9 ms·

Here in the UK we're one day into a two day extra 'bank holiday' for the Queen's jubilee (70 years). Seems a good time to remind people of great sites like the

Here in the UK we're one day into a two day extra 'bank holiday' for the Queen's jubilee (70 years). Seems a good time to remind people of great sites like these, places that take the time to gather the evidence that reveals the truth behind royalty - descendants of thieves and murderers still profiting off the proceeds of their ancestral crimes, with their only 'qualification' being an accident of birth. We've never been a democracy. And we never will be as long as we have an aristocracy and a royalty with priviledges and titles both unearned and undeserved.

bsedlm 4y ago
I'd argue that while the current generation of nobles may in fact have done nothing much to earn them, they do have ancestors that fought bitterly, and in some cases quite sleazily, to earn and keep their privilege. the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. And it's only supposedly true in America
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  There are some republics in Europe that did indeed overthrow their royalty/aristocracy...
  - goatcode 4y ago
    And others that thought they did, only to find that they were the arms and legs of an even more brutal and incomprehensible regime.
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      And eventually those nations got rid of those too.
    - keybored 4y ago
      Really? Which ones?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- keybored 4y ago
  I can’t tell if this is supposed to be even more of a scathing condemnation compared to what OP said.
- eadmund 4y ago
  > the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. It's not really true in reality. Some folks are stronger, some faster, some more intelligent, some have more social connections, some are more charismatic. Even if we lived in a Harrison Bergeron dystopia there would be some inequality somewhere. I kind of admire an idealised British system which recognises inequality and attempts to channel it to good ends. I think the House of Lords as it was prior to 1911 made a lot of sense; I think that the honours system makes a lot of sense. I think that there's a lot to be said for having a monarch who is powerful in theory but weak in practice and a prime minister who is weak in theory although powerful in practice.
  - keybored 4y ago
    Some people are also more wicked, less empathetic, more manipulative, and more opportunistic.
  - bsedlm 4y ago
    it's supposed to be equal before the law... which it's not real in practice anywhere either. Usually one's networth changes the law, at least in Europe they're upfront about it.
dan-robertson 4y ago
Today is a regular bank holiday. Only the Friday bank holiday is extra.
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  I thank you for the correction.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Isn't Thursday the BH Monday but moved, so not quite the regular BH either.
goatcode 4y ago
The longer you live, the more you realize Thrasymachus was right. There is no order except for what the generations forget that their ancestors pretended was order, alongside the peace you build and maintain with your next-door neighbors.
dan-robertson 4y ago
> We've never been a democracy I’ve definitely heard it argued that the brief commonwealth between Charles I and II was the first modern democracy, where ‘modern’ means a system somewhat like current democracies rather than ‘after 1500’.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  May be of interest in relation to the opaque nature of British history - The City of London’s strange history Lord Glasman on what the Romans did for the Square Mile https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab... Alway interesting to try to read the tea leaves on the relationship between the two UK entities who run the two sovereign states - the palace and the city of London
  - euroderf 4y ago
    Amen to that. The more you know about the City of London (which is NOT the city of London), the fishier the whole setup sounds. "An ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state." "The last of England's rotten boroughs." Predating Parliament and not subject to it. Kinda makes ya wonder if the entire purpose of Brexit was to resist any hint of financial regulation by the EU. Over the years The Guardian has had a number of interesting articles about the City, such as [1]. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...
- notahacker 4y ago
  That's a stretch. England was technically a republic, and had technically become a republic over the issue of Parliamentary privilege. But in practice what happened is that a Parliament purged of royalist sympathisers got little done before being dissolved at gunpoint by a general and replaced it with a council of "holy men" picked by the Army, then that council decreed that the general should have all the powers the king had previously enjoyed bar the title (which he later turned down) and then he ruled much like the previous king, convening Parliaments only when he saw fit, before his powers were inherited by his son despite his son's lack of aptitude for using them or support. Arguably the most democratic bit of the lot was ironically the restoration of the monarchy (passed by a less-restricted Parliament, due to a shift in the balance of military power, and generally considered to have been popular with the wider public). The UK already had the tradition of Parliaments elected by a narrow franchise passing legislation, the only difference is that it became senior military figures convening them and shutting them down. And whilst Parliamentary and military factions clashed over many things, they all agreed that movements raising crazy notions like non-landowning classes having voting rights needed to be suppressed First modern military coup d'etat might be closer to the mark.
simonh 4y ago
We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of the state, but the idea that we're any less of a democracy because they're there is kind of silly.
- vasco 4y ago
  They are not irrelevant in the sense that they are a declaration of the nation that there are special people by birth. In a society so worried about equality, it is appaling that multiple countries in europe not only have populations that leave under monarchy, but that they seem to be in favor.
  - plonk 4y ago
    Seems like their special status is more of a burden today.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    None of that monarchs is involved in actual legislative, executive or judicative activities. Sure, they are heads of state, but that's where it stops. European monarchs don't write laws, don't sign laws, are not part of the elected government.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > European monarchs don't ... sign laws That may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the details are more interesting: "Since the sixteenth century no [British] monarch has actually signed a Bill themselves. Instead, the monarch signs what are known as Letters Patent which announce that an assent has been given." https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-royal-assent-and-why-dont-laws-come-force-straight-away https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what...
etothepii 4y ago
Of course it's underserved. But the person of the sovereign in the British system can be a unifying figure impossible with an elected Head of State. Don't agree? Just look at how the red half of the US talk about Obama and the Blue half talk about Trump.
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  I really don't care about that. I also don't care about how dutiful the Queen is and what she's sacrificed to the role - though to be clear I do believe both those things at a personal level. It doesn't matter what incidental good it accomplishes if it goes against the fundamental principles of equality.
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal. Even going back to only 100 years ago the idea that "we are all equal" would have sounded ridiculous. As an example, we could take the accounts about the role of schools in various educational systems in Europe: it was widespread belief that the function of such institutions was to select the ἄριστοι - àristoi, from which it derives aristocracy - the best among the best. School was intentionally set up as an exclusionary institution, opposed to our "inclusive" endeavor: it was considered obvious, a "fundamental principle" even, that some people were better, in some sense or in another, than others.
    - kcartlidge 4y ago
      > Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal. Fundamental means foundational. But regardless of whether or not the definition you choose to follow (and they do vary) adds more nuance, it's pretty obvious what was meant by the phrase fundamental principle. And pretty obvious from the context that it was in fact referring to, as you put it, the "modern conception". It really feels like you've picked up on a trivial phrasing at the cost of ignoring the intent, probably as a means of introducing some eloquent but irrelevant knowledge on etymology and derivation which adds nothing to the discussion. It doesn't matter what it was like 100 years ago. We live now. And equality is fundamental to our current conceptions of an ideal democracy. Or foundational if you're still offended by the word choice.
B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
There in the UK you've had a republic for some six or seven centuries, your kings are mere entertainers hired and fired at will, as Charles I found out. You do have a ruling class, but monarchy is not your problem. The Roman senators hated the Caesars with good reason, they gave the people too good a deal.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  England has had a de facto republic for about 350 years - since the end of the English Civil War.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
    Meh, I'd set it at the Magna Carta, but OK, sold, I know when I'm getting a good deal ;-) This "constitutional monarchy" thingie has to be the most bare-faced ... ah, "truth" since comrade Augustus informed the Senate that the Republic was working normally. Must be "turn-about is fair play" at work.

bsedlm 4y ago

I'd argue that while the current generation of nobles may in fact have done nothing much to earn them, they do have ancestors that fought bitterly, and in some cases quite sleazily, to earn and keep their privilege. the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. And it's only supposedly true in America

Mikeb85 4y ago
There are some republics in Europe that did indeed overthrow their royalty/aristocracy...
- goatcode 4y ago
  And others that thought they did, only to find that they were the arms and legs of an even more brutal and incomprehensible regime.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    And eventually those nations got rid of those too.
  - keybored 4y ago
    Really? Which ones?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
keybored 4y ago
I can’t tell if this is supposed to be even more of a scathing condemnation compared to what OP said.
eadmund 4y ago
> the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. It's not really true in reality. Some folks are stronger, some faster, some more intelligent, some have more social connections, some are more charismatic. Even if we lived in a Harrison Bergeron dystopia there would be some inequality somewhere. I kind of admire an idealised British system which recognises inequality and attempts to channel it to good ends. I think the House of Lords as it was prior to 1911 made a lot of sense; I think that the honours system makes a lot of sense. I think that there's a lot to be said for having a monarch who is powerful in theory but weak in practice and a prime minister who is weak in theory although powerful in practice.
- keybored 4y ago
  Some people are also more wicked, less empathetic, more manipulative, and more opportunistic.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  it's supposed to be equal before the law... which it's not real in practice anywhere either. Usually one's networth changes the law, at least in Europe they're upfront about it.

dan-robertson 4y ago

Today is a regular bank holiday. Only the Friday bank holiday is extra.

kcartlidge 4y ago
I thank you for the correction.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Isn't Thursday the BH Monday but moved, so not quite the regular BH either.

goatcode 4y ago

The longer you live, the more you realize Thrasymachus was right. There is no order except for what the generations forget that their ancestors pretended was order, alongside the peace you build and maintain with your next-door neighbors.

dan-robertson 4y ago

> We've never been a democracy I’ve definitely heard it argued that the brief commonwealth between Charles I and II was the first modern democracy, where ‘modern’ means a system somewhat like current democracies rather than ‘after 1500’.

olivermarks 4y ago
May be of interest in relation to the opaque nature of British history - The City of London’s strange history Lord Glasman on what the Romans did for the Square Mile https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab... Alway interesting to try to read the tea leaves on the relationship between the two UK entities who run the two sovereign states - the palace and the city of London
- euroderf 4y ago
  Amen to that. The more you know about the City of London (which is NOT the city of London), the fishier the whole setup sounds. "An ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state." "The last of England's rotten boroughs." Predating Parliament and not subject to it. Kinda makes ya wonder if the entire purpose of Brexit was to resist any hint of financial regulation by the EU. Over the years The Guardian has had a number of interesting articles about the City, such as [1]. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...
notahacker 4y ago
That's a stretch. England was technically a republic, and had technically become a republic over the issue of Parliamentary privilege. But in practice what happened is that a Parliament purged of royalist sympathisers got little done before being dissolved at gunpoint by a general and replaced it with a council of "holy men" picked by the Army, then that council decreed that the general should have all the powers the king had previously enjoyed bar the title (which he later turned down) and then he ruled much like the previous king, convening Parliaments only when he saw fit, before his powers were inherited by his son despite his son's lack of aptitude for using them or support. Arguably the most democratic bit of the lot was ironically the restoration of the monarchy (passed by a less-restricted Parliament, due to a shift in the balance of military power, and generally considered to have been popular with the wider public). The UK already had the tradition of Parliaments elected by a narrow franchise passing legislation, the only difference is that it became senior military figures convening them and shutting them down. And whilst Parliamentary and military factions clashed over many things, they all agreed that movements raising crazy notions like non-landowning classes having voting rights needed to be suppressed First modern military coup d'etat might be closer to the mark.

simonh 4y ago

We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of the state, but the idea that we're any less of a democracy because they're there is kind of silly.

vasco 4y ago
They are not irrelevant in the sense that they are a declaration of the nation that there are special people by birth. In a society so worried about equality, it is appaling that multiple countries in europe not only have populations that leave under monarchy, but that they seem to be in favor.
- plonk 4y ago
  Seems like their special status is more of a burden today.
- hef19898 4y ago
  None of that monarchs is involved in actual legislative, executive or judicative activities. Sure, they are heads of state, but that's where it stops. European monarchs don't write laws, don't sign laws, are not part of the elected government.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > European monarchs don't ... sign laws That may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the details are more interesting: "Since the sixteenth century no [British] monarch has actually signed a Bill themselves. Instead, the monarch signs what are known as Letters Patent which announce that an assent has been given." https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-royal-assent-and-why-dont-laws-come-force-straight-away https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what...

etothepii 4y ago

Of course it's underserved. But the person of the sovereign in the British system can be a unifying figure impossible with an elected Head of State. Don't agree? Just look at how the red half of the US talk about Obama and the Blue half talk about Trump.

kcartlidge 4y ago
I really don't care about that. I also don't care about how dutiful the Queen is and what she's sacrificed to the role - though to be clear I do believe both those things at a personal level. It doesn't matter what incidental good it accomplishes if it goes against the fundamental principles of equality.
- annyeonghada 4y ago
  Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal. Even going back to only 100 years ago the idea that "we are all equal" would have sounded ridiculous. As an example, we could take the accounts about the role of schools in various educational systems in Europe: it was widespread belief that the function of such institutions was to select the ἄριστοι - àristoi, from which it derives aristocracy - the best among the best. School was intentionally set up as an exclusionary institution, opposed to our "inclusive" endeavor: it was considered obvious, a "fundamental principle" even, that some people were better, in some sense or in another, than others.
  - kcartlidge 4y ago
    > Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal. Fundamental means foundational. But regardless of whether or not the definition you choose to follow (and they do vary) adds more nuance, it's pretty obvious what was meant by the phrase fundamental principle. And pretty obvious from the context that it was in fact referring to, as you put it, the "modern conception". It really feels like you've picked up on a trivial phrasing at the cost of ignoring the intent, probably as a means of introducing some eloquent but irrelevant knowledge on etymology and derivation which adds nothing to the discussion. It doesn't matter what it was like 100 years ago. We live now. And equality is fundamental to our current conceptions of an ideal democracy. Or foundational if you're still offended by the word choice.

B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago

There in the UK you've had a republic for some six or seven centuries, your kings are mere entertainers hired and fired at will, as Charles I found out. You do have a ruling class, but monarchy is not your problem. The Roman senators hated the Caesars with good reason, they gave the people too good a deal.

pyuser583 4y ago
England has had a de facto republic for about 350 years - since the end of the English Civil War.
- B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
  Meh, I'd set it at the Magna Carta, but OK, sold, I know when I'm getting a good deal ;-) This "constitutional monarchy" thingie has to be the most bare-faced ... ah, "truth" since comrade Augustus informed the Senate that the Republic was working normally. Must be "turn-about is fair play" at work.