@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
There's a lot of powerful vested interest in maintaining The Firm, sadly.
anyone notice the Spanish Royals at the wedding ?
King Felipe and his missus Letizia more or less ignored his Dad the exiled Juan Carlos.
Juan Carlos was with his estranged missus Queen Sofia...probably the first time they've laid eyes on eachother in years
Very awk
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it comes with positivity also, not that you would particularly gleam that from his assertions, or yours.
Hence why the majority of the country are in favour of having a monarchy.
The negative baggage that you are referring to is from the angry minority with an ever louder voice. Similar to many social topics in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People keep spouting this as though it were fact when it has never been tested by referendum and isn't likely to be. Also, we could only decide when we know what the alternative on the table is - this isn't Brexit ffs.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 53 minutes ago
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you sum it up here much better than previously.
I don't agree with the historical baggage point, however. She is not to blame for the negatives of the empire or colonialism. She didn't enact the policies, nor was she able to stop most of them.
I do not hold people to account for the actions of their forbearers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she could have resisted things like Apartheid more than she did, no? She could have given more support to a lot of movements for justice and freedom. Even a word of support would have gone a long way.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
As for the claim that the monarchy makes us stronger vis-a-vis the rest of the world... Prince Andrew / Epstein and the shunning (with overtones of racism) of Harry & Megan were massive news stories in North America. And over the last fortnight much of Africa was reminiscing about the legacy of empire, with which Elizabeth II was strongly linked.
The royal family is indeed a symbol of Britain around the world, but more particularly a symbol of a colonial and rigidly class-based, pre-democratic Britain. I wouldn't overstate how much affection the rest of the world has for this, especially at a time when the global south is growing in cultural and economic self-confidence and post-Brexit UK looks both jingoistic and wounded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the royal family do have an identifiable brand that's recognised around the world and largely appreciated. We can't say if it's better or worse than a potential alternative as we don't have any to compare it to.
Sure, the brand's taken a bit of a beating in recent years but they still poll pretty strongly. And while they do symbolise things that many of us reject in our daily lives, for better or worse they do represent a big part of Britain's identity. It's one thing to say you don't like that or it should change, another entirely to come up with something to replace it that's an improvement.
In your earlier post, you suggested that now is the time to talk about this. That getting rid of the royal family isn't a panacea but something to be considered. I definitely agree, I'm just urging caution. Because though now is a great time to have these conversations it's a terrible time to come to conclusions. There's really no rush.
Also have to agree on your points regarding the issues with the American and British electoral systems. The concern for me is that we'll go blindly into a republic like we did with Brexit. Campaigns based on empty promises and bad research influenced by more propaganda and spin. I know that's a separate argument about politics and the influence of social media etc but I think it's important to note that the democratic process is also not a panacea.
I wish I could be more positive about it but there really isn't much in recent history to be proud of in Britain.
Also have to agree on your points regarding the issues with the American and British electoral systems. The concern for me is that we'll go blindly into a republic like we did with Brexit.
———
I doubt this. The right wing in Britain is very much aligned with the privilege that the Monarchy represents. I don’t see them wanting to weaken that by making Britain more democratic.
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are intertwined. I don’t see a right wing led leap into Republicanism.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are intertwined. I don’t see a right wing led leap into Republicanism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah your point is valid it's just not what I was talking about.
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're extrapolating what he's written and coming to a pretty hysterical conclusion yourself. I can't see anywhere where the Monarchy is portrayed as maniacal, malevolent or cruel, and I take the point that it's very existence has an undue influence on the nation's psyche. Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
———
The latter will have to happen before the latter can.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
*former
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so, although clearing out feudal relics and starting fresh would be exhilarating
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had me at proportional representation!
But seriously, I appreciate that you're engaging for the sake of socialising these ideas and I think you've probably noticed I'm doing similar from a 'pro monarchy' stance to provide some discussion points to make people think about what it actually is they dislike about the monarchy and if that's important.
I notice you've made mention several times of the negative connotations of feudal times that having a royal family brings along with it. And I certainly see that side of it having a negative impact on our politics. The House of Lords should probably be done away with. Though I think a lot of the pageantry should be considered carefully before we remove it. Outdated and weird sure, but that's a part of Britain that people around the world identify with, love or hate.
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the alien in question doesn't have the capacity to comprehend human language. Where have I argued that the monarchy is cruel or maniacal? What I'm talking about is the way our monarchy is *represented* to the public and the impact that has on our cultural-political discourse. The grandiosity and deference is on a totally different scale to other European monarchies. The pomp and ceremony have not shed the trappings of history, so royal events do very much carry the symbolism of divine right and of empire in a way e.g. you don't see with the modern Spanish monarchy. The Dutch / Norwegian broadcasters tend to treat their royals something more like a ceremonial elected president rather than with the hushed reverence of Nicholas Witchell. This is why the UK's royal family has a much higher profile around the world than any other: it's quite a powerful spectacle. And it's why big royal events deliver such a powerful emotional blow to the guts of the nation. Those in favour of the monarchy should not disagree with a word of this, because it's this very grandiosity and link to centuries of history that create a response in millions of people, and which monarchists value as an important stabilising and unifying factor.
What I'm saying is that this powerful cultural force also has quite a strong conservative impact on our political imagination. I don't blame the royal family personally for that, and I'd be much happier if we could evolve into a constitutional monarchy which, like Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. was able to modernise its political structures to maximise democratic engagement.
Which I hope you'll acknowledge is a more nuanced argument than simply demonising the monarchy.
Abolition of the Monarchy would be a consequence of addressing that wealth inequality, though. It’s not something that people are arguing against in isolation.
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Abolition of the Monarchy would be a consequence of addressing that wealth inequality, though. It’s not something that people are arguing against in isolation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be, and as I've said before I'm no fan of the super rich. But if you're addressing wealth inequality you have to go after capitalism first. There's plenty of people richer than the royals. I understand that argument isn't being made in isolation, I'm just saying that their wealth alone doesn't constitute a good reason to remove them.
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're extrapolating what he's written and coming to a pretty hysterical conclusion yourself. I can't see anywhere where the Monarchy is portrayed as maniacal, malevolent or cruel, and I take the point that it's very existence has an undue influence on the nation's psyche. Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was exaggerating, yes. But he mentioned crimes of the empire with no mention of the positives that are also associated with the monarchy and/or empire. So an outsider would understandably think that this was a tyrannical empire which had no positive influences at all. Unless ‘pomp’ is supposed to be some form of compliment, of course.
There’s no balance there at all.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the alien in question doesn't have the capacity to comprehend human language. Where have I argued that the monarchy is cruel or maniacal? What I'm talking about is the way our monarchy is *represented* to the public and the impact that has on our cultural-political discourse. The grandiosity and deference is on a totally different scale to other European monarchies. The pomp and ceremony have not shed the trappings of history, so royal events do very much carry the symbolism of divine right and of empire in a way e.g. you don't see with the modern Spanish monarchy. The Dutch / Norwegian broadcasters tend to treat their royals something more like a ceremonial elected president rather than with the hushed reverence of Nicholas Witchell. This is why the UK's royal family has a much higher profile around the world than any other: it's quite a powerful spectacle. And it's why big royal events deliver such a powerful emotional blow to the guts of the nation. Those in favour of the monarchy should not disagree with a word of this, because it's this very grandiosity and link to centuries of history that create a response in millions of people, and which monarchists value as an important stabilising and unifying factor.
What I'm saying is that this powerful cultural force also has quite a strong conservative impact on our political imagination. I don't blame the royal family personally for that, and I'd be much happier if we could evolve into a constitutional monarchy which, like Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. was able to modernise its political structures to maximise democratic engagement.
Which I hope you'll acknowledge is a more nuanced argument than simply demonising the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see my post above. There’s no mention of ANY of the positives.
Most people I’ve encountered that are in favour of abolition of the Monarchy went after capitalism years ago. The subject has just inevitably come up again with the death of the Queen. And it’s not just wealth alone that people are arguing.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. I'm at the point where we could keep them around as figureheads while reforming politics and putting some of their assets (primarily land) to better use. The best of both worlds, if you will.
Though I do take issue with your suggestion that there's a society most of us want. While I personally see value in moving on from the reverence around monarchy broadly speaking the royals still have approval. Not that there's going to be a vote, but they'd still be in power if there were one today. Though I suspect in the coming years that could change rapidly. Charles does not have the same charm his mother did.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queens funeral today
Page 12 of 20
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
posted on 20/9/22
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
posted on 20/9/22
There's a lot of powerful vested interest in maintaining The Firm, sadly.
posted on 20/9/22
anyone notice the Spanish Royals at the wedding ?
King Felipe and his missus Letizia more or less ignored his Dad the exiled Juan Carlos.
Juan Carlos was with his estranged missus Queen Sofia...probably the first time they've laid eyes on eachother in years
Very awk
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it comes with positivity also, not that you would particularly gleam that from his assertions, or yours.
Hence why the majority of the country are in favour of having a monarchy.
The negative baggage that you are referring to is from the angry minority with an ever louder voice. Similar to many social topics in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People keep spouting this as though it were fact when it has never been tested by referendum and isn't likely to be. Also, we could only decide when we know what the alternative on the table is - this isn't Brexit ffs.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 53 minutes ago
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you sum it up here much better than previously.
I don't agree with the historical baggage point, however. She is not to blame for the negatives of the empire or colonialism. She didn't enact the policies, nor was she able to stop most of them.
I do not hold people to account for the actions of their forbearers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she could have resisted things like Apartheid more than she did, no? She could have given more support to a lot of movements for justice and freedom. Even a word of support would have gone a long way.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
As for the claim that the monarchy makes us stronger vis-a-vis the rest of the world... Prince Andrew / Epstein and the shunning (with overtones of racism) of Harry & Megan were massive news stories in North America. And over the last fortnight much of Africa was reminiscing about the legacy of empire, with which Elizabeth II was strongly linked.
The royal family is indeed a symbol of Britain around the world, but more particularly a symbol of a colonial and rigidly class-based, pre-democratic Britain. I wouldn't overstate how much affection the rest of the world has for this, especially at a time when the global south is growing in cultural and economic self-confidence and post-Brexit UK looks both jingoistic and wounded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the royal family do have an identifiable brand that's recognised around the world and largely appreciated. We can't say if it's better or worse than a potential alternative as we don't have any to compare it to.
Sure, the brand's taken a bit of a beating in recent years but they still poll pretty strongly. And while they do symbolise things that many of us reject in our daily lives, for better or worse they do represent a big part of Britain's identity. It's one thing to say you don't like that or it should change, another entirely to come up with something to replace it that's an improvement.
In your earlier post, you suggested that now is the time to talk about this. That getting rid of the royal family isn't a panacea but something to be considered. I definitely agree, I'm just urging caution. Because though now is a great time to have these conversations it's a terrible time to come to conclusions. There's really no rush.
Also have to agree on your points regarding the issues with the American and British electoral systems. The concern for me is that we'll go blindly into a republic like we did with Brexit. Campaigns based on empty promises and bad research influenced by more propaganda and spin. I know that's a separate argument about politics and the influence of social media etc but I think it's important to note that the democratic process is also not a panacea.
I wish I could be more positive about it but there really isn't much in recent history to be proud of in Britain.
posted on 20/9/22
Also have to agree on your points regarding the issues with the American and British electoral systems. The concern for me is that we'll go blindly into a republic like we did with Brexit.
———
I doubt this. The right wing in Britain is very much aligned with the privilege that the Monarchy represents. I don’t see them wanting to weaken that by making Britain more democratic.
posted on 20/9/22
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are intertwined. I don’t see a right wing led leap into Republicanism.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Separate issues, Marcus. I was referring to the problems with FPTP voting that Red Russian mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are intertwined. I don’t see a right wing led leap into Republicanism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah your point is valid it's just not what I was talking about.
posted on 20/9/22
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're extrapolating what he's written and coming to a pretty hysterical conclusion yourself. I can't see anywhere where the Monarchy is portrayed as maniacal, malevolent or cruel, and I take the point that it's very existence has an undue influence on the nation's psyche. Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
posted on 20/9/22
Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
———
The latter will have to happen before the latter can.
posted on 20/9/22
*former
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
*former
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so, although clearing out feudal relics and starting fresh would be exhilarating
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had me at proportional representation!
But seriously, I appreciate that you're engaging for the sake of socialising these ideas and I think you've probably noticed I'm doing similar from a 'pro monarchy' stance to provide some discussion points to make people think about what it actually is they dislike about the monarchy and if that's important.
I notice you've made mention several times of the negative connotations of feudal times that having a royal family brings along with it. And I certainly see that side of it having a negative impact on our politics. The House of Lords should probably be done away with. Though I think a lot of the pageantry should be considered carefully before we remove it. Outdated and weird sure, but that's a part of Britain that people around the world identify with, love or hate.
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the alien in question doesn't have the capacity to comprehend human language. Where have I argued that the monarchy is cruel or maniacal? What I'm talking about is the way our monarchy is *represented* to the public and the impact that has on our cultural-political discourse. The grandiosity and deference is on a totally different scale to other European monarchies. The pomp and ceremony have not shed the trappings of history, so royal events do very much carry the symbolism of divine right and of empire in a way e.g. you don't see with the modern Spanish monarchy. The Dutch / Norwegian broadcasters tend to treat their royals something more like a ceremonial elected president rather than with the hushed reverence of Nicholas Witchell. This is why the UK's royal family has a much higher profile around the world than any other: it's quite a powerful spectacle. And it's why big royal events deliver such a powerful emotional blow to the guts of the nation. Those in favour of the monarchy should not disagree with a word of this, because it's this very grandiosity and link to centuries of history that create a response in millions of people, and which monarchists value as an important stabilising and unifying factor.
What I'm saying is that this powerful cultural force also has quite a strong conservative impact on our political imagination. I don't blame the royal family personally for that, and I'd be much happier if we could evolve into a constitutional monarchy which, like Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. was able to modernise its political structures to maximise democratic engagement.
Which I hope you'll acknowledge is a more nuanced argument than simply demonising the monarchy.
posted on 20/9/22
Abolition of the Monarchy would be a consequence of addressing that wealth inequality, though. It’s not something that people are arguing against in isolation.
posted on 20/9/22
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Abolition of the Monarchy would be a consequence of addressing that wealth inequality, though. It’s not something that people are arguing against in isolation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be, and as I've said before I'm no fan of the super rich. But if you're addressing wealth inequality you have to go after capitalism first. There's plenty of people richer than the royals. I understand that argument isn't being made in isolation, I'm just saying that their wealth alone doesn't constitute a good reason to remove them.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're extrapolating what he's written and coming to a pretty hysterical conclusion yourself. I can't see anywhere where the Monarchy is portrayed as maniacal, malevolent or cruel, and I take the point that it's very existence has an undue influence on the nation's psyche. Take it away and the path to social and political reform could look a bit clearer (at absolutely no cost to anyone apart from the Royal Family themselves).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was exaggerating, yes. But he mentioned crimes of the empire with no mention of the positives that are also associated with the monarchy and/or empire. So an outsider would understandably think that this was a tyrannical empire which had no positive influences at all. Unless ‘pomp’ is supposed to be some form of compliment, of course.
There’s no balance there at all.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
@Sadiq Khan
I'm certainly not blaming the Queen for the actions of her forebears. I'm not blaming her personally for anything. My argument is about the cultural and political impact of the monarchy, and the particular way in which it is packaged in this country (in comparison e.g. with the Scandinavian monarchies) with an extreme pomp that explicitly references the Empire (incidentally, some of whose crimes were still taking place during ER's reign) and the pre-democratic divine credentials of kings.
I won't repeat myself now, but without this kind of monarchical grandeur central to our national identity, I don't think we'd have an unelected legislative chamber in the 21st century, probably wouldn't still have a national identity crisis about being a only medium-sized player on the world stage, or have a strange deference toward con-men with plummy accents.
None of that is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II, and for all I know she might have agreed with me while believing she had no right to voice an opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see how one-sided your posts are? If an alien were to read your posts on this, they would be forgiven for mistaking our monarchy for being some maniacal, malevolent, cruel institution more akin to that which was around 400 years ago say.
I agree that if it were to be created today or not created today, we would most likely not have a monarchy but that’s not happening so little pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the alien in question doesn't have the capacity to comprehend human language. Where have I argued that the monarchy is cruel or maniacal? What I'm talking about is the way our monarchy is *represented* to the public and the impact that has on our cultural-political discourse. The grandiosity and deference is on a totally different scale to other European monarchies. The pomp and ceremony have not shed the trappings of history, so royal events do very much carry the symbolism of divine right and of empire in a way e.g. you don't see with the modern Spanish monarchy. The Dutch / Norwegian broadcasters tend to treat their royals something more like a ceremonial elected president rather than with the hushed reverence of Nicholas Witchell. This is why the UK's royal family has a much higher profile around the world than any other: it's quite a powerful spectacle. And it's why big royal events deliver such a powerful emotional blow to the guts of the nation. Those in favour of the monarchy should not disagree with a word of this, because it's this very grandiosity and link to centuries of history that create a response in millions of people, and which monarchists value as an important stabilising and unifying factor.
What I'm saying is that this powerful cultural force also has quite a strong conservative impact on our political imagination. I don't blame the royal family personally for that, and I'd be much happier if we could evolve into a constitutional monarchy which, like Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. was able to modernise its political structures to maximise democratic engagement.
Which I hope you'll acknowledge is a more nuanced argument than simply demonising the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see my post above. There’s no mention of ANY of the positives.
posted on 20/9/22
Most people I’ve encountered that are in favour of abolition of the Monarchy went after capitalism years ago. The subject has just inevitably come up again with the death of the Queen. And it’s not just wealth alone that people are arguing.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. I'm at the point where we could keep them around as figureheads while reforming politics and putting some of their assets (primarily land) to better use. The best of both worlds, if you will.
Though I do take issue with your suggestion that there's a society most of us want. While I personally see value in moving on from the reverence around monarchy broadly speaking the royals still have approval. Not that there's going to be a vote, but they'd still be in power if there were one today. Though I suspect in the coming years that could change rapidly. Charles does not have the same charm his mother did.
Page 12 of 20
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17