6 ms·

She could have abolished the monarchy and quit at any time. Monarchies are inherently undemocratic and she was the head of that undemocratic class system for de

She could have abolished the monarchy and quit at any time. Monarchies are inherently undemocratic and she was the head of that undemocratic class system for decades while people suffered under the British empire. I don’t doubt your sincerity, but these feelings in you and others were intentionally cultivated by decades of propaganda. There is no such thing as a rightful king or queen, and certainly no such thing as someone who rules by divine right.

msoad 4y ago
Beautifully put!
byset 4y ago
The queen (or king) can abdicate but would not have the power to abolish the British monarchy. That's a constitutional change and would presumably take a Parliamentary act.
- riffic 4y ago
  > a constitutional change Just in case anyone didn't know, the UK does not have a singular written constitution like you may find elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
  - worik 4y ago
    Which makes constitutional change much easier. IANAL but I think an act of parliament, ironically signed by the monarch, would suffice to abolish the monarchy in England.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  If she wanted to abolish the monarchy, she could have spurred that change pretty easily I think. A hell of a way to end the Monarchy would have been to use the royal prerogative to install an anti-brexit Prime Minister a couple years ago (against convention, but that's the point). Presumably that'd be enough to get them to abolish the Monarchy. And it would have been an fitting end to the Monarchy, a legacy of the previous era, to have the Queen, who held it for the current era, expend it's last bit of power to stay in the EU, which might be one of the top players in the next era. Well that's how it'd be written if it was a movie at least.
highwaylights 4y ago
I think it’s incredibly naive to suggest that she could have abolished the monarchy just like that. What about the legal system in the UK/Canada/Australia that have it in constitution that she as a veto to the passing of new laws as a balance. Could the system be made not to require the monarchy anymore? Sure, it’s purely ceremonial and has been for her entire reign, but to say that the monarch can make that decision at whim on behalf of 15 countries is just not true.
- worik 4y ago
  Cromwell found it really quite straight forward to abolish the monarchy. The bit afterwards he did not do so well.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    On the contrary, whilst he managed to abolish a monarch, he failed to abolish the institution of the monarchy so spectacularly that people kept offering the crown to him until he died, at which point the original line of succession was restored without any effective objections...
  - Lio 4y ago
    > Cromwell found it really quite straight forward to abolish the monarchy. Nonsense. Cromwell had to fight and win a very bloody civil war to abolish the monarchy. Despite that it was still restored after his death. The Right of Parliament controls the constitution of the UK and has done since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, not the current reigning monarch.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  One of the interesting quirks of losing the empire is that there are a lot of precedents for 'Westminster model' countries becoming republics. The straightforward way is to give the reserve powers of the monarch to a mostly-ceremonial President on the Irish or Israeli model, and vest the rest formally in the government (which coincidentally also makes them subject to more parliamentary oversight). In the case of Canada/Australia etc. the Governors-General are already performing such a ceremonial presidency in reality. All that's needed is a process for electing new ones; fairly straightforward. You're right that it would require international cooperation, though: the British parliament doesn't legislate for the other Commonwealth Realms any more.
Silverback_VII 4y ago
I would say that expecting a queen or king to remove his own power and influence by abolishing the monarchy is not very reasonable. If then it's the job of the people.
bigfudge 4y ago
I had never considered before what the right course of action for the Queen (and now Charles) would have been, but this is it. That said, I do think it’s an unrealistic ask of someone who’s entire life and all those around her are dedicated to reinforcing her (absurd) status. Those I really fault are the BBC who report her term heading this fundamentally antidemocratic institution so uncritically. Monarchy in the UK has majority support, but it is much more evenly split that you would imagine from our media. Radio 4’s correspondent was on just now fondly telling tales of how the Queen had intervened by “raising an eyebrow” to save a favoured army regiment. If true this should be a national scandal in a constitutional monarchy. That it is reported with so little awareness of the media’s role in entrenching privilege is unforgivable.
xkr 4y ago
> Monarchies are inherently undemocratic UK is in top-20 countries by democracy index.[1] It is classified as 'full democracy' (as opposed to 'flawed democracy', for example in the US). [1] https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/ https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/ UPD pdf version of the linked report: https://www.docdroid.net/xCeDvHc/eiu-democracy-index-2021-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/xCeDvHc/eiu-democracy-index-2021-pd...
- worik 4y ago
  I am not sure about official rankings. But "freedom" in the English tradition is quite flawed. The dominant paradigm is "if it is not permitted it is forbidden". Those of us in the colonies went a long way to get away from that.
  - Veen 4y ago
    That is the opposite of the truth. The common law position is usually: "If it's not forbidden it's permitted". You're confusing common law with civil law used in most of Europe
    - worik 4y ago
      I am talking about culture.
      - billyruffian 4y ago
        In what way? From mini skirts to punk rock to gay liberation to extinction rebellion to pro- and anti-brexit protests, we seem to be comfortable with challenge. Citation required.
  - billyruffian 4y ago
    > The dominant paradigm is "if it is not permitted it is forbidden". Oh gosh. It’s the exact opposite. The a principle of Common Law is ‘everything which is not forbidden is allowed’ (the US for example has done reasonably well on that principle).
barrysteve 4y ago
It's the head of a faith. It isn't going anywhere, even if every government, military and economic reason for it to exist, vanished. Ruling by divine right is common and hasn't gone anywhere. Divine rulership hasn't had a real problem to fight in a long time, so we leave the governing up to parliament. Not an absolute parliament, mind you.

msoad 4y ago

Beautifully put!

byset 4y ago

The queen (or king) can abdicate but would not have the power to abolish the British monarchy. That's a constitutional change and would presumably take a Parliamentary act.

riffic 4y ago
> a constitutional change Just in case anyone didn't know, the UK does not have a singular written constitution like you may find elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
- worik 4y ago
  Which makes constitutional change much easier. IANAL but I think an act of parliament, ironically signed by the monarch, would suffice to abolish the monarchy in England.
bee_rider 4y ago
If she wanted to abolish the monarchy, she could have spurred that change pretty easily I think. A hell of a way to end the Monarchy would have been to use the royal prerogative to install an anti-brexit Prime Minister a couple years ago (against convention, but that's the point). Presumably that'd be enough to get them to abolish the Monarchy. And it would have been an fitting end to the Monarchy, a legacy of the previous era, to have the Queen, who held it for the current era, expend it's last bit of power to stay in the EU, which might be one of the top players in the next era. Well that's how it'd be written if it was a movie at least.

highwaylights 4y ago

I think it’s incredibly naive to suggest that she could have abolished the monarchy just like that. What about the legal system in the UK/Canada/Australia that have it in constitution that she as a veto to the passing of new laws as a balance. Could the system be made not to require the monarchy anymore? Sure, it’s purely ceremonial and has been for her entire reign, but to say that the monarch can make that decision at whim on behalf of 15 countries is just not true.

worik 4y ago
Cromwell found it really quite straight forward to abolish the monarchy. The bit afterwards he did not do so well.
- notahacker 4y ago
  On the contrary, whilst he managed to abolish a monarch, he failed to abolish the institution of the monarchy so spectacularly that people kept offering the crown to him until he died, at which point the original line of succession was restored without any effective objections...
- Lio 4y ago
  > Cromwell found it really quite straight forward to abolish the monarchy. Nonsense. Cromwell had to fight and win a very bloody civil war to abolish the monarchy. Despite that it was still restored after his death. The Right of Parliament controls the constitution of the UK and has done since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, not the current reigning monarch.
pmyteh 4y ago
One of the interesting quirks of losing the empire is that there are a lot of precedents for 'Westminster model' countries becoming republics. The straightforward way is to give the reserve powers of the monarch to a mostly-ceremonial President on the Irish or Israeli model, and vest the rest formally in the government (which coincidentally also makes them subject to more parliamentary oversight). In the case of Canada/Australia etc. the Governors-General are already performing such a ceremonial presidency in reality. All that's needed is a process for electing new ones; fairly straightforward. You're right that it would require international cooperation, though: the British parliament doesn't legislate for the other Commonwealth Realms any more.

Silverback_VII 4y ago

I would say that expecting a queen or king to remove his own power and influence by abolishing the monarchy is not very reasonable. If then it's the job of the people.

bigfudge 4y ago

I had never considered before what the right course of action for the Queen (and now Charles) would have been, but this is it. That said, I do think it’s an unrealistic ask of someone who’s entire life and all those around her are dedicated to reinforcing her (absurd) status. Those I really fault are the BBC who report her term heading this fundamentally antidemocratic institution so uncritically. Monarchy in the UK has majority support, but it is much more evenly split that you would imagine from our media. Radio 4’s correspondent was on just now fondly telling tales of how the Queen had intervened by “raising an eyebrow” to save a favoured army regiment. If true this should be a national scandal in a constitutional monarchy. That it is reported with so little awareness of the media’s role in entrenching privilege is unforgivable.

xkr 4y ago

> Monarchies are inherently undemocratic UK is in top-20 countries by democracy index.[1] It is classified as 'full democracy' (as opposed to 'flawed democracy', for example in the US). [1] https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/ https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/ UPD pdf version of the linked report: https://www.docdroid.net/xCeDvHc/eiu-democracy-index-2021-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/xCeDvHc/eiu-democracy-index-2021-pd...

worik 4y ago
I am not sure about official rankings. But "freedom" in the English tradition is quite flawed. The dominant paradigm is "if it is not permitted it is forbidden". Those of us in the colonies went a long way to get away from that.
- Veen 4y ago
  That is the opposite of the truth. The common law position is usually: "If it's not forbidden it's permitted". You're confusing common law with civil law used in most of Europe
  - worik 4y ago
    I am talking about culture.
    - billyruffian 4y ago
      In what way? From mini skirts to punk rock to gay liberation to extinction rebellion to pro- and anti-brexit protests, we seem to be comfortable with challenge. Citation required.
- billyruffian 4y ago
  > The dominant paradigm is "if it is not permitted it is forbidden". Oh gosh. It’s the exact opposite. The a principle of Common Law is ‘everything which is not forbidden is allowed’ (the US for example has done reasonably well on that principle).

barrysteve 4y ago

It's the head of a faith. It isn't going anywhere, even if every government, military and economic reason for it to exist, vanished. Ruling by divine right is common and hasn't gone anywhere. Divine rulership hasn't had a real problem to fight in a long time, so we leave the governing up to parliament. Not an absolute parliament, mind you.