The Queen of England

[Crni Vuk]

It didn't turn out so well for so many of them, no? I do wonder whether it was worth the cost. Though, many European Monarchies were quite behind the times compared to England's. Russia is the obvious example there, including that it lead to something worse by abolishing it.

Look.

We have to distinguish between two things here. The System or it's implentation. Monarchies as a system, give out priviliges and power based on inheritance, this is the definition of a Monarchy. You might be right, Englands/Britains Monarchy might have been the best there ever was and they treated their people better than others COMPARED to the rest of the Monarchs, etc. But it is one of THOUSANDS of Monarchies trough out the history of Monarchies and most of them, one way or another, have been abbolished. And as I said, for a reason. There simply was no use for Monarchies anymore with the newly formed, of what we call today, modern states or nation states, with governements, parliaments, higher education particularly for the general public, constitutions, seperation of power and so on. And in many cases it marked an IMPROVEMEND for those societies, once they abolished Monarchies and established their nation state. The Russian revolution is in no way an example for ALL socities that abolished Monarchies just as how the British Monarchy is not a prime example how they all act. They are right behind dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. Was every dictatorship in the human history as repressive like the Soviet Union? No. Does that mean we should get back to it? Was every slave tortured and treated like waste? No. Does it mean it we should return to it?

Just because there have been 'benevolent' Slave masters or Kings trough out history, doesn't mean we should see those SYSTEMS as inherently positive. Just the mere fact, that Monarchies are build on dynasties, make them problematic in our day and age. We're not living in socities that worked like the onces in medieval times some 1000 years ago.

You have to ask your self a simple qestion really, do you want to live in a 'typical' Monarchy? Take a look at the Kingdom of Bahrain; the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace; the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; the State of Kuwait; the Kingdom of Morocco; the Sultanate of Oman; the State of Qatar; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; and the United Arab Emirates. Those are all acting pretty much as what your average Monarchy did trough out human history. They are repressive regimes, with draconian laws. Have a nice stay! The fact that some of them might even be supported by the majority of their populations, doesn't change the fact that the minority that doesn't is oppressed. Free speech, free exchange of ideas, etc. you can forget about that in a Monarchy.

What you're looking at, is a very very (very!) special form of Monarchy, which holds almost no power and exists only as a mere symbolic institution, they are for the most part special celebreties. If a nation decides to retain their 'Monarchy' and use taxes to pay for it, as a form of tradition or national idenity, that's their decisions, so be it. But giving ACTUAL power to a Monachy? That usually doesn't end in the kind of socities as we see them today, with a modern government and the seperation of power and independed jurisdiction. You end up with a form of Dictatorship.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

We have to distinguish between two things here. The System or it's implentation. Monarchies as a system, give out priviliges and power based on inheritance, this is the definition of a Monarchy. You might be right, Englands/Britains Mmonarchy is the best there ever was and they treated their people better than others, etc. But it is one of THOUSANDS of Monarchies trough out the history of Monarchies and most of them, one way or another, have been abbolished. And as I said, for a reason. There simply was no use for Monarchies anymore with the emerging of what you can call, modern states or nation states, with governements, parliaments, higher education particularly for the general public, constitutions, seperation of power and so on.

Can't say I disagree with much or any of this, its an interesting point. I do think that our unwritten constitution is better than most written ones however. Enlightenment values and thinkers did not, looking back, have all the answers.

And in many cases it marked an IMPROVEMEND for those societies, once they abolished Monarchies and established their nation state

Can you give some examples, particularly in Europe? Because in the cases of France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and others, I don't see an improvement once they abolished their monarchies. I would say the same for the USA too, but of course that is more debatable.

Take a look at the Kingdom of Bahrain; the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace; the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; the State of Kuwait; the Kingdom of Morocco; the Sultanate of Oman; the State of Qatar; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; and the United Arab Emirates.

I don't think these are particularly noble countries, but they are a lot more stable than countries near to them.
You might have shot yourself in the foot slightly there, though I again would not wish to live in these countries, and would think their systems inferior to Republican European countries (not due to simple geography, just to clarify.

What you're looking at, is a very very (very!) special form of Monarchy, which holds almost no power and exists only as a mere symbolic instutition, they are for the most part celebreties. If a nation decides to retain their 'Monarchy' and use taxes to pay for it, as a form of tradition or national idenity, that's their decisions, so be it. But giving ACTUAL power to a Monachy? That usually doesn't end in the kind of socities as we see them today, with a modern government and the seperation of power and independed jurisdiction. You end up with a form of Dictatorship.

Agreed. Though I think in the end, the thread title was about the British Monarchy in particular.

Thus, what we can say we agree upon is that monarchical government works for Great Britain and for few other countries. Britain is the exception. I would add that this is due to unique conditions created by our history, national identity and especially (in my mind) our way of governing ourselves, and thus it should continue.

 

[MutantScalper]

I can try, though I'm no expert on Russian history.

This, but in addition, even in 1905's protests the people marched and cheered the Tsar as the father of the people (yes, he was a bad monarch blah blah) whereas even with all the brainwashing under Stalin, the people must have feared him and his even tighter control over their lives than before. Having some hope that things will get better is a small comfort, but it is one compared to living in a totalitarian state that looked as though it would never end,especially as Soviet Russia removed any religious existence from people's lives, so they couldn't even have any hope in another life. Again, small comforts, but that arguably made it better in Tsarist Russia.

It's a shame really, they could have had a stable democracy, but the Germans sending Lenin back to Russia may have been the final straw in that. That and there seems to be a desire in Russia for strong leadership, and a willingness for self-sacrifice in order for the country to be seen as powerful.

Tsar: The term is derived from the Latin word Caesar, which was intended to mean "Emperor" in the European medieval sense of the term—a ruler with the same rank as a Roman emperor, holding it by the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch)—but was usually considered by western Europeans to be equivalent to king, or to be somewhat in between a royal and imperial rank.

Tsar is above king/queen in powers. It's the same as "emperor". Basically a god in human form with no restrictions. With serfdom the average Russians didn't really have any human rights, no education, no rights, their deaths weren't even recorded so we don't really even know how many died and how. Tsar had more power than Stalin ever had, so even with the onset of the Soviet regime and all the negative stuff that came with it, one could argue that it was a step into a more democratic direction. Also there is no telling how a Tsarist Russia would have dealt with Hitler etc. Hitler and Tsar X of Russia could have made a pact and then combined, with Japan helping, turned their attention to UK and Churchill. USA would have been like "Fug dat sheet I'm not getting involved".

If you think that Tsarist Russia would have turned into Sweden then I don't put much value on your thinking.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Can you give some examples, particularly in Europe? Because in the cases of France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and others, I don't see an improvement once they abolished their monarchies. I would say the same for the USA too, but of course that is more debatable.
(...)
I don't think these are particularly noble countries, but they are a lot more stable than countries near to them.
You might have shot yourself in the foot slightly there, though I again would not wish to live in these countries, and would think their systems inferior to Republican European countries (not due to simple geography, just to clarify.

This is rather difficult to answer, because I am talking about the System as a form of governance over populations, we do not have to argue that societies like Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France or German Empire experienced a state of Chaos and Unrest after their Monarchies dissapeared and a large portion of their population was probably in a worse situation than they have been previously during the Monarchy - But this also begs the question, why? But that's a discussion for another day.

But in my opinion, that's a strange argument to make anyway, believe it or not, a lot of slaves had it worse after slavery was abbolished in the United States, as bad as slavery was not every slave owner was a monster who has tortured their slaves. But no one would get the idea that the SYSTEM of slavery was better because some people had better lives under their slave master. I hope you get what I am trying to say here. The benolevent master or happy slave, is not an excuse for Slavery as a system just as how the good Monarch, if there ever really was one, is no example for the System of Monarchy. Maybe a thousand years ago during a feudal era, it was a decent form of governance over populations, I am not going to argue against that. But in our time and age? No. Definetly not. Who knows? In 1000 years maybe people will question our form of governance the same way, once we've all become a digital hive mind of sorts or what ever enlightenend science fiction shit becomes possible.

You really have to look at the development of a society as whole. A monarchy, if it's in power, simply isn't the kind of structure that allows for a lot of free thinking, equality, progress and development of it's people, it's per definition a riggid stucture with authoritarian rule, not just trough the Monarchs themself, but also all the institutions under them with the intention of governance. Free exchange of ideas for example, isn't really what Monarchies support, but it is absolutely needed for progress today. People can give Demoracy all the shit they want, but alone the fact that you have a society with the seperation of powers, with executive, legislative and judicial branches, was easily one of the largest improvements to the history of governance so far, who knows if we won't see more improvements here in the future or even some better alternative we can't even imagine yet. But for now, it's been good for our societies as a whole.

Here, this is in my opinion a very good video explaining in a relatively neutral manner why it was an improvement to remove power from Monarchies :

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Tsar is above king/queen in powers. It's the same as "emperor". Basically a god in human form with no restrictions

So like our Kings before Magna Carta then.....

With serfdom

Russia abolished serfdom in 1861, before America did. The Russian peasants did have rights, especially to move. They moved in their droves to the cities, effectively exchanging one poverty for another. They could talk and plan though, and that's where they organised their strikes and marches. Unlike Stalin's Russia, where anyone thinking the wrong thing got chucked away. To be honest, even if you thought the right things, that was no barrier.

Tsar had more power than Stalin ever had, so even with the onset of the Soviet regime and all the negative stuff that came with it, one could argue that it was a step into a more democratic direction.

You could argue, but I wouldn't agree. Stalin had more power due to an enlarged state apparatus, which meant more economic and, more importantly social control, and forced upon the people the idea that he was a human God. It's amazing to think that the Soviets dug up corpses from church's to prove there is no next life, but carefully preserved Lenin's body to prove their superiority over the forces of Religion and tradition.

Also there is no telling how a Tsarist Russia would have dealt with Hitler etc. Hitler and Tsar X or Russia would have made a pact and then combined, with Japan helping, turned their attention to UK and Churchill. USA would have been like "Fug dat sheet I'm not getting involved".

You are right, there is no telling. But Stalin made a pact with Hitler anyways, and he was not the one to break it, or had as much reason to for a while, given the dismal state the red army was in.

If you think that had Tsarist Russia would have turned into Sweden then I put much value on your thinking.

I don't, I've said repeatedly that Tsarist Russia was not a nice place or had a good system of government. The best time for Russia was arguably in its democratic phase in 1917, before the Germans ruined it by sending Lenin back to inspire everyone to rise.

This is rather difficult to answer, because I am talking about the System as a form of governance over populations, we do not have to argue that societies like Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France or German Empire experienced a state of Chaos and Unrest after their Monarchies dissapeared and a large portion of their population was probably in a worse situation than they have been previously during the Monarchy.

Excellent. I'm glad we don't have to argue about this.

But in my opinion, that's a strange argument to make anyway, believe it or not, a lot of slaves had it worse after slavery was abbolished in the United States, as bad as slavery was not every slave owner was a monster which tortured them. But no one would get the idea that the SYSTEM of slavery was better because some people had better lives under their slave master. I hope you get what I am trying to say here.

I absolutely do get what you are trying to say. I was studying serfdom in England in the middle ages, and it was clear that serfs lived better lives than many 'free' men. But of course, I would not endorse slavery based on this.

You really have to look at the development of a society as whole. A monarchy, if it's in power, simply isn't the kind of structure that allows for a lot of free thinking, equality, progress and development of it's people, it's per definition a riggid stucture with authoritarian rule, not just trough the Monarchs themself, but also all the institutions under them with the intention of governance.

I understand that as well. If you were designing the perfect society based upon ideals, you would not have a King or Queen. But, the strange case of Britain was that it has a Monarchy yet it is free, just like it had (HAD) a potent class system with a relatively high degree of social mobility, due to exceptionally high standards of education. I could go on about how it seems to contradict a lot of theory, and thus is a precious exception to what you are saying. (NO, it isn't or was not ever perfect, before anyone claims I'm excusing mistakes.)

Therefore, I understand why it does not work by definition, or by theory, but we have somehow proved to be an exception to these. I would ask that you read the first post I made in this thread about how it fits perfectly in the system of government with separation of powers, as I won't repeat as this post is too long already. Will watch the video soon.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say here, just as I have tried to understand what you are.

 

[MutantScalper]

So like our Kings before Magna Carta then.....

Russia abolished serfdom in 1861, before America did. The Russian peasants did have rights, especially to move. They moved in their droves to the cities, effectively exchanging one poverty for another. They could talk and plan though, and that's where they organised their strikes and marches. Unlike Stalin's Russia, where anyone thinking the wrong thing got chucked away. To be honest, even if you thought the right things, that was no barrier.


You could argue, but I wouldn't agree. Stalin had more power due to an enlarged state apparatus, which meant more economic and, more importantly social control, and forced upon the people the idea that he was a human God. It's amazing to think that the Soviets dug up corpses from church's to prove there is no next life, but carefully preserved Lenin's body to prove their superiority over the forces of Religion and tradition.


You are right, there is no telling. But Stalin made a pact with Hitler anyways, and he was not the one to break it, or had as much reason to for a while, given the dismal state the red army was in.

I don't, I've said repeatedly that Tsarist Russia was not a nice place or had a good system of government. The best time for Russia was arguably in its democratic phase in 1917, before the Germans ruined it by sending Lenin back to inspire everyone to rise.



Excellent. I'm glad we don't have to argue about this.



I absolutely do get what you are trying to say. I was studying serfdom in England in the middle ages, and it was clear that serfs lived better lives than many 'free' men. But of course, I would not endorse slavery based on this.



I understand that as well. If you were designing the perfect society based upon ideals, you would not have a King or Queen. But, the strange case of Britain was that it has a Monarchy yet it is free, just like it had (HAD) a potent class system with a relatively high degree of social mobility, due to exceptionally high standards of education. I could go on about how it seems to contradict a lot of theory, and thus is a precious exception to what you are saying. (NO, it isn't or was not ever perfect, before anyone claims I'm excusing mistakes.)

Therefore, I understand why it does not work by definition, or by theory, but we have somehow proved to be an exception to these. I would ask that you read the first post I made in this thread about how it fits perfectly in the system of government with separation of powers, as I won't repeat as this post is too long already. Will watch the video soon.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say here, just as I have tried to understand what you are.

Ok so this guy is a pro-Tsarist/pro-all monarchy guy from UK. Ok then. This kind of imperialist thinking with UK dictating things to other nations actually died long ago, latest with Brexit, but I guess they never learn.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

I literally just said that I didn't like Tsarism. Nor do I think that Monarchy works in other countries, which I also just said..... so feel free to label me, but you are incorrect in these statements.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I understand that as well. If you were designing the perfect society based upon ideals, you would not have a King or Queen. But, the strange case of Britain was that it has a Monarchy yet it is free, just like it had (HAD) a potent class system with a relatively high degree of social mobility, due to exceptionally high standards of education. I could go on about how it seems to contradict a lot of theory, and thus is a precious exception to what you are saying. (NO, it isn't or was not ever perfect, before anyone claims I'm excusing mistakes.)

Yes, but it is a (mostly) free society DESPITE the Monarchy and not BECAUSE of the Monarchy, that's my point. Monarchies, do not create free thinking societies. The British Monarchy hasn't granted their citizens liberties or more rights due to some sort of philanthropic reason. It was on one side a long and complicated process that took several centuries of giving up power, sometimes by force, starting with the Magna Carta and ending in constitutions and a clawless Monarchy that's left with only symbolic power. Britain had the luck (I guess) to have rulers in power at certain key points in their history, that understood what change was necessary at their time. It was either, hey we have to do this now, or we end up on the chopping block - one day. Most Monarchies didn't understood this, hence why they ended up one way or another, on the chopping block.

Therefore, I understand why it does not work by definition, or by theory, but we have somehow proved to be an exception to these. I would ask that you read the first post I made in this thread about how it fits perfectly in the system of government with separation of powers, as I won't repeat as this post is too long already. Will watch the video soon.

Exceptions, prove the rule, I am afraid.

It only works, because if you really think about it, it's not an Monarchy anymore and just celebreties that are dynasties of celebreties where they hand down their status as celebreties to their children, they are Monarchies in name only. The closest thing you have to real Monarchies today, is Saudi Arabia. Monarchies and seperation of power doesn't work I am afraid. The reason it works in Britain, is because it is a 'declawed' Monarchy. I am not saying there isn't power in symbolism. But at the end of the day, it's just that. Symbolic. The United Kingdom, is not a Monarchy today, it is a democracy. Plane and simple. But it's a bit difficult because the transition happend over like 500 years or something, where as most other nations had their transition into demcracies happening in a much shorter time.

You might have shot yourself in the foot slightly there, though I again would not wish to live in these countries, and would think their systems inferior to Republican European countries (not due to simple geography, just to clarify.

I don't think so.

Only if you assume that I believe those systems or nations to be preferable to Saudi Arabia or Qatar. But one does not rule out the other. I can still say, they are worse places and still see those monarchies next to them as bad forms of governance as well. I mean hands down, most of thouse countries like for example Somalia or Iraq, are failed states, which are a topic for it self.

 

[naossano]

Monarchies are just nation ruled by one person. A dictatorship can be a non-hereditary monarchy. Doesn't have to be a king.

Anyway, being born from this parent or that place shouldn't give anyone privilege.

 

[yfk12]

People having privilege by birthright is hardly a concept that is unique to monarchies though. Hell, the USA, a republic, is arguably a worse offender of this than the UK.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Britain had the luck (I guess) to have rulers in power at certain key points in their history, that understood what change was necessary at their time. It was either, hey we have to do this now, or we end up on the chopping block - one day. Most Monarchies didn't understood this, hence why they ended up one way or another, on the chopping block.

I agree with this. The Monarchs that did resist were removed. I should have probably said earlier that obviously the system evolved, we did constantly improve it by taking away Monarch's powers and extending the franchise. We have had some smart rulers who have known to back off, and move with the changes that Governments have imposed.

The reason it works in Britain, is because it is a 'declawed' Monarchy. I am not saying there isn't power in symbolism. But at the end of the day, it's just that. Symbolic. The United Kingdom, is not a Monarchy today, it is a democracy. Plane and simple. But it's a bit difficult because the transition happend over like 500 years or something, where as most other nations had their transition into demcracies happening in a much shorter time.

Governments in turn cannot act autocratically,by denying bills passed by parliament the royal assent, which it needs to become Law

Essentially, it guarantees the supremacy of the House of Commons, the Government is thus held accountable to the legislature.. That's why Monarchy is useful to us. I think that's the key point justifying it as part of our system. It means there are also little deadlocks in passing Laws, as the House of Lords (itself partially hereditary, used to be far more so) cannot refuse a bill 3 times. Thus, that's our way of having an effective Government.

Therefore we have a declawed Monarchy, in that they cannot refuse the royal assent to Laws. But, to state again, that checks the Executive power of Governments, preserving the democracy.

ut one does not rule out the other. I can still say, they are worse places and still see those monarchies next to them as bad forms of governance as well. I mean hands down, most of thouse countries like for example Somalia or Iraq, are failed states, which are a topic for it self.

Point taken , it's mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

From my perspective, I can see what you mean regarding Saudi Arabia I guess, but in the end that purely means that, through much trial and error, though relatively little bloodshed, we have proven to be an exception. And I don't agree that that means we should abolish it, particularly if we manage to have a better system than countries without one.

It's like saying, Most Monarchies are.... 3/10 countries. Most non-Monarchies are 8/10 countries. An exceptional Monarchy is 9/10 (not saying Britain is this, it has a lot of problems.) That isn't a reason to abolish the one exceptional Monarchy due to the badness of the rest. I appreciate the comparisons to the slavery argument, but I'm coming to the conclusion that, given it causes pretty much no harm here, it may be a false equivalency. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

Hell, the USA, a republic, is arguably a worse offender of this than the UK.

Arguably, yes. You only have to look at what 2016's election was judged to be by much of the media. Happily or sadly, Jeb Bush couldn't make it into a dynasty war.

 

[yfk12]

I was thinking more about inherited wealth, nepotism in the workplace, stuff like that, but yeah, there is the political element as well.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Therefore we have a declawed Monarchy, in that they cannot refuse the royal assent to Laws. But, to state again, that checks the Executive power of Governments, preserving the democracy.

Dude ... com on ... I mean, please. You seem to be a really nice guy and all so I hope you're not getting this the wrong way. But I think you're constantly getting this backwards.

The Monarchy is not preserving democracy. The demoracy in Britain is perserving the Monarchy - or what's left of it anyway! And that's true for all of those constitutional Monarchies out there that happen to be out there, the few there are at least. They are full democracies, which simply allow the remenants of Monarchies to live out their priviliged lives in peace. That's it. And I am more or less fine with that, as long as the majority of people accept it. And the Brits certainly do.

Monarchies, do not work in our time and with modern states! Unless, you remove so much of their power that they stop to be Monarchies. And the few 'decisions' the Monarchy in Britain has, are so miniscule that I am pretty confident the British government wouldn't suddenly turn in to a dictatorship if they disappeared. There are countless of checks and ballances here that could do the same job, even cheaper and easier. What Britain has, is simply put, not an example of a Monarchy working in our modern day and age, because at the end of the day, they are not a 'true' Monarchy in the sense of governance! Britain is democracy not a democracy with a Monachy as checks and ballance or what ever!

You can argue to keep Monarchies due to tradition and national identy, but to 'preserve' democracies? Oh boy. I think, Britain has much more serious problems than that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could you give a really indepth and good answer to as why Czarist Russia was "better" than Soviet Union, especially from the perspective of the average person living in Russia?

This dude’s gotta read animal farm.

Tsarist Russia wasn't exactly better for the average Russian, but probably better for the average non-Russian in neighbouring countries.

Thank you for the correct spelling of TSAR.
As for the transition from monarchy to republic, it went rather well in
FRANCE
IRELAND
SPAIN
PORTUGAL
ITALY

Also, thanks again to Crni, who made another excellent contribution to a random forum.

Most nations with monarchies got rid of monarchies. And that for a reason.

That's all I'll be saying.

 

[Hassknecht]

Oh yes, it went splendidly for France. Robespierre is widely known as a model for how to shape a new republic after a revolution.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You're biased. Many physicists in France have been members of the nobility!

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Isn't the Queen of England effectively powerless in state affairs? The Crown is more of a legacy institution that, reversely to for instance the Spanish Crown, (where the king is also the head of state btw) they actually contribute to state funding handsomely for the privilege, and otherwise are mostly involved in cultural affairs. Pretty sure the only group they have control over is their corgis!

I'm not really standing along ManInTheRoom, but it is true that sometimes monarchies have had a more supporting hand in the transition to Constitutional Monarchy. It was the king of Spain whom, instead of following Franco's wishes for him to succeed him, assembled a reformist committee for the appointed president and had the army, undoubtedly still loyal to the regime for decades after, stand down multiple times. Naturally this isn't in a void considering centuries of civil wars for and against the monarchy (or the specific dynasty of it), but nonetheless.

 

[zegh8578]

Tsar is cognate with caesar through czar
most slavic languages seem to prefer the c/k version, alluding to the caesar-origin of the word (which, yes, as we know from New Vegas, is supposed to be a hard K, not "see-sar" but "kai-sar")

incidentally, in Norwegian, we call it "keiser"

Okay, that was all, you can all continue :0

 

[MutantScalper]

I literally just said that I didn't like Tsarism. Nor do I think that Monarchy works in other countries, which I also just said..... so feel free to label me, but you are incorrect in these statements.

Btw it also seems like you're against atheism/non-religious thinking, am I wrong in assuming so?

Isn't the Queen of England effectively powerless in state affairs? The Crown is more of a legacy institution that, reversely to for instance the Spanish Crown, (where the king is also the head of state btw) they actually contribute to state funding handsomely for the privilege, and otherwise are mostly involved in cultural affairs. Pretty sure the only group they have control over is their corgis!

I'm not really standing along ManInTheRoom, but it is true that sometimes monarchies have had a more supporting hand in the transition to Constitutional Monarchy. It was the king of Spain whom, instead of following Franco's wishes for him to succeed him, assembled a reformist committee for the appointed president and had the army, undoubtedly still loyal to the regime for decades after, stand down multiple times. Naturally this isn't in a void considering centuries of civil wars for and against the monarchy (or the specific dynasty of it), but nonetheless.

They have lots of power through House of Lords, inherited wealth and status, through 'connections', etc.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

You seem to be a really nice guy and all so I hope you're not getting this the wrong way. But I think you're constantly getting this backwards.

Very nice of you to say, I shall return the compliment.

The Monarchy is not preserving democracy. The demoracy in Britain is perserving the Monarchy - or what's left of it anyway! And that's true for all of those constitutional Monarchies out there that happen to be out there, the few there are at least.

Agreed. In retrospect, the line about it 'preserving democracy' was a little overblown. Other countries manage to be democratic without monarchies.

hey are full democracies, which simply allow the remenants of Monarchies to live out their priviliged lives in peace. That's it. And I am more or less fine with that, as long as the majority of people accept it. And the Brits certainly do.

I mean, they do work pretty hard, and have a lot of responsibility, but I already know what the answer to that is. I guess its easy for them to work hard with all that wealth and funded lifestyle.

There are countless of checks and ballances here that could do the same job, even cheaper and easier.

On this I will still disagree. I look abroad and do not see a system better than Britain's in terms of its checks and balances. Can I provide any more evidence for this than what I have said, without unadvisedly looking for flaws in other systems or repeating myself? No I cannot. Perhaps we may instead look to what we agree on, which appears to be 90% of the discussion.

and I am more or less fine with that, as long as the majority of people accept it. And the Brits certainly do.

Perfect.

If this all sounds a little conciliatory, but I wouldn't wish anyone to get frustrated with this topic

I feel like I've said my bit here.

h boy. I think, Britain has much more serious problems than that.

Too true, sadly.