16 ms·

The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's be

The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed. Personally I've found it borderline sickening. If there was a curtain that could have slipped, we all knew what would be behind it: a bunch of cherry-nosed coffin-dodgers with old-school-tie chums ensconced in the machinery of state, parliament, the military, whatever. Sure. Fine. Yadda yadda, blah blah. The "deep state" dancing hand-in-hand with the old school elites. Yuck. Disgusting but hardly a clear and present danger. But to see this machinery spring rustily, creakily into action has been truly eye-opening. Hitherto unknown people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. And this has been broadcast 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. Elected representatives from all political parties have fallen into line. It is not okay to ritualistically march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country, under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation. And yet, that's what has happened. And it keeps happening. It's bizarre in the extreme, and we really should not be okay with this.

brutusborn 4y ago
What is sickening about a smooth transition of power? The main thing you seem to criticise is the ritual itself, which to me seems pretty normal, albeit grandiose.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  There's absolutely nothing sickening about smooth transitions of power between elected officials.
  - rgavuliak 4y ago
    A considerable part of the US seems to disagree
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    There's no need for insinuation, if you dislike monarchies, just say so. If you dislike monarchies because of their power transition methods, I'd love to hear that reasoning.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whrobbins 4y ago
  "Smooth transition of power" is a good way to put it in the modern era. In centuries past, citizens would pray on their hands and knees for a system as quick and streamlined as this one. When there is ambiguity in who holds power, there is conflict, instability, bloodshed, etc. This is why countries used to throw enormous festivals celebrating the birth of a monarch's first-born son — it means the succession plan has become entirely unambiguous, and stability has been ensured for years to come.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  It is sickening when the transition is from one unelected, parasitic, hereditary monarch to her child.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Ah, so we should do away with inheritance in general.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Yes, we should do away with all hereditary monarchies. That is a very good idea.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    As I replied to the other poster, if you dislike monarchy then thats fine. But you're basically saying you don't like certain rituals because they remind you of a political system you despise, which is a hilariously roundabout way of shoehorning your hatred of monarchy into a thread.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Silly rituals are a pretty big part of monarchies, IMHO because monarchs have always understood they have no legitimate right to rule so they use the pomp and circumstance as a form of fake legitimacy.
- austinjp 4y ago
  The normalisation of the rituals is part of the problem. The public proclamations of the accession of Charles to King have included representatives of the state, military, police, and church. They have been made in public spaces. The mildest of protestations have resulted in arrests (albeit very few, and by seemingly confused police officers). For me, the issues here are around obeisance and imposition. Apparently it's fine and "normal" for some elite [1] class of people to march into public spaces and make declarations that cannot be challenged. The ornate outfits and ceremony are there to indicate a few things, the most obvious being that you are not one of them. In the strange post-modern Western world, pompous ceremonies come across as quaint and fun, another one of those bizarre things that the upper classes apparently get up to, silly them, aren't they funny hahaha. But it's not quaint, it's a public declaration that a tiny number of the ultra-priveleged still call the shots. Bizarrely it seems that we lap it up. The message is almost subliminal now: you're there and we're here, and that's the way it's going to stay. [1] I know the word elite is a dog-whistle but have you seen these dudes?? A more florid flaunting of elitism is hard to imagine.
staticassertion 4y ago
Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense? I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago. Honestly, be grateful. I watch parliament for some sort of fucked up cathartic release because even the worst of your MPs have a base moral compass that would dwarf almost anyone in the US government. Just the fact that Johnson's party initiated the no-confidence is incredible, I can't imagine that happening in the US - 15% of a party turning against their party representative? Impossible here. If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  My Jr High history teacher in TX was apparently a royalist, said the revolutionaries were just a bunch of whiners. The older I get, the more I agree.
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    I joke that the way you respect monarchist or other authoritarian opinions is to completely ignore them. It is after all what they want.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Anyone who can tolerate being ruled by self-professed "Royalty" has no self-respect.
    - kamaal 4y ago
      "Royalty" never really ruled anything completely in history. There were always ministers, even a prime minister, bureaucracy under the King/Queen. The King/Queen only maintained enough political power to veto any decision in any branch of the government. That's pretty much it. Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. Bureaucracy still remains the largest and still a unelected branch of the government. You still can't interfere with anything to do with Armed Forces and Judiciary, and they too are unelected. Only thing the public got was a way to elect the (prime-)minister(s). But even the merits of this are up for a debate, Democracy doesn't work well if your masses are not empowered to make good decisions, or they have all the empowerment or they just can't make right decisions for themselves. Ask yourself this, why would anybody want to be elected? To serve the people? People do anything because its personally profitable to them, that begs the question, do they even have your best interests in their decisions and work? Regardless a huge range of decisions remain outside the control and scope of the common masses. Also beyond all this, these are political definitions, just like boundaries they expand and contract every century or so, this is with any country. So you really have to ask at the end of the day, what are you fighting for?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
voldacar 4y ago
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long too, as do all governments on pork projects and subsidies.
- chasil 4y ago
  Au contraire. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-consent-and-a-royal-abuse-of-power https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-... "Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament." Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords "Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
  - cpleppert 4y ago
    Kings/Queens consent is for legislation affecting the royal household. Parliament is not bound by the monarch's consent in any case. Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
    - chasil 4y ago
      I daresay you are a royalist. "We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement. "Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy. "But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
junofan 4y ago
Well yeah, you live in a monarchy. Lots of people aren’t okay with it.
alphaddx 4y ago
I'm genuinely interested to know what you think should happen after a monarch passes. This has been the process for over 1000 years and while we have a constitutional monarchy this is what happens. I'm actually not in favour of a monarchy myself but I don't get how people would be surprised at what's currently happening.
- Somatochlora 4y ago
  There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
    - metadat 4y ago
      Huh? Who "has their music"? Why censor? If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
      - ksaj 4y ago
        It's a line by Joe Pesci in the movie The Good Shepherd. Not that it justifies anything.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      I would think that the French have better food
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
phpthrowaway99 4y ago
You say it's not okay. I say it is. Unless you have something more this is basically just a random opinion stated as if it wasn't an opinion.
- NonNefarious 4y ago
  As if it WEREN'T an opinion. But I agree with your sentiment.
  - NonNefarious 4y ago
    Uh-oh, some anti-literacy infants have modded me down. Up with ignorance, right?
    - NonNefarious 4y ago
      Make sure you come back to mod this down too, crybaby.
      - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
        FYI, it wasn't me even once. I actually appreciated the note because the distinction never crossed my radar even once. Plus I'm technically ESL so why not learn.
        NonNefarious 4y ago
        Thank you. That's the problem with butt-hurt crybabies who reject LEARNING. And I was polite, and I agreed with the sentiment! What kind of asshole rejects THAT? People's excuse for being lazy illiterates online is, "FU grammer nazi its only online so hu carez" EVERYONE should care. People learn by READING. And where does most reading take place now, sadly? ONLINE. So people propagating ignorance and lashing out against those who promote literacy ARE the problem. It's sad to see that on a site like this. It indicates decline.
- ploppyploppy 4y ago
noahtallen 4y ago
I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape. Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  It isn't even allowed to come to a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent
  - mrcsd 4y ago
    That's not correct, crown consent cannot stop a vote. And regardless of this, parliament is sovereign [0], that supremacy overrides any power any monarch could have in the UK. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
    - retcore 4y ago
      The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
      - mrcsd 4y ago
        It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is sovereign then ultimately the limits of crown consent are for parliament to decide. So the crown does not truly have a binding veto, if that veto can be removed or undone by parliament. That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
robomartin 4y ago
One thing I will never understand about people who pretty much hate where they live for one reason or another: Why don't they leave? Seriously. I am not taking sides here. I have visited the UK as a tourist and on business a zillion times over the last four decades. And yet, I am not qualified to voice opinion as to the realities of living there. From the outside, as someone visiting from the US, for lack of a better term, it feels like home. Comfortable. Orderly. A place where anyone can live and, should they be inclined to, excel. I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere. It isn't like the world is closed to relocation. It happens all the time. My own family emigrated to the US when I was almost a baby precisely for this reason. My grandparents fled from genocide, that's more of a forced migration. The point is: If it is so bad. If it is revolting. Find your paradise, sell your possessions, book a flight and leave. The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics (which is a revolting thought pretty much anywhere in the world) or violence (which some seem to think is a way to make things better, which is as weird as can be). I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all. As the son of immigrants who decided "enough is enough", I am grateful for the very hard decision my parents made. It is because I understand this that I am perplexed by people who hate where they live and choose to stick around living in misery. Relinquishing your life to a sunk costs fallacy scenario isn't a formula for success. Go find your paradise. The world is a very large blue marble with lots of wonderful places you can call home and be happy.
- opportune 4y ago
  One thing I will never understand about people who argue with others preferences on the internet: Why don’t they just not post? I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate. Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and family for a less familiar setting. By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
  - robomartin 4y ago
javajosh 4y ago
- morelisp 4y ago
  > Monarchy is a human default government. There is literally no evidence for this.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    - austinjp 4y ago
      There are plenty of issues with this line of argument. Black swans (monarchies everywhere we look), crystal ball gazing (we can't see the future so we can't identify if we're living in aberrant times), might is right (the powerful are the first to take control, which is interpreted as governance), elitism (power passes to the powerful), and probably more. Although "proof by Civ" is incontrovertible, of course.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      Bluntly, actual anthropology does not agree with this at all. It's some Enlightenment technocratic fantasy, so it's fitting you invoke Civ and not, like, a real survey.
      - javajosh 4y ago
        If I am wrong, then you are being cruel to me simply for being ignorant. I personally do not find cruelty appealing, do you? Instead of cruel taunts that I'm on the wrong end of an information asymmetry, how about a link? If I am right, and you know it, then you are arguing in bad faith attempting to derail the convo or just troll. If I am right and you don't know it, and arguing in good faith, then I think the exercise of supporting your claim would be good for you. You might be surprised. So: do you have a link to a "real survey" of the type you mean?
orange8 4y ago
I believe it has always been that quick for hundreds of years. Where else would the phrase "the king is dead, long live the king" come from?
- austinjp 4y ago
  Well indeed. That phrase signifies that monarchy should be uninterruptible, which I'm suggesting deserves questioning.
NonNefarious 4y ago
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Criticism of monarchy spreads around with remarkable petulance. When I watch the ceromonies and rituals, I just see it like a cosplay event; if I am completely honest. But that doesn't mean that my new found 'revelation' needs to be weaponized to gain internet points. I just find it immature. I've got better things to do that either praise or disdainfully scorn at the monarchy. Exactly, who cares! On internet points, ufff... I see the irony already.
- morelisp 4y ago
  Are the arrests also nothing more than pageantry? I'm pretty sure they're going Real Jail.
  - NonNefarious 4y ago
    I'm not talking about arrests.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      But the GP obviously is. > under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
- austinjp 4y ago
  I hope from my comments here and this of others that recent events are not just a "pageant". If you can explain how there is really "nothing more" to it and why we shouldn't care, I'd be grateful for the revelation.
throwaway787544 4y ago
Not that extreme for a constitutional monarchy bruh
ralfd 4y ago
> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
- morelisp 4y ago
  By the standards of the question in the US the monarchy did not transition power at all, and per the article it's not exactly happened peacefully, so what exactly is your point?
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think the point is that the Monarchy provides a stability mechanism, which is generally why its supporters like it. However I could be misinterpreting the comment.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      Consistently this Schroedinger's Monarchy defense. "The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her? "Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power! The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        The UK Monarch has real power, but not absolute power. From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements." This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
grecy 4y ago
> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces The one and only time I visited London I just happened to wander by Buckingham Palace on the opening day of Parliament, so all the royals were coming out. The part that floored me was all the pop and show of the uniforms, bayonets and those massive black fluffy hat things with the chin strap. I've never been to the UK or Russia before, but I felt 100% like I was watching a Russian show of pop and flair, not a British one. It dawned on me then that in many ways, they're indistinguishable.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  That's how basically every modern military (and probably historically for quite a long time as well) works, except with a slightly sillier hat.
powerapple 4y ago
It is not so bizarre if you compare it with those flowers from normal people in former colonies.
Bancakes 4y ago
Why are you so irrationally afraid of politics, specifically the Royal family? Did they form a child army, did they smuggle heroin, did they kick puppies?
- austinjp 4y ago
  Well which is it? Politics, or the Royal Family? If they're separate please ask a more specific question. If they're not separate, shouldn't they be? As for your specific points, are you being facetious? They seem deliberately outrageous, but... oh dear... The UK military routinely recruits minors: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html The Opium Wars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War Prince beat dogs (sorry, couldn't find anything about kicking them): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-scorns-prince-dog-beater/article665627/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-sco...
ploppyploppy 4y ago
A very biased, dark and over-written take on the scenes & goings-on. These traditions are > 100 years old; what do you expect to happen? Get outside and spend some time in nature why don't you?
- austinjp 4y ago
  Thanks for the advice :) As for what I expect to happen, as I've said elsewhere here: a conversation, and not unquestioning deferential acceptance of centuries-old privilege.
eternalban 4y ago
> 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. UK is understandable. Why other countries, even supposedly "hostile" nations, constantly, year after year shove this British royal crap down our throat (and we barely ever hear about other so-called royal families but they do exist) is an interesting question. "People want it" is the usual excuse like advertising is the usual pretext/excuse for surveillance capitalism. And who are these "people" who are clamoring to know every tiny details of this not so noble family? The lumpen masses? The media usually doesn't give an F about what they "want", except on this topic. [They comprehensively saturate the information space, from highbrow journals all the way to tabloid sheets. There is no other topic like this.] Very interesting. For years now I have trained my eyes to immediately look away from any headline that mentions a Brit royal family member. They are like the Kardashians. A completely 'who cares and why should I care' informational nuisance.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
I'm not of the UK, but I live here. And the people chose for it to be this way after they beheaded Charles I. If enough people wanted to dissolve the monarchy then it would happen, though I'm sure without as much bloodshed as in 1649. Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless centuries of history embedded into almost every location. If this wasn't the case then I wouldn't have learnt so much as to why my life in New Zealand was so different to my one here. But who knows, maybe people here really are ready to forgo all that, but from what I have seen so far I don't think so. Hell even the religious differences (NZ, it's not a huge part of our lives) are stark.
- austinjp 4y ago
  Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as much surprise :) Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m... Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.
  - fennecfoxy 4y ago
    Totally agree. My point is view at the moment is that QEII was the last true royal, ie she had such close ties to the monarchy of old. I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".
barrysteve 4y ago
I lived in the UK for half a decade, and found there's always something going on. Roads are being blocked off for parades, bicycle events, football crowds, public transport strikes, identical swathes of finance bros filling out areas after work, and just general throngs of people. You get used to falling in line with whatever going on, cause you're not getting to the traffic light before the corner-shop, if you fight it. It's not "deep state" in the UK, it's the peak of the class system (or anglican faith). People aspire to go up these ranks, and having the royal family guide it all, directly or as a counterbalance. It's no less or more weird than people stopping to watch the new Pope get elected or George Clooney and Julia Roberts try and go for a quite coffee on some sleepy sunday morning, just to be surrounded by people who should have better things to do than gawp at hollywood stars.
throwoutway 4y ago
It’s really not that bizarre, not conspiratorial, and not “public passivity and capitulation”. The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized. You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.
- austinjp 4y ago
  I know plenty about the UK, thank you :) Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.
tim333 4y ago
Recent survey 62% of Brits support having a monarchy, 22% think we should ditch it for a republic. Not sure what the problem is with a decidedly popular multi century tradition? I'm okay with this even if you don't like it. The British people could always vote the them out if they actually wanted to.
- austinjp 4y ago
  See my comment elsewhere here. Support dips to 31% in those aged 18-24. It's very high in the over 65s, with 77% supporting the monarchy. As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some sort of referendum. Unlikely for a long time :) And as you point out, not currently likely to be popular. As for what's wrong with an unelected elite family of multi-millionaires who are protected by the police, military, church, and all other state machinery... plenty has been written elsewhere :) It seems odd to me that the monarchy could be viewed as merely "tradition", and a benign one at that. I guess this view has been aided by the way Elizabeth kept a steady hand on the wheel and expressed only the most anodyne opinions in public. I confess I am intrigued to see how Charles manages.

brutusborn 4y ago

What is sickening about a smooth transition of power? The main thing you seem to criticise is the ritual itself, which to me seems pretty normal, albeit grandiose.

MereInterest 4y ago
There's absolutely nothing sickening about smooth transitions of power between elected officials.
- rgavuliak 4y ago
  A considerable part of the US seems to disagree
- brutusborn 4y ago
  There's no need for insinuation, if you dislike monarchies, just say so. If you dislike monarchies because of their power transition methods, I'd love to hear that reasoning.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whrobbins 4y ago
"Smooth transition of power" is a good way to put it in the modern era. In centuries past, citizens would pray on their hands and knees for a system as quick and streamlined as this one. When there is ambiguity in who holds power, there is conflict, instability, bloodshed, etc. This is why countries used to throw enormous festivals celebrating the birth of a monarch's first-born son — it means the succession plan has become entirely unambiguous, and stability has been ensured for years to come.
HyperSane 4y ago
It is sickening when the transition is from one unelected, parasitic, hereditary monarch to her child.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Ah, so we should do away with inheritance in general.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Yes, we should do away with all hereditary monarchies. That is a very good idea.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  As I replied to the other poster, if you dislike monarchy then thats fine. But you're basically saying you don't like certain rituals because they remind you of a political system you despise, which is a hilariously roundabout way of shoehorning your hatred of monarchy into a thread.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Silly rituals are a pretty big part of monarchies, IMHO because monarchs have always understood they have no legitimate right to rule so they use the pomp and circumstance as a form of fake legitimacy.
austinjp 4y ago
The normalisation of the rituals is part of the problem. The public proclamations of the accession of Charles to King have included representatives of the state, military, police, and church. They have been made in public spaces. The mildest of protestations have resulted in arrests (albeit very few, and by seemingly confused police officers). For me, the issues here are around obeisance and imposition. Apparently it's fine and "normal" for some elite [1] class of people to march into public spaces and make declarations that cannot be challenged. The ornate outfits and ceremony are there to indicate a few things, the most obvious being that you are not one of them. In the strange post-modern Western world, pompous ceremonies come across as quaint and fun, another one of those bizarre things that the upper classes apparently get up to, silly them, aren't they funny hahaha. But it's not quaint, it's a public declaration that a tiny number of the ultra-priveleged still call the shots. Bizarrely it seems that we lap it up. The message is almost subliminal now: you're there and we're here, and that's the way it's going to stay. [1] I know the word elite is a dog-whistle but have you seen these dudes?? A more florid flaunting of elitism is hard to imagine.

staticassertion 4y ago

Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense? I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago. Honestly, be grateful. I watch parliament for some sort of fucked up cathartic release because even the worst of your MPs have a base moral compass that would dwarf almost anyone in the US government. Just the fact that Johnson's party initiated the no-confidence is incredible, I can't imagine that happening in the US - 15% of a party turning against their party representative? Impossible here. If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.

hindsightbias 4y ago
My Jr High history teacher in TX was apparently a royalist, said the revolutionaries were just a bunch of whiners. The older I get, the more I agree.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  I joke that the way you respect monarchist or other authoritarian opinions is to completely ignore them. It is after all what they want.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Anyone who can tolerate being ruled by self-professed "Royalty" has no self-respect.
  - kamaal 4y ago
    "Royalty" never really ruled anything completely in history. There were always ministers, even a prime minister, bureaucracy under the King/Queen. The King/Queen only maintained enough political power to veto any decision in any branch of the government. That's pretty much it. Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. Bureaucracy still remains the largest and still a unelected branch of the government. You still can't interfere with anything to do with Armed Forces and Judiciary, and they too are unelected. Only thing the public got was a way to elect the (prime-)minister(s). But even the merits of this are up for a debate, Democracy doesn't work well if your masses are not empowered to make good decisions, or they have all the empowerment or they just can't make right decisions for themselves. Ask yourself this, why would anybody want to be elected? To serve the people? People do anything because its personally profitable to them, that begs the question, do they even have your best interests in their decisions and work? Regardless a huge range of decisions remain outside the control and scope of the common masses. Also beyond all this, these are political definitions, just like boundaries they expand and contract every century or so, this is with any country. So you really have to ask at the end of the day, what are you fighting for?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

voldacar 4y ago

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long too, as do all governments on pork projects and subsidies.

chasil 4y ago
Au contraire. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-consent-and-a-royal-abuse-of-power https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-... "Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament." Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords "Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
- cpleppert 4y ago
  Kings/Queens consent is for legislation affecting the royal household. Parliament is not bound by the monarch's consent in any case. Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
  - chasil 4y ago
    I daresay you are a royalist. "We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement. "Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy. "But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."

junofan 4y ago

Well yeah, you live in a monarchy. Lots of people aren’t okay with it.

alphaddx 4y ago

I'm genuinely interested to know what you think should happen after a monarch passes. This has been the process for over 1000 years and while we have a constitutional monarchy this is what happens. I'm actually not in favour of a monarchy myself but I don't get how people would be surprised at what's currently happening.

Somatochlora 4y ago
There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
- foobarian 4y ago
  To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Huh? Who "has their music"? Why censor? If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
    - ksaj 4y ago
      It's a line by Joe Pesci in the movie The Good Shepherd. Not that it justifies anything.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    I would think that the French have better food
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

phpthrowaway99 4y ago

You say it's not okay. I say it is. Unless you have something more this is basically just a random opinion stated as if it wasn't an opinion.

NonNefarious 4y ago
As if it WEREN'T an opinion. But I agree with your sentiment.
- NonNefarious 4y ago
  Uh-oh, some anti-literacy infants have modded me down. Up with ignorance, right?
  - NonNefarious 4y ago
    Make sure you come back to mod this down too, crybaby.
    - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
      FYI, it wasn't me even once. I actually appreciated the note because the distinction never crossed my radar even once. Plus I'm technically ESL so why not learn.
      - NonNefarious 4y ago
        Thank you. That's the problem with butt-hurt crybabies who reject LEARNING. And I was polite, and I agreed with the sentiment! What kind of asshole rejects THAT? People's excuse for being lazy illiterates online is, "FU grammer nazi its only online so hu carez" EVERYONE should care. People learn by READING. And where does most reading take place now, sadly? ONLINE. So people propagating ignorance and lashing out against those who promote literacy ARE the problem. It's sad to see that on a site like this. It indicates decline.
ploppyploppy 4y ago

noahtallen 4y ago

I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape. Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
It isn't even allowed to come to a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent
- mrcsd 4y ago
  That's not correct, crown consent cannot stop a vote. And regardless of this, parliament is sovereign [0], that supremacy overrides any power any monarch could have in the UK. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
  - retcore 4y ago
    The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
    - mrcsd 4y ago
      It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is sovereign then ultimately the limits of crown consent are for parliament to decide. So the crown does not truly have a binding veto, if that veto can be removed or undone by parliament. That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!

robomartin 4y ago

One thing I will never understand about people who pretty much hate where they live for one reason or another: Why don't they leave? Seriously. I am not taking sides here. I have visited the UK as a tourist and on business a zillion times over the last four decades. And yet, I am not qualified to voice opinion as to the realities of living there. From the outside, as someone visiting from the US, for lack of a better term, it feels like home. Comfortable. Orderly. A place where anyone can live and, should they be inclined to, excel. I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere. It isn't like the world is closed to relocation. It happens all the time. My own family emigrated to the US when I was almost a baby precisely for this reason. My grandparents fled from genocide, that's more of a forced migration. The point is: If it is so bad. If it is revolting. Find your paradise, sell your possessions, book a flight and leave. The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics (which is a revolting thought pretty much anywhere in the world) or violence (which some seem to think is a way to make things better, which is as weird as can be). I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all. As the son of immigrants who decided "enough is enough", I am grateful for the very hard decision my parents made. It is because I understand this that I am perplexed by people who hate where they live and choose to stick around living in misery. Relinquishing your life to a sunk costs fallacy scenario isn't a formula for success. Go find your paradise. The world is a very large blue marble with lots of wonderful places you can call home and be happy.

opportune 4y ago
One thing I will never understand about people who argue with others preferences on the internet: Why don’t they just not post? I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate. Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and family for a less familiar setting. By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
- robomartin 4y ago

javajosh 4y ago

morelisp 4y ago
> Monarchy is a human default government. There is literally no evidence for this.
- javajosh 4y ago
  - austinjp 4y ago
    There are plenty of issues with this line of argument. Black swans (monarchies everywhere we look), crystal ball gazing (we can't see the future so we can't identify if we're living in aberrant times), might is right (the powerful are the first to take control, which is interpreted as governance), elitism (power passes to the powerful), and probably more. Although "proof by Civ" is incontrovertible, of course.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    Bluntly, actual anthropology does not agree with this at all. It's some Enlightenment technocratic fantasy, so it's fitting you invoke Civ and not, like, a real survey.
    - javajosh 4y ago
      If I am wrong, then you are being cruel to me simply for being ignorant. I personally do not find cruelty appealing, do you? Instead of cruel taunts that I'm on the wrong end of an information asymmetry, how about a link? If I am right, and you know it, then you are arguing in bad faith attempting to derail the convo or just troll. If I am right and you don't know it, and arguing in good faith, then I think the exercise of supporting your claim would be good for you. You might be surprised. So: do you have a link to a "real survey" of the type you mean?

orange8 4y ago

I believe it has always been that quick for hundreds of years. Where else would the phrase "the king is dead, long live the king" come from?

austinjp 4y ago
Well indeed. That phrase signifies that monarchy should be uninterruptible, which I'm suggesting deserves questioning.

NonNefarious 4y ago

systemvoltage 4y ago
Criticism of monarchy spreads around with remarkable petulance. When I watch the ceromonies and rituals, I just see it like a cosplay event; if I am completely honest. But that doesn't mean that my new found 'revelation' needs to be weaponized to gain internet points. I just find it immature. I've got better things to do that either praise or disdainfully scorn at the monarchy. Exactly, who cares! On internet points, ufff... I see the irony already.
morelisp 4y ago
Are the arrests also nothing more than pageantry? I'm pretty sure they're going Real Jail.
- NonNefarious 4y ago
  I'm not talking about arrests.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    But the GP obviously is. > under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
austinjp 4y ago
I hope from my comments here and this of others that recent events are not just a "pageant". If you can explain how there is really "nothing more" to it and why we shouldn't care, I'd be grateful for the revelation.

throwaway787544 4y ago

Not that extreme for a constitutional monarchy bruh

ralfd 4y ago

> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”

morelisp 4y ago
By the standards of the question in the US the monarchy did not transition power at all, and per the article it's not exactly happened peacefully, so what exactly is your point?
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I think the point is that the Monarchy provides a stability mechanism, which is generally why its supporters like it. However I could be misinterpreting the comment.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    Consistently this Schroedinger's Monarchy defense. "The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her? "Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power! The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      The UK Monarch has real power, but not absolute power. From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements." This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.

grecy 4y ago

> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces The one and only time I visited London I just happened to wander by Buckingham Palace on the opening day of Parliament, so all the royals were coming out. The part that floored me was all the pop and show of the uniforms, bayonets and those massive black fluffy hat things with the chin strap. I've never been to the UK or Russia before, but I felt 100% like I was watching a Russian show of pop and flair, not a British one. It dawned on me then that in many ways, they're indistinguishable.

staticassertion 4y ago
That's how basically every modern military (and probably historically for quite a long time as well) works, except with a slightly sillier hat.

powerapple 4y ago

It is not so bizarre if you compare it with those flowers from normal people in former colonies.

Bancakes 4y ago

Why are you so irrationally afraid of politics, specifically the Royal family? Did they form a child army, did they smuggle heroin, did they kick puppies?

austinjp 4y ago
Well which is it? Politics, or the Royal Family? If they're separate please ask a more specific question. If they're not separate, shouldn't they be? As for your specific points, are you being facetious? They seem deliberately outrageous, but... oh dear... The UK military routinely recruits minors: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html The Opium Wars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War Prince beat dogs (sorry, couldn't find anything about kicking them): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-scorns-prince-dog-beater/article665627/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-sco...

ploppyploppy 4y ago

A very biased, dark and over-written take on the scenes & goings-on. These traditions are > 100 years old; what do you expect to happen? Get outside and spend some time in nature why don't you?

austinjp 4y ago
Thanks for the advice :) As for what I expect to happen, as I've said elsewhere here: a conversation, and not unquestioning deferential acceptance of centuries-old privilege.

eternalban 4y ago

> 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. UK is understandable. Why other countries, even supposedly "hostile" nations, constantly, year after year shove this British royal crap down our throat (and we barely ever hear about other so-called royal families but they do exist) is an interesting question. "People want it" is the usual excuse like advertising is the usual pretext/excuse for surveillance capitalism. And who are these "people" who are clamoring to know every tiny details of this not so noble family? The lumpen masses? The media usually doesn't give an F about what they "want", except on this topic. [They comprehensively saturate the information space, from highbrow journals all the way to tabloid sheets. There is no other topic like this.] Very interesting. For years now I have trained my eyes to immediately look away from any headline that mentions a Brit royal family member. They are like the Kardashians. A completely 'who cares and why should I care' informational nuisance.

fennecfoxy 4y ago

I'm not of the UK, but I live here. And the people chose for it to be this way after they beheaded Charles I. If enough people wanted to dissolve the monarchy then it would happen, though I'm sure without as much bloodshed as in 1649. Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless centuries of history embedded into almost every location. If this wasn't the case then I wouldn't have learnt so much as to why my life in New Zealand was so different to my one here. But who knows, maybe people here really are ready to forgo all that, but from what I have seen so far I don't think so. Hell even the religious differences (NZ, it's not a huge part of our lives) are stark.

austinjp 4y ago
Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as much surprise :) Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m... Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.
- fennecfoxy 4y ago
  Totally agree. My point is view at the moment is that QEII was the last true royal, ie she had such close ties to the monarchy of old. I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".

barrysteve 4y ago

I lived in the UK for half a decade, and found there's always something going on. Roads are being blocked off for parades, bicycle events, football crowds, public transport strikes, identical swathes of finance bros filling out areas after work, and just general throngs of people. You get used to falling in line with whatever going on, cause you're not getting to the traffic light before the corner-shop, if you fight it. It's not "deep state" in the UK, it's the peak of the class system (or anglican faith). People aspire to go up these ranks, and having the royal family guide it all, directly or as a counterbalance. It's no less or more weird than people stopping to watch the new Pope get elected or George Clooney and Julia Roberts try and go for a quite coffee on some sleepy sunday morning, just to be surrounded by people who should have better things to do than gawp at hollywood stars.

throwoutway 4y ago

It’s really not that bizarre, not conspiratorial, and not “public passivity and capitulation”. The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized. You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.

austinjp 4y ago
I know plenty about the UK, thank you :) Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.

tim333 4y ago

Recent survey 62% of Brits support having a monarchy, 22% think we should ditch it for a republic. Not sure what the problem is with a decidedly popular multi century tradition? I'm okay with this even if you don't like it. The British people could always vote the them out if they actually wanted to.

austinjp 4y ago
See my comment elsewhere here. Support dips to 31% in those aged 18-24. It's very high in the over 65s, with 77% supporting the monarchy. As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some sort of referendum. Unlikely for a long time :) And as you point out, not currently likely to be popular. As for what's wrong with an unelected elite family of multi-millionaires who are protected by the police, military, church, and all other state machinery... plenty has been written elsewhere :) It seems odd to me that the monarchy could be viewed as merely "tradition", and a benign one at that. I guess this view has been aided by the way Elizabeth kept a steady hand on the wheel and expressed only the most anodyne opinions in public. I confess I am intrigued to see how Charles manages.