4 ms·

Not a job she can get fired from, was hired to do, or is held accountable for etc...

cmdkeen 12y ago
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job. Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
- signal11 12y ago
  Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free. So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch? [edit: grammar]
  - Naga 12y ago
    Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
    - alphadevx 12y ago
      > It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
      - Naga 12y ago
        Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world. Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
        scrumper 12y ago
        Hear hear. Good show, my Commonwealth sibling.
        alphadevx 12y ago
        > I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world. I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
scrumper 12y ago
Nor one she chose, or can choose to leave EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.
- arjie 12y ago
  Surely we should abolish such a job! It's practically slavery to condemn an entire family to live a specific way. I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
  - scrumper 12y ago
    > Surely we should abolish such a job... Fun to think about! Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all? My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place. *(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
    - alphadevx 12y ago
      > I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place. It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
Graham24 12y ago
"Not a job she can get fired from" That's what Charles I thought......
- alphadevx 12y ago
  Yes, way back in 1649. Are there any modern precedents, in any monarchy?
  - bengillies 12y ago
    The Russian revolution is a much more recent example I think.
    - scarmig 12y ago
      More recently than that, didn't a bunch of princely states end their royalties with the creation of India?

We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job. Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.

signal11 12y ago
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free. So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch? [edit: grammar]
- Naga 12y ago
  Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
  - alphadevx 12y ago
    > It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
    - Naga 12y ago
      Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world. Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
      - scrumper 12y ago
        Hear hear. Good show, my Commonwealth sibling.
      - alphadevx 12y ago
        > I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world. I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

scrumper 12y ago

Nor one she chose, or can choose to leave EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.

arjie 12y ago
Surely we should abolish such a job! It's practically slavery to condemn an entire family to live a specific way. I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
- scrumper 12y ago
  > Surely we should abolish such a job... Fun to think about! Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all? My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place. *(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
  - alphadevx 12y ago
    > I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place. It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.

Graham24 12y ago

"Not a job she can get fired from" That's what Charles I thought......

alphadevx 12y ago
Yes, way back in 1649. Are there any modern precedents, in any monarchy?
- bengillies 12y ago
  The Russian revolution is a much more recent example I think.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    More recently than that, didn't a bunch of princely states end their royalties with the creation of India?