Would getting rid of the monarchy give Britain a gr

[cosmicB]

Quoting: "...democracies need a referee and sometimes fall victim to mob rule."



It be democracy that is the "mob rule"... Just look at Canada, and the States, at the huge mess they're in, with extremely dishonest politicians using government just to pad their retirements, and their daddies businesses, and murdering any who dare get in their way... Look into the origins of "democracy", to see that it was merely a fleeting good-thing in the art of early people government, by the people, and for the people, as created by the Greeks... It worked till it lost its direction, and went out of control, the moment when there became "permanent politicians"... Democracy is the evil... Democracy has everyone held tight by the throat, in a modified roman style slavery system, in which they control us with their money, and with ours, under threat and pain of death... Just look at what Democracy is doing to Arabia, in trying desperately to rob the resources of those little nations and tribes which can defend themselves the least.. whilst Democracy spreads the cancerous disease of Christianity to those who don't want it.. same as the great Inquisition... You are all born into Slavery, and seem to like it.. because you know nothing else...
The twisted democracy permits you just enough resource to be strong slaves, but not enough to break free... You are presented with a couple of tyrants to vote for, for to run the vile never changing slavery system for yet another four years... Humanity.. You are in a democracy-box, a brickless prison, and don't even know it...
All I ever hear coming from your little box, are tiny whispers from wise ones, calling-out and begging for a little honesty, respect, dignity, and freedom, heard by but a few, but not heard not by the deaf ears, the blind minds, the full tummies, the perpetual parasites dining on, and swimming in, your warm bloods... You are born into, and live in, and die in.. You live and die in the absolute opposite of the famous "Desiderata", the great and wise thesis on what humanity should be within itself, and outwardly too...



http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html

[mogadishu]

The Church of England allows partners to divorce but strongly disapproves. It does not allow the Head of the Church to marry a divorcee.

So, why did the Archbishop of canterbury make an exception in the case of Charles and Camilla? I don't understand.

[mogadishu]

Charles did divorce Diana, becoming a divorcee. As far as the CofE were concerned the marriage still had some spiritual substance.

GM, don't think I'm being critical of your reasoning, it's the CofE's I don't understand.... If a marriage ends in divorce, surely it simply ceases to be, rather than lives on... Is there a Cof E document where all this is laid out?

[myron myron]

Having read through all the posts, I note that some justify the monarchy in terms of symbolism, others in terms of tradition, others in terms of economics (i.e., tourist money), and yet others in personalized quasi-utilitarian terms (i.e., the Queen works hard, signs laws, meets with the PM, etc.).

Shorn of sophistry, the British monarchy, indeed any monarchy, is predicated on the notion that some people are inherently superior to everyone else and entitled to lead and to be accorded special treatment solely by accident of birth -- in the vernacular, the lucky sperm club -- which is inimical to democracy and meritocracy.

myron myron,

I tend to agree with your point about the notion of inherent superiority being inimical to democracy and meritocracy. Two things concern me though.

Firstly, on a practical note, I'm not sure I fancy the alternatives to our inherited monarch. To mis apply a quote of Winston Churchill, it's the worst system apart from all the others. For Britain, for the moment at least.

Secondly, I'm not sure that being inimical to democracy or meritocracy is fatal flaw. I'm broadly in favour of both system but I don't think that they are ends in themselves. My argument (which I'm not saying is right, merely that it might be) runs like this. We have democracy because it is an efficient and fair system of government and that makes people happy. However, democracies need a referee and sometimes fall victim to mob rule. An inherited monarchy with relatively few powers limited by the constitution (as we have in the UK or the Spartans had in the 5th Century BC) is a quick and efficient way of providing stability to a political system; ballast if you like. It's not fair that it's you and not me but the fact that we don't have to argue about makes it simple and easy to use. Something like that anyway.

GM

Ballast is an apt metaphor: its purpose is to weigh down a vessel. And there is no guarantee that an inherited monarch will be an impartial or even a rational "referee."

France, Germany and the United States, among others, have maintained stable democratic political systems that haven't fallen victim to "mob rule" without the "ballast" of an undemocratic, unmeritocratic inherited monarch acting as "referee." I see no reason why the British need such a major crutch.

In the United States, the "ballast" ensuring political stability is the written Constitution which provides specific checks and balances among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). The "referee" is the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, unless I am mistaken, the Churchill quote you admittedly misapplied was describing democracy.

[AussieAdam]

Yet another person who has no undstanding of the British monarchy, whats its role is, the fact that the King or Queen is in essence a figurative leader. Another person who can't seem to grasp that it is the Government of this country that runs the country not the head of state.

The monarchy has no say at all in how the UK is governed -- Is there any part of that statement people with a shread of intellect cannot grasp?

Soveriegn rule eneded in effect when Charles 1st lost his head after the Civil War. After 11 years as a republic the people decided they wanted a monarch back but since that time the monrachy has had no power over the people.

No one in the UK gives a fig what Americans think about the monarchy because its none of your business and most people outside the UK do not understand it.

Any ballot, any referendum carried out in the UK would return a vote in favour of a monarchy. It's part of the history and traddition - And people love it.

Its the same with Sweden, Denmark, Norway Holland, Spain and Belgium - The people love having a monarch. They enjoy the pajentry and ceremony that goes with it

Germany has maintained a stable democratic political system ? ... Tell that to the jews. Just how democratic was the 3rd Reich? The communists murdered their Royal Family and its now that know that the leaders of the regiem that came after lived in far more splendour and comfort than the Tsars ever did.

JFK and his brother, Abraham Lincolm, MLK - Just how many presidents and leaders of democracy have been murdered by Americans in the land of the free?

Do not talk about true democracy when its less than 40 years ago that America had a worse apartheid system than South Africa, when blacks were treated worse than dogs.

Where many states still have capital punishment and use forms of execution where it can take 10 minutes for a man to die having been held on death row for up to 20 years. Where you can go out and buy a gun easier than you can buy a car.

Where you can get doctors appointments and hospital treatment - As long as you can afford the insurance.

Do not be embarressed by your ignorance - its something most people who live in a country where there is a monarchy are used to.

[myron myron]

No one in the UK gives a fig what Americans think about the monarchy because its none of your business and most people outside the UK do not understand it.

Then I take it you accept if no one in America gives a fig what Brits or anyone outside America thinks about the American government because it's none of your business and most people outside the U.S. do not understand it.

[Jane_]

No one in the UK gives a fig what Americans think about the monarchy because its none of your business and most people outside the UK do not understand it.

Then I take it you accept if no one in America gives a fig what Brits or anyone outside America thinks about the American government because it's none of your business and most people outside the U.S. do not understand it.

touche myron...

[Gibbous Moon]

Charles did divorce Diana, becoming a divorcee. As far as the CofE were concerned the marriage still had some spiritual substance.

GM, don't think I'm being critical of your reasoning, it's the CofE's I don't understand.... If a marriage ends in divorce, surely it simply ceases to be, rather than lives on... Is there a Cof E document where all this is laid out?

No worries. I'm sure between a muddled approach to the issue from the CofE and a muddled understanding of it by GM the whole thing looks muddled.

I'm sure there is a document. CofE website below.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/


I'm afraid my knowledge is a bit second hand. Frankly, I'd not take my word for it but I think their logic runs like this. You get married, you get divorced but if you are head of the CofE that divorce doesn't count, in the eyes of the Church and of God you are still married. If your "spouse" dies then you become a widower. I think (but again my knowledge is second hand) that it is similar to the position that the Catholic church takes on divorce overall.

Personally I find it a bit strange that a Church that was set up to facilitate the divorce of one king of England now won't let his successor divorce or marry a divorcee.

GM

[Gibbous Moon]

Having read through all the posts, I note that some justify the monarchy in terms of symbolism, others in terms of tradition, others in terms of economics (i.e., tourist money), and yet others in personalized quasi-utilitarian terms (i.e., the Queen works hard, signs laws, meets with the PM, etc.).

Shorn of sophistry, the British monarchy, indeed any monarchy, is predicated on the notion that some people are inherently superior to everyone else and entitled to lead and to be accorded special treatment solely by accident of birth -- in the vernacular, the lucky sperm club -- which is inimical to democracy and meritocracy.

myron myron,

I tend to agree with your point about the notion of inherent superiority being inimical to democracy and meritocracy. Two things concern me though.

Firstly, on a practical note, I'm not sure I fancy the alternatives to our inherited monarch. To mis apply a quote of Winston Churchill, it's the worst system apart from all the others. For Britain, for the moment at least.

Secondly, I'm not sure that being inimical to democracy or meritocracy is fatal flaw. I'm broadly in favour of both system but I don't think that they are ends in themselves. My argument (which I'm not saying is right, merely that it might be) runs like this. We have democracy because it is an efficient and fair system of government and that makes people happy. However, democracies need a referee and sometimes fall victim to mob rule. An inherited monarchy with relatively few powers limited by the constitution (as we have in the UK or the Spartans had in the 5th Century BC) is a quick and efficient way of providing stability to a political system; ballast if you like. It's not fair that it's you and not me but the fact that we don't have to argue about makes it simple and easy to use. Something like that anyway.

GM

Ballast is an apt metaphor: its purpose is to weigh down a vessel. And there is no guarantee that an inherited monarch will be an impartial or even a rational "referee."

France, Germany and the United States, among others, have maintained stable democratic political systems that haven't fallen victim to "mob rule" without the "ballast" of an undemocratic, unmeritocratic inherited monarch acting as "referee." I see no reason why the British need such a major crutch.

In the United States, the "ballast" ensuring political stability is the written Constitution which provides specific checks and balances among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). The "referee" is the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, unless I am mistaken, the Churchill quote you admittedly misapplied was describing democracy.

myron myron,

Ballast stops the ship from capsising and keeps it trimmed in the most efficient sailing position.

Correct, there is no guarantee that the referee thrown up by an inherited monarch would be rational or impartial. However, following the model proposed by Plato in Republic they could be trained for their entire lives to act appropriately and I think that the British monarchy aspire to this.



France, Germany and the US have operated stable democracies (on and off) for a while. They've had some mishaps along the way (as have we). The short lived French Second Republic and Second .; the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the US Civil War are examples of occassions where democratic constitutions have failed in some way. We've not had something like those breakdowns in the UK. Whether this stability is because of our long running, flexible constitution or whether it's because we are intrinsically polite and stable I don't know.

A mixed constitution is more stable and more flexible than a non-mixed constitution. Pure monarchies, pure aristocracies and pure democracies are all a little unbalanced at best. The weight of history also helps a constitution remain the governing document of the state. The UK, the US, France, Germany all have mixed constitutions with aspects of each type of constitution.

I don't think the inherited monarchy that we have in the UK is a major crutch. In theory the monarch has some limited political (such as the right to disolve parliament or to appoint or remove the Prime Minister. In practise the monarch would not exercise these powers because to do so would be the "nuclear" option that would trigger a formal review of the UK constitution. They hang like a sword of Damocles above the head of all the constitutional actors. Queen Victoria was critisised for (and I think had to be spoken to about) her reluctance to dismiss Lord Melbourne from office following the Whig defeat in the General Election. The only occasion I know of in recent times when these constitutional powers were excersised in anger is the 1975 Dismissal in Australia and that was by the Governor-General.


Financially, the tourist revenue more than pays for the upkeep of the Royal family.

Limited powers, never exercised with a positive cashflow doesn't seem a major crutch to me.

As I say, I'm a ambivelent about the UK constitution.

If I could think of a system that was definatly better I'd be in favour of it as I think the principle of an inherited monarcy is not right but looking round the world I don't see many examples of systems that have proven they work as consistently well as the UK's constitutional monarcy over the long term. The last major constitution crisis we had that focused on the role of the monarchy was in 1688.

The system we have works and has proven flexible and robust. In recent years we've managed to devolve power from Westminster to various parts of the UK and over the course of the 19th and 20th Century we extend the franchise; both without fundamentally changing our constitution.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for the quote - I was being ironic.

GM

[myron myron]

Yet another person who has no undstanding of the British monarchy, whats its role is, the fact that the King or Queen is in essence a figurative leader. Another person who can't seem to grasp that it is the Government of this country that runs the country not the head of state.

The monarchy has no say at all in how the UK is governed -- Is there any part of that statement people with a shread of intellect cannot grasp?

Soveriegn rule eneded in effect when Charles 1st lost his head after the Civil War. After 11 years as a republic the people decided they wanted a monarch back but since that time the monrachy has had no power over the people.

No one in the UK gives a fig what Americans think about the monarchy because its none of your business and most people outside the UK do not understand it.

Any ballot, any referendum carried out in the UK would return a vote in favour of a monarchy. It's part of the history and traddition - And people love it.

Its the same with Sweden, Denmark, Norway Holland, Spain and Belgium - The people love having a monarch. They enjoy the pajentry and ceremony that goes with it

Do not be embarressed by your ignorance - its something most people who live in a country where there is a monarchy are used to.

In contending that the British monarch "is in essence a figurative leader" and "the monarchy has no say at all in how the UK is governed," you reject the political justifications advanced by Gibbous Moon.

Instead, you base your support for the British monarchy on "the history and traddition [sic]," and "the pajentry [sic] and ceremony."

The "history and tradition" of the British monarchy is the millions of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish innocents who were massacred, tortured, maimed, subjugated and oppressed over centuries of civil wars and wars of occupation -- all in the name of the King or Queen.

The "history and tradition" of the British monarchy is the hundreds of thousands massacred, tortured and maimed and the millions subjugated and oppressed in India, the Sudan, America, and in every corner of the former British . -- all in the name of the King or Queen.

The intractable conflicts in the Middle East today are a creature of the British ., which created Israel and Palestine. The internecine conflicts in Iraq today are a creature of the British ., which created a "country" by drawing borders on a map without regard to historical hatreds of groups inside those borders. The wars and ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan are a creature of the British .. The 1974 war and ongoing tensions between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus are a creature of the British .. These are only some of the many conflicts, hostilities and strife throughout the world resulting from the misdeeds of the British . -- all in the name of the King or Queen.

One who takes pride in the "history and tradition" of the British monarchy is morally complicit in the suffering of its victims.

And given that Britain has exponentially more blood -- by several centuries -- on its hands than the United States, no British subject or supporter of the British monarchy can pontificate self-righteously to America with a shred of credibility.

[myron myron]

JFK and his brother, Abraham Lincolm, MLK - Just how many presidents and leaders of democracy have been murdered by Americans in the land of the free?

Do not talk about true democracy when its less than 40 years ago that America had a worse apartheid system than South Africa, when blacks were treated worse than dogs.

Where many states still have capital punishment and use forms of execution where it can take 10 minutes for a man to die having been held on death row for up to 20 years. Where you can go out and buy a gun easier than you can buy a car.

Where you can get doctors appointments and hospital treatment - As long as you can afford the insurance.

Do not be embarressed by your ignorance - its something most people who live in a country where there is a monarchy are used to.

The assassinations of Lincoln and JFK did not destabilize the political system. As expressly provided in the Constitution, the democratically elected Vice President assumed the Presidency. There is no political instability in America, no fear of "mob rule" or revolution.

The United States has had a black National Security Advisor (chief advisor to the President on national security issues), a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (highest military position in America), and a black Secretary of State (highest foreign policy position in America). What is the highest position a black person has ever attained in the British government?

There is capital punishment in America because the U.S. Constitution permits elected state legislatures to enact laws making capital punishment available for the most heinous murderers convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” and under “aggravating circumstances.” They sit on Death Row for years because they are afforded multiple appeals in the state and federal courts. Before someone is executed, both conviction and sentence have been reviewed and affirmed by multiple panels of state and federal appellate judges. If the majority of a state’s citizens oppose capital punishment, they may elect a legislature that outlaws capital punishment in that state – which has occurred in some states. Notwithstanding that polls in the UK and Western Europe have consistently shown the majority of people want capital punishment for certain crimes, the political elites and unelected EU bureaucrats ignore the majority’s wishes. Which system is democratic?

Law-abiding Americans may legally own guns because the U.S. Constitution expressly provides the right to bear arms. If sufficient numbers of Americans wish to repeal this right, the Constitution’s amendment provisions set forth procedures for repeal. This is the way a constitutional democracy properly functions.

The U.S. Constitution affords Americans considerably greater freedoms and civil liberties than the British, to wit: greater freedom of speech; greater freedom of religion and from religion; greater freedom of privacy; greater protections from unreasonable searches and seizures; and greater protections from extended detention without trial.

The United States does not have a state religion, much less a state religion headed by an inherited monarch, the Church of England. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits establishment of a state religion.

As between Britain and America today, there is no question that America is more democratic, more meritocractic, and more free.

[Gibbous Moon]

Sioux
Cheyenne
Commanche
Mexico
Canada
Mexico again
Panama
Cuba
Nicargua
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Nicaragua again
Cuba again
Panama again
El Salvidor
Grenada
Iraq

Chuck in the Civil War and Slavery.

Stones, glass houses, sins.

I'm not sure either of us come out of a historical review well and I don't think you can lay the blame for all of Britain's internal troubles and foreign policy (mis)-adventures on the monarchy any more than you can blame your flag or your constitution for your own.

GM

[Gibbous Moon]

As between Britain and America today, there is no question that America is more democratic, more meritocractic, and more free.

[/size]

I think there is a question about which is more democratic, meritocratic or free; in practice.

I also think it is legitimate for a country to trade personal freedom for collective benefit or democracy for stability. I think the Chinese would view more democracy and personal freedom as bad things as they destablise the country.

GM

[Jane_]

My dads bigger than your dad ...

[Gibbous Moon]

My dads bigger than your dad ...

Valid

GM