4 ms·

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 c

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?
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      "Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. " Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy? "what are you fighting for" Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
      - kamaal 4y ago
        >>rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. >>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else. Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is. The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
        HyperSane 4y ago
        "Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks." At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society. "The monarchy just maintains a veto" Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable. There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
  - bluehatbrit 4y ago
    It's possible to disagree with something and yet tolerate it, especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter. While they may not have your respect, I suspect those who tolerate the monarch have plenty of self-respect.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      "especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter." All the wealth the royal family hordes could help with that. Those "Royal" palaces could be converted to museums or hotels and earn money instead of costing money. To be a monarchist is to accept the claim of inherent superiority by self-professed "Royalty".
Barrin92 4y ago
>If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost. is it though? The UK isn't the only country that has removed its leader in a no-confidence vote. Republics do it regularly just fine. The relationship to the monarchy you have to explain to me, British people don't receive their moral compass from the crown, although the barrage of Netflix shows on that family may create that image in the mind of people who romanticize Britain.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  I haven't watched any Netflix shows, so I really couldn't say. I just watch parliament, unedited, and sometimes BBC coverage. It's a leisure, I'm hardly an academic about it. That said, I think you've misunderstood my post entirely. a) If you think this system is just now creaking into life, I frankly don't know how. Again, major news very recently with Black Rod stomping in and various MPs protesting. b) It's not that big of a deal relatively speaking. The monarchy is very clearly increasingly irrelevant, as it has been for some time. Obviously abolish that shit, but the initial post is a bit dramatic. c) You should compare parliament to cspan sometime - our illiterate representatives don't even bother to show up. Obviously the UK has plenty of issues, it's an interesting system to watch. Removing the monarchy might be a good step forward, obviously you should all do that. But it's not some 'creeking' 'deep state' system, it's very front and center, and it's really not your biggest problem by a longshot.
- agsnu 4y ago
  Hopefully the British people don't receive their moral compass from elected officials either, given the recent occupants of the office of Prime Minister...
austinjp 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 Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.

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?
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    "Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. " Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy? "what are you fighting for" Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
    - kamaal 4y ago
      >>rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. >>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else. Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is. The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        "Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks." At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society. "The monarchy just maintains a veto" Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable. There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
- bluehatbrit 4y ago
  It's possible to disagree with something and yet tolerate it, especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter. While they may not have your respect, I suspect those who tolerate the monarch have plenty of self-respect.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    "especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter." All the wealth the royal family hordes could help with that. Those "Royal" palaces could be converted to museums or hotels and earn money instead of costing money. To be a monarchist is to accept the claim of inherent superiority by self-professed "Royalty".

Barrin92 4y ago

>If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost. is it though? The UK isn't the only country that has removed its leader in a no-confidence vote. Republics do it regularly just fine. The relationship to the monarchy you have to explain to me, British people don't receive their moral compass from the crown, although the barrage of Netflix shows on that family may create that image in the mind of people who romanticize Britain.

staticassertion 4y ago
I haven't watched any Netflix shows, so I really couldn't say. I just watch parliament, unedited, and sometimes BBC coverage. It's a leisure, I'm hardly an academic about it. That said, I think you've misunderstood my post entirely. a) If you think this system is just now creaking into life, I frankly don't know how. Again, major news very recently with Black Rod stomping in and various MPs protesting. b) It's not that big of a deal relatively speaking. The monarchy is very clearly increasingly irrelevant, as it has been for some time. Obviously abolish that shit, but the initial post is a bit dramatic. c) You should compare parliament to cspan sometime - our illiterate representatives don't even bother to show up. Obviously the UK has plenty of issues, it's an interesting system to watch. Removing the monarchy might be a good step forward, obviously you should all do that. But it's not some 'creeking' 'deep state' system, it's very front and center, and it's really not your biggest problem by a longshot.
agsnu 4y ago
Hopefully the British people don't receive their moral compass from elected officials either, given the recent occupants of the office of Prime Minister...

austinjp 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 Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.