Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022)

[Travis B.]

The world will now watch on with envy over the next few days as Britain does the only two things it does well: portentous pomp and pageantry, and standing submissively in queues.

Not true - some pretty decent murder mysteries have come out of Britain, and we can thank Britain for Monty Python (and Fawlty Towers).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

A good deal of the fantasy genre as we know it seems to have developed there.

[Emily]

A good deal of the fantasy genre as we know it seems to have developed there.

one more crime to add to the list

[Raphael]

They're really good at self-deprecation, but it would probably be kinda weird to brag about that.

(Generally speaking, the US and the UK are the countries whose pop culture I like the most. Where I'm from, there is, or at least used to be, a general agreement that it's impossible to be intelligent and entertaining at the same time, with the result that the local cultural output tends to be either stupid or boring. But I'm getting off topic for this thread.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

A good deal of the fantasy genre as we know it seems to have developed there.

one more crime to add to the list

I never should've thought to call a literary genre lots of people enjoy a "crime".

[Travis B.]

A good deal of the fantasy genre as we know it seems to have developed there.

one more crime to add to the list

I never should've thought to call a literary genre lots of people enjoy a "crime".

But but high fantasy is built upon a Eurocentric glorification of feudalism!!!11one11eleven!!1

[Raphael]

But but high fantasy is built upon a Eurocentric glorification of feudalism!!!11one11eleven!!1

I know you're being sarcastic, but that is one problem I have with it. That said, the larger genre seems to be full of works that subvert or mock that aspect.

[Ares Land]

I discovered fantasy through Terry Pratchett, a much saner introduction to the genre

While we're talking about nice British things, the diversity and originality of British fantasy comes to mind: Lewis, Tolkien, Moorcock, Alan Moore, Pratchett, China Mieville,...

[Raphael]

I discovered fantasy through Terry Pratchett, a much saner introduction to the genre

Partly same here. I sometimes wonder, though, whether he might have ruined non-humorous fantasy for me. After reading a lot of his stuff, reading regular fantasy sometimes makes me think "hey this is boring, where are the jokes?" EDIT: same for Shaun of the Dead and the zombie genre.

While we're talking about nice British things, the diversity and originality of British fantasy comes to mind: Lewis, Tolkien, Moorcock, Alan Moore, Pratchett, China Mieville,...

Already implicitly included in my point about pop culture above... EDIT: Pratchett is actually the only one on that list whom I've read (tried reading Tolkien, didn't get far).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I discovered fantasy through Terry Pratchett, a much saner introduction to the genre

Partly same here. I sometimes wonder, though, whether he might have ruined non-humorous fantasy for me. After reading; lot of his stuff, reading regular fantasy sometimes makes me think "hey this is boring, where are the jokes?" EDIT: same for Shaun of the Dead and the zombie genre.

Perhaps you simply like fiction that happens to contain jokes? I've read one book by Pratchett and enjoyed it, but it wasn't really the humour that did or didn't do it from me (though I was amused throughout) — I enjoyed the characters and ideas, as I would have if there had not been so many jokes alongside them.

While we're talking about nice British things, the diversity and originality of British fantasy comes to mind: Lewis, Tolkien, Moorcock, Alan Moore, Pratchett, China Mieville,...

I'm also one of those maybe-minority-readers with a massive soft spot for George MacDonald.

I haven't read all early fantasy, but I'm trying to think of something that I would definitely class as part of the genre that really does glorify feudalism and empire (maybe She, though this I would call just more generally full of racist period cringe not infrequent in other works from the same time). I would also expect most early fantasy to be European-themed, being set in Europe or Europe-like fantasy worlds, being produced by people in Europe for whom that was the cultural frame of reference (what you would probably get otherwise would be a load of cringe-inducing orientalism). The use of Europesque settings is also not particularly region-restricted — lots of Japanese fantasy games have vaguely Europeanesque settings, which kept the love of fantasy in me alive as I was growing older. I think it's fairly safe to say that, while certainly Nineteenth Century racism might appear in some fantasy from the period, it certainly isn't an inherent trait.

[Linguoboy]

People like to keep shitting on the British Empire like it was the very image of Evil; as if it did no good - nothing like, say, end slavery.

Only after profiting off it for three hundred years. This is literally like getting credit for stopping beating your spouse after being in an abusive marriage with them for decades.

Well what would you have them do, continue it because they are too set in their ways to reform? If you repent of something then by definition you had to have engaged in it before.

Oh, hello, fallacy of the excluded middle! This has really been a banner thread for informal fallacies today.

Maybe just not whine about not getting enough credit for putting a stop to a massive evil which they were the mainstay of for the better part of two hundred years? The US put a stop to chattel slavery within its territories and it's something I would never in a million years consider bragging about because it immediately prompts the question, "Well, why did you have chattel slavery in your country in the first place?" Moreover, it's not like the UK or the USA ever did anything in terms of making restitution for the criminal acts they committed. In fact, both of them found ways to continue slavery under other names for several more generations--the USA through its sharecroppers and its prison labourers, the British with opium factories and the coolie trade. (To go back to the marriage example, you've stopped beating your spouse, but you still won't grant them a divorce, let alone recompense them for pain, suffering, and years of unpaid labour; in fact, you're still getting the benefit of their labour in return for a pitiful allowance.)

[Travis B.]

The US put a stop to chattel slavery within its territories and it's something I would never in a million years consider bragging about because it immediately prompts the question, "Well, why did you have chattel slavery in your country in the first place?"

For some reason Americans rarely seem to be self-congratulatory about this.

In fact, both of them found ways to continue slavery under other names for several more generations--the USA through its sharecroppers and its prison labourers, the British with opium factories and the coolie trade.

I am reminded of blackbirding, which made me think when I read about it that I had thought that the British had banned slavery.

[Linguoboy]

I am reminded of blackbirding, which made me think when I read about it that I had thought that the British had banned slavery.

Another glaring example. Blackbirding in the British Crown colony of Fiji was only officially ended in 1911. On other islands, it persisted into the 1930s.

[Emily]

all smartass comments about genre fiction aside, "well what about america's crimes" is absolutely not a good defense in this case because every american i know denouncing britain's crimes also denounces america's crimes. in fact the two often share lineage (such as the slavery example raised repeatedly itt) or direct collaboration (the korean war, the gulf war, iraq, afghanistan, libya . . . )

[zompist]

I'm simply very skeptical about claims that republics are more modern, more efficient or more ethical than constitutional monarchies. Republics are entirely as adept at pain and harm.

As general classes, I think I agree. After all "constitutional monarchies" include the Nordic countries and Japan, while "republics" include Italy, Greece, and most of the Third World.

But the British in particular are far from being modern, efficient, or ethical. Obviously the monarchy itself doesn't cause this, but it's symptomatic of certain British deficiencies. Whatever benefits a monarchy might provide, the British are overpaying exorbitantly for them.

Matt Yglesias just did an interesting piece on how British policy makes it almost impossible to build new housing— thus makes housing incredibly expensive. As he put it, the Nazi Blitz actually did Britain good in the long term— because it allowed new and denser development. Again, hardly the queen's fault— but it's part of the whole attitude of ham-headed adoration of the past.

[Man in Space]

Only after profiting off it for three hundred years. This is literally like getting credit for stopping beating your spouse after being in an abusive marriage with them for decades.

Well what would you have them do, continue it because they are too set in their ways to reform? If you repent of something then by definition you had to have engaged in it before.

Oh, hello, fallacy of the excluded middle! This has really been a banner thread for informal fallacies today.

I ask out of genuine confusion: What is fallacious here? Slavery has been a problem for millennia and was institutionalized, but the British eventually did get rid of it. I’d say doing away with chattel slavery as an institution is something to laud. When you said “Only after profiting from it for three hundred years” it reads to me as a dismissal of the good that occurred, basically demonstrating Jonlang’s complaint. The British were overall a disaster wherever they steamrolled on in, but to reject the idea that the British Empire (or, if not the polity, then at least movements within it) is/was incapable of doing at least some good in some situations seems a little ridiculous.

The US put a stop to chattel slavery within its territories and it's something I would never in a million years consider bragging about because it immediately prompts the question, "Well, why did you have chattel slavery in your country in the first place?"

Because people are shitfucks everywhere. Chattel slavery and institutional slavery aren't uniquely American problems; it is or has been common enough in societies the world over. I’m not surprised a chattel slavery system emerged from the indentured-servitude model; people always find something to push others around about.

For all my father’s loony politics, I do agree with him on the ending of slavery being a high point: The country tore itself to pieces in order to get rid of it. (Then along came Hayes and the end of Reconstruction, which was, as everyone knows, atrocious.)

[Travis B.]

I'm simply very skeptical about claims that republics are more modern, more efficient or more ethical than constitutional monarchies. Republics are entirely as adept at pain and harm.

As general classes, I think I agree. After all "constitutional monarchies" include the Nordic countries and Japan, while "republics" include Italy, Greece, and most of the Third World.

But the British in particular are far from being modern, efficient, or ethical. Obviously the monarchy itself doesn't cause this, but it's symptomatic of certain British deficiencies. Whatever benefits a monarchy might provide, the British are overpaying exorbitantly for them.

Matt Yglesias just did an interesting piece on how British policy makes it almost impossible to build new housing— thus makes housing incredibly expensive. As he put it, the Nazi Blitz actually did Britain good in the long term— because it allowed new and denser development. Again, hardly the queen's fault— but it's part of the whole attitude of ham-headed adoration of the past.

I must agree with the above. Note that, all in all, there is little difference here between constitutional monarchies and republics intrinsic to a state being one or the other. The contrast between Scandinavia and Japan on one hand and Italy, Greece, and most of the Third World on the other hand, would remain if Scandinavia and Japan were republican and Italy, Greece, and most of the Third World were non-absolute monarchies (for good examples of highly illiberal countries with non-absolute monarchies, look at Thailand under many a military government, Italy under Mussolini (prior to the establishment of the Italian Social Republic), Greece under Metaxas, and Romania under the Iron Guard). Of course, one could argue that just because a country is non-absolute monarchy does not mean it is a constitutional monarchy, but that is like arguing that a republic must be a democratic republic.

[Raphael]

all smartass comments about genre fiction aside, "well what about america's crimes" is absolutely not a good defense in this case because every american i know denouncing britain's crimes also denounces america's crimes.

Err - so?

Let's say I would start putting a lot of effort into telling the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians, and/or the Luxembourgers that they should really abolish their respective monarchies because of the horrible history they're connected to. In that case, I would almost certainly get a lot of responses along the lines of, "What? You are lecturing us about horrible histories?" And I strongly doubt that saying something along the lines of "Well, of course I denounce Germany's crimes, too!" would help me much in that case.

[Ares Land]

I'm simply very skeptical about claims that republics are more modern, more efficient or more ethical than constitutional monarchies. Republics are entirely as adept at pain and harm.

As general classes, I think I agree. After all "constitutional monarchies" include the Nordic countries and Japan, while "republics" include Italy, Greece, and most of the Third World.

But the British in particular are far from being modern, efficient, or ethical. Obviously the monarchy itself doesn't cause this, but it's symptomatic of certain British deficiencies. Whatever benefits a monarchy might provide, the British are overpaying exorbitantly for them.

Matt Yglesias just did an interesting piece on how British policy makes it almost impossible to build new housing— thus makes housing incredibly expensive. As he put it, the Nazi Blitz actually did Britain good in the long term— because it allowed new and denser development. Again, hardly the queen's fault— but it's part of the whole attitude of ham-headed adoration of the past.

I don't think you need a king for ham-headed adoration of the past. What you need is a general feeling that your country has a glorious past, a somewhat disappointing present and a worrying future. So for instance we get a lot of that here in France.

I like to compare Britain and France because, eh, it's convenient; plus we share a lot of history, and we occupy a similar place on the global stage. All in all, Britain is not modern, efficient or ethical; but neither is France - and we're a republic (among other problems, the UK has more severe wealth inequalities but France is more racist.) In fact it seems to me both countries have similar issues relating to the same overall democratic malaise that affects all of the West.

Matt Yglesias has a point, but again it's hard to see any connection with monarchy. Many American cities suffer from the same issues as Yglesias himself pointed out.
With respect to housing issues Britain was hit hardest and earliest in Europe, and London is still by far one of the worse places, but the general trend hits all Europe. (as far as I know the worst place is Switzerland where you can pay Central London prices for a house in the middle of nowhere)

Long story shorts Britain isn't that much of an outlier in Europe and evidence for monarchy being much of a factor in the issues it faces is slim.

[Linguoboy]

Let's say I would start putting a lot of effort into telling the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians, and/or the Luxembourgers that they should really abolish their respective monarchies because of the horrible history they're connected to. In that case, I would almost certainly get a lot of responses along the lines of, "What? You are lecturing us about horrible histories?" And I strongly doubt that saying something along the lines of "Well, of course I denounce Germany's crimes, too!" would help me much in that case.

I'm really not following your logic here at all. "This is an informal logical fallacy which would be used against me in similar circumstances, therefore I support its use here." A fallacy is a fallacy, and even if we can't stamp it out in the wider world, we can at least avoid indulging in it on the ZBB.

Following up on what Zompist said, it's time we put to rest the quaint notion that the richest family in the UK are powerless figureheads who never influence policy. Last year, the Guardian ran a whole series of articles on the practice of "crown consent" and found that more than 1,000 laws were vetted by the monarchy before being ratified. It's hard to know how many may have been modified based on royal input since such lobbying is mostly off the record, but they suspect that the Crown was responsible for, among other changes, modifications to transparency legislation in order to conceal their personal wealth and to civil rights legislation in order to exempt the royal household from the established grievance process for race and sex discrimination. (It was the official Crown policy at least through the 60s to ban "coloured immigrants of foreigners" from front-facing positions and it's not clear when this was ended, since records only started being kept in 90s.)

I'm really not getting the whole "republics do harm too so we shouldn't fault the monarchy for the harm it does" argument. A lot of Britain's problems--historical and contemporary--stem from its class system. The British monarch is the literal embodiment of that system. But getting rid of them wouldn't weaken that system or solve any problems related to it?