4 ms·

>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs

by feral 10y ago

>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously. What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'? The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large? Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century. I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!

int_19h 10y ago
The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned. But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.
vacri 10y ago
> The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill... It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties. Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".
- feral 10y ago
  Sure, yeah, I see that the monarch doesn't exercise much power; from the outside, the monarchy doesn't look like a practical problem. Until I read [commenter from military family on HN] talking about sworn allegiances when "push comes to shove". That's when I go 'woah'. >The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign. I'd rather take the cohort of random citizens who work their way up through a [very imperfect] selection process which selects a leader/representative.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign. Well, the monarch has a lot of duties-of-state. An endless procession of people to meet and ceremony to conduct. It's not like the UK monarch gets to laze it up in the sun on yacht in the azure coast week in, week out. And the nearby royal family do have to engage in some 'good works', or they will lose their social position to people asking 'wtf!?'. All the name-brand royals are heavily involved in charities and causes in this modern era, because if they start ignoring 'social duty', they'll lose their privilege. The days of the monarch just doing as he or she pleases are long gone, in the UK at least. While "it's good to be the king", it's also not a lazy life. You also have to play the part and behave somewhat beyond reproach - the military aren't going to take their vows to the monarch so seriously if she started dressing and behaving like Johnnie Rotten.
usrusr 10y ago
> What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In that case, the military's natural tendency to side with the people and the nominal legitimacy of the democratic leader would likely trump some words spoken due to medieval traditions. Ambiguity like that could get very messy, but that's exactly what makes it so unattractive for would-be despots to count on the military for internal power struggles.

by feral 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned. But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.

vacri 10y ago

> The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill... It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties. Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".

feral 10y ago
Sure, yeah, I see that the monarch doesn't exercise much power; from the outside, the monarchy doesn't look like a practical problem. Until I read [commenter from military family on HN] talking about sworn allegiances when "push comes to shove". That's when I go 'woah'. >The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign. I'd rather take the cohort of random citizens who work their way up through a [very imperfect] selection process which selects a leader/representative.
- vacri 10y ago
  > And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign. Well, the monarch has a lot of duties-of-state. An endless procession of people to meet and ceremony to conduct. It's not like the UK monarch gets to laze it up in the sun on yacht in the azure coast week in, week out. And the nearby royal family do have to engage in some 'good works', or they will lose their social position to people asking 'wtf!?'. All the name-brand royals are heavily involved in charities and causes in this modern era, because if they start ignoring 'social duty', they'll lose their privilege. The days of the monarch just doing as he or she pleases are long gone, in the UK at least. While "it's good to be the king", it's also not a lazy life. You also have to play the part and behave somewhat beyond reproach - the military aren't going to take their vows to the monarch so seriously if she started dressing and behaving like Johnnie Rotten.

usrusr 10y ago

> What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In that case, the military's natural tendency to side with the people and the nominal legitimacy of the democratic leader would likely trump some words spoken due to medieval traditions. Ambiguity like that could get very messy, but that's exactly what makes it so unattractive for would-be despots to count on the military for internal power struggles.