[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
I have no problem saying it.

Sorry ya limey wankers, but (and perhaps butt), Fuck the Queen!



I am going out on a limb here and disagreeing with the very notion of monarchy.

Now, if you are British, I have a feeling you disagree with me, quite strongly, about the problems that England having a queen has. Now while there are more countries than just England with a queen (or king) my recent conversation with a friend of a friend who happens to be a Brit.

I'm totally baffled, absolutely flabbergasted, as to how modern people, in a modern country are still perfectly content with their medieval ruling class monarchs continuing to sit on the throne.

Now, I know I know, the Queen, bless her heart, is just a figure-head. She's not a monarch in the way that monarchs USED to rule. She's not a member of an aristocracy that decides the fate of the country, NO! The queen is just our national celebrity, our figurehead.

About that. I've got to say, I'm slightly confused. So while my friend of a friend, insisted, quite vehemently, "the Queen does NOT have power in the political world. she rubber stamps whatever parliament does" meanwhile, a relatives boyfriend who is also a Brit told me once that, "oh of course the queen has power. everyone over there knows this. it's not something Americans are too savvy on, but we Brits all know she has power." He went on to give me an example of her power.

e.g. Let's say that for whatever reason, the house of commons and the house of lords decided to switch england from the pound to the euro. This would be massively unpopular and the queen could use her power to dissolve the government and call for new elections. This would give the people a chance to vote out the people doing what they dislike. The queen, according to my relatives boyfriend, can do what is RIGHT without worrying about what is POPULAR.

I found this line of reasoning odd, not the least of which this individuals previous argument FOR the queen was that she was popular. "We Brits love her. Can't we have what we want?" Well, I'm gonna continue to maintain that EITHER we should do what is right, because it is right, even when it's unpopular (including deposing a popular monarch, if monarchy is wrong) or we should simply do what is popular and not use being right as some magical reason to give power to an unelected monarch. Personally I maintain that what is right aught be done, regardless of popularity, regardless of consequence.

I fantasize that this puts me in the same ideological stance of Rorsarch and Socrates. They make an odd couple.


So I'm not going to claim to be any great expert on Britain or Monarchy or how the two interact over there. Maybe the queen has power, maybe not. (Here is a link suggesting the queen does have power. My Brit friend of a friend said it was a single piece of sensationalist journalism that I shouldn't put too much stock in)

So here's the thing, even if the queen is not an institutional force of power, I have a problem with vast sums of inherited wealth and power. Even the left-wingers I know, some of whom may be socialists and communists, oddly enough, have no problem with this family continuing its line of wealth, generation to generation, not laboring for it, but being handed it because of some accident of birth.

I'm aware that the queen has a positive effect. She is a source of national unity and pride; she can be a diplomat; she can bring in revenue from people buying knick-knacks with the queen or princes face on it. But all of the positive she can bring, are not exclusively things a monarch may do.

There is something terribly wrong in maintaining a system that says you are special because of your blood. This is not because I'm an American and I have some prejudice against monarchs. This is because I am a cosmpolitian philosopher who is peeved that the Queen and her kin get to live a life of luxury and comfort, even if everything they do is in the public eye, they will NEVER worry about medical bills or having enough money to eat. They will never face the hardships that MOST of humanity worries about. They are excluded and given BETTER TREATMENT because of their genetics. This is not right. This is incorrect. This needs to stop.


I'm certain it won't. Brits love their queen and to take something from somebody, when they love it deeply, is difficult at best, impossible at worst. But please, someone out there, help me understand.

Just why the hell does anybody support a monarchy anymore? The dark ages called and they want their system of government back.

(no subject)

Date: 13/4/13 11:44 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com
I think we can thank Parliament for the tax on tea, and the general taxation without representation thingy, rather than poor ol' mad Georgie. After all, taxes have been Parliament's prerogative, and were the source of a lot of pre-constitutional monarchy (ie the Stuarts) friction with the elected representatives.

I don't think you can blame the Guelph Hapsburg monarch for the War of Independence, though I know that it made political sense to do so at the time.

(no subject)

Date: 13/4/13 16:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] allhatnocattle.livejournal.com
To suggest that the Monarchy's powers are mute is ignorant. In the past, now or unless something changes in the future, the power remains.

(no subject)

Date: 13/4/13 20:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com
I'm not suggesting that a constitutional monarchy has no powers, merely that you overstate them by a ridiculous extent.

But I'm prepared to be proved wrong and put right in this matter: therefore, I beg you to tell us all how George III (rather than the British Parliament) caused the American War of Independence - as you mentioned poor mad George as a counter-example to Elizabeth II.

(no subject)

Date: 13/4/13 20:55 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com
Actually, I stand corrected:
I think you'll find your argument here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion)
He really was a mad bastard. But Parliament started it all with the stamp act. Please accept my apologies. Some monarchs certainly are idiots. As are some elected heads of states.

(no subject)

Date: 13/4/13 22:30 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] allhatnocattle.livejournal.com
I mean I also understand it from the King's point of view. Facing a mutiny in the colonies with hundreds of treasonous acts, waiting for parliament to act, if parliament would have agreed to act at all, wasn't in King George's best interest. His intervention expedited the reaction, much like having the President declare war on Al Qaida before congress votes on it.

Not sure about other monarchies but here in Canada, The Constitution Act of 1867 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html) section 9.states very simply "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

The brass tacks of this has our royal fiqurehead mostly symbolic. However the very real powers of the Crown could be exercised. After all although it's done by proxy of Governor-Generals it's to the Queen we apply for passports. It's the Queen who grants pardons. And in larger sense the Queen signs all bills into law and swears in new governments.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
OSZAR »