Should The British Monarchy End?

[El Lazaro]

I have nothing against the UK’s monarchy in specific, just stop inbred aristocrats from leeching off welfare money and demanding official titles to make them feel special. If you want to call yourself a royal, go ahead, but the government shouldn’t entertain that nonsense.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in practice hands out aristocratic titles in the name of the monarch lmao. Maybe you've heard of this affair lol

I know about the German royal adoption loophole, but that’s pretty pointless because the titles are meaningless. At least you’d get a little political power with this one.

[GaulSoodman]

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Last time I checked, politicians who betray the public, inequality, starvation, poor working conditions and assassinations were not exclusive to socialist countries.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think that it wouldn't be all that sporting to have the monarchy persist after the heat death of the universe and rather unfair to the person occupying the slot.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I think that it wouldn't be all that sporting to have the monarchy persist after the heat death of the universe and rather unfair to the person occupying the slot.

Yeah, imagine the being the 69th incarnation of Queen Elizabeth and you now have to witness the universe go dark. That was SUPPOSED to be your realm, dangit!

[The Aber]

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Last time I checked, politicians who betray the public, inequality, starvation, poor working conditions and assassinations were not exclusive to socialist countries.

Yes, true. But you're experts at it. Especially when it's your leaders giving the order, and leftists years later are making excuses for it, either playing it down like it's nothing or just vehemently pretending that it never happened. At least here, in the US, I can fucking criticize my government for their idiocy, without the risk of getting popped by the secret police.

[Rakhalia]

Last time I checked, politicians who betray the public, inequality, starvation, poor working conditions and assassinations were not exclusive to socialist countries.

Yes, true. But you're experts at it. Especially when it's your leaders giving the order, and leftists years later are making excuses for it, either playing it down like it's nothing or just vehemently pretending that it never happened. At least here, in the US, I can fucking criticize my government for their idiocy, without the risk of getting popped by the secret police.

It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of socialist societies to neglect the almost all-permeating culture of self and public crticism in both the Stalin-era USSR and especially Mao-era China.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

Of course the monarchy should be abolished.

"But it's British tradition!"
- So was Catholicism, until Henry VIII disobeyed the Pope and divorced his wife
- So were witchcraft trials, until the Witchcraft Act of 1735
- So was slavery, until it was abolished in 1833

"But the Royals bring money to the UK through tourism!"
- Rome does not need its Emperors to attract visitors to the Colosseum, quite why some people think we need the Royals to attract visitors to Buckingham Palace or our other Royal-related attractions, I have no idea. It's a pretty bad indictment of the UK economy if you think we are so fragile as to be propped up by a handful of monarchist foreign tourists.

"But it's part of Britain's identity!"
- Reducing Britain's history and people down to a single family (who are mostly German at this stage), suggests a substantial undervaluation of our culture, and of the nation itself. When speaking to non-Brits I have no shortage of British culture and experiences to talk about. I have never once felt compelled to even mention the monarchy as a symbol of Britishness. They are not hugely relevant outside of the Home Counties.

At this stage, the monarchy is an archaic relic of a time when this country was worse than it is today. They can barely go 5 minutes without some scandal, and frankly are more fit to be on the Jeremy Kyle show than our currency. Hopefully we will see sense at some point and get rid of them, but I'm not holding my breath.

[The Aber]

Yes, true. But you're experts at it. Especially when it's your leaders giving the order, and leftists years later are making excuses for it, either playing it down like it's nothing or just vehemently pretending that it never happened. At least here, in the US, I can fucking criticize my government for their idiocy, without the risk of getting popped by the secret police.

It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of socialist societies to neglect the almost all-permeating culture of self and public criticism in both the Stalin-era USSR and especially Mao-era China.

Oh, fantastic: more "Not True Communism" horse shit. I'd almost be tempted to laugh at the ludicrous audacity of this as if it were some television comedy skit if I didn't get high blood pressure due to hearing the same dumb shit over and over in the past.

[Farnhamia]

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

Flamebaiting? Nah, what you're being warned for is plain old flaming.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[GaulSoodman]

Last time I checked, politicians who betray the public, inequality, starvation, poor working conditions and assassinations were not exclusive to socialist countries.

Yes, true. But you're experts at it. Especially when it's your leaders giving the order, and leftists years later are making excuses for it, either playing it down like it's nothing or just vehemently pretending that it never happened. At least here, in the US, I can fucking criticize my government for their idiocy, without the risk of getting popped by the secret police.

This is really ironic to say on a thread about the British monarchy as if they aren't arresting protesters calling for the abolition of it.

By the way I don't even like the USSR, I just think your defense of the monarchy is silly lol.


Edit:

It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of socialist societies to neglect the almost all-permeating culture of self and public criticism in both the Stalin-era USSR and especially Mao-era China.

Oh, fantastic: more "Not True Communism" horse shit. I'd almost be tempted to laugh at the ludicrous audacity of this as if it were some television comedy skit if I didn't get high blood pressure due to hearing the same dumb shit over and over in the past.

This doesn't even make any sense? They are pretty explicitly defending the so-called True Communist societies.

[HISPIDA]

yes /thread

[Rakhalia]

It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of socialist societies to neglect the almost all-permeating culture of self and public criticism in both the Stalin-era USSR and especially Mao-era China.

Oh, fantastic: more "Not True Communism" horse shit. I'd almost be tempted to laugh at the ludicrous audacity of this as if it were some television comedy skit if I didn't get high blood pressure due to hearing the same dumb shit over and over in the past.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

[Vavlar]

Yes. Why have something that is powerless and unneeded be used?

[Diarcesia]

There have been talks about this for years as the monarchy is basically using tax payer money on their fancy mansions and other fancy projects...

From a purely economic perspective, the British monarchy is a net contributor to the economy.

Source, emphases mine, as of 2017

The economic benefits generated by the Monarchy come at a very low cost to the British nation, equal to only £4.50 per person per year or just over 1p a day. The total costs of the Monarchy, totalling approximately £292 million, include the Sovereign Grant, earnings from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ceded to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and security expenses, among others. A significant proportion of these costs is in fact incurred by residence maintenance, staff salaries, and travel expenditures required by any head of state.

Monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy in 2017 is £1.766bn

If anything, it could be argued more strongly that the MPs are the ones using tax payer money for fancy projects to line up their pockets and egos, in addition to proposing policies that are detrimental to Britain's well-being. Exhibit A: Brexit. And all the Monarchy does is rubber-stamp what is passed on Parliament. And yet still, I would not advocate for ending Parliament because of that, nor the Monarchy.

[Striagro Uspil]

First, I would like to make clear that i'm paraphrasing Jordan Peterson's thoughts on the monarchy (Timestamp 5:25) but I believe he makes a really good point about it. The UK, unlike the US, has four separation of powers: Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Symbolic. So instead of the leader fulfilling both the executive and symbolic parts of leadership (as seen in the reverence of the President and the First Lady in the US), the Monarchy holds the symbolic weight that leaders of countries naturally manifest.

Meaning that in the UK, if the Prime Minister proves themselves to be incompetent, the faith and confidence in the national identity is not as tarnished as it would be if the US President proves themselves to be incompetent.

[Necroghastia]

There have been talks about this for years as the monarchy is basically using tax payer money on their fancy mansions and other fancy projects...

From a purely economic perspective, the British monarchy is a net contributor to the economy.

Source, emphases mine, as of 2017

The economic benefits generated by the Monarchy come at a very low cost to the British nation, equal to only £4.50 per person per year or just over 1p a day. The total costs of the Monarchy, totalling approximately £292 million, include the Sovereign Grant, earnings from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ceded to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and security expenses, among others. A significant proportion of these costs is in fact incurred by residence maintenance, staff salaries, and travel expenditures required by any head of state.

Monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy in 2017 is £1.766bn

If anything, it could be argued more strongly that the MPs are the ones using tax payer money for fancy projects to line up their pockets and egos, in addition to proposing policies that are detrimental to Britain's well-being. Exhibit A: Brexit. And all the Monarchy does is rubber-stamp what is passed on Parliament. And yet still, I would not advocate for ending Parliament because of that, nor the Monarchy.

The respect for the institution boosts the price and volume premium of brands boasting a Royal Warrant or a Coat of Arms; the appeal of pomp and circumstance set in living royal residences draws millions of tourists; the mystique surrounding the Monarchy adds to the popularity of shows like The Crown and Victoria that offer a glimpse of the private lives of the Royal Family.

All of that could exist without the monarchy's continued existence. Hell, tourism might even get a boost without having to work around the family's schedule for tours of palaces and such.

[Sordhau]

It makes me giggle you know. Virtually every communist/socialist regime barely lasted a century (failing due to their "dear leaders' own ignorance and insolence), but the monarchies (while yes, we had some pretty fucked-up kings), especially Britians', lasted almost a millennia.

The endurance of monarchies has less to do with them being a superior system and more to them having a monopoly over governance until the French and American Revolutions offered a better alternative.

Meanwhile the failure of Cold War states has very little bearing on the viability of Communism/Socialism because, as you ironically noted, they were hampered by poor leadership.

In other words this is not the own you think it is.

And the leftists hate that, how one of the very things they despise lasted longer than any leftist regime.

Even if the USSR was still alive today it still wouldn't be as old as the British Empire considering the British Empire had over a two century head start.

Again, this is not the own you think it is.

It's envy, jealousy.

Actually it's disgust.

The same type that has today's "revolutionaries" crying "Eat the Rich", not because of any "exploitation", but because many of those millionaires and billionaires worked their asses off to gain their wealth (making more cash from their inventions and economic knowledge than any leftist "liberator" on Earth), while the communist leaders needed some gullible twits to do their dirty work for them.

You've got it backwards, friend. For all the faults of the nomenklatura their origins were rather humble; miners, farmers, factory workers - all risen to power of their own volition.

There is not a single person on the Fortune 500 list who earned their wealthy through hard work. Most of them already came from wealthy backgrounds while the "self-made" types only succeeded with their business models because they had wealthy investors to back them - usually their relatives or friends. Actually poor, working class people like myself don't go anywhere in life; not without significant help or advantages.

Never mind that Leftists aren't out to get rich and pointing out that they never have is, again, not the own you seem to think it is.

Yes, I'm quite aware of some of the fucked-up shit some monarchies do, but when it comes to being dicks to the people who look up to you, the Left needs to have an electoral on that because they're VERY good at giving the bird to their supporters.

What you seem to fail to understand is that types like Lenin and Marx who came from privileged backgrounds weren't the norm, they were the exception. Most Leftist figures throughout history did not in fact come from the bourgeois or the aristocracy. This is especially true in Latin America and Africa. And, again, the nomenklatura at the end of the USSR all came from humble beginnings. In other words the Left tends to be led by the people it represents more often than not. Fancy that?

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention?

That's not what they said.

Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail.

Except for the fact that the Communist did make things better than last regime in most cases. Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.

Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass.

While it indisputable that opportunists have often hijacked Left-wing uprisings for their own gain this wasn't really as common as you seem to suggest it was. But then again if you've displayed your ignorance on the topic of Communism several times now so I shouldn't be surprised that you don't actually understand the history of the movement or it's prominent figures - many of which were willing to risk their lives for their ideals, and many of which ended up losing them as a consequence.

Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted.

Megaprojects are very rarely wasteful money dumps, you do realize? Hospitals, dams, power plants, airports, bridges, etc. You know - things with a practical value.

And this is rather hypocritical coming from a defender of Monarchism and Capitalism; both of which are far more famous for expensive vanity projects that don't actually help people. It's funny how when people starve and have to eat trash out of the dumpster under Communism it's clearly the fault of Communist policies yet when it happens under Capitalism it's purely the fault of the people for being unemployed and homeless.

Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up.

How much of Europe do you think was affected by the Chornobyl disaster? It was almost entirely confined to the USSR, and 70% of it consolidated in the Byelorussian SSR - one of the smaller of the constituent republics, I might add. I wouldn't call that "much of Europe" lol.

Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING.

This may shock to you to learn but not every Communist leader was as paranoid as Stalin.

It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

If karma was real Jeff Bezos would've slipped in the shower by now.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

No, some moderator is going to warn you for flaming and that will entirely be your own fault for openly insulting other posters.

[Trollgaard]

No, in fact the Monarchy should have more authority restored to them. They don't need to be absolute monarchs, but as a royal family they should have quite a say.

[The Aber]

No, in fact the Monarchy should have more authority restored to them. They don't need to be absolute monarchs, but as a royal family they should have quite a say.

This. ^^^

[The Selkie]

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

[Necroghastia]

No, in fact the Monarchy should have more authority restored to them. They don't need to be absolute monarchs, but as a royal family they should have quite a say.

...Why? What's so special about them? What separates them in any meaningful way from anyone else? If being from some inbred family qualified you for leadership, the South would've won the Civil War.

[Diarcesia]

No, in fact the Monarchy should have more authority restored to them. They don't need to be absolute monarchs, but as a royal family they should have quite a say.

...Why? What's so special about them? What separates them in any meaningful way from anyone else? If being from some inbred family qualified you for leadership, the South would've won the Civil War.

I wonder if the same opinion would hold to say... the Gulf monarchies.

[WayNeacTia]

All monarchy should end, imo. Take it from a Canadian.

I'm a Canadian as well, and I believe it should stay. The Monarchy has existed since before Canada was even Canada, and our constitution is written around it. How the hell are we going to get rid of it, when we can't get Canada and Quebec to even agree on what "Canadian" is? As for the American's chiming in? You have absolutely no iron in the fire here. We didn't force you to get rid of a crim.... (erm President) now did we? Even when he decided it would be a good idea to I don't know... violate the Convention on Chemical Weapons and gas his own damn citizens.....

[Trollgaard]

No, in fact the Monarchy should have more authority restored to them. They don't need to be absolute monarchs, but as a royal family they should have quite a say.

...Why? What's so special about them? What separates them in any meaningful way from anyone else? If being from some inbred family qualified you for leadership, the South would've won the Civil War.

Because its cool.

[Trollgaard]

...Why? What's so special about them? What separates them in any meaningful way from anyone else? If being from some inbred family qualified you for leadership, the South would've won the Civil War.

I wonder if the same opinion would hold to say... the Gulf monarchies.

Like the Arab Gulf States? Don't their monarchs already have a ton of power?