Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Monarchy?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
You mean you don't believe that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a reasonable basis for a system of government?
Any form of governing is legitimate imo. Whether we like it or not is not really the root of whether or not it functions.
I was going to respond to the question of legitimacy by making the comment that in a technical sense, a legitimate form of government would be one that is self-sustaining.
I think legitimacy can be evaluated relative to that country's established norms or custom, but doesn't a post-revolutionary government become "legitimate" once it appears to stably persist?
I think it's a matter of value judgments, not reason.
Monarchy is anti-democratic, but it's not like logic demands that a person support democracy.
I think people accept monarchy because they're used to it. It's been there for as long as they remember so in a way it's part of their cultural identity, regardless of its usefulness. And then the press loves the monarchy because it helps sell rags.
Maybe just history. I read that Queen Elizabeth direct ancestorial royal line goes back 1000 years.
The whole thing is poopy. And my country having a 'figurehead' who is a foreign national, the head of a church, etc, is particularly poopy.
I'm not sure poopy is the most nuanced descriptor, but it adequately conveys my broad distaste without transgression.
We've had such winning arguments here in support of it as;
1) We shouldn't be talking about a republic whilst people are still mourning the death of the Queen. Which has some merit. I'd give them a couple of weeks grace. But since those same folk didn't want to talk republic whilst the Queen was alive, it does strike me as a wee bit disingenuous.
2) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That type of brilliant analysis would leave me wondering why we ever bothered to grant women the vote.
3) You won't get the sort of service we got from the Queen from an elected official, as she spent her whole life in service. Well, sure. We typically wouldn't elect anyone for a period of 70 years. In fact, we explicitly prevent it, because it's not generally seen as a positive.
4) The reason the Queen is a vital cog in our democracy is because she does nothing, offers no opinion, and rubber stamps things without adding and value or judgement. And she does it with style.
Suffice to say I find the whole thing ridiculous, and am somewhat frustrated at the level of discussion going on here. Or not going on. Including by republicans, who appear somewhat politically inept.
You say that...but...
Our government was effectively sacked by the Governor General in the seventies. So whilst the Queen was effectively just a rubber stamp of the decision made by the Governor General, it still rankles (to me). We are asking permission of King Charles III of England to handle our own government in a time of crisis? Eeeew.
Last edited:
Well...the whole concept of what is 'royal' is somewhat arbitrary. And royalty has largely acted like a very exclusive club, and married within it's own elite bounds to reinforce this notion.
At times that has helped form alliances, etc, of course, but that is somewhat outdated. And equally, familial connections can lead to squabbles (the familial connections prevalent in some of the main actors of WW1 for example).
But for the sake of information, I would think this spells out what you're talking about;
Ancestry of Elizabeth II | Familypedia | Fandom
I will mute my thoughts about Germanic royal lines ruling a United Kingdom, and having constitutional authority over Australia for a moment.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Because people are backwards and brainwashed by pageantry and cults of personality.
For me it’s easy,the monarch isn’t actually a person it’s an office without political opinion since Charles I,a rally point,who wants to rally around Trump Bush Putin or Xi.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Some people enjoy pomp and ceremony. Tradition is important for others. A lot of people are dazzled by the accumulation of vast wealth - and associate the ability to acquire said wealth as an indicator of a person's inherent quality.
The function of monarchy is to protect/enrich/entrench themselves and their class, imo. This is why they still exist in some places and why they are brutally murdered in others.
I'm personally of the opinion that monarchies should be abolished, their estates reclaimed, their crimes punished/resolved and their offshore accounts emptied. I could live with having royals if it was just some normal family that had inherited some decorative gowns and marble-mouthed accents who recieved nothing from taxpayers.
Like, "aw there's wee Janie cycling to work at the Apple store in his full royal regalia again", kind of thing. Not, "aw there's Liz paying off her son's sexual assault victims with our money, lobbying to claim money put aside for freezing pensioners, and hiding unknown quantities of stolen wealth in Panama", kind of thing.
In the case of Canada, it probably comes down to 3 things:
- Elizabeth was relatively popular. It's only in the last decade or so that the majority of Canadians stopped supporting staying a monarchy.
- our constitutional threshold to get rid of the monarchy is ridiculously high. It will take the support of the House of Commons, the Senate, AND the legislature of EVERY province. I don't know how long it will take before this is actually achievable. It would probably need the monarchy to be actively reviled across the entire country.
- even if the threshold were lower, politicians in Canada are loathe to even bring up the idea of constitutional amendment out of fear that it could spark a new Quebec separatist movement, similar to what happened in the fallout from the Meech Lake Accord. Constitutional amendment is the third rail of Canadian politics, and abolishment of the monarchy won't happen without constitutional amendment.
exchemist
Veteran Member
There are two points that have occurred to me about this, while observing the rituals associated with the death of Elizabeth II.
First, there are arguments for having a head of state separate from the head of the government executive. This is the arrangement countries with c.20th constitutions have tended to opt for, e.g. Germany, Italy, Ireland, Israel. The advantage is to reduce the power of the head of government, who is an elected politician with a short term in office and who probably will not command respect right across the political spectrum. The idea is to have as head of state someone who is above party politics, can be psychologically a unifying force for the nation and who is theoretically senior to the most senior politician. (If one thinks of Trump for a moment, one can see the point.)
Second, if you buy the first argument you have 2 choices: either someone periodically nominated to the post, whether by election or by some committee of trusted people, or someone chosen on the basis of national tradition, who thereby represents continuity, in contrast to the ephemeral politicians on the scene. Both can work. Those countries with a strong sense of a long history that they are proud of (unlike, say, Germany and Italy) may prefer to retain a hereditary monarch for the purpose. Do bear in mind that one of the big differences between the New World and Old World is this sense of history*. It is a big part of national character in the Old World.
Retaining a monarchy is what all the Scandinavian countries do, it's what the Netherlands and Belgium do, it's what the UK does and, interestingly, it is what Spain opted to return to, after the death of Franco. That king, as it happens, thwarted a military coup, merely by going on TV and saying he was having none of it. As the armed forces swear allegiance to the king, that was instantly game over for the coup leaders!
So while monarchy may have its problems, it is not at all clear to me that the alternatives are any better, at least for countries such as these.
* When I lived in Houston for a couple of years I came to the conclusion that this lack of history and tradition was something I would never feel comfortable with. There was this sense of rootlessness and constant reinvention. But then I'm from the Old World.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I don't want charlie full stop.
That's an interesting question. My gut would be to say that a government like the DPRK, for example, is illegitimate because it's violations of basic human rights are so pervasive and it's essentially a dictatorship. I don't know what the mechanism should be to enforce that sort of thing, though.
Then it seems like there's no point in calling them a monarch? Since they perform none of the functions of an actual monarch. Seems purely vestigial as @MikeF noted.
Thank you for explaining this! I knew nothing about those internal Canadian politics.
Indeed, what makes something legitimate other than the power to make it so, be it the one, the few, or the many who hold that power.
You seem to express the need for a moral component for legitimacy, but what about the contrast between a society that optimizes satisfying individuals goals vs a society that emphasizes the collective well-being over any one individuals needs. Is one more legitimate than the other on moral grounds?