3 ms·

I disagree. The existence of a monarchy necessitates the belief that the royal family is ordained by god to rule over their people. It requires you to buy into

• mixtur2021 3y ago
  No it doesn't. I am an atheist and I do not believe the King is ordained by any form of deity. I look past that and support the constitutional monarchy settlement on the grounds of tradition/culture, how it provides constitutional checks and balances, how it can be a unifying figure against the negatives of elected head of state populists etc e.g. president Blair or president Farage. I am not saying this is the setup which I would use for any new countries, but it works at least for us. It also works for many countries in Europe.
  • pyth0 3y ago
    You don't have to be religious to recognize that this is the stated reason for which the royal family was given its legitimacy. Obviously that is not the sole reason for its continued existence, but (as an outside observer) all of the rituals and ceremony surrounding the coronation seem to further entrench that idea.
    • mixtur2021 3y ago
      Nuance there is that the legitimacy in the form of line of succession has been governed by law too (and no doubt conquest historically) at least following the glorious revolution of 1688. It has jumped around.
    • AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      But religion was also the stated reason given for the legitimacy of the US revolution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." The US becoming far more atheist doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the US democracy, even if the original stated basis isn't regarded as valid any longer. The same can be true of the monarchy. Mind you, I'm not actually a supporter of the monarchy. Where I'm from, we don't bow to monarchs. I'm just saying that this argument against the monarchy does not seem valid to me.
      • George83728 3y ago
        The US Revolution kicked the British government out of the region that would become the United States, but did not itself create the government that the US operates under. That happened 13 years later, when the present secular US Constitution went into effect.
• chimprich 3y ago
  > It requires you to buy into the idea that these regular people are somehow more worthy than anybody else. Not necessarily. I'm fairly neutral on the (UK) monarchy: I don't particularly like the idea, but some people do and it doesn't negatively impact me at all. I can see some (small) value in keeping a historical anachronism around, for the sake of culture and tourism. That view doesn't require any belief that a certain family is ordained by God or more worthy than anyone else. If they had any actual political power I would feel very differently.
  • pyth0 3y ago
    I suppose the part that sours it for me is watching the extreme displays of wealth and decadence at a time when a large number of people in the UK are struggling financially. Quite a lot of countries in Europe still have monarchies, but the degree to which they are visibly celebrated in the UK seems to be much greater. This is where the argument for culture and tourism comes in, but I still think its wrong.
  • krisoft 3y ago
    > If they had any actual political power I would feel very differently. Well I have a bad news for you. They do. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... It is an informal and murky way to exert control but it is well documented and it is happening.
  • frob 3y ago
    It probably negatively impacts your post-tax income. All of that showy opulence has to be paid for by someone and I'm pretty sure Chuckie Threes hasn't worked a day in his life.
• willbudd 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • pyth0 3y ago
    Ah my mistake, thanks for the correction.