3 ms·

> 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

• 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.
        • morelisp 4y ago
          I didn't say absolute power. But for example, in the comment immediately below this one, I currently read > it's not like the king of england has any real power This is a widely-held belief.
          • Handytinge 4y ago
            But it's not "real power", it's theoretical power. The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment. Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly. Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.
• the_only_law 4y ago
  > his is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs Gotta keep those plebs in their place right.
• austinjp 4y ago
  I can't really parse your points. > You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's an accomplishment of inherited power backed by incumbent powers-that-be. Unless you mean the ceremonial aspects are "state craft"? In which case I'd say they're certainly large, complex, and dangerous (terrorist risks etc), but more administration than state craft. > This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Not sure I follow. Do you mean resistance against elected representatives? It certainly is remarkable. It's not exactly modern, though, is it? > Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?” Elizabeth hung on until death. Hard to retain power beyond that (although many have tried). It was discussed ad nauseam that she could have stepped down long ago, that the monarchy could have reformed further. I guess reframing the question you quote, and asking Elizabeth or Charles, it might become "will you consider transitioning all your inherited authority to more modern, democratic processes?" But - like Trump, only to a far greater extent - there are thousands of people whose livelihoods and reputations derive from working with the incumbent powers.