4 ms·

thanks for saying this. with popular media I think people can get nostalgic for a time that they never experienced and almost certainly would not enjoy.

nindalf 3y ago
No one is comparing Richard III to Barack Obama. They’re questioning whether Richard III was better or worse than his peers. Table stakes for a king through most of history is providing stability and peace within the realm. This guy failed to do that. This Sith like attitude of “there are only bad kings” is indicative of a mind lacking in nuance or critical thinking.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  Parent was simply pointing out that kings are not good in a moral sense, even if they might be considered good in an effectiveness sense.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    They aren't good in an effectiveness sense. They only manage to be good relative to other ineffective forms of governance. Statistically some kings might manage to be outliers, but even then to be genuinely effective one suspects they'd be best known for dismantling the monarchy and bringing in either a democracy or republic. Even an oligarchy probably has better odds than a monarchy.
- yesbut 3y ago
  His peers were bad too.
defrost 3y ago
The subjects of King Charles the IIIrd would like to hear more of your thoughts on what they are not experiencing.
- yesbut 3y ago
  My oppressor is slightly nicer to me than your oppressor.
  - rob74 3y ago
    The thing with constitutional monarchies is that they're not even that - the UK is a democracy, so the royal family hardly does any actual governing anymore. They are mostly just insanely expensive figureheads and representatives of the antiquated concept that you are better by definition just because you come from a "noble" family.
    - fmajid 3y ago
      The Monarch has tremendous reserve powers in an unwritten constitution like the UK’s, and has not been shy of abusing them elsewhere like the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, essentially a coup against a democratically elected government. In addition to the £600M inheritance tax break Chuck the Third got on his private wealth, the Palace is exempted from racial discrimination laws among many others, and well into the 1970s it was their official policy not to hire black or brown people for anything more exalted than cleaning toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... (They still refuse transparency on that, so it might still be ongoing for all I know) As for democracy, the arrest of Republic protesters during the coronation shows how hollow that claim is. The UK is still a nation managed for the benefit of its feudal elite, as seen with institutions like leasehold or the fact there is no property tax on their holdings. You’d have a much less risible case with the Scandinavian or Dutch monarchies.
- fmajid 3y ago
  That forelock-tugging attitude is why I am glad to be the free citizen of a Republic, not the subject of a king.
  - defrost 3y ago

nindalf 3y ago

No one is comparing Richard III to Barack Obama. They’re questioning whether Richard III was better or worse than his peers. Table stakes for a king through most of history is providing stability and peace within the realm. This guy failed to do that. This Sith like attitude of “there are only bad kings” is indicative of a mind lacking in nuance or critical thinking.

pharmakom 3y ago
Parent was simply pointing out that kings are not good in a moral sense, even if they might be considered good in an effectiveness sense.
- roenxi 3y ago
  They aren't good in an effectiveness sense. They only manage to be good relative to other ineffective forms of governance. Statistically some kings might manage to be outliers, but even then to be genuinely effective one suspects they'd be best known for dismantling the monarchy and bringing in either a democracy or republic. Even an oligarchy probably has better odds than a monarchy.
yesbut 3y ago
His peers were bad too.

defrost 3y ago

The subjects of King Charles the IIIrd would like to hear more of your thoughts on what they are not experiencing.

yesbut 3y ago
My oppressor is slightly nicer to me than your oppressor.
- rob74 3y ago
  The thing with constitutional monarchies is that they're not even that - the UK is a democracy, so the royal family hardly does any actual governing anymore. They are mostly just insanely expensive figureheads and representatives of the antiquated concept that you are better by definition just because you come from a "noble" family.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    The Monarch has tremendous reserve powers in an unwritten constitution like the UK’s, and has not been shy of abusing them elsewhere like the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, essentially a coup against a democratically elected government. In addition to the £600M inheritance tax break Chuck the Third got on his private wealth, the Palace is exempted from racial discrimination laws among many others, and well into the 1970s it was their official policy not to hire black or brown people for anything more exalted than cleaning toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... (They still refuse transparency on that, so it might still be ongoing for all I know) As for democracy, the arrest of Republic protesters during the coronation shows how hollow that claim is. The UK is still a nation managed for the benefit of its feudal elite, as seen with institutions like leasehold or the fact there is no property tax on their holdings. You’d have a much less risible case with the Scandinavian or Dutch monarchies.
fmajid 3y ago
That forelock-tugging attitude is why I am glad to be the free citizen of a Republic, not the subject of a king.
- defrost 3y ago