Now, to the best of my knowledge, no one here is a citizen of the United Kingdom (and thus has no say in the matter), but this is still an issue I ponder every once in a while and would like to put forward to the Soap Box: Is the monarchy in Great Britain a total anachronism that should be expunged straightaway, or does it still have some merit?

Again, I am obviously asking you all to put yourselves in the shoes of one of the Queen's subjects, since this is of very little relevance to others, but I'm still curious.

But now it's off to the bar so I won't see responses until later.

2/21/2007 9:59:07 PM

Why do you single out Great Britain?

I can think of many de-facto royalty in the US. Bushs, Kennedys, and Clintons.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2007 10:03:51 PM

From what I understand the UK is a constitutional monarchy and the royalty wields mostly ceremonial power.

2/21/2007 10:17:30 PM

what do either ^^ or ^ have to do with the question posed?

i think it needs to be done away with

no one is born "special"

2/21/2007 10:19:37 PM

Quote :

"Is the monarchy in Great Britain a total anachronism that should be expunged straightaway, or does it still have some merit?"

They serve as ceremonial heads of state and are a source of pride for the English empire. And if for no other reason, they keep the country's tabloid newspapers in business.

2/21/2007 10:23:41 PM

english empire?

what english empire? i guess the falklands must be real important.

2/21/2007 10:31:01 PM

Today they are purely ceremonial, but the day may come when the Monarchy will be called upon to fill a larger role; such as defending the Rights of Englishmen from Parliament or the EU, maybe leading a movement to maintain the integrity of the Kingdom against either internal or foreign enemies.

2/21/2007 11:06:51 PM

Quote :

"They serve as ceremonial heads of state and are a source of pride for the English empire. And if for no other reason, they keep the country's tabloid newspapers in business."

agreed. also it does provide some stability

2/21/2007 11:07:27 PM

Getting alot of face time with the prime minister (and maybe being a required consultant on some issues) can still be pretty influential.

2/21/2007 11:12:25 PM

England should keep the Monarchy. Sure it's useless these days, but it kinda sounds important. Sort of like our country's Constitution.

2/21/2007 11:27:36 PM

Quote :

"Getting alot of face time with the prime minister (and maybe being a required consultant on some issues) can still be pretty influential."

My thoughts exactly. Queen Elizabeth has advised ten prime ministers, including Churchill, and thus has some valuable insight. Charles, meanwhile, has probably listened to his mom talk about those meetings to some extent.

Ultimately, I can see some value in having a person who has been a constant figure in politics. It's kind of why I'd like to see sitting presidents seek more advice from past presidents.

2/22/2007 2:18:31 AM

But if they got rid of the monarchy who would Canada and Australia be ruled by?

2/22/2007 2:46:58 AM

did someone just watch that movie?

2/22/2007 3:26:28 AM

i dont think the Brits give a flying fuck what Americans think about their Constitutional Monarchy.


GRUMPY: go see the movie "The Queen" with Helen Mirren. it's a good movie; you'd dig it.

oh, nm. apparently you just watched it.



[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 3:46 AM. Reason : i should read all posts b4 replying]

2/22/2007 3:45:17 AM

I saw the movie a few weeks ago. I won't deny that it put the issue more to the forefront of my thinking, but it has been there for a while regardless. If nothing else, it's just intriguing: a nation that is clearly devoted to democracy simultaneously devoted to its hereditary monarch.

And I know they don't care what we think, but I do, hence my creation of this thread.

2/22/2007 3:52:10 AM

^ because an unbroken line of sovereigns dating back 1000 years is hard to just throw away due to modern sensibilities. its heritage and tradition and is part of the collective self image of the nation.

its like your own personal family history/heirlooms/whatever. you adn your family can make fun of it and joke around and talk about how "worthless" such-and-such is... but some outsider comes along talking shit, and you're gonna defend your family.

The monarchy is a hugely valuable cultural resource. largely intangible, but they are also the necessary caretakers of an enormous amount of art, land, buildings, history... much of which is priceless and unreplaceable.







[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 4:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2007 3:57:05 AM

http://www.monarchy.net/

2/22/2007 6:28:20 AM

The British style constitutional monarchy is only one version, but there are advantages in separating the head of state from head of government. Thus why many countries have a president and prime minister.

2/22/2007 6:32:05 AM

Get rid of the whole fucking lot of rubbish.

Sell the palaces, put the works of art in museums, cut off the funds for the royal family and make the bastards work for a living.

I'm a moderate, though. I don't endorse the French or Russian model of disposing of monarchy. (Although the downside to dead royalty is hard to see).

2/22/2007 8:57:38 AM

I really think the idea of Aristocracy behind the monarchy is dead. They're just a really rich family who happens to live in a gigantic castle in London.

Also the royal blood line has changed several times with a few unfortunate events over the last thousand years. Nothing is set in stone.

2/22/2007 9:03:33 AM

^ and be publically funded...

of course, that's not to say that i'm anti-monarchy, although i'd like to see what kind of revenue they actually bring in to the british people (in the form of tourism, their presence in diplomatic talks, possible investments in british companies...)

2/22/2007 9:11:04 AM

If they can sustain it without public funds, they should try to do that.

2/22/2007 9:25:33 AM

have you ever been to Windsor castle?

Im sure maintaining that alone is over their budget.

2/22/2007 9:47:07 AM

Quote :

"Is the monarchy in Great Britain a total anachronism that should be expunged straightaway, or does it still have some merit? "

It should be retained. Why? Cause the British have a system where the country's patriotism is not directed toward the country's chief politician. As anyone that's lived in the USA the last 15 years under the last 2 presidents know, we have politically-charged decisions made and then our leaders wrap themselves up in a flag and say "why are you hurting the country?" Such arguments might be made in Britain, but have far less merit than they do here.

Case in point, think of how screwed up Britain would be if its patriotism were directed to Tony Blair.

[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2007 10:08:45 AM

Quote :

"because an unbroken line of sovereigns dating back 1000 years is hard to just throw away due to modern sensibilities. its heritage and tradition and is part of the collective self image of the nation."

"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

2/22/2007 10:39:02 AM

The royal family is a great return on investment. The tourist dollars alone that the monarchy generates makes it so.

2/22/2007 11:10:21 AM

I can't run around claiming to be emperor just because some watery bint lobbed a scimitar at me!

2/22/2007 11:12:19 AM

Bush could only hope to appoint himself king

2/22/2007 11:16:22 AM

Quote :

"i think it needs to be done away with no one is born "special""

You know- I've wondered.... what if the royal family had retarded children?

Would they have a retarded king or queen? Then they'd be "special".

2/22/2007 1:01:19 PM

How about this -- do you think the monarchy will cease to be in our lifetimes? Elizabeth is immensely popular, and she has an air that does invite respect and affection...but so far as I can tell, Charles and his fucked-up little offspring are not nearly as popular nor inherently respectable. Will they be more likely to give it the axe (or perhaps take away some of its trappings and spend less money on them) when they have a guy they don't idolize so much?

2/22/2007 1:23:08 PM

From the Brits that I've spoken to it seems like they like the monarchy just because it's entertaining and a source of pride and they have no desire to take them away. I'm sure if they made any power plays it'd be different though.

2/22/2007 1:44:07 PM

Quote :

"Is the monarchy in Great Britain a total anachronism that should be expunged straightaway, or does it still have some merit?"

I believe that the royal families of constiutional monarchies like Great Britain still serves an important purpose as a national symbol. Here in the United States, we are united by a common ideology built around the constitution. Yet most stable nations of this world are built around a common ethnic and cultural heritage. The monarchy is a symbol of that heritage and is in some ways, a representative of the unique cultural traditions of that nation. The older the nation, the stronger this sense is.

You have more extreme cases like Japan, where the monarchy, though powerless for most of its history, has been continuous for nearly the entire written history of the nation (I think somewhere between fifteen through twenty centuries). Even if they don't wield any real political clout, they are a symbol of all that is Japanese, and nearly every government in Japan during those periods have always claimed to be executing the will of the Emperor.

I'm not as familiar with the British monarchy, but I would imagine they play a similar role. They are a living link to the nation's past, recently from the glorious British Empire to its perseverence during the Second World War. They capture the imagination of the Commonwealth, or as mentioned above, at very least provide some entertainment and tabloid fodder (kind of like how we near-worship celebrities in this country).

As for how much longer it will last, I really don't know. Charles may be scandal-ridden, but his sons don't seem to be nearly as tainted. I can see members of the Commonwealth ditching their governor-generals and going republican on the monarchy, but barring some horrific scandal, I can't see the house of Windsor being booted anytime in the near future.

2/22/2007 1:58:44 PM

It is tradition. "For King and Country." Not every country in the world has to follow americas standard for government.

2/22/2007 2:07:50 PM

I mean, they don't even have as much money as that harry potter author.

I don't think there's anything to get too emotional about here. There not that 'special.' Functionally, they're like the main exhibit at a zoo.

2/22/2007 2:31:03 PM

By the way, the third in the line of succession to the throne just got posted and will be deployed in Iraq as a commanding officer.

Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6383747.stm

Editorial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6385169.stm

2/22/2007 4:01:15 PM

It all comes down to one thing:

Any guy in that family could have consensual sex with any woman in the UK whenever they wanted to with absolutely no effort and that is awesome. So yes, I support the royal family.

America doesn't have a family like that. Maybe the Kennedys, but if that were true none of them would be convicted rapists.

2/22/2007 4:28:33 PM

dude, Wraith is British.

2/22/2007 4:45:12 PM

Quote :

"do you think the monarchy will cease to be in our lifetimes? "

I very much doubt it. In my experience, and based on opinion surveys I dimly recall seeing, the great majority of the Poms want to see the sorry spectacle of the monarchy continue. The "hard left" of labour is pretty staunchly anti-monarchist, but they're hardly representative of the populace as a whole. I expect it will go on more or less as it has for the foreseeable future.

2/22/2007 4:56:41 PM

Quote :

"America doesn't have a family like that. Maybe the Kennedys, but if that were true none of them would be convicted rapists."

I don't know if that Skakel guy counts. He's just a second cousin right?

Anyway, the Kennedys though are pretty much finished. What with the death of JFK Jr. a few years ago, who else is there in the public eye once Ted's gone? There's a representative from Rhode Island I see here, but I've never really heard of him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family

The Bushes are probably the new Kennedys as far as aristocrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family

Quote :

"George W. Bush and his opponent in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election John Kerry share a common ancestor in Edmund Reade (1563-1623) and his wife Elizabeth Cooke. Bush and Kerry are 9th cousins, twice removed"

[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2007 6:09:54 PM

^ My bad. I forgot that William Kennedy Smith was acquitted.

But I agree that the Kennedys are on the way out, if they're not out already.

2/22/2007 6:22:16 PM

^^ Fairly or unfairly, given the last six years, I seriously doubt anyone is going to put another member of the Bush clan into office for a very long time. That name is going to be the left's equivalent of how the right throws around the great Clinton boogyman.

You can hardly compare the Kennedy's or the Bush's to the House of Windsor. Queen Elizabeth II is a symbol of the British state and will continue to be so no matter what the political mood is in the country. The Kennedy's or the Bush's are more like noble houses who are widely known, wield a lot of influence, but ultimately, no one associates America as a whole with those to families (if you believe the entire "We like America but we hate your government" line that foreigners like to say these days).

2/22/2007 6:37:44 PM

Quote :

""George W. Bush and his opponent in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election John Kerry share a common ancestor in Edmund Reade (1563-1623) and his wife Elizabeth Cooke. Bush and Kerry are 9th cousins, twice removed""

thats really interesting.

but its also not especially meaningful, except that they can trace back to some royal person or other.

I read somewhere that geneticists have mathematically shown that most everyone on the planet is at least 14th cousins. meaning that everyone has a common ancestor to anyone else within at least 14 generations (sharing a 14-greats grandparent).




[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

2/23/2007 11:40:39 AM

^ That is awesome! How sure are they? 14 generations does not sound like a lot.

2/23/2007 11:46:15 AM

you know, i cant remember where i read that.

Im trying to find a source for that now.

2/23/2007 11:48:58 AM

2/24/2007 11:41:31 AM

Quote :

"England should keep the Monarchy. Sure it's useless these days, but it kinda sounds important. Sort of like our country's Constitution. "

Quote :

"Functionally, they're like the main exhibit at a zoo."

2/24/2007 3:34:40 PM

Quote :

"i think it needs to be done away with no one is born "special""

correct, but some are born to special people in special circumstances, like say, bill gates kids


I've still not read a valid argument for abolishing it in this thread.

all the "mandate of the masses" crap is all nice and good but 1000 years ago no one gave a crap, you rallied around the guy with armor, weapons, and an interest in having you alive and productive. that sounds like a "mandate of the masses" like it is today. very few monarchies survived by pissing off their populace... but then again the arguments against the monarchy here are made by some of the most ignorant in matters of history.

but by all means keep making fools of yourselves, it's quite entertaining

2/27/2007 10:03:48 AM

Quote :

"In my experience, and based on opinion surveys I dimly recall seeing, the great majority of the Poms want to see the sorry spectacle of the monarchy continue."

I've heard the same, but I'm also forced to wonder if part of that isn't a function of the fact that right now they have a particularly well-loved and respectable monarch in Elizabeth. Frankly, I doubt it, but I wonder if the winds will change when they have to toast a dumbo-eared adulterer who hasn't been sovereign their whole lives.

Quote :

"I read somewhere that geneticists have mathematically shown that most everyone on the planet is at least 14th cousins."

Ehh...I'm not so sure about this. Maybe in America (hell, maybe even America and Europe together), but there are large populations of people in the world that just haven't spread much. It's gonna be a tough sell that I'm 14th cousin to Mbwebe the Kalahari bushman or Atilla the Mongol shepherd or, frankly, to any of the millions of Li's in China.

2/27/2007 12:49:31 PM

14 does sound a little low, but not by much.

All it takes is one English missionary, that is 7 jumps away from you, to have taken a wife in China, to which all Chinese are 7 jumps away, and bam: you are only 14 jumps away from every single chinaman.

You've heard the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, right?

2/27/2007 1:22:53 PM