4 ms·

“X% think the monarchy is ‘quite important’”, or summat. Next poll, please, please, please drill into why these folks think it is important. Because I’m trying

“X% think the monarchy is ‘quite important’”, or summat. Next poll, please, please, please drill into why these folks think it is important. Because I’m trying to come up with something for which the monarchy is important, and I’m truly at a loss as a non-resident. EDIT: all great answers (except the snarky one) that gave me some insight, thanks.

msla 4y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/29/the-crowd-were-saying-kill-him-kick-him-to-death-what-happened-to-the-people-who-protested-against-king-charles https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/29/the-crowd-we... Because they'll imprison you if you say it isn't.
michaelt 4y ago
The strongest argument for the monarchy, in my experience, is the alternative is someone elected - and have you seen the people who get elected?
- eru 4y ago
  Given how insane voters are, it's really a pleasant surprise that politicians are as sane as they are.
- Someone 4y ago
  The presidents “whose names everybody knows” aren’t representative for the full set. In Germany or Austria, for example, presidents don’t have much power and the role doesn’t carry much grandeur and because of that, attracts different people.
graeme 4y ago
I live in Canada. Some benefits of the monarchy vs the US system: * Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch * People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader * In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. People dismiss these but we have some pretty recent experience down south of someone who could have stood to have less than absolute authority. (Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system. Presidential system has had awful results everywhere it has been tried outside the USA) Monarchical countries as a rule tend to be more stable than others.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader Oaths of allegiance in the US are sworn to the Constitution, not to any particular leader.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system Pretty much all the ways you mention in which the Canadian system is superior to the US system are nothing to do with monarchy vs republic at all, they are about parliamentary vs presidential. Canada would have all the same advantages if it became a parliamentary republic like Ireland or Germany.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch The only truth in that statement is that, should the president start behaving like a monarch he can be removed just like King George or Louis XIV were thanks to the second amendment. How about the Governor General? > People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader The Oats of Allegiances in America are to the constitution, a founding document signed and agreed upon by all states who formed the republic. It is the voice of the people. The president is only there to enforce it temporarily. > In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. Is it? Can realistically a foreign non-elected person interfere that much in the country's politics? That sounds like a slippery slope to say the least. The prime minister controls both the executive and legislative branches, removing a lot of the checks and balances built into the American system. Not only that, but the absence of a real constitution -they just at some point decided the constitution wouldn't apply when truckers started protesting- makes the judiciary branch (appointed by the prime minister) pretty much able to do as it pleases.
jl6 4y ago
I mean, I’m not here to argue that the monarchy is very important, but it certainly provides amongst other things: an element of cultural backward compatibility, a reliable tourist attraction, a small element of continuity and temperance to government, a bunch of figureheads and symbolic leaders, and another thread in the rich tapestry that makes a nation unique. Also, the current royal family knows that they would be about two hours away from a republic being declared if they were ever to abuse their position, and as a result they are reasonably public spirited, insofar as billionaires go.
eru 4y ago
People in the US care a lot about their flag and their anthem (and their precious abstract 'Freedom'.) Many people around the world care about their national football team doing well in the world cup. If you can understand why those symbols are important, perhaps you can see why the monarchy might be an important symbol for some Brits?

msla 4y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/29/the-crowd-were-saying-kill-him-kick-him-to-death-what-happened-to-the-people-who-protested-against-king-charles https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/29/the-crowd-we... Because they'll imprison you if you say it isn't.

michaelt 4y ago

The strongest argument for the monarchy, in my experience, is the alternative is someone elected - and have you seen the people who get elected?

eru 4y ago
Given how insane voters are, it's really a pleasant surprise that politicians are as sane as they are.
Someone 4y ago
The presidents “whose names everybody knows” aren’t representative for the full set. In Germany or Austria, for example, presidents don’t have much power and the role doesn’t carry much grandeur and because of that, attracts different people.

graeme 4y ago

I live in Canada. Some benefits of the monarchy vs the US system: * Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch * People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader * In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. People dismiss these but we have some pretty recent experience down south of someone who could have stood to have less than absolute authority. (Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system. Presidential system has had awful results everywhere it has been tried outside the USA) Monarchical countries as a rule tend to be more stable than others.

philwelch 4y ago
> People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader Oaths of allegiance in the US are sworn to the Constitution, not to any particular leader.
skissane 4y ago
> Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system Pretty much all the ways you mention in which the Canadian system is superior to the US system are nothing to do with monarchy vs republic at all, they are about parliamentary vs presidential. Canada would have all the same advantages if it became a parliamentary republic like Ireland or Germany.
908B64B197 4y ago
> Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch The only truth in that statement is that, should the president start behaving like a monarch he can be removed just like King George or Louis XIV were thanks to the second amendment. How about the Governor General? > People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader The Oats of Allegiances in America are to the constitution, a founding document signed and agreed upon by all states who formed the republic. It is the voice of the people. The president is only there to enforce it temporarily. > In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. Is it? Can realistically a foreign non-elected person interfere that much in the country's politics? That sounds like a slippery slope to say the least. The prime minister controls both the executive and legislative branches, removing a lot of the checks and balances built into the American system. Not only that, but the absence of a real constitution -they just at some point decided the constitution wouldn't apply when truckers started protesting- makes the judiciary branch (appointed by the prime minister) pretty much able to do as it pleases.

jl6 4y ago

I mean, I’m not here to argue that the monarchy is very important, but it certainly provides amongst other things: an element of cultural backward compatibility, a reliable tourist attraction, a small element of continuity and temperance to government, a bunch of figureheads and symbolic leaders, and another thread in the rich tapestry that makes a nation unique. Also, the current royal family knows that they would be about two hours away from a republic being declared if they were ever to abuse their position, and as a result they are reasonably public spirited, insofar as billionaires go.

eru 4y ago

People in the US care a lot about their flag and their anthem (and their precious abstract 'Freedom'.) Many people around the world care about their national football team doing well in the world cup. If you can understand why those symbols are important, perhaps you can see why the monarchy might be an important symbol for some Brits?