5 ms·

My dream is that this century we will see the end to the British monarchy. These old symbols of rule must see an end if we hope to continue humanity’s rule towa

My dream is that this century we will see the end to the British monarchy. These old symbols of rule must see an end if we hope to continue humanity’s rule towards more democratic rule. (I say this knowing full well that “democracy” is hardly what we make of it even in the most famous democracies like the USA, and we still have so much work to do.)

Dalewyn 3y ago
I hope the British monarchy (and others like the Japanese monarchy) continue for time immemorial. Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up. I say that as an American too, long live the King.
- tgma 3y ago
  Indeed. The track record of monarchies turned republic is not great. Iran comes to mind.
  - GordonS 3y ago
    Not sure if Iran is the best example; the US, UK and Israel have made sure that Iran hasn't exactly had a "fair go" at it.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    Weird hostility aside, monarchy is highly unlikely in the US at this time, because the American tradition has been steeped in myths hostile to the very idea (curious, perhaps, given that the US has what is in effect an imperial presidency). We would need to witness a deep shift in American sensibilities before monarchy could be embraced. Perhaps as a compromise or a transition we could reform the presidency such that it becomes a position held for life (with preferential voting to make it more nimble to make up for the lack of term churn). The prospect of such a long reign would rule out short-sighted careerists who would tire of the burden of office (despite being the highest office in the State, at some point, the prestige-to-burden ratio becomes unappetizing for such people). And given the length of such a term in office, the choice of candidate is likely to become more bland, as no party wants to live under a diehard member of the other party. This has its drawbacks, but it could add stability that would provide an environment in which normality could be fostered.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  In what way does this old man with too much land bring calm and sanity to Britain? His resources should be given to the people as museums, there is no need for the monarchy to continue to profit off of land and wealth that should belong to the people.
  - tim333 3y ago
    Having a monarch makes it harder for the elected leader to run amok. Compare the UK with other near powers that got rid of their monarchs - Russia ended up with Stalin and Putin, France got Napoleon, Germany got Hitler. It's a bit like Chesterton's fence - don't remove it until you understand why it's there. Another issue with the idea we should scrap the monarchy in the name of democracy is the actual democratic voters are strongly in favour of keeping it.
wilg 3y ago
I agree. Having a hereditary monarch is evil. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if it's "symbolic", it's an evil symbol of oppression. Also, it's not symbolic. The king has to approve all laws, for example. The whole thing is disgraceful and has no place in modern society.
- defrost 3y ago
  The power of monarchy has been steadily whittled away in the UK since 1066. The last bill that was refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708. In Australia, my country, presenting law for Royal Assent is a rubber stamp, a symbolic act that transcends the current elected government houses. Should "Royal Assent" be refused by the Crowns agent in Australia you'd see the country exit, the Crown is there for show, not to get involved or to meddle with the work of the elected Government. I suspect Canada, New Zealand, et al are similar. You could always point to an instance in which the Crown refused Royal Assent if you'd care to.
  - wilg 3y ago
    As I said, the symbol itself is evil. But it seems you agree Royal Assent is legally required. It's a monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it isn't.
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's a sham monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it has any real power. The King has to rubber stamp assent, albeit with bloody ink pen, but it's symbolic like any other bit of pagentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA The power it once had has been whittled away to F-all. Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.
      - wilg 3y ago
        You are intentionally ignoring my point about how the symbolic nature itself is evil. It is unconscionable to have a monarchy as a symbol of a country! A monarchy is an affront to human decency; it's absurd. And I do not agree with your assessment that the king has no real power. A gentleman's agreement not to be a tyrant is not even close to good enough. I don't dispute it would cause lots of drama if the king tried to defy government, but he can do it. The guy is allowed to murder anyone he wants, he has full immunity from criminal prosecution! Is that a symbol worth protecting? No. It should be torn down and cast out. Any respectable modern system of governance would not want even a whiff of an impression that it was led by a bloodline of kings. Yet, the UK and Commonwealth countries lean into it. A crown is a symbol of oppression. It's disgusting.

Dalewyn 3y ago

I hope the British monarchy (and others like the Japanese monarchy) continue for time immemorial. Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up. I say that as an American too, long live the King.

tgma 3y ago
Indeed. The track record of monarchies turned republic is not great. Iran comes to mind.
- GordonS 3y ago
  Not sure if Iran is the best example; the US, UK and Israel have made sure that Iran hasn't exactly had a "fair go" at it.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
[flagged]
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Weird hostility aside, monarchy is highly unlikely in the US at this time, because the American tradition has been steeped in myths hostile to the very idea (curious, perhaps, given that the US has what is in effect an imperial presidency). We would need to witness a deep shift in American sensibilities before monarchy could be embraced. Perhaps as a compromise or a transition we could reform the presidency such that it becomes a position held for life (with preferential voting to make it more nimble to make up for the lack of term churn). The prospect of such a long reign would rule out short-sighted careerists who would tire of the burden of office (despite being the highest office in the State, at some point, the prestige-to-burden ratio becomes unappetizing for such people). And given the length of such a term in office, the choice of candidate is likely to become more bland, as no party wants to live under a diehard member of the other party. This has its drawbacks, but it could add stability that would provide an environment in which normality could be fostered.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
In what way does this old man with too much land bring calm and sanity to Britain? His resources should be given to the people as museums, there is no need for the monarchy to continue to profit off of land and wealth that should belong to the people.
- tim333 3y ago
  Having a monarch makes it harder for the elected leader to run amok. Compare the UK with other near powers that got rid of their monarchs - Russia ended up with Stalin and Putin, France got Napoleon, Germany got Hitler. It's a bit like Chesterton's fence - don't remove it until you understand why it's there. Another issue with the idea we should scrap the monarchy in the name of democracy is the actual democratic voters are strongly in favour of keeping it.

wilg 3y ago

I agree. Having a hereditary monarch is evil. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if it's "symbolic", it's an evil symbol of oppression. Also, it's not symbolic. The king has to approve all laws, for example. The whole thing is disgraceful and has no place in modern society.

defrost 3y ago
The power of monarchy has been steadily whittled away in the UK since 1066. The last bill that was refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708. In Australia, my country, presenting law for Royal Assent is a rubber stamp, a symbolic act that transcends the current elected government houses. Should "Royal Assent" be refused by the Crowns agent in Australia you'd see the country exit, the Crown is there for show, not to get involved or to meddle with the work of the elected Government. I suspect Canada, New Zealand, et al are similar. You could always point to an instance in which the Crown refused Royal Assent if you'd care to.
- wilg 3y ago
  As I said, the symbol itself is evil. But it seems you agree Royal Assent is legally required. It's a monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it isn't.
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's a sham monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it has any real power. The King has to rubber stamp assent, albeit with bloody ink pen, but it's symbolic like any other bit of pagentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA The power it once had has been whittled away to F-all. Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.
    - wilg 3y ago
      You are intentionally ignoring my point about how the symbolic nature itself is evil. It is unconscionable to have a monarchy as a symbol of a country! A monarchy is an affront to human decency; it's absurd. And I do not agree with your assessment that the king has no real power. A gentleman's agreement not to be a tyrant is not even close to good enough. I don't dispute it would cause lots of drama if the king tried to defy government, but he can do it. The guy is allowed to murder anyone he wants, he has full immunity from criminal prosecution! Is that a symbol worth protecting? No. It should be torn down and cast out. Any respectable modern system of governance would not want even a whiff of an impression that it was led by a bloodline of kings. Yet, the UK and Commonwealth countries lean into it. A crown is a symbol of oppression. It's disgusting.