-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Should a monarchy even exist in the 21st Century?
- Thread starter Aiii
- Start date
- Status
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The reason why monarchies exist in the 21st century is because it represents a compromise. Instead of the people rising up and murdering the monarch (and making the origin of their free republic a celebration of bloodshed), the monarch willingly gives up all ruling power in exchange for maintaining a ceremonial position. It's actually quite a bargain.
Of course, if you can dismiss the monarchy without bloodshed, that's a different story. Perhaps it's possible in 2013.
Of course, if you can dismiss the monarchy without bloodshed, that's a different story. Perhaps it's possible in 2013.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Constitutionally it is a bit tricky in the UK. Not by any means insuperable but tricky.
I think it was King Faroukh who once said that in 50 years time there would be only five kings: those of England, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades.
PJV3
Member
Not really in the UK.
We invited The Hanover's here and gifted the crown. So the current lot are just lucky to have anything.
Princess Diana was more directly related to old english royalty than this crew.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
No, in a democratic society there should not be a privileged family that does not do anything, yet they get more money a year more than what people make in 20 years. It should be abolished and all the castles should be turned into businesses that provide governments plenty of money from taxes and jobs for the public. It´s fucking embarrassing that there are still unelected privileged royals prancing around in Europe taking people´s hard earned money with very little contributions in return.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
No.
But more power to them for managing to convince the majority that they should exist.
It is an antiquated tradition though, and doesn't really vibe well with modern western democratic values.
But more power to them for managing to convince the majority that they should exist.
It is an antiquated tradition though, and doesn't really vibe well with modern western democratic values.
Red Liquorice
Member
Absolutely not.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
Absolutely, in this, and every century.
Kings and Queens are divinely chosen by the one true god to rule over the unwashed masses.
They are always inherently good people, and we should really just shut up and let them make all of our decisions, and simply obey. Always obey.
Kings and Queens are divinely chosen by the one true god to rule over the unwashed masses.
They are always inherently good people, and we should really just shut up and let them make all of our decisions, and simply obey. Always obey.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The thing is that few modern monarchs are making "decisions". It's just a rich family sponging off the state.. Which is still arguably bad, but that's a far cry from dictator.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Nope. There is nothing democratic about a monarchy, I wish we'd drop ours here in Sweden. Sure, they don't have any power, they're just a "symbol" or whatever, but they are still born into a privilige the rest of us could only dream of. Yes, that happens all the time in other parts of society (kids of rich businessmen, etc), but that's different. These people, symbols or not, are still representatives of our country, and as such should be chosen by the people, not automatically born into it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I get your drift, but on the other hand what would "vibe" better with democratic values? I can't see for example that a head of state elected on political grounds would be anything other than divisive.
And if they're going to be elected on non-political grounds then the heads of state of the world are going to be washed-up celebrities, famous for being famous and that sort of thing. Which isn't all that different from what we have got apart from the hereditary thing.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i think its fine, it just depends on how they rule the country.
obviously a parliamentary government is desirable since people have a say in some regard.
obviously a parliamentary government is desirable since people have a say in some regard.
PJV3
Member
There should at least be a vote before coronation, do the people wish to carry on with the tradition.
It isn't a great option, you could only vote every so often, but it's better than just assuming via opinion polls.
It's purely there for ceremonial and traditional reasons.
The people love the royal family, it's something completely inoffensive.
Don't let it bother you that much.
Even if all it does is give me a single day off work where I can go party hard wearing orange, then it's completely worth it to me.
The people love the royal family, it's something completely inoffensive.
Don't let it bother you that much.
Even if all it does is give me a single day off work where I can go party hard wearing orange, then it's completely worth it to me.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Yes. Here in Denmark the queen gets $2-3 million tax free but she has to pay for her staff. The royal family has gotten very big and their allowance has sky rocketed.
The royals don´t pay taxes, don´t wait in lines in case something happened, take luxurious trips around the world, plenty of castles to live in, and are privileged from birth. All of that is on the expense of the tax payer. It´s utterly ridiculous and corrupt as fuck.
People say that the royals bring in tourists and business deals, but if all their properties get sold and turned into businesses the reward will be much, much bigger. Look at France for further info about how abolishing the royals can still maintain the most visited country in the world, and the Louvre and other royal properties provide million of $ to the government. Not to mention that their businesses does not get effected by having royals ie. royals stricking business contracts with foreign countries.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yeah. Unfortunately, the pro-monarchy side would almost definitely win by a landslide. People want it, for whatever reason. They think it's a nice symbol of our country, I guess. And I suppose that kind of means that us having a monarchy is democratic, but it in and of itself still isn't. Wish people would get that.
Chuckie
Member
No but their is a thing (I think) people associate the Dutch with:
I think we should keep the Royal Family just for the Royal Orange.
Bitches should be paying taxes though.
PJV3
Member
I agree, but at least it would give an opportunity to change things. Royalty isn't continously popular.
Too enshrined in our history to be got rid of, and the sheer popularity of them just shows how people are attached to them.
If (UK here) we had become religious a plural society like the French did in the 16th Century, then I doubt the monarchy would have survived. But we didn't, and the people's connection with them became stronger.
Nowadays, they are purely ceremonial and harmless, so I have no issue with them. I can see why some folks would want a change but I don't see any major issues with. If it gives people national identity, carry on.
If (UK here) we had become religious a plural society like the French did in the 16th Century, then I doubt the monarchy would have survived. But we didn't, and the people's connection with them became stronger.
Nowadays, they are purely ceremonial and harmless, so I have no issue with them. I can see why some folks would want a change but I don't see any major issues with. If it gives people national identity, carry on.
PJV3
Member
I like the cut of your jib, Charles might be their undoing. I don't want his enormous ears on my money.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, except you don't know how they are going to be as monarchs until they give it a go. Imagine being Prince Charles, it's about 65 years and going some until he gets a proper job. I've known people on GAF get rather angsty after 6 months.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Maxima?
The Albatross
Member
I don't think that monarchies, in democratic with free and fair elections, are affronts to liberty. The value that a monarch brings is usually not very different from any other unelected institutions that carry a strong social influence, and generally, the monarch is more responsible than those others.
Used to be against them (UK) on purely ideological grounds and I still sympathize strongly with that position but on balance I feel about the royal family the same way I feel about historical building or artifacts: They are a symbol of our history and part of our identity and it would be a shame to loose them.
They may have huge endowments, all the social perks of royal privilege and unconditional support from a large chunk of the population but I dont envy them whatsoever. Id hate-hate-hate to be in the position of William or Harry so if anything Im sympathetic to their position, not jealous.
They may have huge endowments, all the social perks of royal privilege and unconditional support from a large chunk of the population but I dont envy them whatsoever. Id hate-hate-hate to be in the position of William or Harry so if anything Im sympathetic to their position, not jealous.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
You Are Viewtiful
Member
It's a non issue. People only seem to disagree with it in principle rather than pragmatic reasons.
Escape Goat
Member
PJV3
Member
No, in the UK it has a direct impact on the stucture of the state.
Crown powers exercised by the government
None of these powers has ever been conferred on the Government by our elected representatives in Parliament. They are not democratic powers, but have been inherited by the Government of the day directly from the Crown, bypassing the people entirely. They confer on the Government vast power. The exercise of this power is discretionary. Both Parliament and the courts of law find it exceptionally difficult to subject the exercise of these powers to meaningful standards of review and accountability. Gordon Brown's Government accepted as much in July 2007, when it conceded that 'when the executive relies on the power of the royal prerogative [...] it is difficult for Parliament to scrutinise and challenge the Government's actions'.
The Government's prerogative powers include the following:
the power to make treaties
the powers to declare war and to deploy Her Majesty's Armed Forces overseas
the powers to employ civil servants and to change the terms and conditions of their employment
the conduct of diplomacy
the governance of Britain's overseas territories
the appointment and removal of ministers
the appointment of peers
the grant of honours
the claiming of public interest immunity
the granting and revoking of passports
In recent years the exercise of several of these powers has proved to be intensely controversial.
In 1984 Mrs Thatcher unilaterally decided to ban civil servants employed at GCHQ from joining or forming trade unions
In 1992 ministers in John Major's Government used (and abused) the power to claim public interest immunity (PII) in order to prevent embarrassing documents concerning Britain's arms trade with Iraq being disclosed in court
In 2003 Tony Blair used the power to declare war to wage war in Iraq, on a false prospectus, and without needing to acquire prior parliamentary approval. When he became Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would surrender this power, but to date he has yet to make good this promise and, indeed, in 2008 he significantly watered it down.
How about the Queen using her perogative
In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
GentlemanCrow
Member
I've never got why people are all that proud of where they are from. Thankful that the coin landed heads up and they didn't end up in the third world I can understand.
I like being British, it is quite good. I'm not openly told what to do or how to live, I can do want I want as long as in doing so I don't hurt other people. There is no really personal opression for me. But I'm not proud of Britain, it is certainly an interesting place with a very rich and fascinating past.
Being proud of your country and it's history is like being proud of what colour your eyes are. It's something you have no control over, you didn't choose it so why be proud of it. It had nothing to do with you. I don't think there is much to be proud of in being British anyway. As Empires go we were pretty dickish. Slavery, racism, blood, death and oppression. Our history, like all winning sides look at our "triumphs". We are polite, cosy, stiff upper lipped. We liked ginger beer, tea and crumpets.
Look at Churchill
He was a brilliant mind, a great wartime Prime Minister. A no nonsense commander, they don't make them like him anymore, stubborn and irascible just what we needed.
Churchill was a racist. A real piece of work.
Look how we was used in the opening of the Olympics. This man is the face of Britain. Treated like a curmudgeonly grandfather figure.
He was a complete tool.
Don't be proud of your country, you really shouldn't be.
- Status