UK today than me, but the Royals and the old school nobility are absolutely the wrong target for that outrage. For that you need to look toward the Tory party, organisations like the CBI, business lobby groups, the entire fucking banking industry and the monied south eastern voters. In many ways directing the outrage for these social ills at the people who would have been to blame two hundred years ago rather than the people who are to blame today is a remarkably successful conservative red herring.
I think the City of London and Wall Street are probably the main reasons for that, both as far as shifting the stats and the attitudes created by it.
There will almost always be a group of people that are "upper class" and obsessively watched / media frenzied over. It's just better for that to be the Royal family than the Kardashians.
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.
Oh, I think the UK has it's fair share of morons that are famous for simply being morons. You have the Kardashians, we have the idiot factories of The Only Way is Essex (although I think I read somewhere the popularity of this show is dropping significantly) and Made in Chelsea (don't look this up).
In terms of diplomacy, the monarchy basically acts as a goodwill ambassador to everywhere. A two week tour of somewhere to remind people how lovely the UK is, fostering goodwill by waving at people and being shown around wherever. The PM and the monarch don't really have any serious disputes, at least not publically, as avoiding that sort of thing is part of the understanding that allows the monarchy to exist nowadays. Chuck might decide to stick his oar in more, but there has rarely been a sniff of the Queen ever having an opinion on anything. Liz has been an exemplary monarch in many respects. Occasionally, hereditary monarchy throws up someone who's right for the job. That still doesn't make it desirable, however.
The monarch still being head of state to a whole bunch of other countries is something the UK feels slightly smug about, as well, bolstering self-esteem in a way that blustering old fogies cling to with much vigour. The extent to which people feel that she is THE QUEEN and all other Queens are Queen someone or other should not be discounted when wondering at her popularity.
Specifically with respect to Britain, but possibly with quite a few of the others, perhaps the most paradoxical argument in favour of constitutional monarchy is that the majority support it. It's hard to disrespect the wishes of the majority in the name of democracy, and the consitutional monarchies do generally seem to be quite popular. Indeed, it's hard to imagine one lasting long in a political environment where it wasn't.
EDIT: Come to think of it, didn't the Australians reaffirm in a free vote fairly recently as well?
I'd say that it was true that the majority support it, though that can't really be separated from the popularity and respect the Queen enjoys. I don't think it's the concept of constitutional monarchy the public supports so much as the Queen herself combined with a general resistance to change to something new fangled and possibly worse.
Specifically with respect to Britain, but possibly with quite a few of the others, perhaps the most paradoxical argument in favour of constitutional monarchy is that the majority support it. It's hard to disrespect the wishes of the majority in the name of democracy, and the consitutional monarchies do generally seem to be quite popular. Indeed, it's hard to imagine one lasting long in a political environment where it wasn't.
EDIT: Come to think of it, didn't the Australians reaffirm in a free vote fairly recently as well?
If 1999 counts as fairly recently, then yes.
Though some argue that the failure of the referendum wasn't so much to do with the love of the monarchy (though we do love Liz, and it's likely that any bid for republic would fail as long as she hasn't popped her clogs), but more to do with the poor showing on behalf of the republican option. The option given involved a President that would be elected by a two-thirds majority in parliament, and not a directly elected president by the voters, and this has led to speculation that many republican supporters chose to vote 'No' because it didn't reflect the kind of republicanism they wanted.
I'd say that it was true that the majority support it, though that can't really be separated from the popularity and respect the Queen enjoys. I don't think it's the concept of constitutional monarchy the public supports so much as the Queen herself combined with a general resistance to change to something new fangled and possibly worse.
You may well be right, perhaps a monarch that made a complete mess of the job would make the modern British public sing a different tune. But to be honest, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a valid attitude to take RE: the structure of society. I see no evidence or case presented by anyone that convinces me the UK would be better off as a republic. If I saw Charlie trying to get some actual power and sticking his nose into actual government I would change my tune pretty quickly though.
How about we meet half way? Lets elect a queen like on Naboo!
My one concern with NZ becoming a republic is that it removes one of the remaining formal links we have to the UK, Australia, Canada etc.
Most of the issues or points discussed thus far, in terms of obstacles don't really apply to NZ in the same way as they do to the UK. Our own local unique issues (The Treaty, Maori etc) that relate to the question of a republic are probably outside of the scope of this thread.
Again, the mental gymnastics required to both support getting rid of the monarchy and seize their lands are astounding.
And that's not even getting to the point of precedent which would be used down the road.
You see no reason to think the queen would side with the pubic against tyranny and you use history to support your desire to steal from her.
Well I would suggest reading some history to learn why that's nonsense.
To describe it as stealing merely begs the question.
When it comes to history: I am thinking particularly of the Spanish civil war, where iirc the monarchists largely fell in with the fascists in opposing the Republican government--although, I am not a historian, so I don't have any particular comprehensive survey. But it seems that the inter-war period is highly relevant, as it was a tumultuous period where monarchism, fascism, and republicanism all had active constituents. I would invite anyone who actually wants to claim that European monarchs are a bulwark against tyranny to investigate that period as a way of substantiating their claims. I doubt that the result would reflect particularly well on the monarchs, though, as I said earlier, I am not a historian and so cannot say so definitively in advance.
I love my ability to vote for my prime minister, I really do, I'd fight for it if I had to, but that said the police commissioner elections proved that voting for its own sake is kind of pointless. It served no purpose, no one was interested and it allowed another aspect of public life to become embroiled in lab/con party politics. The diplomatic and cultural role of the royalty is so intangible and difficult to quantify I just have no interest in having a say in it.
I have an intangible argument against the monarchy that is in regard to how their continued existence in the UK helps perpetuate a divisive and entrenched class system that is still very much in existence even today while giving credence to the various contentious nationalistic movements in Scotland and (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland.
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.
The UK has wealth and income inequality that is among the worst in the first world - they rival us for the dubious honor of the most inequal nation. As far as I can tell, though - and I am by no means an expert on this - the reason for this is similar to the US. Conservative economic policies favoring bankers and investors; combined with severe racial stratification (in their case, Indians, Pakistani, and other subcontinental ethnicities). I don't think the monarchy or the peerage system contribute much to this inequality; however there may be a shared cultural notion among Brits that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Put a different way, the same cultural values that lead them to see the monarchy as no-big-deal also lead them to see economic inequality as no-big-deal.
Racial stratification is also somewhat of a red herring, in that whilst its there its very much more about class than ethnicity: minorities that came in as middle class (Indians, Black Caribbeans) do fine whilst those that came in for working class jobs (Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's) do very badly, but that's as the whole working class has done shittly.
The monarchy and the peerage have very little do with current class inequalities, despite setting it motion centuries ago, and the decline of British manufacturing and the subsequent problems for the working class are much more a cause of problems. The european nations that managed to keep equality low either didn't have such a large proportion of urban industrial workers coming into the post-War era or took massive steps to protect them.
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
I really don't get this.
London is one of the largest, most developed, and historically/culturally rich cities in all the world.
I can't imagine there are very many people at all who, upon the theoretical dissolution of the monarchy, tell the spouse to change the holiday plans to Tokyo so they can stand outside a building with an honest to goodness monarch inside.
Who the hell goes to London to see the queen? This is a new notion to me.
"My" royal family at best provide comedy and occasional charity. They aren't much good for diplomacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The economic arguments make no sense either way. The Windors don't cost the British citizens a damn thing, the civil list is more than paid and if the Windsors all dropped dead of inbreeding tomorrow we wouldn't see a drop in tourists in the UK.
The economic argument that people shouldn't be paying for the royal family because the nation would save money with a President Cameron flying around and doing crap is equally silly, though. As a citizen of a republic, there really is no difference, operationally, between the two. My right to vote and Casual's right to vote means the exact same amount in our two systems.
I really see no point in debating this with you further, MrMr, because every time this comes up you make a point to argue down the monarchy for no real reason other than Democracy. Which is fine and well within your rights, but I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
Reasonable people can disagree, eh?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
That is to say, total nonsense.
I think we both know damn well that I'm talking about the places that generate all their revenue and were actual parts of the government at one point rather than buildings no one cares about in the middle of fucking nowhere.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
That is to say, total nonsense.
I think we both know damn well that I'm talking about the places that generate all their revenue and were actual parts of the government at one point rather than buildings no one cares about in the middle of fucking nowhere.
So I take it you mean the crown estates? The parts that are, even now, owned wholly by the British public? Making your calls for seizure pointless because they've already been returned to the people?
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
That is to say, total nonsense.
I think we both know damn well that I'm talking about the places that generate all their revenue and were actual parts of the government at one point rather than buildings no one cares about in the middle of fucking nowhere.
So I take it you mean the crown estates? The parts that are, even now, owned wholly by the British public? Making your calls for seizure pointless because they've already been returned to the people?
Those area, which the crown is still allowed to use without charge, and areas like Buckingham Palace that were very obviously bought with state funds.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The economic argument really doesn't work, at all, tourism alone is like 20 times what the royals cost the UK and you're crazy if you think you'll get the same number of Americans to go take stupid photos in front of the Buckingham guards if there's no monarchy anymore
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
Although now that I think about it, there is one point I think we could keep going on.
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
That is to say, total nonsense.
I think we both know damn well that I'm talking about the places that generate all their revenue and were actual parts of the government at one point rather than buildings no one cares about in the middle of fucking nowhere.
So I take it you mean the crown estates? The parts that are, even now, owned wholly by the British public? Making your calls for seizure pointless because they've already been returned to the people?
Those area, which the crown is still allowed to use without charge, and areas like Buckingham Palace that were very obviously bought with state funds.
So then yes. Cool, thanks for playing.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Right now the Windsors own "the crown estates" which is like how Obama owns the White House and they own their personal property. Legally the people of the United Kingdom could seize the crown estates if they got rid of the monarchy, but the private holdings of the Windsors, which are things like Balmoral and parts of Dorset, are theirs.
I think some of you don't actually know how this stuff exists.
It's not like George III charged into some village and said "Right then, I'll have this." The royal family didn't do anything any more illicit than any other rich family did. You can't take the Queen's without taking everyone else's. That's the precedent I'm talking about and you have to choose to not understand that if you want to argue against it.
Posts
Taking photos does not bring in any money. There are still so many reasons to go to the UK and see shit without the royals. Then again the money isn't really an issue either way.
I like having a head of state separate from our government though. The Queen of the Netherlands is not there just for swearing loyalty to (if we even do that), she is there to represent the nation in a whole number of things. She gives out awards and visits other countries and is an expression of not our current government and laws and situation, but of our culture, history and it's values and us as a people. The very fact that she has no official power is actually a plus in that regard, she is solely all our cultural representation to other countries and ourselves.
I don't even like the silly bitch very much, and hell she should step down for the crownprince, but what she represents is important and I can't think of a head of government being able to fill that same role.
I get it, some days I might even agree, but it just ain't gonna happen and it probably shouldn't.
Regardless of whether those are good reasons, if you give them you can no longer claim the thing you originally set out to--that there is a direct relation between the oath to the Queen and the welfare of the people, one not captured by e.g. the American framework in which one swears to uphold the constitution.
It strikes me that the people have every right to sieze crown assets. They are quite obviously ill-gotten; history is a chronicle of the ways in which illegitimate force was exercised to accrue wealth to the monarchy. You might respond, as you do to Apo, that anyone with wealth that traces back to days of yore is implicated in some form of illegitimate acquisition. This is all well and fine, but it ignores the fact that the monarchs are not just another set of citizens. They are people who claim, by right of birth, a special set of legal immunities and privileges. They are, as they have fought to be, separate from any other random citizen. As long as that is so, I can see no argument for why their assets should be immune from confiscation. It is precisely because they are Kings and Queens that they are not entitled to these assets.
Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong with this approach to property rights.
1) Putting the words 'hurr durr' in your opponents' mouth is neither useful nor worthwhile.
2) There are many understandings of liberal democracy on which it is inconsistent with monarchy--even monarchies on which subjects are allowed to vote in parliamentary and local elections. For instance, John Rawls construes liberal democracy as involving a commitment to fair equality of opportunity, which holds that citizens must have all careers and offices equally available to them. This is obviously unsatisfiable in a monarchy. Whether that is a genuine requirement of social justice is a separate question, but it's silly to pretend that one must be stupid or unsophisticated to think monarchy inconsistent with democratic social justice. Many of our most celebrated political philosophers have thought as much.
3) Some have suggested that the Queen's power serves as a helpful bulwark against illegitimate tyranny. If there is ever danger of a fascist government seizing control, the Queen could stand against them. I see absolutely no reason to think that, if there ever were a moment of political turmoil in which the monarch's power could make a difference, they would side with democracy over fascism. Monarchism and fascism are both reactionary-conservative political movements, and they have historically had fluid borders and drawn on allied constituencies. Keeping a Monarch is the last way to guard against reactionary-conservative political takeover.
As I said before the Queen acts as a personification of the nation, swearing an oath of loyalty to her is swearing to serve and protect her subjects and realm.
I think old Thatcher said it best "America was shaped by philosophy, Europe by history", and the UK is more a product of it's history than most. I really couldn't bring myself to turn my back on such a prominant living link to our past, not without a really good reason. No one here in this thread has presented a compelling reason beyond "it's unfair they're born into wealth and fame", well yeah it is, but that's going to keep happening regardless of whether we have a royal family or not. And to be frank I don't think they lead the charmed existence some people think they do, it's a lot of work being a cultural and diplomatic asset of a state like the UK, I almost feel bad for them being born into that role. But they're good at it and they do it well, they serve the nation.
The UK has wealth and income inequality that is among the worst in the first world - they rival us for the dubious honor of the most inequal nation. As far as I can tell, though - and I am by no means an expert on this - the reason for this is similar to the US. Conservative economic policies favoring bankers and investors; combined with severe racial stratification (in their case, Indians, Pakistani, and other subcontinental ethnicities). I don't think the monarchy or the peerage system contribute much to this inequality; however there may be a shared cultural notion among Brits that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Put a different way, the same cultural values that lead them to see the monarchy as no-big-deal also lead them to see economic inequality as no-big-deal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree with most of this post. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone more angry about the lack if wealth distribution and social mobility in the UK today than me, but the Royals and the old school nobility are absolutely the wrong target for that outrage. For that you need to look toward the Tory party, organisations like the CBI, business lobby groups, the entire fucking banking industry and the monied south eastern voters. In many ways directing the outrage for these social ills at the people who would have been to blame two hundred years ago rather than the people who are to blame today is a remarkably successful conservative red herring.
It tends to take a lot to get the public behind a substantial change (as AV showed), and kicking the monarchy out is a substantial change to the perceived fabric of the country. I doubt it'll happen any time soon, for a variety of reasons. The Queen is widely regarded as competent by those who don't support the idea of a monarchy, and having centuries of a monarch seems to have ingrained the idea somewhat in our minds. It's difficult to imagine the country without a monarch, though given a bad one (her uncle, perhaps) that might change.
I can almost see the fear-mongering campaign to save the monarchy that'll run in the tabs now: DO YOU WANT PRESIDENT BLAIR?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
In a way I value the neutrality of a head of state not affiliated with a political party.
I don't really see a problem with it existing and even with it being publicly funded/subsidized, it just seems weird for it to have actual like, diplomatic duties or something. If a PM ever has a serious dispute with the monarchy, do they just tell them to fuck off anyway, or is there some protocol?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I think the City of London and Wall Street are probably the main reasons for that, both as far as shifting the stats and the attitudes created by it.
Oh, I think the UK has it's fair share of morons that are famous for simply being morons. You have the Kardashians, we have the idiot factories of The Only Way is Essex (although I think I read somewhere the popularity of this show is dropping significantly) and Made in Chelsea (don't look this up).
The monarch still being head of state to a whole bunch of other countries is something the UK feels slightly smug about, as well, bolstering self-esteem in a way that blustering old fogies cling to with much vigour. The extent to which people feel that she is THE QUEEN and all other Queens are Queen someone or other should not be discounted when wondering at her popularity.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
EDIT: Come to think of it, didn't the Australians reaffirm in a free vote fairly recently as well?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If 1999 counts as fairly recently, then yes.
Though some argue that the failure of the referendum wasn't so much to do with the love of the monarchy (though we do love Liz, and it's likely that any bid for republic would fail as long as she hasn't popped her clogs), but more to do with the poor showing on behalf of the republican option. The option given involved a President that would be elected by a two-thirds majority in parliament, and not a directly elected president by the voters, and this has led to speculation that many republican supporters chose to vote 'No' because it didn't reflect the kind of republicanism they wanted.
You may well be right, perhaps a monarch that made a complete mess of the job would make the modern British public sing a different tune. But to be honest, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a valid attitude to take RE: the structure of society. I see no evidence or case presented by anyone that convinces me the UK would be better off as a republic. If I saw Charlie trying to get some actual power and sticking his nose into actual government I would change my tune pretty quickly though.
How about we meet half way? Lets elect a queen like on Naboo!
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I for one welcome the prospect of Her Majesty Adele the 1st.
Most of the issues or points discussed thus far, in terms of obstacles don't really apply to NZ in the same way as they do to the UK. Our own local unique issues (The Treaty, Maori etc) that relate to the question of a republic are probably outside of the scope of this thread.
he can do queen too at a pinch
And that's not even getting to the point of precedent which would be used down the road.
You see no reason to think the queen would side with the pubic against tyranny and you use history to support your desire to steal from her.
Well I would suggest reading some history to learn why that's nonsense.
To describe it as stealing merely begs the question.
When it comes to history: I am thinking particularly of the Spanish civil war, where iirc the monarchists largely fell in with the fascists in opposing the Republican government--although, I am not a historian, so I don't have any particular comprehensive survey. But it seems that the inter-war period is highly relevant, as it was a tumultuous period where monarchism, fascism, and republicanism all had active constituents. I would invite anyone who actually wants to claim that European monarchs are a bulwark against tyranny to investigate that period as a way of substantiating their claims. I doubt that the result would reflect particularly well on the monarchs, though, as I said earlier, I am not a historian and so cannot say so definitively in advance.
Racial stratification is also somewhat of a red herring, in that whilst its there its very much more about class than ethnicity: minorities that came in as middle class (Indians, Black Caribbeans) do fine whilst those that came in for working class jobs (Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's) do very badly, but that's as the whole working class has done shittly.
The monarchy and the peerage have very little do with current class inequalities, despite setting it motion centuries ago, and the decline of British manufacturing and the subsequent problems for the working class are much more a cause of problems. The european nations that managed to keep equality low either didn't have such a large proportion of urban industrial workers coming into the post-War era or took massive steps to protect them.
I really don't get this.
London is one of the largest, most developed, and historically/culturally rich cities in all the world.
I can't imagine there are very many people at all who, upon the theoretical dissolution of the monarchy, tell the spouse to change the holiday plans to Tokyo so they can stand outside a building with an honest to goodness monarch inside.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
"My" royal family at best provide comedy and occasional charity. They aren't much good for diplomacy.
The economic argument that people shouldn't be paying for the royal family because the nation would save money with a President Cameron flying around and doing crap is equally silly, though. As a citizen of a republic, there really is no difference, operationally, between the two. My right to vote and Casual's right to vote means the exact same amount in our two systems.
I really see no point in debating this with you further, MrMr, because every time this comes up you make a point to argue down the monarchy for no real reason other than Democracy. Which is fine and well within your rights, but I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
Reasonable people can disagree, eh?
You say that the monarchy has lost its right to personal property because these gains were "ill gotten" and "history shows us this".
Ok.
But then so are the Rockefellers and Kennedys, and the entirety of the English nobility. Shall we seize all of SurrealityCheck's holdings because we don't like what his ancestors did?
Do I get to become High King of the Carolinas because my ancestors were marched to their death and their lands taken from them?
I would caution anyone who thinks that beginning a new nation through the seizure of private property simply because you believe the ancestors of the current owners were bad people. That sets up a dangerous precedent, and not one you want floating around a republic.
It would be different of the Windsors were tyrants, if Charles does start flexing muscle and overturning parliament we might be having a different conversation. But I'm dealing with reality on the ground, not our assumptions on what the future may or may not hold because of our prejudices that we developed by growing up in America.
Which is great until the role is inherited by a racist who keeps embarrassing the country and insulting the rest of the world, which has been an ongoing problem with His Royal Highness, to say nothing of the Nazi Cosplayer of Wales.
It's more that all the "property" of the crown was pretty clearly government property. It was acquired through eminent domain or the force of the national military and maintained with tax revenue.
Additionally, it's nice to know that we only worry about unjust laws when they start being used in ways we don't like.
Since that's not what I said, have fun arguing with yourself.
To your other point.
Balmoral, for example, is a private holding of the Windsor family. It was purchased by them and maintained by them and the British public would have no more right to it than they would to take Alan Rickman's flat away from him.
It is a nice thing to say, and it sounds like it must be true, but sadly it is in the same realm as "Medicare would be more efficient if it was run by the private sector."
That is to say, total nonsense.
So I take it you mean the crown estates? The parts that are, even now, owned wholly by the British public? Making your calls for seizure pointless because they've already been returned to the people?
Those area, which the crown is still allowed to use without charge, and areas like Buckingham Palace that were very obviously bought with state funds.
So then yes. Cool, thanks for playing.
I think some of you don't actually know how this stuff exists.
It's not like George III charged into some village and said "Right then, I'll have this." The royal family didn't do anything any more illicit than any other rich family did. You can't take the Queen's without taking everyone else's. That's the precedent I'm talking about and you have to choose to not understand that if you want to argue against it.