5 ms·

Today I learned there was a short period of history called Regency and I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint whil

Today I learned there was a short period of history called Regency and I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. I actually found the article wanting. I could not turn to a colleague after reading it and explain why this period was an ideal setting for romances. I learned who some of sources of romance in this period are. I learned that perhaps modern romances set in the period aren't true to the original form. And I got a glimpse at some of the attributes of said era (fictional or not so). But I did not see much that told me why this was an appealing backdrop for romance novels. What about this era makes it ideal for romance vs other eras?

heavenlyblue 6y ago
The supposedly enlightened democracy is currently heavily polarised and the British society back then was not.
- FearNotDaniel 6y ago
  The reason the article is found wanting is that the answer to the question is not really in anything to do with the Regency era per se. It's mostly because Jane Austen was really good at writing romantic comedies, and so set a template that everyone wants to follow in much the same way that nearly all modern era Hollywood romcoms are pale imitations of Nora Ephron's work (When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail - which was itself a remake anyway but with the Ephron formula liberally applied). Ephron's genius, as with Austen's, was not simply the fact that she seemed to have come up with a winning formula, there was also an enormous amount of craft, wit, originality and compassion involved.
- monadic3 6y ago
  How do you figure the time was not polarizing? This reeks of nostalgia. Jane Austen's time, for instance, was an incredibly volatile time in the labor market. She just doesn't acknowledge contemporary issues because they weren't relevant to the stories she wanted to tell. Meanwhile if you watch "You've Got Mail", the fact that it does touch on contemporary issues sours the whole film.
- stereolambda 6y ago
  I don't know, it was the sort of a period when regular people in England where ran over by cavalry for demanding suffrage rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre The whole Europe's elites were busy putting down the post-French Revolution upheaval.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  That's an... interesting view of history. I think people do downplay it these days, but there was significant unrest for most of the 19th century.
macspoofing 6y ago
>I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. To be clear, this is a partisan political opinion that borders on authoritarianism. You may not like Trump, but he was democratically elected. So prey tell, what would "restraining" a democratically elected 'executive' look like? Remember, any rule you define has to be measured against past presidents and apply to future presidents.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It would look like the 25th Amendment being exercised.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It’s generally agreed upon by constitutional scholars that the 25th amendment wasn’t designed for that, and that trying to use it in that way creates some nightmare scenarios. Specifically it gives the president the ability to challenge their removal and have the senate adjudicate, which would be decidedly not great. If Trump had been intubated with Covid or suffered a stroke, then the 25th amendment would have been an appropriate choice. Otherwise the proper avenue to remove a misbehaving president is impeachment.
    - 0xffff2 6y ago
      >... and have the senate adjudicate, which would be decidedly not great. Why not? Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President. Given the natural restraint on that power in that the cabinet is appointed by the President, I'm not sure I see any problem there.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        >Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President Congress also the ability to impeach the President. Congress couldn't get the votes to do remove the President from office ... so your partisan solution is for the cabinet to find a reason to remove the President? Why? Because you don't like how your fellow citizens voted? How about this: Vote him out in the next election? Oh that actually happened! And Democracy survived! For all the talk about Trump, the opposition is perfectly willing to destroy every single norm and democratic institution just to get him.
Mizza 6y ago
That literally just happened, and democracy was the process by which it occurred.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jfengel 6y ago
  Barely. Even now there are a great many people -- tens of millions -- who believe that democracy failed.
Veen 6y ago
> the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. That "psycho executive"—George III—reigned during the period of the American War of Independence, which, if you recall, he lost, so it seems both nations managed to restrain his power.
rsynnott 6y ago
> I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not The UK's mechanisms for restraining Naughty Monarchs, back when it was relevant, were largely unwritten but pretty extensive; 150 years previously, Charles I had, ah, lost his head about it. The US's mechanisms are limited, written, and, as it turns out, don't work. It's probably best to keep in mind, though, that George III had a lot less power than the US president; the monarch had basically lost the royal assent (veto) by then, for practical purposes. I'm reasonably sure that by that point the monarch had nothing similar to an executive order, either.

heavenlyblue 6y ago

The supposedly enlightened democracy is currently heavily polarised and the British society back then was not.

FearNotDaniel 6y ago
The reason the article is found wanting is that the answer to the question is not really in anything to do with the Regency era per se. It's mostly because Jane Austen was really good at writing romantic comedies, and so set a template that everyone wants to follow in much the same way that nearly all modern era Hollywood romcoms are pale imitations of Nora Ephron's work (When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail - which was itself a remake anyway but with the Ephron formula liberally applied). Ephron's genius, as with Austen's, was not simply the fact that she seemed to have come up with a winning formula, there was also an enormous amount of craft, wit, originality and compassion involved.
monadic3 6y ago
How do you figure the time was not polarizing? This reeks of nostalgia. Jane Austen's time, for instance, was an incredibly volatile time in the labor market. She just doesn't acknowledge contemporary issues because they weren't relevant to the stories she wanted to tell. Meanwhile if you watch "You've Got Mail", the fact that it does touch on contemporary issues sours the whole film.
stereolambda 6y ago
I don't know, it was the sort of a period when regular people in England where ran over by cavalry for demanding suffrage rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre The whole Europe's elites were busy putting down the post-French Revolution upheaval.
rsynnott 6y ago
That's an... interesting view of history. I think people do downplay it these days, but there was significant unrest for most of the 19th century.

macspoofing 6y ago

>I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. To be clear, this is a partisan political opinion that borders on authoritarianism. You may not like Trump, but he was democratically elected. So prey tell, what would "restraining" a democratically elected 'executive' look like? Remember, any rule you define has to be measured against past presidents and apply to future presidents.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It would look like the 25th Amendment being exercised.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s generally agreed upon by constitutional scholars that the 25th amendment wasn’t designed for that, and that trying to use it in that way creates some nightmare scenarios. Specifically it gives the president the ability to challenge their removal and have the senate adjudicate, which would be decidedly not great. If Trump had been intubated with Covid or suffered a stroke, then the 25th amendment would have been an appropriate choice. Otherwise the proper avenue to remove a misbehaving president is impeachment.
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    >... and have the senate adjudicate, which would be decidedly not great. Why not? Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President. Given the natural restraint on that power in that the cabinet is appointed by the President, I'm not sure I see any problem there.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President Congress also the ability to impeach the President. Congress couldn't get the votes to do remove the President from office ... so your partisan solution is for the cabinet to find a reason to remove the President? Why? Because you don't like how your fellow citizens voted? How about this: Vote him out in the next election? Oh that actually happened! And Democracy survived! For all the talk about Trump, the opposition is perfectly willing to destroy every single norm and democratic institution just to get him.

Mizza 6y ago

That literally just happened, and democracy was the process by which it occurred.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jfengel 6y ago
Barely. Even now there are a great many people -- tens of millions -- who believe that democracy failed.

Veen 6y ago

> the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. That "psycho executive"—George III—reigned during the period of the American War of Independence, which, if you recall, he lost, so it seems both nations managed to restrain his power.

rsynnott 6y ago

> I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not The UK's mechanisms for restraining Naughty Monarchs, back when it was relevant, were largely unwritten but pretty extensive; 150 years previously, Charles I had, ah, lost his head about it. The US's mechanisms are limited, written, and, as it turns out, don't work. It's probably best to keep in mind, though, that George III had a lot less power than the US president; the monarch had basically lost the royal assent (veto) by then, for practical purposes. I'm reasonably sure that by that point the monarch had nothing similar to an executive order, either.