4 ms·

> the inbred and largely incompetent European monarchies were incapable of resolving the serious diplomatic issues that arose from the 'crisis', this then led t

> the inbred and largely incompetent European monarchies were incapable of resolving the serious diplomatic issues that arose from the 'crisis', this then led to war I don't agree: the issue was less the monarchs and more the democrats. Even the supposed autocracies like Germany had a significant and influential democratic component. In an earlier era, I think it likely that monarchs would have sued for peace once the lines settled down, but in the modern era of mass newspapers and relatively large suffrage, they were constrained by popular sentiment and had no choice but to continue what was largely a hopeless conflict. And it really was hopeless, a stupendous expenditure of blood and gold for basically even odds of winning for any participant. > My personal opinion is that monarchy and modern democracy are essentially incompatible. I don't really care what the form of government is, so long as it preserves its citizens' liberties. I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K., the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway &c. (and yes, they are all very different); France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example.

hilbert42 5y ago
"I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K. <...>; France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example." I don't disagree with your assessment but ultimately the writing is on the wall for monarchy (as, on average, the powers of monarchies have been atrophying steadily over the last few centuries and there's no sign of any letup). Much of monarchy's current appeal in countries that still possess monarchies and the concomitant [apparent] stability of their political systems comes from both nostalgia and a reticence to change (given historical circumstances, such views are hardly surprising, especially so in countries with a long and illustrious historical (monarchical) lineage). One wonders how, say, the U.K. would survive in a cultural sense if its monarchy were to be suddenly abolished. After all, its cultural heritage is extremely important to a huge number of its citizens, especially so given its loss of empire (from which the country has been smarting badly ever since WWI and especially so since WWII when in the wake of the War the country suffered significant loss of power and prestige on the international stage). Nothing could have made this more obvious than The Suez Crisis of 1956 when on the world stage the U.K. looked like a petulant brat sans any diplomatic experience (one even cringes when thinking about what happened). Whilst the U.K. has largely recovered from this hugely embarrassing incident and that it's largely forgotten by many of its citizens (likely because of its embarrassment), it nevertheless only ever achieved a partial recovery in status. (The evidence for the decline in power and influence of monarchies is reasonably solid. One cannot forget that monarchical power was once essentially absolute but these days (fortunately) it's only a shadows of its former self. It's impossible to put aside or forget the maniacal malevolence of Henry VIII or say the utter hatred George IV's subjects had for him. The fact is that whilst the monarchy represents stability in some countries it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always stay that way (and as we've seen with pre-WWI European monarchies, Hapsburg, etc., situations can change dramatically in just the spur of a moment). I'm not condoning such rapid political change, as it inevitably comes with considerable dangers as witnessed by, say, the French Revolution. Arguably, the Reign of Terror - la Terreur - that followed the French Revolution and the beginning of the First Republic has few equals in modern history with respect to its sheer brutality and its effects have been very long lasting indeed (as my French relatives keep telling me and demonstrating the fact with any number of present-day instances). Thus, in this regard, your comment about France, etc. plausibly benefiting from the example is rather apt; nevertheless, I don't see that detracting from my argument (as it's a separate issue). That said, the English were hardly any better, it's just that they started earlier. The Battle of Towton in 1461 during The War of the Roses, is almost unbeatable for sheer violence and utter brutality (although it's not alone with such a reputation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton. I mention this and hold my views about monarchy not from any gloating republican perspective—in fact far from it—but rather from evidence that supports the position that monarchies are in decline. Of course, many could or would contend that I could be just saying this and that in fact I'm a diehard republican at heart—and I acknowledge that it would be difficult for me to disprove the fact. In my defense, I can only state that I'm from a Commonwealth country (Australia) and that I've U.K. parentage. Moreover, the fact that I'm still in possession of souvenirs of QE II's coronation that were given to all of us children when we were in infants school signifies its importance during my early formative years (yes, the propaganda began early and it was very effective; back then we kids had no doubt that the U.K. was the greatest country on the planet—even though it wasn't our native homeland)! Here's a reference to one of those souvenirs: https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memento-Booklet-Pamphlet-154833726259.html https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memen..., the other one I've not yet found any reference to but it was about the Crown Jewels and described the various items that comprised the collection together with an explanation about each (the meaning of the different crowns, sceptres, maces, etc.). Incidentally, given the once ubiquity of these brochures in that they spanned multiple Commonwealth countries, I'm somewhat surprised how hard it was to find any reference to them on the internet.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > hugely embarrassing incident Is this a normal way of looking at state-state relations? I understood the Suez canal thing as a loss of prestige (obviously, the UK was no longer able to 'walk the walk', of being an empire), but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me. Humiliation implies a degree of popular investment in the imperial project that really wasn't there. States by themselves are not persons, and thus are shameless. You're right about the monarchy, although they are surprisingly pernicious and deep-rooted in the UK itself. I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was, and he neither lived nor died in a remarkable manner. I'm not sure how much ordinary people engage (apparently, most people switched off the telly, and there were a lot of complaints), but the establishment investment in the monarchy is pretty intense.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    "...but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me." OK, fair enough, but I didn't gain that perspective on my own. Type in 'U.K.', 'Suez Crisis' 'embarrassment' and or 'humiliation' into any search engine and you'll get any number of authoritative references to the fact. Even though I was a just child at the time, I vividly recall the huge kerfuffle the 'Crisis' caused. I was fully aware of the fact from daily newspaper headlines, animated discussions my parents were having over the matter, etc., that it was about the biggest news story since WWII. Here's a few first-pass searches to that effect: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-im... https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml (note the BBC's comment 'In Britain too there had been widespread outrage', you'd reckon the BBC would avoid such comments unless they were both very relevant and unavoidable). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-humiliating-the-parallels-between-the-suez-crisis-and-the-evacuation-of-kabul/ar-AAPlfMN https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-hu... If you aren't already bored to tears then here's another long and detailed version: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-crisis/ https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-cri... ________________ Edit/afterthought: "I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was..." Obviously, you live outside the U.K. or any Commonwealth country (certainly no criticism intended because in the grand global scheme of things, HRH was pretty irrelevant). (I recall a colleague mentioning his death to me during a telephone conversation (as he heard the announcement live on the radio that was running in the background at the time). That was enough for me to shut out every bit of news media for several weeks—as I knew there would be unavoidable wall-to-wall coverage of the event for weeks to come and frankly I knew that I could not stand all the palaver. Even now, I still don't know the details of his funeral but I do know that those who watched just about any news channel in the English-speaking world would have had to have known the details as they would have been impossible to avoid (of course, I cannot speak for non-English news outlets). That's why HN is so relevant, one can still keep up to date and avoid all unnecessary/useless dross. :-)

hilbert42 5y ago

"I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K. <...>; France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example." I don't disagree with your assessment but ultimately the writing is on the wall for monarchy (as, on average, the powers of monarchies have been atrophying steadily over the last few centuries and there's no sign of any letup). Much of monarchy's current appeal in countries that still possess monarchies and the concomitant [apparent] stability of their political systems comes from both nostalgia and a reticence to change (given historical circumstances, such views are hardly surprising, especially so in countries with a long and illustrious historical (monarchical) lineage). One wonders how, say, the U.K. would survive in a cultural sense if its monarchy were to be suddenly abolished. After all, its cultural heritage is extremely important to a huge number of its citizens, especially so given its loss of empire (from which the country has been smarting badly ever since WWI and especially so since WWII when in the wake of the War the country suffered significant loss of power and prestige on the international stage). Nothing could have made this more obvious than The Suez Crisis of 1956 when on the world stage the U.K. looked like a petulant brat sans any diplomatic experience (one even cringes when thinking about what happened). Whilst the U.K. has largely recovered from this hugely embarrassing incident and that it's largely forgotten by many of its citizens (likely because of its embarrassment), it nevertheless only ever achieved a partial recovery in status. (The evidence for the decline in power and influence of monarchies is reasonably solid. One cannot forget that monarchical power was once essentially absolute but these days (fortunately) it's only a shadows of its former self. It's impossible to put aside or forget the maniacal malevolence of Henry VIII or say the utter hatred George IV's subjects had for him. The fact is that whilst the monarchy represents stability in some countries it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always stay that way (and as we've seen with pre-WWI European monarchies, Hapsburg, etc., situations can change dramatically in just the spur of a moment). I'm not condoning such rapid political change, as it inevitably comes with considerable dangers as witnessed by, say, the French Revolution. Arguably, the Reign of Terror - la Terreur - that followed the French Revolution and the beginning of the First Republic has few equals in modern history with respect to its sheer brutality and its effects have been very long lasting indeed (as my French relatives keep telling me and demonstrating the fact with any number of present-day instances). Thus, in this regard, your comment about France, etc. plausibly benefiting from the example is rather apt; nevertheless, I don't see that detracting from my argument (as it's a separate issue). That said, the English were hardly any better, it's just that they started earlier. The Battle of Towton in 1461 during The War of the Roses, is almost unbeatable for sheer violence and utter brutality (although it's not alone with such a reputation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton. I mention this and hold my views about monarchy not from any gloating republican perspective—in fact far from it—but rather from evidence that supports the position that monarchies are in decline. Of course, many could or would contend that I could be just saying this and that in fact I'm a diehard republican at heart—and I acknowledge that it would be difficult for me to disprove the fact. In my defense, I can only state that I'm from a Commonwealth country (Australia) and that I've U.K. parentage. Moreover, the fact that I'm still in possession of souvenirs of QE II's coronation that were given to all of us children when we were in infants school signifies its importance during my early formative years (yes, the propaganda began early and it was very effective; back then we kids had no doubt that the U.K. was the greatest country on the planet—even though it wasn't our native homeland)! Here's a reference to one of those souvenirs: https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memento-Booklet-Pamphlet-154833726259.html https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memen..., the other one I've not yet found any reference to but it was about the Crown Jewels and described the various items that comprised the collection together with an explanation about each (the meaning of the different crowns, sceptres, maces, etc.). Incidentally, given the once ubiquity of these brochures in that they spanned multiple Commonwealth countries, I'm somewhat surprised how hard it was to find any reference to them on the internet.

pasabagi 5y ago
> hugely embarrassing incident Is this a normal way of looking at state-state relations? I understood the Suez canal thing as a loss of prestige (obviously, the UK was no longer able to 'walk the walk', of being an empire), but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me. Humiliation implies a degree of popular investment in the imperial project that really wasn't there. States by themselves are not persons, and thus are shameless. You're right about the monarchy, although they are surprisingly pernicious and deep-rooted in the UK itself. I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was, and he neither lived nor died in a remarkable manner. I'm not sure how much ordinary people engage (apparently, most people switched off the telly, and there were a lot of complaints), but the establishment investment in the monarchy is pretty intense.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "...but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me." OK, fair enough, but I didn't gain that perspective on my own. Type in 'U.K.', 'Suez Crisis' 'embarrassment' and or 'humiliation' into any search engine and you'll get any number of authoritative references to the fact. Even though I was a just child at the time, I vividly recall the huge kerfuffle the 'Crisis' caused. I was fully aware of the fact from daily newspaper headlines, animated discussions my parents were having over the matter, etc., that it was about the biggest news story since WWII. Here's a few first-pass searches to that effect: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-im... https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml (note the BBC's comment 'In Britain too there had been widespread outrage', you'd reckon the BBC would avoid such comments unless they were both very relevant and unavoidable). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-humiliating-the-parallels-between-the-suez-crisis-and-the-evacuation-of-kabul/ar-AAPlfMN https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-hu... If you aren't already bored to tears then here's another long and detailed version: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-crisis/ https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-cri... ________________ Edit/afterthought: "I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was..." Obviously, you live outside the U.K. or any Commonwealth country (certainly no criticism intended because in the grand global scheme of things, HRH was pretty irrelevant). (I recall a colleague mentioning his death to me during a telephone conversation (as he heard the announcement live on the radio that was running in the background at the time). That was enough for me to shut out every bit of news media for several weeks—as I knew there would be unavoidable wall-to-wall coverage of the event for weeks to come and frankly I knew that I could not stand all the palaver. Even now, I still don't know the details of his funeral but I do know that those who watched just about any news channel in the English-speaking world would have had to have known the details as they would have been impossible to avoid (of course, I cannot speak for non-English news outlets). That's why HN is so relevant, one can still keep up to date and avoid all unnecessary/useless dross. :-)