Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022)

[Linguoboy]

Somehow, for all its faults, replacing the monarchy with a random Tory, as mentioned, does not seem like it would be an improvement.

Well, modern monarchies are all about symbolism and I think, "We actually reject our colonialist and imperialist past to the degree that we're even willing to give up the symbolic trappings of it" is a pretty powerful statement. It's not one the UK is willing to make yet because they don't actually repudiate that past, but that's no reason to reject pressuring them to do and instead treat their embrace of it as some harmless and amusing quirk.

[Emily]

Somehow, for all its faults, replacing the monarchy with a random Tory, as mentioned, does not seem like it would be an improvement. Yes, the royal family largely lives in privilege off the public dime, and one could count this against them, but somehow I do not see the UK (or whatever they'd rename it, post-monarchy) really adopting the model of, say, Germany, of having a largely apolitical ceremonial president, even though if they would truly adopt this model I would be for it.

why would you have to "replace" the monarchy with a different position. can't you just get rid of it and all the silly laws saying the queen king has to give the prime minister permission to go to the bathroom or whatever

like as funny as the idea of a "president of the united kingdom" (united presidentdom?) is, i don't really see why you'd need to change much. make the royals have to get real jobs, sell all their stolen jewelry to pay reparations to all the victims of british colonialism, and have parliament go about their business as usual. maybe convert all their gaudy palaces into museums or public housing. easy peasy

[Travis B.]

Somehow, for all its faults, replacing the monarchy with a random Tory, as mentioned, does not seem like it would be an improvement.

Well, modern monarchies are all about symbolism and I think, "We actually reject our colonialist and imperialist past to the degree that we're even willing to give up the symbolic trappings of it" is a pretty powerful statement. It's not one the UK is willing to make yet because they don't actually repudiate that past, but that's no reason to reject pressuring them to do and instead treat their embrace of it as some harmless and amusing quirk.

Is replacing the monarchy with a republic really such a repudiation of colonialism and imperalism, though? Look at the example of France, for instance - colonialism and imperialism long outlasted its last monarchy, and I remember reading about things such as some African leader delivering briefcases full of money to Jacques Chirac of all people. (For more on this topic, google Françafrique.)

[Raphael]

Since some people in this thread brought up ceremonial presidents like the ones that currently exist in most countries with parliamentary republican systems, I'll not that someone like that isn't strictly speaking necessary to have a parliamentary republican system. There's also the current South African system, where, if I understand their current constitution correctly, they have a president who is basically a parliamentary prime minister in all but name, that is, elected by parliament and subject to removal by parliament.

[Emily]

Somehow, for all its faults, replacing the monarchy with a random Tory, as mentioned, does not seem like it would be an improvement.

Well, modern monarchies are all about symbolism and I think, "We actually reject our colonialist and imperialist past to the degree that we're even willing to give up the symbolic trappings of it" is a pretty powerful statement. It's not one the UK is willing to make yet because they don't actually repudiate that past, but that's no reason to reject pressuring them to do and instead treat their embrace of it as some harmless and amusing quirk.

Is replacing the monarchy with a republic really such a repudiation of colonialism and imperalism, though? Look at the example of France, for instance - colonialism and imperialism long outlasted its last monarchy, and I remember reading about things such as some African leader delivering briefcases full of money to Jacques Chirac of all people. (For more on this topic, google Françafrique.)

not on its own, but i think in the case of britain it's a pretty necessary first step

[Linguoboy]

Is replacing the monarchy with a republic really such a repudiation of colonialism and imperalism, though? Look at the example of France, for instance

At the risk of stating the obvious, the UK is not France. The British monarchy is thoroughly associated with colonialism and imperialism in a way the traditional French monarchy never was.

[Travis B.]

Is replacing the monarchy with a republic really such a repudiation of colonialism and imperalism, though? Look at the example of France, for instance

At the risk of stating the obvious, the UK is not France. The British monarchy is thoroughly associated with colonialism and imperialism in a way the traditional French monarchy never was.

It wasn't? Somehow I must have imagined reading about the First French colonial empire, the Napoleonic wars, the first part of the conquest of Algeria, and the Second French Empire's colonial war in Mexico, all of which supposedly occurred under monarchies (or dictatorships, in the case of the first part of the Napoleonic Wars with Napoleon as first consul)...

[Linguoboy]

It wasn't? Somehow I must have imagined reading about the First French colonial empire, the Napoleonic wars, the first part of the conquest of Algeria, and the Second French Empire's colonial war in Mexico, all of which supposedly occurred under monarchies (or dictatorships, in the case of the first part of the Napoleonic Wars with Napoleon as first consul)...

Or maybe you just missed the word "traditional"? Napoleon was a usurper. He had no more ties to the traditional French monarchy than I do.

[Raphael]

(Travis makes a good point about the French Monarchy, but despite that, Linguoboy is still right about the British Monarchy.)

(Somewhat meandering post)

Generally speaking, I've changed my mind about the main issue here over the course of the last few years. I used to be in favor of keeping the remaining monarchies (though not re-introducing monarchy in any republic), for purely sentimental reasons: I'm emotionally very strongly attracted to pageantry, and I live in a place with next to none of it, so I used to have a kind of longing for places with more of it.

However, I've always been critical of or downright hostile towards tradition, and I eventually realized that being an anti-traditionalist monarchist is an inherently hypocritical position. I can't consistently criticize the kind of people who would demand that I "respect tradition" if I myself tell people to respect monarchs.

And then there's the symbolism matter. Ultimately, you either think that symbolism is important, or you don't - and there isn't much of a reason to support monarchy in either case. If you think that symbolism doesn't or shouldn't matter, then, ok, there's not much of a case against monarchy, but there's even less of a case for it. And if you think that symbolism does and should matter, then the case in favor of abolishing monarchy, especially, but not only, in the British case, is overwhelming.

All that said, I can't get myself to have a serious problem with someone whose politics I find otherwise agreeable simply because they're pro-monarchy.

[Travis B.]

It wasn't? Somehow I must have imagined reading about the First French colonial empire, the Napoleonic wars, the first part of the conquest of Algeria, and the Second French Empire's colonial war in Mexico, all of which supposedly occurred under monarchies (or dictatorships, in the case of the first part of the Napoleonic Wars with Napoleon as first consul)...

Or maybe you just missed the word "traditional"? Napoleon was a usurper. He had no more ties to the traditional French monarchy than I do.

Okay, but even if you consider that, it is hard to not see the likes of the Sun King as imperialist.

[Travis B.]

(Travis makes a good point about the French Monarchy, but despite that, Linguoboy is still right about the British Monarchy.)

(Somewhat meandering post)

Generally speaking, I've changed my mind about the main issue here over the course of the last few years. I used to be in favor of keeping the remaining monarchies (though not re-introducing monarchy in any republic), for purely sentimental reasons: I'm emotionally very strongly attracted to pageantry, and I live in a place with next to none of it, so I used to have a kind of longing for places with more of it.

However, I've always been critical of or downright hostile towards tradition, and I eventually realized that being an anti-traditionalist monarchist is an inherently hypocritical position. I can't consistently criticize the kind of people who would demand that I "respect tradition" if I myself tell people to respect monarchs.

And then there's the symbolism matter. Ultimately, you either think that symbolism is important, or you don't - and there isn't much of a reason to support monarchy in either case. If you think that symbolism doesn't or shouldn't matter, then, ok, there's not much of a case against monarchy, but there's even less of a case for it. And if you think that symbolism does and should matter, then the case in favor of abolishing monarchy, especially, but not only, in the British case, is overwhelming.

All that said, I can't get myself to have a serious problem with someone whose politics I find otherwise agreeable simply because they're pro-monarchy.

To me the value in the British monarchy is that in having a largely apolitical, ceremonial head of state. Were they to replace it with Germany's model, of having a largely apolitical, ceremonial elected head of state I would be all for it, especially with how I somehow doubt that King Charles III will be an adequate replacement for Queen Elizabeth II. However, as I said before, there is a good chance that the presidency would just become another partisan office for yet another Tory to occupy, and that makes me less supportive of the idea.

[Raphael]

To me the value in the British monarchy is that in having a largely apolitical, ceremonial head of state. Were they to replace it with Germany's model, of having a largely apolitical, ceremonial elected head of state I would be all for it, especially with how I somehow doubt that King Charles III will be an adequate replacement for Queen Elizabeth II. However, as I said before, there is a good chance that the presidency would just become another partisan office for yet another Tory to occupy, and that makes me less supportive of the idea.

Did you read this post of mine?

Since some people in this thread brought up ceremonial presidents like the ones that currently exist in most countries with parliamentary republican systems, I'll not that someone like that isn't strictly speaking necessary to have a parliamentary republican system. There's also the current South African system, where, if I understand their current constitution correctly, they have a president who is basically a parliamentary prime minister in all but name, that is, elected by parliament and subject to removal by parliament.

That said, the conundrum you bring up gives me the idea for some conworld political system: a republic in which each year, through some convoluted process combining luck, skill, and careful vetting, a number of people, perhaps from various demographic groups and, say, three different generations, would be chosen as "impersonations of the people", and high-ranking politicians and other officials would be required to kneel before them whenever they meet them, including at their respective inaugurations. That might pacify those monarchists who simply like the symbolism of having even the most powerful politicians being officially subject to someone.

[Linguoboy]

Okay, but even if you consider that, it is hard to not see the likes of the Sun King as imperialist.

Yesssss...

The Sun King died in 1715. His line came definitively to an end in 1830.

Elizabeth II was the great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

[Raphael]

Yesssss...

The Sun King died in 1715. His line came definitively to an end in 1830.

Elizabeth II was the great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

I mostly agree with you on this matter, but, for the record, Felipe VI is (at least officially) a direct descendant of Louis XIV.

[Ares Land]

Is replacing the monarchy with a republic really such a repudiation of colonialism and imperalism, though? Look at the example of France, for instance

At the risk of stating the obvious, the UK is not France. The British monarchy is thoroughly associated with colonialism and imperialism in a way the traditional French monarchy never was.

I think the French example shows that there isn't such a sttong link between monarchy ans colonialism. France was just as ruthless, if not more as Britain and ardently republican.

I don't see how blaming British colonialism on the monarchy makes any sense either. Republics were just as eager; and the monarchs had no political power during the bulk of Britain's colonial history.

(Unlike the Belgian kings for instance, who have a lot to answer for!)

[Travis B.]

I think the French example shows that there isn't such a sttong link between monarchy ans colonialism. France was just as ruthless, if not more as Britain and ardently republican.

I don't see how blaming British colonialism on the monarchy makes any sense either. Republics were just as eager; and the monarchs had no political power during the bulk of Britain's colonial history.

(Unlike the Belgian kings for instance, who have a lot to answer for!)

I must agree - republican France was (or shall I say is?) just as colonialist as monarchical Britain, and for much of the British Empire Britain was a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch had only limited power (which means that the monarchy cannot be blamed for British imperialism alone).

[Raphael]

I think Linguoboy's point is that the symbolic link between the British Crown and the Empire was or is very strong, and, well, the whole point of modern monarchies is what they symbolize.

[Travis B.]

I think Linguoboy's point is that the symbolic link between the British Crown and the Empire was or is very strong, and, well, the whole point of modern monarchies is what they symbolize.

In that the British monarch is still the monarch of an array of countries spread out about the world that have that they were colonized by the British in common is a way that the present-day British monarch still symbolizes British imperialism. However, it has been quite some time since the British Empire really existed, a longer time than since Jacques Chirac was accepting briefcases full of cash from African leaders.

[Ares Land]

I think Linguoboy's point is that the symbolic link between the British Crown and the Empire was or is very strong, and, well, the whole point of modern monarchies is what they symbolize.

I get that, but changing the symbol isn't going to change the past, or improve the UK as it stands now. (for Commonwealth countries it's yet another matter and many of them, understandably, changed their head of state.)

[Travis B.]

Interestingly enough, one of the most monarchist demographics in Canada are the First Nations, something that would seem unexpected if one summed up the monarchy as merely being an imperialist anachronism. This is because the crown is seen as directly having entrenched constitutional fiduciary obligations to the First Nations of Canada, which would be subject to the whims of particular governments, which would be far less permanent than the sovereign's obligations, under a republican form of government.