Elizabeth II / Charles III megathread

[El Lazaro]

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.

Regardless, the acquisition of extreme wealth and considerable influence through state-sanctioned nepotism should not be paraded around like a good thing. It’s a symbol that tells everyone their worth is based on their birthright rather than their humanity or character, which is blatantly antithetical to the idea of justice. It’s not a significant cause of injustice, but it glorifies and advocates for it.

[Ikania]

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.

Regardless, the acquisition of extreme wealth and considerable influence through state-sanctioned nepotism should not be paraded around like a good thing. It’s a symbol that tells everyone their worth is based on their birthright rather than their humanity or character, which is blatantly antithetical to the idea of justice. It’s not a significant cause of injustice, but it glorifies and advocates for it.

I would be interested to see if King Charles will do anything over the winter to display solidarity with his struggling subjects. He's always been rather PR-savvy with his humanitarian causes. Lavish displays of wealth and glory would be pretty tone-deaf while so many can't afford their heating or indeed food.

[Ifreann]

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.

We should keep in mind that if Britain abolishes the monarchy then there is no need to retain the position of the monarch but redesigned as an elected role. A British president can have different powers than the Queen has. More powers, fewer powers, no powers, absolute power.

[Rakhalia]

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.

We should keep in mind that if Britain abolishes the monarchy then there is no need to retain the position of the monarch but redesigned as an elected role. A British president can have different powers than the Queen has. More powers, fewer powers, no powers, absolute power.

what about a british president of the presidium pretty please

[Vistulange]

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.

We should keep in mind that if Britain abolishes the monarchy then there is no need to retain the position of the monarch but redesigned as an elected role. A British president can have different powers than the Queen has. More powers, fewer powers, no powers, absolute power.

Naturally—I don't think any scholar of constitutional/institutional arrangements would consider it wise to entrust an elected official with the powers the British monarch is granted (albeit strictly in theory). The whole premise of allowing the monarch to retain such powers is based on an understanding that they shan't be used, and that their usage against an elected (and therefore more legitimate) government would trigger a constitutional crisis which would in all likelihood result in, at best, the removal of the incumbent and at worst, the abolition of the institution itself.

The issue with elected officials—and that's not to say that we shouldn't have elected officials: it's merely one of the problems we encounter in modern institutions—is that their actions are generally equally legitimate. Or, perhaps worse, a directly-elected president can claim higher legitimacy than representatives by virtue of having been elected directly, as opposed to by proxy of a party-list (whether it is open or closed is mostly irrelevant), and thus use this perception of higher legitimacy to bypass legislature checks.

That, of course, can be remedied through arrangements such as establishing a purely ceremonial post (e.g., Germany) or tying the more out-there powers of the head of state to enabling acts to be passed through the legislature, subject to renewal and perhaps a supermajority. Anyway, I digress—my point was that having an elected head of state intended to check the head of government (or the legislature in general) presents its own unique set of issues, and is not an immediate remedy for the problems a hereditary one presents.

[Dazchan]

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

Yes, because they're separate monarchies which just happen to share a monarch.

The King of Australia (for example) is a separate title/office to the King of the UK, they both just happen to be Charles III.

[Shrillland]

Antigua and Barbuda intends to hold Republic Referendum by 2025 at the latest

[Fahran]

Regardless, the acquisition of extreme wealth and considerable influence through state-sanctioned nepotism should not be paraded around like a good thing. It’s a symbol that tells everyone their worth is based on their birthright rather than their humanity or character, which is blatantly antithetical to the idea of justice. It’s not a significant cause of injustice, but it glorifies and advocates for it.

The monarch's ownership of broad swathes of land and profitable estates is largely of vestige of when the political was more manifestly personal. It's perhaps more useful to view the wealth of the royal family through that lens and as an inheritance, making it not too distinct from the wealth of old, well-connected families elsewhere. Since a decent portion of it is privately owned with proceeds donated to the state. You're ostensibly proposing that Parliament not only depose the monarchy (again), but that it seize the assets of the royal family as well. Which I guess you could do, but that seems very much about an abstract principle than anything pragmatic or constitutionally salient. I'm also not certain how legal that is.

Beyond that, the vast majority of people living in the West have benefitted from a birthright or inheritance rather than their humanity or character. The reason I have a fully belly, hair that smells like plums, and can waste my time posting to NSG instead of working in a coal mine or picking bananas is because I lucked out and was born into the right family in the right place at the right time. We all have our privileges, our birthrights, and our inheritances. The question is how do we use them to serve and make the world better?

[Thermodolia]

Antigua and Barbuda intends to hold Republic Referendum by 2025 at the latest

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

[Ifreann]

Regardless, the acquisition of extreme wealth and considerable influence through state-sanctioned nepotism should not be paraded around like a good thing. It’s a symbol that tells everyone their worth is based on their birthright rather than their humanity or character, which is blatantly antithetical to the idea of justice. It’s not a significant cause of injustice, but it glorifies and advocates for it.

The monarch's ownership of broad swathes of land and profitable estates is largely of vestige of when the political was more manifestly personal. It's perhaps more useful to view the wealth of the royal family through that lens and as an inheritance, making it not too distinct from the wealth of old, well-connected families elsewhere. Since a decent portion of it is privately owned with proceeds donated to the state. You're ostensibly proposing that Parliament not only depose the monarchy (again), but that it seize the assets of the royal family as well. Which I guess you could do, but that seems very much about an abstract principle than anything pragmatic or constitutionally salient. I'm also not certain how legal that is.

Beyond that, the vast majority of people living in the West have benefitted from a birthright or inheritance rather than their humanity or character. The reason I have a fully belly, hair that smells like plums, and can waste my time posting to NSG instead of working in a coal mine or picking bananas is because I lucked out and was born into the right family in the right place at the right time. We all have our privileges, our birthrights, and our inheritances. The question is how do we use them to serve and make the world better?

Relevant: 1993 rule exempts the new King from paying inheritance taxes.

[Veraguas]

Antigua and Barbuda intends to hold Republic Referendum by 2025 at the latest

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

Australia too? I wonder if it'll pass this time.

[Salus Maior]

Antigua and Barbuda intends to hold Republic Referendum by 2025 at the latest

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

Eh, the royals have plenty of time to shore up support.

From what I remember, William and Kate's visit to Australia significantly decreased the desire to dump the monarchy. The same happened when the young Elizabeth II visited Australia.

[Rusozak]

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

Eh, the royals have plenty of time to shore up support.

From what I remember, William and Kate's visit to Australia significantly decreased the desire to dump the monarchy. The same happened when the young Elizabeth II visited Australia.

Why? I'm not being snide, I'm genuinely curious what those visits did to raise support for the royals.

[Salus Maior]

Eh, the royals have plenty of time to shore up support.

From what I remember, William and Kate's visit to Australia significantly decreased the desire to dump the monarchy. The same happened when the young Elizabeth II visited Australia.

Why? I'm not being snide, I'm genuinely curious what those visits did to raise support for the royals.

Idk, they're pretty cool people, and Aussies like them when they're around.

I think that Australians have this image of the royals that they're stuck up and "too good for them", but then they turn up in Australia and are decent people who care about the country and that lifts the stigma.

[Salus Maior]

The monarch's ownership of broad swathes of land and profitable estates is largely of vestige of when the political was more manifestly personal. It's perhaps more useful to view the wealth of the royal family through that lens and as an inheritance, making it not too distinct from the wealth of old, well-connected families elsewhere. Since a decent portion of it is privately owned with proceeds donated to the state. You're ostensibly proposing that Parliament not only depose the monarchy (again), but that it seize the assets of the royal family as well. Which I guess you could do, but that seems very much about an abstract principle than anything pragmatic or constitutionally salient. I'm also not certain how legal that is.

Beyond that, the vast majority of people living in the West have benefitted from a birthright or inheritance rather than their humanity or character. The reason I have a fully belly, hair that smells like plums, and can waste my time posting to NSG instead of working in a coal mine or picking bananas is because I lucked out and was born into the right family in the right place at the right time. We all have our privileges, our birthrights, and our inheritances. The question is how do we use them to serve and make the world better?

Relevant: 1993 rule exempts the new King from paying inheritance taxes.

The head of state generally doesn't pay tax.

The President of the US doesn't.

[Thermodolia]

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

Eh, the royals have plenty of time to shore up support.

From what I remember, William and Kate's visit to Australia significantly decreased the desire to dump the monarchy. The same happened when the young Elizabeth II visited Australia.

Not from what I remember. Besides they where representing the Queen and not Charles. Now that Charles is on the throne their trip might not be much or even make it worse like what’s happening in the Caribbean

[Thermodolia]

Why? I'm not being snide, I'm genuinely curious what those visits did to raise support for the royals.

Idk, they're pretty cool people, and Aussies like them when they're around.

I think that Australians have this image of the royals that they're stuck up and "too good for them", but then they turn up in Australia and are decent people who care about the country and that lifts the stigma.

No the image they have is “why are we still beholden to a guy who lives halfway across the world, why can’t we have an Australian head of state?”

[Ifreann]

Relevant: 1993 rule exempts the new King from paying inheritance taxes.

The head of state generally doesn't pay tax.

The head of state generally doesn't inherit an estate valued at an estimated £650 million which generated a revenue of £24 million last year.

The President of the US doesn't.

The President of the US does. Queen Elizabeth did, on the income generated by the Duchy of Lancaster, but not on her inheritance from the Queen Mother.

[Thermodolia]

That’s four nations that plan to do it by 2025. Australia, Jamaica, Bahamas, and them.

Australia too? I wonder if it'll pass this time.

From what I’ve been seeing, yes. The Queen along with infighting from the republican side is what killed the last one. Now that the Queen is dead and they fix the infighting and they’ll win.

[Great Britain eke Northern Ireland]

Whatever naysaying or whinging republicans say, our country has shown its great love for our monarch and I look forwards to future years with His Majesty the King as our Sovereign. Eventually they’ll pipe down and learn the Crown isn’t going away like in their fantasies. God save the King and long may he reign.

[Thermodolia]

Relevant: 1993 rule exempts the new King from paying inheritance taxes.

The head of state generally doesn't pay tax.

The President of the US doesn't.

The President of the US most definitely does pay taxes

[Thermodolia]

Whatever naysaying or whinging republicans say, our country has shown its great love for our monarch and I look forwards to future years with His Majesty the King as our Sovereign. Eventually they’ll pipe down and learn the Crown isn’t going away like in their fantasies. God save the King and long may he reign.

I doubt that the UK will rid themselves of the monarchy but it’s not a fantasy to say that a majority of the commonwealth is likely to do so

[Salus Maior]

Idk, they're pretty cool people, and Aussies like them when they're around.

I think that Australians have this image of the royals that they're stuck up and "too good for them", but then they turn up in Australia and are decent people who care about the country and that lifts the stigma.

No the image they have is “why are we still beholden to a guy who lives halfway across the world, why can’t we have an Australian head of state?”

From what I know of the quality of Australian politicians, Charles is definitely a step up as far as heads of state are concerned.

[Haganham]

Inheritance tax is immoral anyway. It imposes a heavy compliance cost on the bereaved, generates basically no revenue, is easily avoided by the truly wealthy, and discourages the building of intergenerational wealth outside of the truly rich. Hell the very reason that the royals are exempt is that if two of them die in short order it will wipe out the estate, indicating that this is something that happens to nonroyals.

[Kerwa]

If the Australians abolish the monarchy they should go for a general secretary not a president. Get out ahead of things so to speak.