23 ms·

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl.... This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.

StavrosK 6y ago
> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.
- deepsun 6y ago
  Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
  - type0 6y ago
    That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.
      - type0 6y ago
        I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.
        LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        But plans were made by the same people...
- crumbshot 6y ago
  Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.
        crumbshot 6y ago
        I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying. "Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.
        zepto 6y ago
        A helpful clarification.
- osrec 6y ago
  Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?
    - philistine 6y ago
      That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course. As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.
      - tomcam 6y ago
        EDIT: "secret service retinue", not "...revenue"
    - foldr 6y ago
      More than most women her age, I think it’s fair to say. If the Queen was lazy she could have abdicated two decades ago with some justification.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament. Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.
markdown 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. What about billionaires? You know, millionaires don't need all their money either. How about we take all their money and exile millionaires, billionaires, and the monarchy?
- admissionsguy 6y ago
  Exclude first-generation millionaires and we have a deal.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    And that’s how country X ended up having every successful entrepreneur emigrate or set up their business affairs so as to have assets held offshore.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Those can still be taxed.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  Can you even make a case that monarchs earned their wealth?
  - mvc 6y ago
    They "earned" it the same way billionaires earned it. By getting wealthy competitors to fight each other and consolidating their monopoly position whenever possible.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  If you're suggesting a purge of the wealthy upper classes whose income is mostly derived from unproductive rent-seeking, then yes, I agree. Good idea!
- pmoriarty 6y ago
gerdesj 6y ago
The Guardian article of Feb 7th appears to talk at length about something that happened in 1973. It (article) is quite convoluted but it looks like the Queen was trying to preserve her privacy as she perceived it at the time, perhaps in a heavy handed way. From the other Guardian article: "The number of tenants on Scilly caught by the exemption is not known but has been estimated at 100. One of them is a 78-year-old retired oil executive, Alan Davis. He has been prevented from buying the freehold to his 1960s bungalow." The Royal Family may not be to your taste but these two articles are hardly grounds for insurrection. I am genuinely sobbing about Alan the retired oil executive's plight.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  The underlying issue is that they intervened in Britain's lawmaking process for their own personal benefit. It is of course not the only reason to abolish the monarchy. Just one more for the list.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.
  - voisin 6y ago
    What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      I always figured it was more tradition then anything
    - krisgee 6y ago
      Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state. I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests and as much as the Governor-General is technically the commander in chief I highly doubt if she called for a revolution against the civilian government that would get any traction. Furthermore I gotta say that given a lot of the other options I LIKE the hoky kind of odd but deeply rooted ceremony that surrounds our governmental proceedings. Is it silly that the prime minister has to be presented to the Governor-General to get invested and leads a Privy Council (and for that matter is called a Prime Minister)? Yeah, but it's been WORKING that way for a long time and that inertia is important, especially I think nowadays with a lot of uncertainty from the largest democracy in the world.
jopsen 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution. Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :) In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it. Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Emphatic no from me on that one.
  - dTal 6y ago
    Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside. On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
zepto 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. On what grounds exactly?
- lvturner 6y ago
  Not advocating OPs approach, but I"m pretty sure you could find them guilty of at least one act of treason. "For unknown reasons, Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home was not advised of Anthony Blunt's spying, although the Queen and Home Secretary Henry Brooke had been fully informed. In November 1979, then PM Margaret Thatcher formally advised Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt
- crumbshot 6y ago
  It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania. Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence. Also, the birth of the United Republic should involve a peaceful transfer of power, so doing this in the French style is completely out of the question.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?
      - zepto 6y ago
        I’m not talking about the benefits. I’m talking about what legal process is used, and what grounds are given for that process.
pseudolus 6y ago
I believe they tried that during the English Civil War which led the removal of the monarchy (and execution of Charles I), England being declared a commonwealth and the creation of a short-lived written constitution (the Instrument of Government). Apparently it didn't turn out too well because Charles II was restored to the throne.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. >Not casting one's former monarchs under the guillotine. Where is your joie de vivre, my friend?, for the revolution is at hand!
solidsnack9000 6y ago
Stripping them of their wealth and exiling them would be debasing the rule of law in your country.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages: 1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both Houses. Assuming this in itself receives assent, it would remove the monarch's power to veto or refuse a bill (a power that hasn't been used for over 300 years anyway). 2. A Republic Act, that transfers all powers, abolishes the monarchy, strips them of their wealth, exiles them, etc. Where is the debasement here?
  - javagram 6y ago
    The underlying assumption of the parent commenter is that “rule of law” means something other than 50%+1 of the House of Commons voting something into effect. For instance, if parliament passed a law allowing “The Purge” to happen yearly, would murders committed on that day be “rule of law”? If you don’t think so, perhaps you agree there are some inherent principles to rule of law that aren’t simply a majority vote of a legislature. (For instance, perhaps there’s an assumption that exiling someone who hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of due process rights, rights as a citizen of the country, etc.)
    - Number157 6y ago
      This is the major question that liberalism tries to solve. This is why in a liberal democracy, minority protection all the way to the individual is a top priority -- the 51% are not allowed to do anything they want.
      - solidsnack9000 6y ago
        Yeah. We don't need a government if all we want is majority rule.
nimbleal 6y ago
I’m surprised, given recent presidential elections in the US and elsewhere, that the advantages of not having an executive that individual citizens can covet hasn’t become more widely appreciated.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. As a more serious response to this: to do so is applying a law change retroactively and flies into the face of any semblance of a nation ruled by laws. — what they are doing is not illegal as they did it, a such, they cannot be punished for it by a retroactive law change.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  Why would it be a retroactive law? A new Act of Parliament would be needed anyway to establish the United Republic, it could be included in that. Perhaps as a 100% wealth tax on the first X people in line to the throne, or similar.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Exiling them as punishment for something they are doing now when it still is illegal is a retroactive criminal sanction.
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      It wouldn't be as a punishment or sanction, it would be a procedural event as part of the transition to a republic.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        - They aren't prisoners of war; they're “detained enemy combatants”, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. - It's not not a criminal incarceration; it's an involuntary psychiatric commitment so your usual rights to due process don't apply. - You see, we're not giving lesser rights to this group; we're simply giving more rights to the other, so it's fine. - It's not a form of punishment; it's simply a procedural event to exile, so we can do it to someone who committed no legal crime. And this is the grim, grim reality of human rights. — simply doing the same thing under a different name is enough to overstep them.
tim333 6y ago
>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.
- diminish 6y ago
  72% figure comes from a vote or a poll? Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one? That would be awesome, because there are some great. Brit scientists which would make a great king or queen.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Poll. Who knows how it would work. There was a satirical novel on how it might go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel)
  - flukus 6y ago
    > Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one? Theoretically yes through parliament, who approves succession issues in a complex system with precedents that about 3 people understand. William of Orange becoming King is probably the most notable example. Recently there was a curios case where succession laws were change so that females inherit equally, but everyone with the Queen as their head of State hate to change their laws at the same time, had one country not done so, or the wrong gender babies been born at the wrong time along with a few untimely deaths, the countries would have ended up with different Monarchs.
- hyko 6y ago
  The eurosceptics never gave up in the face of impossible poll odds; why should republicans?
  - 6y ago
qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
Here is Vox, of all places, arguing in favor of constitutional monarchy https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constit...
Dylan16807 6y ago
> the monarchy should be abolished Sure, that's a fine idea. > Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. Why, for using the power they rightfully have? Or just for the crime of having money? This seems very petty.
Reason077 6y ago
> “Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.” Should this be extended to all families with significant hereditary wealth? Or just the royal family directly?
jiofih 6y ago
I don’t understand the drama. Selling the royal estate kind of defeats its purpose. The people who bought a lease knew exactly what they were paying for, it’s not something you buy to “leave for your children”...
- Reason077 6y ago
  Leasehold is extremely common in UK property. Virtually all properties in multiple-unit buildings (flats/apartments) are leasehold, so “buying a lease” is pretty normal. If the Monarch’s exemption to the normal leasehold laws was secretive and not known to buyers at the time, then it’s a problem.
inglor_cz 6y ago
I can see you really dislike the whole idea of monarchy, but "grass is always greener on the other side". Republics, including mine, have a lot of corruption woven into their political systems. Many recent presidential elections around the world were very close, with the losing side relentlessly accusing the winners of corruption and conspiracy. There is no happier afterlife once you get rid of a monarchy. You get a quasi-monarch with an opportunity to change him/her every X years and all the vile, disgusting, hateful polarization that comes with those elections in the era of Twitter. If you kick out Elizabeth, I would probably offer her Czech throne in my turn. Can't be worse than who sits there today after winning a slim majority.
phonebucket 6y ago
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. With regards of being stripped of wealth, what makes the Royal Family different to other cases of inherited wealth? Should I not bother saving up money for my kids?
- cb34-465e 6y ago
  I think scale of anything makes rules different. How we look at Amazon is not how we look at your small bakery although they are both companies. But, I think a lot of people are this extremist and abhor any form of inter-generational wealth. Basically, every individual should start from 0 and "prove" themselves. You are free to do anything except sacrifice and save for your own family.
ycombigator 6y ago
Exile is a bit of a silly suggestion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

StavrosK 6y ago

> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.

deepsun 6y ago
Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
- type0 6y ago
  That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.
    - type0 6y ago
      I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.
      - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        But plans were made by the same people...
crumbshot 6y ago
Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.
- zepto 6y ago
  Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.
      - crumbshot 6y ago
        I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying. "Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.
        zepto 6y ago
        A helpful clarification.
osrec 6y ago
Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?
  - philistine 6y ago
    That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course. As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      EDIT: "secret service retinue", not "...revenue"
  - foldr 6y ago
    More than most women her age, I think it’s fair to say. If the Queen was lazy she could have abdicated two decades ago with some justification.
Barrin92 6y ago
there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?
mhh__ 6y ago
Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament. Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.

markdown 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. What about billionaires? You know, millionaires don't need all their money either. How about we take all their money and exile millionaires, billionaires, and the monarchy?

admissionsguy 6y ago
Exclude first-generation millionaires and we have a deal.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  And that’s how country X ended up having every successful entrepreneur emigrate or set up their business affairs so as to have assets held offshore.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Those can still be taxed.
chillwaves 6y ago
Can you even make a case that monarchs earned their wealth?
- mvc 6y ago
  They "earned" it the same way billionaires earned it. By getting wealthy competitors to fight each other and consolidating their monopoly position whenever possible.
crumbshot 6y ago
If you're suggesting a purge of the wealthy upper classes whose income is mostly derived from unproductive rent-seeking, then yes, I agree. Good idea!
pmoriarty 6y ago

gerdesj 6y ago

The Guardian article of Feb 7th appears to talk at length about something that happened in 1973. It (article) is quite convoluted but it looks like the Queen was trying to preserve her privacy as she perceived it at the time, perhaps in a heavy handed way. From the other Guardian article: "The number of tenants on Scilly caught by the exemption is not known but has been estimated at 100. One of them is a 78-year-old retired oil executive, Alan Davis. He has been prevented from buying the freehold to his 1960s bungalow." The Royal Family may not be to your taste but these two articles are hardly grounds for insurrection. I am genuinely sobbing about Alan the retired oil executive's plight.

crumbshot 6y ago
The underlying issue is that they intervened in Britain's lawmaking process for their own personal benefit. It is of course not the only reason to abolish the monarchy. Just one more for the list.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

jedberg 6y ago
Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.
- voisin 6y ago
  What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    I always figured it was more tradition then anything
  - krisgee 6y ago
    Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state. I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests and as much as the Governor-General is technically the commander in chief I highly doubt if she called for a revolution against the civilian government that would get any traction. Furthermore I gotta say that given a lot of the other options I LIKE the hoky kind of odd but deeply rooted ceremony that surrounds our governmental proceedings. Is it silly that the prime minister has to be presented to the Governor-General to get invested and leads a Privy Council (and for that matter is called a Prime Minister)? Yeah, but it's been WORKING that way for a long time and that inertia is important, especially I think nowadays with a lot of uncertainty from the largest democracy in the world.

jopsen 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution. Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :) In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it. Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Emphatic no from me on that one.
- dTal 6y ago
  Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside. On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

zepto 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. On what grounds exactly?

lvturner 6y ago
Not advocating OPs approach, but I"m pretty sure you could find them guilty of at least one act of treason. "For unknown reasons, Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home was not advised of Anthony Blunt's spying, although the Queen and Home Secretary Henry Brooke had been fully informed. In November 1979, then PM Margaret Thatcher formally advised Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt
crumbshot 6y ago
It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania. Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence. Also, the birth of the United Republic should involve a peaceful transfer of power, so doing this in the French style is completely out of the question.
- zepto 6y ago
  I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?
    - zepto 6y ago
      I’m not talking about the benefits. I’m talking about what legal process is used, and what grounds are given for that process.

pseudolus 6y ago

I believe they tried that during the English Civil War which led the removal of the monarchy (and execution of Charles I), England being declared a commonwealth and the creation of a short-lived written constitution (the Instrument of Government). Apparently it didn't turn out too well because Charles II was restored to the throne.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. >Not casting one's former monarchs under the guillotine. Where is your joie de vivre, my friend?, for the revolution is at hand!

solidsnack9000 6y ago

Stripping them of their wealth and exiling them would be debasing the rule of law in your country.

crumbshot 6y ago
As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages: 1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both Houses. Assuming this in itself receives assent, it would remove the monarch's power to veto or refuse a bill (a power that hasn't been used for over 300 years anyway). 2. A Republic Act, that transfers all powers, abolishes the monarchy, strips them of their wealth, exiles them, etc. Where is the debasement here?
- javagram 6y ago
  The underlying assumption of the parent commenter is that “rule of law” means something other than 50%+1 of the House of Commons voting something into effect. For instance, if parliament passed a law allowing “The Purge” to happen yearly, would murders committed on that day be “rule of law”? If you don’t think so, perhaps you agree there are some inherent principles to rule of law that aren’t simply a majority vote of a legislature. (For instance, perhaps there’s an assumption that exiling someone who hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of due process rights, rights as a citizen of the country, etc.)
  - Number157 6y ago
    This is the major question that liberalism tries to solve. This is why in a liberal democracy, minority protection all the way to the individual is a top priority -- the 51% are not allowed to do anything they want.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      Yeah. We don't need a government if all we want is majority rule.

nimbleal 6y ago

I’m surprised, given recent presidential elections in the US and elsewhere, that the advantages of not having an executive that individual citizens can covet hasn’t become more widely appreciated.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. As a more serious response to this: to do so is applying a law change retroactively and flies into the face of any semblance of a nation ruled by laws. — what they are doing is not illegal as they did it, a such, they cannot be punished for it by a retroactive law change.

crumbshot 6y ago
Why would it be a retroactive law? A new Act of Parliament would be needed anyway to establish the United Republic, it could be included in that. Perhaps as a 100% wealth tax on the first X people in line to the throne, or similar.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Exiling them as punishment for something they are doing now when it still is illegal is a retroactive criminal sanction.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    It wouldn't be as a punishment or sanction, it would be a procedural event as part of the transition to a republic.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      - They aren't prisoners of war; they're “detained enemy combatants”, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. - It's not not a criminal incarceration; it's an involuntary psychiatric commitment so your usual rights to due process don't apply. - You see, we're not giving lesser rights to this group; we're simply giving more rights to the other, so it's fine. - It's not a form of punishment; it's simply a procedural event to exile, so we can do it to someone who committed no legal crime. And this is the grim, grim reality of human rights. — simply doing the same thing under a different name is enough to overstep them.

tim333 6y ago

>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.

diminish 6y ago
72% figure comes from a vote or a poll? Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one? That would be awesome, because there are some great. Brit scientists which would make a great king or queen.
- tim333 6y ago
  Poll. Who knows how it would work. There was a satirical novel on how it might go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel)
- flukus 6y ago
  > Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one? Theoretically yes through parliament, who approves succession issues in a complex system with precedents that about 3 people understand. William of Orange becoming King is probably the most notable example. Recently there was a curios case where succession laws were change so that females inherit equally, but everyone with the Queen as their head of State hate to change their laws at the same time, had one country not done so, or the wrong gender babies been born at the wrong time along with a few untimely deaths, the countries would have ended up with different Monarchs.
hyko 6y ago
The eurosceptics never gave up in the face of impossible poll odds; why should republicans?
- 6y ago

qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago

Here is Vox, of all places, arguing in favor of constitutional monarchy https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constit...

Dylan16807 6y ago

> the monarchy should be abolished Sure, that's a fine idea. > Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. Why, for using the power they rightfully have? Or just for the crime of having money? This seems very petty.

Reason077 6y ago

> “Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.” Should this be extended to all families with significant hereditary wealth? Or just the royal family directly?

jiofih 6y ago

I don’t understand the drama. Selling the royal estate kind of defeats its purpose. The people who bought a lease knew exactly what they were paying for, it’s not something you buy to “leave for your children”...

Reason077 6y ago
Leasehold is extremely common in UK property. Virtually all properties in multiple-unit buildings (flats/apartments) are leasehold, so “buying a lease” is pretty normal. If the Monarch’s exemption to the normal leasehold laws was secretive and not known to buyers at the time, then it’s a problem.

inglor_cz 6y ago

I can see you really dislike the whole idea of monarchy, but "grass is always greener on the other side". Republics, including mine, have a lot of corruption woven into their political systems. Many recent presidential elections around the world were very close, with the losing side relentlessly accusing the winners of corruption and conspiracy. There is no happier afterlife once you get rid of a monarchy. You get a quasi-monarch with an opportunity to change him/her every X years and all the vile, disgusting, hateful polarization that comes with those elections in the era of Twitter. If you kick out Elizabeth, I would probably offer her Czech throne in my turn. Can't be worse than who sits there today after winning a slim majority.

phonebucket 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. With regards of being stripped of wealth, what makes the Royal Family different to other cases of inherited wealth? Should I not bother saving up money for my kids?

cb34-465e 6y ago
I think scale of anything makes rules different. How we look at Amazon is not how we look at your small bakery although they are both companies. But, I think a lot of people are this extremist and abhor any form of inter-generational wealth. Basically, every individual should start from 0 and "prove" themselves. You are free to do anything except sacrifice and save for your own family.

ycombigator 6y ago

Exile is a bit of a silly suggestion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]