3 ms·

I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red ha

by Closi 6y ago

I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyrannical dictator, but usually because it gives some of the population the warm fuzzies. I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.

roenxi 6y ago
We're talking about a country where they are forced to pretend that someone can be born with an ability to rule. Hereditary monarchies a sick joke. If people want to go and look at the English and think that it is cute they can. But that shouldn't influence the local decision making.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is. If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!
  - roenxi 6y ago
    The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is: I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office. If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizenship-successful-applicants/citizenship-ceremonies-guidance-notes-english-and-welsh https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizensh...
    - Lio 6y ago
      > If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges. Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position. Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons. The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649. That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers. You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.
      - salawat 6y ago
        The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.
    - Closi 6y ago
      In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular... Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.
      - salawat 6y ago
        Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish. Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.
- michaelt 6y ago
  The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician. And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.
knorker 6y ago
In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!
- Closi 6y ago
  Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy. I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe. What a silly comparison.
  - knorker 6y ago
    It's a difference in degree, not kind. Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it. Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler. But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute". Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.
    - Closi 6y ago
      It’s a difference in structure and power balance. The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
      - knorker 6y ago
        > The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. Well that's a straw man. > It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.

by Closi 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

We're talking about a country where they are forced to pretend that someone can be born with an ability to rule. Hereditary monarchies a sick joke. If people want to go and look at the English and think that it is cute they can. But that shouldn't influence the local decision making.

thu2111 6y ago
Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is. If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!
- roenxi 6y ago
  The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is: I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office. If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizenship-successful-applicants/citizenship-ceremonies-guidance-notes-english-and-welsh https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizensh...
  - Lio 6y ago
    > If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges. Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position. Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons. The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649. That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers. You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.
    - salawat 6y ago
      The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.
  - Closi 6y ago
    In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular... Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish. Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.
michaelt 6y ago
The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician. And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.

knorker 6y ago

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!

Closi 6y ago
Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy. I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe. What a silly comparison.
- knorker 6y ago
  It's a difference in degree, not kind. Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it. Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler. But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute". Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.
  - Closi 6y ago
    It’s a difference in structure and power balance. The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
    - knorker 6y ago
      > The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. Well that's a straw man. > It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.