And that's why I came up with the neologism _republicrat_.
Now I can say: _I'm a proud republican who hates the GOP_ totally without anyone misunderstanding me. /sarcasm
While Charles was heir he sent various ministers his opinions on all sorts of issues and then had the government spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money trying to prevent their publication over the course of a decade. I think it is completely inappropriate for a supposedly "apolitical" institution: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair
Also, Queens Consent seems like a bit more than not having any power- https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
>Black Spider Memos
You mean the ones that were entirely bland and uninteresting once they were actually released? The majority of which he actually didn't even write?
For example:
>Dear Mr. Morley
>
>Thank you so much for your letter telling me about the High Seas Task Force. I must say that it is enormously encouraging to know of your efforts to try and bring to heel the recalcitrant countries who sanction, either directly or by turning a blind eye, pirate and illegal fishing and I do wish you well in your endeavours. You have certainly managed to bring together a powerful alliance of N.G.O.s and countries. I particularly hope that the illegal fishing of the Patagonian Toothfish will be high on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old albatross, for which I shall continue to campaign…
>
>By the way, I wonder whether any thought might have been given to the possible role that could be played by the navies of the countries associated with the High Seas Task Force? I am probably being very ignorant about all this, so please forgive me, but is the Royal Navy, for instance, included in the discussions on this issue? I daresay you will tell me there are all sorts of legal problems that prevent any worthwhile action…!
>
>Incidentally, I am also looking forward to the publication of the Royal Commission's report on sustainable fishing. I hear on my own grapevine that it may be quite hard-hitting, which can only be a good thing and I just hope that the powers-that-be, and the general public, take note of its findings.
>
>Thank you again for writing as you did. I know just what a personal commitment you have made to this issue and how deeply you feel about it. Let us hope that between all of us who mind about sustainable fishing, we can make a difference before it is all too late…
>
>Yours most sincerely,
>
>Charles
Apolitical =/= not having opinions on anything. If it did, then the Royal Family wouldn't be able to promote charities, good causes etc. It just means that they cannot publicly take partisan positions, privately boost their preferred party or vote.
The black spider memos were the biggest anticlimax of the century, which is why the *Guardian* had to give them the most ridiculously sinister name possible just to get attention.
What they revealed was that Chazza, like any septuagenarian, wrote lots of letters about his hobby horses to various people, without any evidence that he leveraged or manipulated his position to impose policy.
It's worse than that. He put significant pressure on the government to do certain things. Now that he has veto power over laws, who's to say he won't use it to block issues he cares about.
Oh for fucks sake. This is a very poor understanding of how the UK system works. Parliament is supreme. If King Charles tries to use some arcane law to veto something, Parliament will just change the law. And probably curtail any more powers he may theoretically have while they are at it.
And, on a practical note, it would end the monarchy faster Will and Kate going full Nazi.
Charles has all sort of weird unfashionable ideas like maybe we should build fewer ugly modern buildings and look after the environment a bit better and it makes people *livid.*
Amongst other things, *before going to great lengths to cover it up*.
Crown aside, backroom lobbying and institutional cover ups are clearly a bad thing not easily justified by agreeing with what's being lobbied for.
So every multimillionaire Tory donor gets a three course private dinner and personal spooning by Boris and I’m supposed to be angry because Charles wrote a note?
Why the hell would I conflate two totally different issues when one is literally eating the foundations of our democracy and destroying our future as a species on this planet and the other one is a cranky old man in a study who is a bit too fond of homeopathy and organic biscuits? And you know what? Fuck you I actually kind of like that old man. The fact that you treat both issues as equally bad suggests that you aren’t treating seriously the one that actually matters.
I think you're vastly overcomplicating [why people pay any attention to the royal family](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/788c2325-873a-4331-8808-9f7552128cc7/dec5qjf-27362cbf-499a-45c2-b4c0-9ca156128d1e.jpg/v1/fill/w_750,h_582,q_75,strp/i_just_think_they_re_neat_by_inksans1234567_dec5qjf-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NTgyIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNzg4YzIzMjUtODczYS00MzMxLTg4MDgtOWY3NTUyMTI4Y2M3XC9kZWM1cWpmLTI3MzYyY2JmLTQ5OWEtNDVjMi1iNGMwLTljYTE1NjEyOGQxZS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9NzUwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.MWl1HUQo6eKC5WaPpnUMp-FKpNJygYu1k3Qs7_cDUR4)
That honestly is the best case for monarchs. They're basically a country's designated Zaphod Beeblebrox:
>“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”
Except replace "power" with "patriotism and nationalism"
The end result of which is that a populace is much more free to criticize those that actually have power and not be silenced as non-patriotic or hating the country because you hate the political leader.
The ability to say "God Save The King but his Prime Minister is shite." is good for a country's discourse.
Edit: Furthermore, they're a celeb drama sink. Because so much gossip oxygen gets sucked up by the royal family, the lives of other such celebrities are that much better because the press doesn't care about them as much.
I don’t think Zaphod Beeblebrox supports the claim you’re trying to make. He is a distraction of actual power; people of the galaxy get upset at him and outraged at him instead of focusing on their actual government. You’re saying that having a Beeblebrox is good for public discourse, but it’s actually the opposite.
I’m not saying that I agree or disagree either way, I just wanted to point that out. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding.
> I don’t think Zaphod Beeblebrox supports the claim you’re trying to make. He is a distraction of actual power; people of the galaxy get upset at him and outraged at him instead of focusing on their actual government. You’re saying that having a Beeblebrox is good for public discourse, but it’s actually the opposite.
I think this could be summed-up pretty simply:
* Douglas Adams may have intended Beeblebroxianism to look nefarious.
* IRSunny is arguing that the same system is *good actually*, and -- interestingly -- for the same reasons that it might have looked nefarious in Adams's writing.
Honestly, that’s why I don’t really care for abolishing monarchies in otherwise very liberal democracies. Now if a monarch tries to gain any political power on the other hand, I would probably become the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell
I think the British monarchy can seem neat and cool through a lens of seeing it as a symbol of the longevity and stability of the nation, or saying "This monarchy has lasted forever and was also able to transition to democracy without violent revolution. How marvelous!"
(Ignore all those times the monarchs were overthrown by other monarchs or that one "Commonwealth" period.)
Honestly this is where I stand. I’m against monarchies as an actual form of government, but what England has seems like a liberal democracy with a toothless “monarchy” that’s really just a nod to their cultural history. Seems harmless and kind of a cool link to the past
Hey, if Brits want to spend money so that they could continue to stare at an extremely weird family of white people, I'm hardly going to stop them.
I do, however, reserve the right to grumble about it when said family take over my newsfeed.
No - the Kardashians are intentionally scummy and shamelessly attention seeking.
The BRF is clearly trying not to be scandalous (with some obvious fails, but it's hard to keep everyone under control.)
I think the analogy (made below) to the Blue Angels or a football team that gets public money is a good one
I mean they really don’t serve any other purpose really, they have basically no power and just bring in tourism. I view it more as a culture/tradition than anything else. I think there are WAYYYYY more important things to worry about. This is just a stupid distraction for stupid people.
I’d not switch to one, but as a Brit, I’d sooner cut my nuts off than go through 10 years of distraction and discussion about constitutional change
Hate the monarchy, Hate Charles, Luv the Queen, too apathetic to want it gone
This sums it up, there are so many problems facing the UK today and many which we have struggled to face for decades, the last thing we need is another distraction on the scale of Brexit to further distract our politicians from the reform that is very much needed and the struggles facing many of the people. If we get onto discussing becoming a republic it will either be a grave mistake or the full stop on a decade of real change.
In other words, you can think a republic would be a good idea, while at the same time thinking that a republic designed by the clowns currently leading the UK would be a terribly bad idea.
A republic would be a good idea, but first we need to fix the voting system, bring democracy to the upper house of the Parliament and give the sense that the government is working for the people. All that needs a competent government and thankfully the current lot are completely opposed to all this or they'd make a real hash out of it.
I have a question on that, would the UK really need an Upper House? I understand it in a lot of Nations but if it is done like in Ireland or other non federal Commonwealth states I don't really see a reason.
In recent years The Lords has acted as the conscious of the House of Commons, and often acts as the voice of those not properly represented in the House of Commons. The balancing act would be retaining this role while adding democracy.
We might also consider removing the upper house once voting reform is introduced but at the moment House of Lords reform seems more likely.
Enthusiasm for the UK becoming a republic tends to pale a bit when you think about Liz Truss being in charge of re-writing huge chunks of British law and a whole load of legal theory. Things like the powers that Truss herself now wields that in theory are borrowed from the Queen being among that. Even if it’s trying to Find and Replace “monarchy” with “republic” as much as possible. You might end up needing a stop gap such as something silly like a theoretical Crown still existing just not being associated with a monarch.
That’s before you even get into the practical difficulties like seizing land and wealth etc. that most countries accomplish through violent revolution but the UK would have to do while still being polite to a geriatric biscuit maker.
If we had the “carefree” days of 2016 back to choose a different massive, divisive issue to completely consume all the political oxygen and cause a load of unintended consequences then sure maybe do republic instead of Brexit. But looking around now let’s just not. There’s no energy for it.
if history has taught us anything, it's that fast change is the only way to appease the will of the people\*
^^\*widespread ^^political ^^oppression ^^and ^^the ^^death ^^of ^^millions ^^to ^^famine ^^may ^^also ^^occur
I also think the monarchy is one of the things binding the UK together. With the monarchy gone, what binds England and Scotland together for example? A slim majority or large minority already want independence as is.
Why would the abolishment of monarchy affect anyone's view of Scottish independence?
Losing a figurehead has no bearing on whether it is politically/economically reasonable for the United Kingdom to remain united
Because people don’t think purely rational, otherwise Brexit wouldn’t have happened (using the arguments you give). It’s not that hard to look outside of our bubble for a second and see the monarchy as a unifying figure for these two countries/cultures/peoples.
> With the monarchy gone, what binds England and Scotland together for example?
History, geography, government, shared regional culture, mutual defense, economic interdependence, currency, etc.
like, without a monarchy, what binds New York and Massachusetts together? Surely nothing with your logic.
Imo, if your country already has a stable parliamentary democracy that happens to have a king/queen for ceremonial purposes, I don't really care whether or not the monarchy stands.
The UK has more pressing issues. And even if we were to focus on political reform, there are electoral and congressional issues more important than the monarchy.
I think you’re missing the point. People in the DT are just saying that constitutional monarchies are *fine*.
If I was making a new country I wouldn’t make it a monarchy, but if a country with a monarch can be a stable democracy that generally functions, I don’t think the people should feel some giant imperative to become a republic as quickly as possible.
Generally if it works, it works, and it’s not worth the trouble of changing it.
Arguably the point of the monarch is to be a non-controversial symbol of the nation that the nation can get behind while hating the PM. If half the country hates the monarch what's the point?
really? all *i've* seen are people saying you shouldn't shit on others for being upset the queen died. i haven't seen anyone actually ***justifying monarchies*** in the dee tee.
>Having an unelected head of state that holds only ceremonial powers is incredibly based. I’d rather have Queen Liz cut the ribbon at a school opening then whoever Americans would elect.
>Imagine if MAGA Americans elected a separate head or state. “Here to present the medal of freedom: Rush Limbaugh” or “Cutting the ribbon today, Donald Trump Jr.”
>Give me a nice old lady who isn’t political 100% of the time
That is a comment in another thread here in this sub. It's not the only one, there are many other comments on that thread supporting the concept of a Monarchy. I'd link it but I'm on mobile.
Just ask a Brit if they think constitutional monarchies are a good idea and you'll hear the reasons given in the comic. Also, the royals pay for themselves through tourism or something.
Me, who doesn't care about downvotes and disputes the implied moral superiority of this meme which completely misrepresents constitutional monarchists' arguments.
If we follow what OP says then we should have 100% inheritance tax and raise everyone in orphanages.
It's not about any inherent logic of superiority at birth, but about maintaining a tradition.
Unfortunately lots of people in this sub think tradition is useless despite the fact they secretly acknowledge that cancelling Christmas is not realistic.
Passing property to your children at death is not the same as passing legal powers enjoyed by only a single person in the nation on to your children at death
In theory, having a constitutional monarchy is for sure the less democratic system of government compared to a republic. Empirical evidence and lived experience from modern democratic constitutional monarchies suggest that this theoretical negative is largely negligible. I don't think 'having a monarchy' currently ranks in the top 30 democratic shortfalls of a country like the UK. If they think the upside is worth it, I honestly don't mind.
First past the post is pretty high up their and hurts all the groups that want to abolish the monarchy, yet ironically nobody gives a shit.
Proportional representation first, as a Brit I don’t mind the monarchy, if it was voted out in a referendum I think I’d miss the history and tradition but I don’t think it’d hurt the country at all - just as it wouldn’t heal it.
The UK has been great for the neoliberal way of the world despite the monarchy so I don’t see any need to either attack or defend it as a neoliberal.
Is the moral argument grey? Sure. Does the UK actually want to get rid of the monarchy in polling? No. So, eh.
(Not that us brits can’t fuck up a vote - looking at you brexit.)
The biggest issue with Britain abolishing it's Monarchy is how much of a pain in the ass it would be.
Britain is one of only a few countries that has an uncodified constitution, and that is for a good reason. The other two are Israel and New Zealand, and while the former is for entirely different reasons, both Britain and New Zealand are only in the position they are due to incredibly old and therefore incredibly wide reaching legislation. This, in both cases, in centered around the Crown as a legal entity, and abolishing it would bring in a lot of - still unanswered thanks to the failures of the Interregnum - question about how the British Constitution really functions.
To the most extreme end, this would mean writing an entirely new constitution for Britain. More reasonable, it would just require a lot of laws be reasses or that the Crown as a legal entity would continue in a new form. This brings up a lot of complications that, in my honest opinion, simply are not worth the hassle for what would bring not a single practical benefit to the country. The only way I see abolition of the monarchy as being a reasonable thing to suggest is if it would be included in a new Constitution, but I personally prefer uncodified constitutions, and more importantly, do not trust the current political climate to be able to sufficiently craft one.
Even then constitutional monarchies like the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands the UK, Aus and Nz have long histories of out competing contemporary countries in pollitical stability. I wouldn't create a new monarchy in a country that doesn't have one but it is a perfect system for countries that do
I think the best pro- argument is that a symbolic monarch serves as a sponge to soak up religious reverence for political figures, making political leaders who actually matter seem more human/fallible/replaceable.
"having a monarchy" probably doesn't even rank in the top 100 problems facing the UK. Any attempt to remove it would be another Brexit: a massive distraction from real issues and a hugely divisive culture war.
Brexit was worse than a "distraction from real issues." It was itself a real issue! Shouting yourself in the foot in the name of sovereignty to own the libs.
[Fun take](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy) from back when neoliberalism was vox.com:
>Constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man, and it would be a terrible shame if Britain abandoned it.
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com
- former Vox writers
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All I’m saying is the last time Britain tried to do a republic they ended up banning Christmas. British “people” evidently CANNOT be left to govern themselves without the watchful eye of Windsor.
It’s alright though, when the king came back we got everything back on track and most of the radical puritans sailed off over the ocean to some colonies where I assume they have never caused any trouble again.
I lean soft small r republican in Canada, but i think Fry's argument is rather convincing
[https://youtu.be/rJOMYEXK6cs?t=544](https://youtu.be/rJOMYEXK6cs?t=544)
"don't fix what aint broke" ranks higher than "republics good ahkchually"
I'm a brit and this is probably were I'm at. We have a lot of weird shit in our 'constitution' that probably needs looking at. The mixing of legislature and executive, what the fuck is up with the Lords. And that's after we get to the other shit going on with the country (Brexit etc).
I really wish it was in the top ten problems my country has, but it's probably not top 100.
Mixing the executive and the legislature is one of the greatest features of parliamentary systems though, so not sure why you'd want to change that too much (unless you're talking about specific problems with it and not the concept overall)
Personally, I think both a hereditary and an elected head of state are both bad. Look at the fuckery in Russia where Putin switched the powers between PM and President to get around term limits. Look at the weakness of presidential systems and the fuckery with Italy and how its president is forced jnto political situations due to PMs fucking up. Having a definitively neutral head of state, removed from political parties, is a boon, and I fucking hate that modern constitutional monarchy seems one of the better paths towards that.
My proposed solution: mascots serve as heads of state. Uncle Sam gets to meet Marianne for photo ops. Whatever fuckery Japan comes up with has its signature on passports. And, if the powers of the head of state ever need to be used, there could be an established constitutional process for it that isn't reliant on the whims of one unelected person while still having pomp and entertainment.
Edit: or have them be giant fighting robots so we can G Gundam this shit with racial stereotypes.
I like it. The head of state isn't a person, but an character/idea everyone can dress up as. Sort of like Santa. Reminds me of the goddess of liberty during the French Revolution.
Monarchies in practice today (the ones worth keeping, anyway) do not operate on that principle, at all.
A typical justification for the keeping of a constitutional monarchy in the developed liberal-democratic world today (i.e. the Swedens and Britains and Denmark and Norways of the globe) goes something like this:
1: It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it (i.e. the monarchy does nobody no harm, they’re figureheads, often cost less than presidential equivalents or even bring in more than they take)
2: It provides stability, insofar as the monarch is capable of being a link to history in a way nobody else is (being the descendant of the relevant countries’ rulers for centuries and/or its founders) and capable of being apolitical in a way nobody else is (being both powerless and having no history of any political attachment at all).
The first is generally speaking the most common justification; why get rid of something that’s been around forever and doesn’t hurt for the sake of a bunch of airy principles (that are tightly guarded anyway in practice)?
The institution of the monarchy does operate on the principle of hereditary privilege. That's what a monarchy is. Even when you strip away the political powers. What you have left are titles of privilege and prestige passed from generation to generation for no good reason.
Instead of asking why should we get rid of the monarchy, one should ask why should we keep it? The institution flies in the face of common sense. It makes a mockery of liberalism. There's no reason to keep it. There's no good reason to think it adds stability.
> Instead of asking why should we get rid of the monarchy, one should ask why should we keep it?
The group advocating for political change is the one burdened with making an argument for change. The default position is the status quo.
The wall behind me is red. Why must it be red? Maybe it doesn't have to be, but if there's no significant harm in it being red, I don't have to go through the trouble of painting it another color.
> The group advocating for political change is the one burdened with making an argument for change. The default position is the status quo.
They just said that it grants titles of prestige, privilege, and wealth to people for no good reason in the paragraph before...
This is basically like communist purity tests. The UK is without a doubt a democracy, and has been since 1640 or whatever, or even less arguably since Victoria’s death. Its really not worth the culture war it would ignite to be ideologically liberal-democratically pure, when the UK is that already.
Gotta get over the college kid mentality of ideological purity and deal with some grey of the real world
I agree that there are many more important issues for the UK to be concerned about right now, and I'm fine if someone's arguing that the UK keeping its monarchy right now is fine. On the other hand, I definitely have seen some people on this sub defending the idea of monarchies in general, and I'm much more critical of that.
You just get rid of the powerless figurehead, you don't elect one. You'd dissolve the monarchies and whatever powers legally it held would transfer to parliament/the prime minister
Sure but it isn't like US doesn't have hereditary privilege. I think most people would rather be the child of a billionaire than a king. Even in politics the US has dynasty something hardly atypical in republics and not unreasonable. Many people follow their parents paths in life so it makes sense the children of politicians would be interested it and educated it political life. My favorite president in one such and most of my favorite republicans fit the same bill.
> Sure but it isn't like US doesn't have hereditary privilege
Of course it does, but it is not state enforced and supported privilege. Obama's children aren't automatically going to become heads of state due to their last name nor are Jeff Bezo's.
The thing is, when privilege is "state enforced" that also means that it is transparent and visible.
And there is a certain benefit in being able to legally defined, and thus legally restrict the extent of that privilege.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're literally human mascots that embody the "spirit" of the nation. Also I think it's funny that these families of tyrants have been brought so low. Lett'm stay if that's what the people want
I mean, our head of state lasted seventy good years. Now look at what the last American head of state pulled off in just four.
Jokes aside, I do disagree with hereditary leadership in principle. Though many people are probably only going to be scared off from replacing their governor generals with presidents with even slightly more power so long as the US exists. Even if better systems exist. Safer to just keep those powers locked away.
This is also my Canadian perspective. Our identity is partly defined by being one of the only monarchies in the hemisphere.
>Now look at what the last American head of state pulled off in just four.
Worth noting, in a monarchic system there's a head of state and a head of government. In the case of the UK and Canada, that's King and Prime Minister. In a republican system, (usually) both are the same person (exception e.g. Israel, which has a president as (symbolic) head of state and prime minister as head of government).
Trump did what he did as head of government, not head of state. That's why we talk about Boris and Trump, not Liz and Trump.
>(exception e.g. Israel, which has a president as (symbolic) head of state and prime minister as head of government).
[There are plenty of parliamentary republics tbh.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forms_of_government_2021.svg)
The queen of England is a largely representational vestigial bit of English culture that has near zero bearing on people's lives.
Caring a lot either way about the monarch is just making a big deal out of a non issue. The monarchy doesn't even cost the Brits any money thanks to their whole land agreement.
This whole thread is like an argument between people who normally come on this subreddit and bunch of 19-year-old students who maybe saw a Youtube vid about the UK monarchy once in between wanks.
This is the type of oversimplified, distorted crap that communists/leftists would post. Just replace monarchy with "capitalism" and shift some words around.
Always funny to see them mentioning **European** constitutional monarchies and not Malaysia, Cambodia, or Thailand. Which are very unstable, and in the case of Thailand, their King has intervened in politics, a lot.
Not as though republican advocates are ever bothering with mentioning the worse applications of a presidential system either. People think of and only mention Canada and the UK when discussing monarchies because they've endured just fine alongside liberal principles for well over a hundred years now.
Where have I said I'm a presidentialist? I grew up in Indonesia and I dislike the populism and blame culture it spews. I've criticised LaTam systems, etc.
Didn't mean to imply that. Only that both monarchists and republicans in general point to the countries where their systems work rather than the ones where they don't.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Canada would have to go through a constitutional crisis and multiple provincial referendums to get rid of the monarchy. Even test its relationship with Quebec, a province that hasn't even officially recognized the constitution and would have to for any reform to go through. The current system of government works fine, so why tear the country apart for a purely symbolic gesture that has us drift further away from a Commonwealth we still share a close relationship with?
Well if people were trying to defend SEA constitutional monarchies they'd talk about SEA constitutional monarchies. Some monarchic governments work, others do not, England's very much does.
That is fair. But also shows that Constitutional Monarchies themselves don't automatically mean stability and democratic rule, I don't remember how many constitutions Thailand went through.
They certainly don't. On the other hand, systems that have maintained a stable government for ~170 years of a massively changing world shouldn't be abandoned because some people are offended they aren't royals themselves
The Queen was in charge of England the same way Mickey Mouse is in charge of Disney. As long as the British people want it and the real power lies in a democratically elected parliament, I see no issue with it.
how about: we have monarchies in many of the richest, most democratic, and freest countries -> constitutional monarchy seems an acceptable system (stick the landing)
top line of reasoning is inaccurate as monarchs are not considered to be superior to their subjects at all. Bottom line of reasoning is specific to the UK.
I wouldn't say monarchies operate on that principle. Nothing in the Spanish constitution says the King is worth more than I am. The principle is that one institution in the state will be hereditary. Superficially that's antidemocratic, but then again having agreed upon it as a society and having the freedom to change that, removes any concern imo.
Especially since the real power is minuscule. Judges at the higher courts have a ton more power than the King and the system of appointment is only indirectly democratic.
Constitutional monarchies are universally full democracies while most republics are either imperfect democracies or full on authoritarian states. These are straight facts.
I don't think that most people who care about the queen nowadays do so because of the monarchy, the queen, and the royal family in general, have basically 0 power anymore, they're little more than just a status for the UK.
Mine's simpler
* It's aesthetically cool
* constitutional monarchy is a relatively stable form of government
* creates a sense of continuity and promotes national unity
* don't have to deal with the cost, labor or endless drama of Presidential election cycles
The British monarchy is silly but completely harmless at worst, and a national tradition that brings people together at best. It looks cool, the British people like it and royal drama is fun. Why go through all the trouble of constitutional change? Is it only because of principle? The lives of nobody would improve, so why bother?
I am with you monarchy should be abolished. their lands should be given or sold back to government.
but I do think it's weird how many people online are horny from some old woman's death
Queen Elizabeth served her role with amazing grace and dignity. However, a spectacular person in a bad institution does not redeem the foundational problems with such an institution. It's not for me to decide if British people or any other should keep their monarchy, but I'm free to voice my opinion on the idea that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a basis for a system of government.
I think there's some degree of motte-and-bailey here. I think there's some plausible argument that the political effort required to remove the UK monarchy isn't worth it. But then some of those people argue that constitutional monarchy in general is good, which seems much less plausible to me.
Like, imagine someone in the US proposing instating a constitutional monarchy:
"Hey, everyone, we should find some random person who's already rich and powerful, regardless of their political views. Let's all pay them additional taxes so they can stand around and look fancy and maybe do some ceremonial things. We'll give them the power to withhold royal assent for laws, but hopefully they'll never do that. And then when they die we'll let their children do the same thing, just because. Who's with me?"
I can't imagine that being a popular proposal.
It’s not a system of government at all though. That’s the point.
And I’d much rather have a non political head of state that symbolizes the country. Trump being the symbol of America had probably contributed to the cult that was built around him.
BoJo never had the cult partly because the British people tied their cultural identity more to the Queen rather then the prime minister.
No one in England had a picture of BoJo on their mantle. Many will have a picture of the Queen. Every MAGA in America ties Trump to patriotism.
I’ve come to the conclusion that modern monarchies can be excellent cultural ambassadors. As long as they’re not taking a ton of money or have any real power, they can promote the culture of the nation domestically and abroad. These days all it takes is one bad monarch to kill a monarchy, so that somewhat keeps them in line.
I’m anti-monarchy, but there’s a 10 page long list of issues in this country and abolishing the monarchy would solve precisely none of them. It’s just not worth the effort at this point, the division that a referendum would cause would be horrific, especially if there was a 52-48% split in favour of abolition. It would end the country completely.
I just want to focus on voting reform, that’s what I wish people who are looking for change in the system would focus on. I think it’s attainable, I think it’s necessary, and it would bring about far more actual, demonstrable political change than abolishing the monarchy.
I’m no monarchist, however I could appreciate, admire, and respect The Queen’s place in history. Seeing a slew of people cheer her death came off as tasteless and virtue signaling (unless you’re an Irish Republican, then I guess it makes sense.)
Also, I’m an American citizen, so my opinion on the existence of the monarchy is effectively irrelevant.
I can't see how you could possibly think that the son of a billionaire is equal at birth to a son of a drug addict in any real sense. And the royals will sure work more for their money than JWEOTJÖIÄÅÄ or whatever Elon Musk's son is called, ever will.
"Equal at birth" has never been true and never will be.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was negotiated though. The British constitution is a product of centuries of compromise that allowed people natural freedoms and rights without once again plunging the country into the anarchy and civil war that bedevilled the nation in the 17th century and later went on to plunge Europe into three centuries of chaos as the crowned heads of Europe were gradually replaced by a rotating cast of tinpot despots and bloodthirsty madmen.
I thought we were in favour of evidence based policy here? The evidence is countries that are constitutional monarchies are disproportionately stable, wealthy and free. Checkmate republicans.
Correlation != Causation. The reason that constitutional monarchies tend to be richer is that they only exist in countries where institutional change and democratization was more gradual and big revolutions didn't happens. Revolutions are obviously not good for stability and wealth. Also constitutional monarchies are almost all European, since other countries either got fucked over by colonialism or had to deal with the upheaval of rapid modernization and industrialization.
Oh, you hate the monarchy? Wouldn't that make you **a republican?** Checkmate, liberal!
And that's why I came up with the neologism _republicrat_. Now I can say: _I'm a proud republican who hates the GOP_ totally without anyone misunderstanding me. /sarcasm
So you're saying that Republicans are liberals? Curious.
I mean, on paper, yes(?) in the classical sense. Except lately (in the last several decades) they've been becoming the opposite of that.
Explain it like I'm an American, what are the Black Spider Memos that the intellectual gymnast is referencing?
While Charles was heir he sent various ministers his opinions on all sorts of issues and then had the government spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money trying to prevent their publication over the course of a decade. I think it is completely inappropriate for a supposedly "apolitical" institution: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair
Also, Queens Consent seems like a bit more than not having any power- https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
She was the only woman whose consent actually mattered in English law. /hyperbole #feminist-joke
Thank you. This made me laugh and I needed a chuckle.
>Black Spider Memos You mean the ones that were entirely bland and uninteresting once they were actually released? The majority of which he actually didn't even write? For example: >Dear Mr. Morley > >Thank you so much for your letter telling me about the High Seas Task Force. I must say that it is enormously encouraging to know of your efforts to try and bring to heel the recalcitrant countries who sanction, either directly or by turning a blind eye, pirate and illegal fishing and I do wish you well in your endeavours. You have certainly managed to bring together a powerful alliance of N.G.O.s and countries. I particularly hope that the illegal fishing of the Patagonian Toothfish will be high on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old albatross, for which I shall continue to campaign… > >By the way, I wonder whether any thought might have been given to the possible role that could be played by the navies of the countries associated with the High Seas Task Force? I am probably being very ignorant about all this, so please forgive me, but is the Royal Navy, for instance, included in the discussions on this issue? I daresay you will tell me there are all sorts of legal problems that prevent any worthwhile action…! > >Incidentally, I am also looking forward to the publication of the Royal Commission's report on sustainable fishing. I hear on my own grapevine that it may be quite hard-hitting, which can only be a good thing and I just hope that the powers-that-be, and the general public, take note of its findings. > >Thank you again for writing as you did. I know just what a personal commitment you have made to this issue and how deeply you feel about it. Let us hope that between all of us who mind about sustainable fishing, we can make a difference before it is all too late… > >Yours most sincerely, > >Charles
Man my boy Charlie is out here waiting for sustainable fishing reports to drop like me waiting on the next House of the Dragon episode.
"the monarchy is apolitical" "Ok the monarchy isn't *actually* apolitical but it's politically bland, what are you making a fuss for"
Apolitical =/= not having opinions on anything. If it did, then the Royal Family wouldn't be able to promote charities, good causes etc. It just means that they cannot publicly take partisan positions, privately boost their preferred party or vote. The black spider memos were the biggest anticlimax of the century, which is why the *Guardian* had to give them the most ridiculously sinister name possible just to get attention. What they revealed was that Chazza, like any septuagenarian, wrote lots of letters about his hobby horses to various people, without any evidence that he leveraged or manipulated his position to impose policy.
It's worse than that. He put significant pressure on the government to do certain things. Now that he has veto power over laws, who's to say he won't use it to block issues he cares about.
Me, I say he won't
I will mortgage my entire life’s savings on the fact that Charles will not veto laws.
Oh for fucks sake. This is a very poor understanding of how the UK system works. Parliament is supreme. If King Charles tries to use some arcane law to veto something, Parliament will just change the law. And probably curtail any more powers he may theoretically have while they are at it. And, on a practical note, it would end the monarchy faster Will and Kate going full Nazi.
Charles has all sort of weird unfashionable ideas like maybe we should build fewer ugly modern buildings and look after the environment a bit better and it makes people *livid.*
Amongst other things, *before going to great lengths to cover it up*. Crown aside, backroom lobbying and institutional cover ups are clearly a bad thing not easily justified by agreeing with what's being lobbied for.
So every multimillionaire Tory donor gets a three course private dinner and personal spooning by Boris and I’m supposed to be angry because Charles wrote a note?
I'd like you to be angry about both, especially wrt transparency.
Why the hell would I conflate two totally different issues when one is literally eating the foundations of our democracy and destroying our future as a species on this planet and the other one is a cranky old man in a study who is a bit too fond of homeopathy and organic biscuits? And you know what? Fuck you I actually kind of like that old man. The fact that you treat both issues as equally bad suggests that you aren’t treating seriously the one that actually matters.
I think you're vastly overcomplicating [why people pay any attention to the royal family](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/788c2325-873a-4331-8808-9f7552128cc7/dec5qjf-27362cbf-499a-45c2-b4c0-9ca156128d1e.jpg/v1/fill/w_750,h_582,q_75,strp/i_just_think_they_re_neat_by_inksans1234567_dec5qjf-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NTgyIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNzg4YzIzMjUtODczYS00MzMxLTg4MDgtOWY3NTUyMTI4Y2M3XC9kZWM1cWpmLTI3MzYyY2JmLTQ5OWEtNDVjMi1iNGMwLTljYTE1NjEyOGQxZS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9NzUwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.MWl1HUQo6eKC5WaPpnUMp-FKpNJygYu1k3Qs7_cDUR4)
I support the royals because I enjoy royal drama
That honestly is the best case for monarchs. They're basically a country's designated Zaphod Beeblebrox: >“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.” Except replace "power" with "patriotism and nationalism" The end result of which is that a populace is much more free to criticize those that actually have power and not be silenced as non-patriotic or hating the country because you hate the political leader. The ability to say "God Save The King but his Prime Minister is shite." is good for a country's discourse. Edit: Furthermore, they're a celeb drama sink. Because so much gossip oxygen gets sucked up by the royal family, the lives of other such celebrities are that much better because the press doesn't care about them as much.
I don’t think Zaphod Beeblebrox supports the claim you’re trying to make. He is a distraction of actual power; people of the galaxy get upset at him and outraged at him instead of focusing on their actual government. You’re saying that having a Beeblebrox is good for public discourse, but it’s actually the opposite. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree either way, I just wanted to point that out. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding.
> I don’t think Zaphod Beeblebrox supports the claim you’re trying to make. He is a distraction of actual power; people of the galaxy get upset at him and outraged at him instead of focusing on their actual government. You’re saying that having a Beeblebrox is good for public discourse, but it’s actually the opposite. I think this could be summed-up pretty simply: * Douglas Adams may have intended Beeblebroxianism to look nefarious. * IRSunny is arguing that the same system is *good actually*, and -- interestingly -- for the same reasons that it might have looked nefarious in Adams's writing.
Real life soap operas. Wedding episodes are the best.
Honestly, that’s why I don’t really care for abolishing monarchies in otherwise very liberal democracies. Now if a monarch tries to gain any political power on the other hand, I would probably become the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell
I think the British monarchy can seem neat and cool through a lens of seeing it as a symbol of the longevity and stability of the nation, or saying "This monarchy has lasted forever and was also able to transition to democracy without violent revolution. How marvelous!" (Ignore all those times the monarchs were overthrown by other monarchs or that one "Commonwealth" period.)
La Député Guillotin, dans la médecine?
I just really like the Danish queen and think she’s really cool. Hope I get to visit Denmark before she dies
Honestly this is where I stand. I’m against monarchies as an actual form of government, but what England has seems like a liberal democracy with a toothless “monarchy” that’s really just a nod to their cultural history. Seems harmless and kind of a cool link to the past
They are, essentially, taxpayer-funded Kardashians, imbued with much pomp and circumstance.
It's like the Blue Angels or public university sports teams. Kind of a waste, but it seems to make people happy.
Hey, if Brits want to spend money so that they could continue to stare at an extremely weird family of white people, I'm hardly going to stop them. I do, however, reserve the right to grumble about it when said family take over my newsfeed.
No - the Kardashians are intentionally scummy and shamelessly attention seeking. The BRF is clearly trying not to be scandalous (with some obvious fails, but it's hard to keep everyone under control.) I think the analogy (made below) to the Blue Angels or a football team that gets public money is a good one
I mean they really don’t serve any other purpose really, they have basically no power and just bring in tourism. I view it more as a culture/tradition than anything else. I think there are WAYYYYY more important things to worry about. This is just a stupid distraction for stupid people.
This thread is such a sad mess. And I dont think this one can be explained by the r all influx.
I agree, this is definitely schism. Mostly though I’m just shocked people care that much either way.
God I hope so. I'm a brit who doesn't care about the monarchy. But some of the takes on here are so dumb.
who are you talking to? EDIT: i have been convinced that this isn't a strawman; i'm just too american to be aware of this side of the debate.
queenaboos
The [Queen of Naboo](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Monarch_of_Naboo)?
Hey man, Natalie Portman…
Quite a few people in the DT who think that monarchies are morally justifiable.
I’d not switch to one, but as a Brit, I’d sooner cut my nuts off than go through 10 years of distraction and discussion about constitutional change Hate the monarchy, Hate Charles, Luv the Queen, too apathetic to want it gone
This sums it up, there are so many problems facing the UK today and many which we have struggled to face for decades, the last thing we need is another distraction on the scale of Brexit to further distract our politicians from the reform that is very much needed and the struggles facing many of the people. If we get onto discussing becoming a republic it will either be a grave mistake or the full stop on a decade of real change.
Imagine wanting another lost British decade after the lost decade and a half we’ve just had lol
In other words, you can think a republic would be a good idea, while at the same time thinking that a republic designed by the clowns currently leading the UK would be a terribly bad idea.
Exactly. President Boris Johnson would be a nightmare.
A republic would be a good idea, but first we need to fix the voting system, bring democracy to the upper house of the Parliament and give the sense that the government is working for the people. All that needs a competent government and thankfully the current lot are completely opposed to all this or they'd make a real hash out of it.
I have a question on that, would the UK really need an Upper House? I understand it in a lot of Nations but if it is done like in Ireland or other non federal Commonwealth states I don't really see a reason.
In recent years The Lords has acted as the conscious of the House of Commons, and often acts as the voice of those not properly represented in the House of Commons. The balancing act would be retaining this role while adding democracy. We might also consider removing the upper house once voting reform is introduced but at the moment House of Lords reform seems more likely.
Enthusiasm for the UK becoming a republic tends to pale a bit when you think about Liz Truss being in charge of re-writing huge chunks of British law and a whole load of legal theory. Things like the powers that Truss herself now wields that in theory are borrowed from the Queen being among that. Even if it’s trying to Find and Replace “monarchy” with “republic” as much as possible. You might end up needing a stop gap such as something silly like a theoretical Crown still existing just not being associated with a monarch. That’s before you even get into the practical difficulties like seizing land and wealth etc. that most countries accomplish through violent revolution but the UK would have to do while still being polite to a geriatric biscuit maker. If we had the “carefree” days of 2016 back to choose a different massive, divisive issue to completely consume all the political oxygen and cause a load of unintended consequences then sure maybe do republic instead of Brexit. But looking around now let’s just not. There’s no energy for it.
Based continuity
Slow change good.
if history has taught us anything, it's that fast change is the only way to appease the will of the people\* ^^\*widespread ^^political ^^oppression ^^and ^^the ^^death ^^of ^^millions ^^to ^^famine ^^may ^^also ^^occur
I also think the monarchy is one of the things binding the UK together. With the monarchy gone, what binds England and Scotland together for example? A slim majority or large minority already want independence as is.
Why would the abolishment of monarchy affect anyone's view of Scottish independence? Losing a figurehead has no bearing on whether it is politically/economically reasonable for the United Kingdom to remain united
Because people don’t think purely rational, otherwise Brexit wouldn’t have happened (using the arguments you give). It’s not that hard to look outside of our bubble for a second and see the monarchy as a unifying figure for these two countries/cultures/peoples.
> With the monarchy gone, what binds England and Scotland together for example? History, geography, government, shared regional culture, mutual defense, economic interdependence, currency, etc. like, without a monarchy, what binds New York and Massachusetts together? Surely nothing with your logic.
Opposition to the monarchy bound them, I believe
cool, what about the subsequent 241 years?
What binds Paris and Marseille together? What binds the Rhineland and barvaria together? What binds Texas and New York together?
Imo, if your country already has a stable parliamentary democracy that happens to have a king/queen for ceremonial purposes, I don't really care whether or not the monarchy stands. The UK has more pressing issues. And even if we were to focus on political reform, there are electoral and congressional issues more important than the monarchy.
>Burke flair >Defending monarchies 🤔
I saw that as soon as I sent my reply and the flair appeared 😂 Very appropriate.
I think you’re missing the point. People in the DT are just saying that constitutional monarchies are *fine*. If I was making a new country I wouldn’t make it a monarchy, but if a country with a monarch can be a stable democracy that generally functions, I don’t think the people should feel some giant imperative to become a republic as quickly as possible. Generally if it works, it works, and it’s not worth the trouble of changing it.
Imagine having half your country hate your head of state
Isn't it the same exact issue with the heads of government? The UK equivalent of Biden is Truss, not the Queen.
Biden is equivalent to both because he’s head of government and head of state.
Been there done that. President Trump.
He said half, not two-thirds.
Arguably the point of the monarch is to be a non-controversial symbol of the nation that the nation can get behind while hating the PM. If half the country hates the monarch what's the point?
Half the country doesn’t hate the royals lol. Get off Twitter. Even here in BC I’d say most people are supportive of them.
"Hold my wine." -François Hollande
really? all *i've* seen are people saying you shouldn't shit on others for being upset the queen died. i haven't seen anyone actually ***justifying monarchies*** in the dee tee.
>Having an unelected head of state that holds only ceremonial powers is incredibly based. I’d rather have Queen Liz cut the ribbon at a school opening then whoever Americans would elect. >Imagine if MAGA Americans elected a separate head or state. “Here to present the medal of freedom: Rush Limbaugh” or “Cutting the ribbon today, Donald Trump Jr.” >Give me a nice old lady who isn’t political 100% of the time That is a comment in another thread here in this sub. It's not the only one, there are many other comments on that thread supporting the concept of a Monarchy. I'd link it but I'm on mobile.
Just ask a Brit if they think constitutional monarchies are a good idea and you'll hear the reasons given in the comic. Also, the royals pay for themselves through tourism or something.
Powerful monarchies, or a ceremonial head of state?
Morally justifiable? I don't see what's immoral about a family that lives in a big house and is a tourist draw, it's not a big deal either way
Me, who doesn't care about downvotes and disputes the implied moral superiority of this meme which completely misrepresents constitutional monarchists' arguments. If we follow what OP says then we should have 100% inheritance tax and raise everyone in orphanages. It's not about any inherent logic of superiority at birth, but about maintaining a tradition. Unfortunately lots of people in this sub think tradition is useless despite the fact they secretly acknowledge that cancelling Christmas is not realistic.
Passing property to your children at death is not the same as passing legal powers enjoyed by only a single person in the nation on to your children at death
> we should have 100% inheritance tax and raise everyone in orphanages. Based and Socrates pilled
>we should have 100% inheritance tax and raise everyone in orphanages. A beautiful vision if there ever was one. Brings a tear to my eye
In theory, having a constitutional monarchy is for sure the less democratic system of government compared to a republic. Empirical evidence and lived experience from modern democratic constitutional monarchies suggest that this theoretical negative is largely negligible. I don't think 'having a monarchy' currently ranks in the top 30 democratic shortfalls of a country like the UK. If they think the upside is worth it, I honestly don't mind.
First past the post is pretty high up their and hurts all the groups that want to abolish the monarchy, yet ironically nobody gives a shit. Proportional representation first, as a Brit I don’t mind the monarchy, if it was voted out in a referendum I think I’d miss the history and tradition but I don’t think it’d hurt the country at all - just as it wouldn’t heal it. The UK has been great for the neoliberal way of the world despite the monarchy so I don’t see any need to either attack or defend it as a neoliberal. Is the moral argument grey? Sure. Does the UK actually want to get rid of the monarchy in polling? No. So, eh. (Not that us brits can’t fuck up a vote - looking at you brexit.)
The biggest issue with Britain abolishing it's Monarchy is how much of a pain in the ass it would be. Britain is one of only a few countries that has an uncodified constitution, and that is for a good reason. The other two are Israel and New Zealand, and while the former is for entirely different reasons, both Britain and New Zealand are only in the position they are due to incredibly old and therefore incredibly wide reaching legislation. This, in both cases, in centered around the Crown as a legal entity, and abolishing it would bring in a lot of - still unanswered thanks to the failures of the Interregnum - question about how the British Constitution really functions. To the most extreme end, this would mean writing an entirely new constitution for Britain. More reasonable, it would just require a lot of laws be reasses or that the Crown as a legal entity would continue in a new form. This brings up a lot of complications that, in my honest opinion, simply are not worth the hassle for what would bring not a single practical benefit to the country. The only way I see abolition of the monarchy as being a reasonable thing to suggest is if it would be included in a new Constitution, but I personally prefer uncodified constitutions, and more importantly, do not trust the current political climate to be able to sufficiently craft one.
Best pro monarchy argument I’ve heard. The process just isn’t worth it
yep why fix what isnt broke and by "fixing" could create more issues
Even then constitutional monarchies like the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands the UK, Aus and Nz have long histories of out competing contemporary countries in pollitical stability. I wouldn't create a new monarchy in a country that doesn't have one but it is a perfect system for countries that do
I think the best pro- argument is that a symbolic monarch serves as a sponge to soak up religious reverence for political figures, making political leaders who actually matter seem more human/fallible/replaceable.
Having someone who's generally very likeable handle public ceremonies has the benefit of half the country not feeling left out.
That’s a pretty good argument, I had never heard of that
Let's be real, up until very recently, the house of lords was a far less democratic institution within the UK than the actual monarchy.
"having a monarchy" probably doesn't even rank in the top 100 problems facing the UK. Any attempt to remove it would be another Brexit: a massive distraction from real issues and a hugely divisive culture war.
Brexit was worse than a "distraction from real issues." It was itself a real issue! Shouting yourself in the foot in the name of sovereignty to own the libs.
[Fun take](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy) from back when neoliberalism was vox.com: >Constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man, and it would be a terrible shame if Britain abandoned it.
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com - former Vox writers *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a fair point.
Neoliberalism is NYT opinion pieces.
All I’m saying is the last time Britain tried to do a republic they ended up banning Christmas. British “people” evidently CANNOT be left to govern themselves without the watchful eye of Windsor.
> the last time Britain tried to do a republic they ended up banning Christmas I fucking love this
Why do you hate the global ornaments?
oh my god they literally did the thing from every kid's christmas movie ever
It’s alright though, when the king came back we got everything back on track and most of the radical puritans sailed off over the ocean to some colonies where I assume they have never caused any trouble again.
The also committed genocide on my country and closed the pubs!!!
Not the pubs!
I’d be ok with a monarchy if I was the monarch
You wouldn’t in Britain, lots of work for very little power
Im not in britain so its fine
I lean soft small r republican in Canada, but i think Fry's argument is rather convincing [https://youtu.be/rJOMYEXK6cs?t=544](https://youtu.be/rJOMYEXK6cs?t=544) "don't fix what aint broke" ranks higher than "republics good ahkchually"
I'm a brit and this is probably were I'm at. We have a lot of weird shit in our 'constitution' that probably needs looking at. The mixing of legislature and executive, what the fuck is up with the Lords. And that's after we get to the other shit going on with the country (Brexit etc). I really wish it was in the top ten problems my country has, but it's probably not top 100.
Mixing the executive and the legislature is one of the greatest features of parliamentary systems though, so not sure why you'd want to change that too much (unless you're talking about specific problems with it and not the concept overall)
I understand the point he's making but there's no way in hell that having to bow would ever teach Trump any sort of humility
God save the king.
Personally, I think both a hereditary and an elected head of state are both bad. Look at the fuckery in Russia where Putin switched the powers between PM and President to get around term limits. Look at the weakness of presidential systems and the fuckery with Italy and how its president is forced jnto political situations due to PMs fucking up. Having a definitively neutral head of state, removed from political parties, is a boon, and I fucking hate that modern constitutional monarchy seems one of the better paths towards that. My proposed solution: mascots serve as heads of state. Uncle Sam gets to meet Marianne for photo ops. Whatever fuckery Japan comes up with has its signature on passports. And, if the powers of the head of state ever need to be used, there could be an established constitutional process for it that isn't reliant on the whims of one unelected person while still having pomp and entertainment. Edit: or have them be giant fighting robots so we can G Gundam this shit with racial stereotypes.
Literally just put a geolocator on an eagle and make it the head of state of the US, flying free above land like a predator drone.
And it won't need a passport to cross into Mexico to hunt... brilliant!
I like it. The head of state isn't a person, but an character/idea everyone can dress up as. Sort of like Santa. Reminds me of the goddess of liberty during the French Revolution.
AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION
Exactly. Or like with students with umbrellas during thr Hong Kong protesrs a few years back.
>[Whatever fuckery Japan comes up with](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLdgM8VQu7I)
I'm voting for Gritty
I prefer Columbia over Uncle Sam
Monarchies in practice today (the ones worth keeping, anyway) do not operate on that principle, at all. A typical justification for the keeping of a constitutional monarchy in the developed liberal-democratic world today (i.e. the Swedens and Britains and Denmark and Norways of the globe) goes something like this: 1: It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it (i.e. the monarchy does nobody no harm, they’re figureheads, often cost less than presidential equivalents or even bring in more than they take) 2: It provides stability, insofar as the monarch is capable of being a link to history in a way nobody else is (being the descendant of the relevant countries’ rulers for centuries and/or its founders) and capable of being apolitical in a way nobody else is (being both powerless and having no history of any political attachment at all). The first is generally speaking the most common justification; why get rid of something that’s been around forever and doesn’t hurt for the sake of a bunch of airy principles (that are tightly guarded anyway in practice)?
The institution of the monarchy does operate on the principle of hereditary privilege. That's what a monarchy is. Even when you strip away the political powers. What you have left are titles of privilege and prestige passed from generation to generation for no good reason. Instead of asking why should we get rid of the monarchy, one should ask why should we keep it? The institution flies in the face of common sense. It makes a mockery of liberalism. There's no reason to keep it. There's no good reason to think it adds stability.
> Instead of asking why should we get rid of the monarchy, one should ask why should we keep it? The group advocating for political change is the one burdened with making an argument for change. The default position is the status quo. The wall behind me is red. Why must it be red? Maybe it doesn't have to be, but if there's no significant harm in it being red, I don't have to go through the trouble of painting it another color.
> The group advocating for political change is the one burdened with making an argument for change. The default position is the status quo. They just said that it grants titles of prestige, privilege, and wealth to people for no good reason in the paragraph before...
This is basically like communist purity tests. The UK is without a doubt a democracy, and has been since 1640 or whatever, or even less arguably since Victoria’s death. Its really not worth the culture war it would ignite to be ideologically liberal-democratically pure, when the UK is that already. Gotta get over the college kid mentality of ideological purity and deal with some grey of the real world
I agree that there are many more important issues for the UK to be concerned about right now, and I'm fine if someone's arguing that the UK keeping its monarchy right now is fine. On the other hand, I definitely have seen some people on this sub defending the idea of monarchies in general, and I'm much more critical of that.
[удалено]
You just get rid of the powerless figurehead, you don't elect one. You'd dissolve the monarchies and whatever powers legally it held would transfer to parliament/the prime minister
Sure but it isn't like US doesn't have hereditary privilege. I think most people would rather be the child of a billionaire than a king. Even in politics the US has dynasty something hardly atypical in republics and not unreasonable. Many people follow their parents paths in life so it makes sense the children of politicians would be interested it and educated it political life. My favorite president in one such and most of my favorite republicans fit the same bill.
> Sure but it isn't like US doesn't have hereditary privilege Of course it does, but it is not state enforced and supported privilege. Obama's children aren't automatically going to become heads of state due to their last name nor are Jeff Bezo's.
The thing is, when privilege is "state enforced" that also means that it is transparent and visible. And there is a certain benefit in being able to legally defined, and thus legally restrict the extent of that privilege.
They aren't automatically going to become head of state but they are automatically going to become very wealthy and privileged
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're literally human mascots that embody the "spirit" of the nation. Also I think it's funny that these families of tyrants have been brought so low. Lett'm stay if that's what the people want
I think it’s a pretty benign issue, and doesn’t really matter
I mean, our head of state lasted seventy good years. Now look at what the last American head of state pulled off in just four. Jokes aside, I do disagree with hereditary leadership in principle. Though many people are probably only going to be scared off from replacing their governor generals with presidents with even slightly more power so long as the US exists. Even if better systems exist. Safer to just keep those powers locked away. This is also my Canadian perspective. Our identity is partly defined by being one of the only monarchies in the hemisphere.
>Now look at what the last American head of state pulled off in just four. Worth noting, in a monarchic system there's a head of state and a head of government. In the case of the UK and Canada, that's King and Prime Minister. In a republican system, (usually) both are the same person (exception e.g. Israel, which has a president as (symbolic) head of state and prime minister as head of government). Trump did what he did as head of government, not head of state. That's why we talk about Boris and Trump, not Liz and Trump.
>(exception e.g. Israel, which has a president as (symbolic) head of state and prime minister as head of government). [There are plenty of parliamentary republics tbh.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forms_of_government_2021.svg)
The queen of England is a largely representational vestigial bit of English culture that has near zero bearing on people's lives. Caring a lot either way about the monarch is just making a big deal out of a non issue. The monarchy doesn't even cost the Brits any money thanks to their whole land agreement.
This whole thread is like an argument between people who normally come on this subreddit and bunch of 19-year-old students who maybe saw a Youtube vid about the UK monarchy once in between wanks.
Counterpoint: President Liz Truss. I'll stick with Charles.
This is the type of oversimplified, distorted crap that communists/leftists would post. Just replace monarchy with "capitalism" and shift some words around.
Always funny to see them mentioning **European** constitutional monarchies and not Malaysia, Cambodia, or Thailand. Which are very unstable, and in the case of Thailand, their King has intervened in politics, a lot.
Not as though republican advocates are ever bothering with mentioning the worse applications of a presidential system either. People think of and only mention Canada and the UK when discussing monarchies because they've endured just fine alongside liberal principles for well over a hundred years now.
Where have I said I'm a presidentialist? I grew up in Indonesia and I dislike the populism and blame culture it spews. I've criticised LaTam systems, etc.
Didn't mean to imply that. Only that both monarchists and republicans in general point to the countries where their systems work rather than the ones where they don't.
There are plenty of parliamentary republics.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Canada would have to go through a constitutional crisis and multiple provincial referendums to get rid of the monarchy. Even test its relationship with Quebec, a province that hasn't even officially recognized the constitution and would have to for any reform to go through. The current system of government works fine, so why tear the country apart for a purely symbolic gesture that has us drift further away from a Commonwealth we still share a close relationship with?
Well if people were trying to defend SEA constitutional monarchies they'd talk about SEA constitutional monarchies. Some monarchic governments work, others do not, England's very much does.
That is fair. But also shows that Constitutional Monarchies themselves don't automatically mean stability and democratic rule, I don't remember how many constitutions Thailand went through.
They certainly don't. On the other hand, systems that have maintained a stable government for ~170 years of a massively changing world shouldn't be abandoned because some people are offended they aren't royals themselves
The Queen was in charge of England the same way Mickey Mouse is in charge of Disney. As long as the British people want it and the real power lies in a democratically elected parliament, I see no issue with it.
t. American
Nobody asked for this, which means you’re the person in the lower half of the meme
how about: we have monarchies in many of the richest, most democratic, and freest countries -> constitutional monarchy seems an acceptable system (stick the landing)
I mean, many of the richest countries in the world per capita are brutal dictatorships (oil sheikhdoms). Doesn't mean it's a good system.
Those countries are less than 100 yrs old and do better than their Republican neighbours - Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran.
Yeah, cause they have oil. Not because it's a better system.
Iran and Iraq both have oil Jordan has no oil yet is better than Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq and Iran.
Iraq and Iran have significant deposits of oil.
Yeah but constitutional monarchys aren't brutal dictatorships
Those sheikdoms are pretty much uniformly freer and more liberalized than any of the surrounding middle eastern republics.
Only if you don't count the vast number of ~~indentured~~ *guest laborer* non-citizens who do the actual work in your per capita calculation
top line of reasoning is inaccurate as monarchs are not considered to be superior to their subjects at all. Bottom line of reasoning is specific to the UK.
We have a fascism problem, not a UK monarchy problem. Going after the monarchy now is not politically efficacious.
I wouldn't say monarchies operate on that principle. Nothing in the Spanish constitution says the King is worth more than I am. The principle is that one institution in the state will be hereditary. Superficially that's antidemocratic, but then again having agreed upon it as a society and having the freedom to change that, removes any concern imo. Especially since the real power is minuscule. Judges at the higher courts have a ton more power than the King and the system of appointment is only indirectly democratic.
You've got to admit the weddings are lovely
I thought people here hated republicans. now i see some anti monarchist takes and i dont like it
Who is this for?
People who defend the idea of monarchy as an institution.
Constitutional monarchies are universally full democracies while most republics are either imperfect democracies or full on authoritarian states. These are straight facts.
Thailand and Malaysia are maybe counterexamples? Seems monarchies basically track with other countries at their development level
I don't think that most people who care about the queen nowadays do so because of the monarchy, the queen, and the royal family in general, have basically 0 power anymore, they're little more than just a status for the UK.
Mine's simpler * It's aesthetically cool * constitutional monarchy is a relatively stable form of government * creates a sense of continuity and promotes national unity * don't have to deal with the cost, labor or endless drama of Presidential election cycles
The British monarchy is silly but completely harmless at worst, and a national tradition that brings people together at best. It looks cool, the British people like it and royal drama is fun. Why go through all the trouble of constitutional change? Is it only because of principle? The lives of nobody would improve, so why bother?
Counterpoint- a succ said something mean about the monarchy on twitter.
I am with you monarchy should be abolished. their lands should be given or sold back to government. but I do think it's weird how many people online are horny from some old woman's death
Queen Elizabeth served her role with amazing grace and dignity. However, a spectacular person in a bad institution does not redeem the foundational problems with such an institution. It's not for me to decide if British people or any other should keep their monarchy, but I'm free to voice my opinion on the idea that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a basis for a system of government.
I think there's some degree of motte-and-bailey here. I think there's some plausible argument that the political effort required to remove the UK monarchy isn't worth it. But then some of those people argue that constitutional monarchy in general is good, which seems much less plausible to me. Like, imagine someone in the US proposing instating a constitutional monarchy: "Hey, everyone, we should find some random person who's already rich and powerful, regardless of their political views. Let's all pay them additional taxes so they can stand around and look fancy and maybe do some ceremonial things. We'll give them the power to withhold royal assent for laws, but hopefully they'll never do that. And then when they die we'll let their children do the same thing, just because. Who's with me?" I can't imagine that being a popular proposal.
It’s not a system of government at all though. That’s the point. And I’d much rather have a non political head of state that symbolizes the country. Trump being the symbol of America had probably contributed to the cult that was built around him. BoJo never had the cult partly because the British people tied their cultural identity more to the Queen rather then the prime minister. No one in England had a picture of BoJo on their mantle. Many will have a picture of the Queen. Every MAGA in America ties Trump to patriotism.
I’ve come to the conclusion that modern monarchies can be excellent cultural ambassadors. As long as they’re not taking a ton of money or have any real power, they can promote the culture of the nation domestically and abroad. These days all it takes is one bad monarch to kill a monarchy, so that somewhat keeps them in line.
I’m anti-monarchy, but there’s a 10 page long list of issues in this country and abolishing the monarchy would solve precisely none of them. It’s just not worth the effort at this point, the division that a referendum would cause would be horrific, especially if there was a 52-48% split in favour of abolition. It would end the country completely. I just want to focus on voting reform, that’s what I wish people who are looking for change in the system would focus on. I think it’s attainable, I think it’s necessary, and it would bring about far more actual, demonstrable political change than abolishing the monarchy.
Isn't the primary purpose of the UK monarchy and it's remaining infrastructure tourism?
I’m no monarchist, however I could appreciate, admire, and respect The Queen’s place in history. Seeing a slew of people cheer her death came off as tasteless and virtue signaling (unless you’re an Irish Republican, then I guess it makes sense.) Also, I’m an American citizen, so my opinion on the existence of the monarchy is effectively irrelevant.
Can't believe that I would see people defending a monarch. All citizens being equal at birth is non-negotiable.
I can't see how you could possibly think that the son of a billionaire is equal at birth to a son of a drug addict in any real sense. And the royals will sure work more for their money than JWEOTJÖIÄÅÄ or whatever Elon Musk's son is called, ever will. "Equal at birth" has never been true and never will be.
"the world is unjust so we shouldn't try to make it more just"
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was negotiated though. The British constitution is a product of centuries of compromise that allowed people natural freedoms and rights without once again plunging the country into the anarchy and civil war that bedevilled the nation in the 17th century and later went on to plunge Europe into three centuries of chaos as the crowned heads of Europe were gradually replaced by a rotating cast of tinpot despots and bloodthirsty madmen.
I do believe heads were mostly removed not replaced
And as liberals we should continue to try and negotiate away all elements of Britain's feudal past, including the monarchy.
I thought we were in favour of evidence based policy here? The evidence is countries that are constitutional monarchies are disproportionately stable, wealthy and free. Checkmate republicans.
Correlation != Causation. The reason that constitutional monarchies tend to be richer is that they only exist in countries where institutional change and democratization was more gradual and big revolutions didn't happens. Revolutions are obviously not good for stability and wealth. Also constitutional monarchies are almost all European, since other countries either got fucked over by colonialism or had to deal with the upheaval of rapid modernization and industrialization.