British Subjects: A Reminder

[Stevicus]

Attention British Subjects:

View attachment 47834
This man is your superior!

He deserves to reign over you on account of who his mother is.

He is therefore in no way your equal. He is officially your superior!

Scum like you should never have the opportunity to be the head of state of an advanced, high-income nation that is a part of the free world.

In comparison to him, your genes and your lineage are rubbish.

Power should belong to those who inherit it

It should be passed on, down the generations, like an heirloom

And everyone else should just grovel and accept it

You should no say in who your head of state is

Instead, let tradition and accident of birth be what qualifies one for such high office!

Because if you value democracy then this is obviously the best system imaginable!

(there goes my knighthood!)​

You ought to take a lesson from us Yanks and throw out the monarchists. "No more kings!"

 

[Eddi]

Not so:

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

That's outrageous

Thanks for sharing

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The royals themselves have no real power

But they symbolise The Establishment and the power they have

Rule of the monarchy = rule of The Establishment

I am against the rule of The Establishment hence I am against the monarchy

Whenever people celebrate the monarch, or the monarchy, they are in fact glorifying The Establishment and their rule

Yes. The vast majority of people seek stability and no vi9lence. Thus when the monarch has a child, it is greatly celebrated, since now the people know that when the old monarch dies, a new one will slip into office quickly and without a “game of thrones”.
“The king is dead, long live the king!”
Britain keeps the Windsors alive and sitting pretty just to keep the rabble calm, and feeling warm and cozy that ‘everything is juuussst fine. Go about your business.’.
The peaceful transition of power in a democracy is the greatest achievement that the US has ever laid claim to (till recently).

Anyways! As @Secret Chief points out in #16 above, apparently the Windsors have maintained some modicum of power, seemingly mainly concerning their own finances. Likely they otherwise rubber stamp whatever the real government asks them to.

 

[Secret Chief]

That's outrageous

Thanks for sharing

I too thought, like a lot of people, they were a powerless, obscenely rich anachronism. Seems not.

 

[Stevicus]

I too thought, like a lot of people, they were a powerless, obscenely rich anachronism. Seems not.

I had heard that the status of the monarchy as figureheads was more "unofficial" even if it was the general practice. That is, there's no law or nothing in writing that would prevent a monarch from taking back control and becoming an autocrat, if they wanted to.

 

[Eddi]

Yes. The vast majority of people seek stability and no vi9lence. Thus when the monarch has a child, it is greatly celebrated, since now the people know that when the old monarch dies, a new one will slip into office quickly and without a “game of thrones”.
“The king is dead, long live the king!”
Britain keeps the Windsors alive and sitting pretty just to keep the rabble calm, and feeling warm and cozy that ‘everything is juuussst fine. Go about your business.’.
The peaceful transition of power in a democracy is the greatest achievement that the US has ever laid claim to (till recently).

Anyways! As @Secret Chief points out in #16 above, apparently the Windsors have maintained some modicum of power, seemingly mainly concerning their own finances. Likely they otherwise rubber stamp whatever the real government asks them to.

Prince Charles is known for meddling in public affairs

Black spider memos - Wikipedia

 

[Eddi]

I too thought, like a lot of people, they were a powerless, obscenely rich anachronism. Seems not.

There are these, too

Black spider memos - Wikipedia

 

[Secret Chief]

There are these, too

Black spider memos - Wikipedia

I'd forgotten about those! Politically neutral my ****.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would prefer any number of royals to a Trump.

 

[Rival]

I support the institution of monarchy.

Just not this one.

 

[pearl]

Viewing from this side of the pond, I admit to a certain fascination with the monarchy, the present one. I developed a love/hate perception. And I have a feeling that describes the attitude of many British citizens. Do they not have the power to dissolve the monarchy if they really wished to end the tradition?
I agree with your take on Prince Charles. However, much of my opinion is formed by a movie, 'The Queen', which seemed sympathetic towards one who at times reluctantly followed tradition. But I can understand why the British taxpayers are tired of supporting a monarchy.

 

[Secret Chief]

I would prefer any number of royals to a Trump.

A bit apples and pears that?

 

[Secret Chief]

Viewing from this side of the pond, I admit to a certain fascination with the monarchy, the present one. I developed a love/hate perception. And I have a feeling that describes the attitude of many British citizens. Do they not have the power to dissolve the monarchy if they really wished to end the tradition?
I agree with your take on Prince Charles. However, much of my opinion is formed by a movie, 'The Queen', which seemed sympathetic towards one who at times reluctantly followed tradition. But I can understand why the British taxpayers are tired of supporting a monarchy.

There's no great move to ditch the scroungers.

Queen Elizabeth II is no longer the most popular royal

 

[George-ananda]

Geez as an American I now see them as a benign figureheads of national pride and tradition. No harm done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would prefer any number of royals to a Trump.

Monarchy is no protection against getting a Trump. Monarchy just means that when you do get a Trump, you're stuck with him until he dies.

... and then you get another Trump.

Anyway, the whole point of monarchy is that what you prefer doesn't matter.

 

[Sunstone]

First, thanks for this thread! It's quite interesting in several ways.

Beyond that, I have yet to meet a human who could come close to guaranteeing their future kids would fall within the same range of goodiness -- or anything else -- as they themselves fell.

Sure, the odds would be somewhat better, 'cause DNA. But never so good as to guarantee it. And with every generation, the odds would change, right? But not necessarily in a trend of any sort.

Ruling Dynasties are crazy ideas even when they're not official. Even when they're just the Kennedy Clan or the Koch Brothers. Assuming someone can see how the Koch family could be considered a ruling dynasty of some sort.

To me, dynasties come across as rule by periodic dice throw with no chance of leveraging the odds. Representative democracy is bad enough for me.



I got a question for you folks who somehow managed to arrive in recent years on the right side of the pond, relatively speaking, without any noticeably legitimate means of transport that fail but to confirm my long held conviction the Harry Potter series is actually coded instructions for the bloody worldwide uprising that will all to soon lead to the restoration of the British Empire.

Obviously, skip down to the question if you wish. Here's my version of 'colorful background'...

I once read an excellent book on the day to day lives of people living in Moscow during the Soviet years. The author had been one of The New York Times resident journalists for about a decade before he wrote the book. He thought, understandably, that it was human nature to cling as for dear life to any political system a person grew up in. And he thought the very last fact-based thread a Soviet citizen was likely to end up clinging to before he or she just gave up altogether any hope of finding a fact to cling to for believing their system was in someway worth existing was the fact the Soviet Union wasn't a dynasty yet -- at least not at the very top. It came across to me as that bleak and desperate, the 'last hope value' of a dynasty.​

Does anything about the politician culture of the UK suggest the royals are a 'desperate last hope' for many people that the system as it exists is worth keeping? Basically, the opposite of the old Soviet era view for some folks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Geez as an American I now see them as a benign figureheads of national pride and tradition. No harm done.

You seem to be working from a different understanding of "benign" than the rest of us.

Edit: BTW - when you say "national pride and tradition," which nation did you have in mind?

 

[Secret Chief]

I had heard that the status of the monarchy as figureheads was more "unofficial" even if it was the general practice. That is, there's no law or nothing in writing that would prevent a monarch from taking back control and becoming an autocrat, if they wanted to.

We ain't got nuffink in writing! Our constitution is unwritten.

 

[Secret Chief]

Does anything about the politician culture of the UK suggest the royals are a 'desperate last hope' for many people that the system as it exists is worth keeping?

It doesn't strike me as being so, but what do I know (not being a royalist)? For royal supporters I think they are viewed as something outside of politics; a source of dignified continuity and a bit of a soap opera. I don't detect anything desperate or last hopey. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You ought to take a lesson from us Yanks and throw out the monarchists. "No more kings!"

Throwing out the monarchs is one thing, but throwing out the monarchists?

Exiling your political opponents isn't exactly a great first step for a country that claims to be founded on liberty.

It's not as bad as, say, literally enslaving people, but it's still pretty bad.