3 ms·

In that sense the situation is not that different from feudal Britain… the king technically owns all the land. He gives title/control of it to the nobility and

In that sense the situation is not that different from feudal Britain… the king technically owns all the land. He gives title/control of it to the nobility and they in turn, to others. If the king were to ever make alternate use of the land in such a way that would upset enough people, a war or other means of resolution would break out. #politics

myshpa 3y ago
#archaism
- hammock 3y ago
  #consistency with tens of thousands of years of sociological anthropology, under evolving terms and terminology
  - myshpa 3y ago
    tens of thousands of years? ;)
    - hammock 3y ago
      Yeah, has been happening since pre-history. Archaeology and other findings confirm this fact
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - myshpa 3y ago
        I thought that first "monarchies" started ... 3-5k BCE (Pharaohs, maybe Ur/Uruk?). Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
        hammock 3y ago
        I was referring more generally to systems of managed land use, not monarchies, which I believe have existed as long as agriculture, and probably earlier in areas (territories) where game and forage were scarce
        myshpa 3y ago
        Oh, that's a much more complicated topic. There were many models of such systems, many of which were communal, without clear leaders or rulers. Agriculture was developing for thousands of years, so it's understandable. The beginnings of agriculture and civilizations are very interesting, sometimes even surprising, in light of new findings. I'd recommend "The Dawn of Everything"; it delves into these topics in great length.
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  Survivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky exception and now there's no strong impetus to abolish the monarchy that no longer plays a significant role in the day-to-day politics of these nations.
  - gizajob 3y ago
    I wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.
    - ssnistfajen 3y ago
      The fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
      - gizajob 3y ago
        How was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"? Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.
jt2190 3y ago
This is pure fantasy. The English monarch was weak the past, and has been weakened further such that today they only remain as a figurehead, and everything they do is dictated to them by the democracies that they are supposedly “ruling”. Those democracies keep the monarch at their whim. (I believe Barbados just removed them, and Australia has been getting closer to doing so.) “The crown” in those countries that do retain the monarch refers to all of the powers once exercised by a single person, but now exercised by the democratic governments of those places. That there also is physical object called “the crown” that rarely sits on the head of the vestigial monarch is not significant.
- gizajob 3y ago
  You’re mistaken. “The Crown” is the legal name of what is a private entity that looks and acts as if it’s a public one. It’s one of the deepest rabbit holes on Earth, and not even a conspiratorial one, just the sort of organisation that takes great pains to hide and occlude what it is. See my post elsewhere on this page.
  - SonicScrub 3y ago
    "The Crown" in Canada refers to the government, which is for all practical purposes is controlled by the various federal and provincial elected bodies. "Crown Land" is land that is technically owned by the sitting monarch, but in all practicalities is owned by the Canadian government, as monarch is legally unable to do anything with the land. All adminstration, sale, land transfers, renting out, and revenue from the land is controlled by the government, not The Crown. The monarch does not meaningfully own Crown Land in any sense, and this is enshrined within Canada's own legal definition of Crown Land.
SonicScrub 3y ago
I can't speak for Britain, but in Canada, it's not just that the people would get upset if the monarch decided to use the land differently. They are legally unable to. The courts are not subservient to the monarch, and the monarch is not above the law. Note that there is already legal precedent in Canada for the courts telling the monarch (through their representative, the Governor General) that their power is merely symbolic in nature. Not just a mere cultural norm, but enshrined through legal precedent. Charles can't do whatever he likes with the land without breaking the law.

myshpa 3y ago

#archaism

hammock 3y ago
#consistency with tens of thousands of years of sociological anthropology, under evolving terms and terminology
- myshpa 3y ago
  tens of thousands of years? ;)
  - hammock 3y ago
    Yeah, has been happening since pre-history. Archaeology and other findings confirm this fact
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - myshpa 3y ago
      I thought that first "monarchies" started ... 3-5k BCE (Pharaohs, maybe Ur/Uruk?). Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
      - hammock 3y ago
        I was referring more generally to systems of managed land use, not monarchies, which I believe have existed as long as agriculture, and probably earlier in areas (territories) where game and forage were scarce
        myshpa 3y ago
        Oh, that's a much more complicated topic. There were many models of such systems, many of which were communal, without clear leaders or rulers. Agriculture was developing for thousands of years, so it's understandable. The beginnings of agriculture and civilizations are very interesting, sometimes even surprising, in light of new findings. I'd recommend "The Dawn of Everything"; it delves into these topics in great length.
ssnistfajen 3y ago
Survivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky exception and now there's no strong impetus to abolish the monarchy that no longer plays a significant role in the day-to-day politics of these nations.
- gizajob 3y ago
  I wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.
  - ssnistfajen 3y ago
    The fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      How was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"? Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.

jt2190 3y ago

This is pure fantasy. The English monarch was weak the past, and has been weakened further such that today they only remain as a figurehead, and everything they do is dictated to them by the democracies that they are supposedly “ruling”. Those democracies keep the monarch at their whim. (I believe Barbados just removed them, and Australia has been getting closer to doing so.) “The crown” in those countries that do retain the monarch refers to all of the powers once exercised by a single person, but now exercised by the democratic governments of those places. That there also is physical object called “the crown” that rarely sits on the head of the vestigial monarch is not significant.

gizajob 3y ago
You’re mistaken. “The Crown” is the legal name of what is a private entity that looks and acts as if it’s a public one. It’s one of the deepest rabbit holes on Earth, and not even a conspiratorial one, just the sort of organisation that takes great pains to hide and occlude what it is. See my post elsewhere on this page.
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  "The Crown" in Canada refers to the government, which is for all practical purposes is controlled by the various federal and provincial elected bodies. "Crown Land" is land that is technically owned by the sitting monarch, but in all practicalities is owned by the Canadian government, as monarch is legally unable to do anything with the land. All adminstration, sale, land transfers, renting out, and revenue from the land is controlled by the government, not The Crown. The monarch does not meaningfully own Crown Land in any sense, and this is enshrined within Canada's own legal definition of Crown Land.

SonicScrub 3y ago

I can't speak for Britain, but in Canada, it's not just that the people would get upset if the monarch decided to use the land differently. They are legally unable to. The courts are not subservient to the monarch, and the monarch is not above the law. Note that there is already legal precedent in Canada for the courts telling the monarch (through their representative, the Governor General) that their power is merely symbolic in nature. Not just a mere cultural norm, but enshrined through legal precedent. Charles can't do whatever he likes with the land without breaking the law.