Elizabeth II / Charles III megathread

[Michel Meilleur]

hey so knights are technically nobility right

how far down the line would we have to go to get king elton

Actually a knighthood is not considered to confer noble status in the British system of nobility. And the nobility and the line of succession are two entirely different things anyway. As far as I'm aware, Elton John is not a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and so ineligible to ascend the throne according to the terms of the 1701 Act of Settlement.

As Guillaume the bastard proved tho, "the monarch tots promised the crown to me before croaking" is a good enough claim if you've got enough foreign men-at-arms to back you up so King Elton might not be that impossible a dream to achieve.

[Old Hope]

The Queen and other members of the royal family are responsible for managing various estates as well as doing all their hand shaking and waving, and from what I understand they've all done it remarkably well and have a track record of doing good things for their tenants. The Queen definitely wasn't just sitting around, and neither was Charles when he was the Prince of Wales.

I don't believe anybody benefits from changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, I think politicians discussing it need to find something more important to do.

All of those things can be done by elected officials and their appointees, though.

Not really.
The monarch has extensive reserve powers an elected official would feel much more free to use. Elected officials also tend to be NOT politically neutral, not even publicly. Elected officials are usually more power-hungry than the average person. There are good reasons why a republic is NOT strictly better than a constitutional monarchy. Of course, sometimes you get an awful monarch, but that's not something limited to monarchs...
The monarch is there to stop the government to do what the public absolutely doesn't want, or needs to be consulted about, however, the monarch is not there to stop the people from repeatedly voting for (people with) bad policies. That's what happened in the UK, and the cure for that is not "abolish the monarchy".
Something else needs to be done. Currently the monarchy is preventing worse things from happening and should not be abolished.

[Ifreann]

All of those things can be done by elected officials and their appointees, though.

Not really.
The monarch has extensive reserve powers an elected official would feel much more free to use.

If that's a problem then clearly the monarch needs to lose some powers.

Elected officials also tend to be NOT politically neutral, not even publicly.

It's silly to pretend that the Head of State is politically neutral.

Elected officials are usually more power-hungry than the average person. There are good reasons why a republic is NOT strictly better than a constitutional monarchy. Of course, sometimes you get an awful monarch, but that's not something limited to monarchs...
The monarch is there to stop the government to do what the public absolutely doesn't want, or needs to be consulted about,

Not only does the monarchy not at all do this, these are very clearly powers that the public ought to have, rather than whatever random person happens to be born to the right parents in the right order.

however, the monarch is not there to stop the people from repeatedly voting for (people with) bad policies. That's what happened in the UK, and the cure for that is not "abolish the monarchy".
Something else needs to be done. Currently the monarchy is preventing worse things from happening and should not be abolished.

I have a rock here that repels tigers. Please give me several palaces.

[Fartsniffage]

The bike rack is where the council plans to have the queue to sign the book of remembrance in the town hall. It's so the pavement isn't blocked.

Couldn't they have picked a car parking space.

We don't tend to let vehicles park in front of government building. Throw back from the Troubles.

[The Archregimancy]

Actually a knighthood is not considered to confer noble status in the British system of nobility. And the nobility and the line of succession are two entirely different things anyway. As far as I'm aware, Elton John is not a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and so ineligible to ascend the throne according to the terms of the 1701 Act of Settlement.

As Guillaume the bastard proved tho, "the monarch tots promised the crown to me before croaking" is a good enough claim if you've got enough foreign men-at-arms to back you up so King Elton might not be that impossible a dream to achieve.

Guillaume le Conquérant did in fact have a hereditary claim to the throne by virtue of his great-aunt Emma's marriage to Aethelred II. That made William's father Robert I of Normandy the cousin of Edward the Confessor, the last Anglo-Saxon monarch.

William's claim certainly wasn't as good as those of Edgar the Atheling or the Kings of Scotland after Malcolm III Canmore (who married Edgar's sister Margaret), especially since it was based on proximity of relationship rather than on direct descent. It was, however, no worse than Harold II's claim to the throne; Harold was the brother-in-law of Edward the Confessor via his sister Edith. So while the allegation of Harold's supposed broken oath to William was used by the Normans for propaganda purposes, it wasn't the original justification for William's claim.

Essentially, England had a choice in 1066 between a 14-year-old boy (Edgar), the late King's brother-in-law (Harold II), the late King's first cousin once removed (William), or a Norwegian king claiming that the Danish House of Canute's claims to the English throne had devolved to the King of Norway (Harald Hardrada).

[Reverend Norv]

As Guillaume the bastard proved tho, "the monarch tots promised the crown to me before croaking" is a good enough claim if you've got enough foreign men-at-arms to back you up so King Elton might not be that impossible a dream to achieve.

Guillaume le Conquérant did in fact have a hereditary claim to the throne by virtue of his great-aunt Emma's marriage to Aethelred II. That made William's father Robert I of Normandy the cousin of Edward the Confessor, the last Anglo-Saxon monarch.

William's claim certainly wasn't as good as those of Edgar the Atheling or the Kings of Scotland after Malcolm III Canmore (who married Edgar's sister Margaret), especially since it was based on proximity of relationship rather than on direct descent. It was, however, no worse than Harold II's claim to the throne; Harold was the brother-in-law of Edward the Confessor via his sister Edith. So while the allegation of Harold's supposed broken oath to William was used by the Normans for propaganda purposes, it wasn't the original justification for William's claim.

Essentially, England had a choice in 1066 between a 14-year-old boy (Edgar), the late King's brother-in-law (Harold II), the late King's first cousin once removed (William), or a Norwegian king claiming that the Danish House of Canute's claims to the English throne had devolved to the King of Norway (Harald Hardrada).

What mattered more than dynastic claims was that the Witangemot chose Harold. And to bring us back on topic, reviving that system would add quite a bit of interest to present events - imagine if some modern equivalent of the Witan (perhaps the Lords and Commons in joint session?) had to meet and decide which of all the Queen's extended relations should inherit the crown. Considering the tone of ordinary parliamentary debate on quotidian subjects (like, say...cheese), I can only imagine the entertainment value of watching England's great and good try to choose their next monarch.

[Old Hope]

Not really.
The monarch has extensive reserve powers an elected official would feel much more free to use.

If that's a problem then clearly the monarch needs to lose some powers.

No, these reserve powers are not a problem as long as they are held by the monarch as actually attempting to misuse them would not end well for the monarch.
A term-limited president might be tempted to misuse them at the end of their term.
And a president for life (an elected monarch) would be much worse than an unelected monarch.

[Ifreann]

If that's a problem then clearly the monarch needs to lose some powers.

No, these reserve powers are not a problem as long as they are held by the monarch as actually attempting to misuse them would not end well for the monarch.
A term-limited president might be tempted to misuse them at the end of their term.
And a president for life (an elected monarch) would be much worse than an unelected monarch.

So the monarch gets to have these powers because if you don't like how they're used you'll kill the monarch, but a president couldn't have them because a president might just leave office and then...you couldn't kill them?

Or is it something other than death which the monarch must live under threat of? If King Charles misuses his power will he be thrown in prison? Presidents can be thrown in prison. Will he be fined? Presidents can be fined.

[Michel Meilleur]

Guillaume le Conquérant did in fact have a hereditary claim to the throne by virtue of his great-aunt Emma's marriage to Aethelred II. That made William's father Robert I of Normandy the cousin of Edward the Confessor, the last Anglo-Saxon monarch.

William's claim certainly wasn't as good as those of Edgar the Atheling or the Kings of Scotland after Malcolm III Canmore (who married Edgar's sister Margaret), especially since it was based on proximity of relationship rather than on direct descent. It was, however, no worse than Harold II's claim to the throne; Harold was the brother-in-law of Edward the Confessor via his sister Edith. So while the allegation of Harold's supposed broken oath to William was used by the Normans for propaganda purposes, it wasn't the original justification for William's claim.

Essentially, England had a choice in 1066 between a 14-year-old boy (Edgar), the late King's brother-in-law (Harold II), the late King's first cousin once removed (William), or a Norwegian king claiming that the Danish House of Canute's claims to the English throne had devolved to the King of Norway (Harald Hardrada).

But that doesn't change what my point was which is that what gave Guillaume le bâtard his legitimacy was, bar the support of the Pope, the eight or so thousands of Flemish, French, Breton and Normans men-at-arms that he brought over the channel to assert his point that "yeah, since the last guy in charge liked me so much, he told me I could tots get the crown when he died".
That other peoples' claim was also spurrious doesn't change the fact that his legitimacy grew from the tip of his soldiers' spears.

[The Archregimancy]

Guillaume le Conquérant did in fact have a hereditary claim to the throne by virtue of his great-aunt Emma's marriage to Aethelred II. That made William's father Robert I of Normandy the cousin of Edward the Confessor, the last Anglo-Saxon monarch.

William's claim certainly wasn't as good as those of Edgar the Atheling or the Kings of Scotland after Malcolm III Canmore (who married Edgar's sister Margaret), especially since it was based on proximity of relationship rather than on direct descent. It was, however, no worse than Harold II's claim to the throne; Harold was the brother-in-law of Edward the Confessor via his sister Edith. So while the allegation of Harold's supposed broken oath to William was used by the Normans for propaganda purposes, it wasn't the original justification for William's claim.

Essentially, England had a choice in 1066 between a 14-year-old boy (Edgar), the late King's brother-in-law (Harold II), the late King's first cousin once removed (William), or a Norwegian king claiming that the Danish House of Canute's claims to the English throne had devolved to the King of Norway (Harald Hardrada).

But that doesn't change what my point was which is that what gave Guillaume le bâtard his legitimacy was, bar the support of the Pope, the eight or so thousands of Flemish, French, Breton and Normans men-at-arms that he brought over the channel to assert his point that "yeah, since the last guy in charge liked me so much, he told me I could tots get the crown when he died".
That other peoples' claim was also spurrious doesn't change the fact that his legitimacy grew from the tip of his soldiers' spears.

You've either misread or misunderstood my post.

It does indeed change your point in that his claim wasn't spurious. It was weaker than Edgar's, but by the standards of the day it wasn't wholly spurious, was no worse than Harold II's, and was significantly better than Harald Hardrada's - which really was spurious by the standards of the day. It's because it wasn't spurious that Edward the Confessor initially recognised William as his heir in 1051 (which is neutrally attested, unlike the claim of Harold's oath) on the basis of his family connection to Edward, with William travelling to London that same year. This happened in a period when Godwin's family had fallen out of favour with Edward, despite the marriage between the King and Godwin's daughter Edith, but the offer was genuine, even if subsequent events changed the context of the offer over the next 15 years.

It would be entirely fair to point out that William was ultimately better-able to enforce his claim through force of arms, and it would also be fair to point out that he did so in opposition to the institutions of the Kingdom of England, which initially chose Harold II and then - briefly, for about two months - Edgar. But his claim wasn't spurious.

[Rusozak]

All of those things can be done by elected officials and their appointees, though.

Not really.
The monarch has extensive reserve powers an elected official would feel much more free to use. Elected officials also tend to be NOT politically neutral, not even publicly. Elected officials are usually more power-hungry than the average person. There are good reasons why a republic is NOT strictly better than a constitutional monarchy. Of course, sometimes you get an awful monarch, but that's not something limited to monarchs...
The monarch is there to stop the government to do what the public absolutely doesn't want, or needs to be consulted about, however, the monarch is not there to stop the people from repeatedly voting for (people with) bad policies. That's what happened in the UK, and the cure for that is not "abolish the monarchy".
Something else needs to be done. Currently the monarchy is preventing worse things from happening and should not be abolished.

Maybe the UK in particular does need a monarchy to not tear itself apart with partisanship, I don't know. I'm just saying there's plenty of healthy republics around the world that do just fine letting the people select policymakers.

[Northern Seleucia]

So Charles III gets proclaimed king by every individual commonwealth and not just one big proclamation, huh?

[El Lazaro]

Utility aside, monarchy is based on the idea that some people are simply born superior and have natural right to control others. Regardless of how that’s construed, it’s an evil idea.

[Nacionalistas Do Flamengo]

Utility aside, monarchy is based on the idea that some people are simply born superior and have natural right to control others. Regardless of how that’s construed, it’s an evil idea.

True

[Vistulange]

No, these reserve powers are not a problem as long as they are held by the monarch as actually attempting to misuse them would not end well for the monarch.
A term-limited president might be tempted to misuse them at the end of their term.
And a president for life (an elected monarch) would be much worse than an unelected monarch.

So the monarch gets to have these powers because if you don't like how they're used you'll kill the monarch, but a president couldn't have them because a president might just leave office and then...you couldn't kill them?

Or is it something other than death which the monarch must live under threat of? If King Charles misuses his power will he be thrown in prison? Presidents can be thrown in prison. Will he be fined? Presidents can be fined.

The argument can be made that a president—at least, a directly elected president—is not the best idea since they also receive a direct mandate from the governed; should this actor conflict with the legislature, that could cause issues with who, exactly, is the "superior" actor in politics in terms of legitimacy. Such was the issue that faced Turkey between 2014-2018, with the president having been directly elected, and thus had a direct mandate. The situation led to an allegation of "dual-headed leadership" (i.e., the Prime Minister and the President) which caused problems. Now, those allegations as well as the situation described were entirely fabrications of the government that had remedies in various ways which were not pursued, but that's besides the point.

In contrast, the British system could be said to clearly legitimise one actor over the other: the Parliament and by proxy, the officials appointed or otherwise put in power by Parliament. That is not to say that the monarchy is illegitimate—legitimacy is one of those concepts in political science which can be difficult to pin down, conceptualise, or most importantly measure properly—but rather, should the two institutions come into conflict, I think it's fairly safe to say that in 2022, Parliament would be regarded as more legitimate, provided all else is kept constant.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with this reasoning—I think a republic overall provides for more egalitarianism at least in the ideal sense—but the issue of dual poles of legitimacy is a problem in republics.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

That's not to say I necessarily agree with this reasoning—I think a republic overall provides for more egalitarianism at least in the ideal sense—but the issue of dual poles of legitimacy is a problem in republics.

Ideally sure
Consider on the other hand the naked fact that every last British parliamentarian is buried up to the top of their head in corporate money.

[Vistulange]

That's not to say I necessarily agree with this reasoning—I think a republic overall provides for more egalitarianism at least in the ideal sense—but the issue of dual poles of legitimacy is a problem in republics.

Ideally sure
Consider on the other hand the naked fact that every last British parliamentarian is buried up to the top of their head in corporate money.

Er, right. I don't think there's causality there between the monarchy/republic debate and corrupt politicians, though.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Ideally sure
Consider on the other hand the naked fact that every last British parliamentarian is buried up to the top of their head in corporate money.

Er, right. I don't think there's causality there between the monarchy/republic debate and corrupt politicians, though.

Sure, but the monarch is useless for corporate purposes as they haven't got any say in actual politics.
Getting rid of the powerless "branch" of government when the actual government consists of people who runs to the dystopian Zuckerberg hellscape amongst others is getting your priorities literally upside down.

[Pangurstan]

I hope charles decides to dissolve parliament because that would be funny

[Vistulange]

Er, right. I don't think there's causality there between the monarchy/republic debate and corrupt politicians, though.

Sure, but the monarch is useless for corporation purposes as they haven't got any say in actual politics.
Getting rid of the powerless "branch" of government when the actual government consists of people who runs to the dystopian Zuckerberg hellscape amongst others is getting your priorities literally upside down.

I'm still not getting what you're trying to argue here. I don't recall advocating for either side of the debate—I merely presented what could be an argument for keeping the monarchy around. And it had nothing to do with corruption, which is a separate debate...which I haven't even hinted at. What's the relationship between your posts and my original one?

[Old Tyrannia]

Utility aside, monarchy is based on the idea that some people are simply born superior and have natural right to control others. Regardless of how that’s construed, it’s an evil idea.

That's a complete strawman of monarchism.

[Michel Meilleur]

Utility aside, monarchy is based on the idea that some people are simply born superior and have natural right to control others. Regardless of how that’s construed, it’s an evil idea.

That's a complete strawman of monarchism.

In what way? Giving oneself the trouble to be born is all that is required of a noble to give him many a privilege over "commoners", up and including ruling an entire country for the case of the monarchy.
In what world is it not considering that some are born "inherently better" when they are given a superior status to everyone else by mere virtue of their birth?

[Vistulange]

That's a complete strawman of monarchism.

In what way? Giving oneself the trouble to be born is all that is required of a noble to give him many a privilege over "commoners", up and including ruling an entire country for the case of the monarchy.
In what world is it not considering that some are born "inherently better" when they are given a superior status to everyone else by mere virtue of their birth?

I think the phrase "ruling an entire country" is at least a little over-the-top when we consider Western constitutional monarchies. The Gulf kingdoms, sure. The United Kingdom? Eh.

[Neanderthaland]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

What kind of crass oaf would take advantage of her death to lie like that? He really is beneath contempt.

The guy who took advantage of 9/11 to lie that he now owned the tallest building in downtown New York.

[Michel Meilleur]

I think the phrase "ruling an entire country" is at least a little over-the-top when we consider Western constitutional monarchies. The Gulf kingdoms, sure. The United Kingdom? Eh.

Whether they actually do in practice or not, no matter how declawed they are in reality; in spirit, they're still claiming to own the subservience of their compatriots for nothing more than having been "born lucky". I can't help but inherently reject this very idea, personally.