Would you not agree that the life of the Royal family whether that be their lavish lifestyle, or their behind closed doors drama aren't most popular with women? I know that's been the case with my family, and friends.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Abolish the Monarchy - Shaun
- Thread starter Naijaboy
- Start date
We're currently undergoing a rather large constitutional change that was started with barely any discussion of the constitutional ramifications of that. I don't think it's weird at all to say that it's not as easy as just passing a law saying the Queen isn't head of state anymore. It's a whole pandora's box of issues that would need to be discussed and addressed.
Now, maybe they do need addressing at some point. Hell, I'm no fan of the current constitutional set up and would welcome some major reform. But right now, the cost of not opening that box is that one family gets to dress up every so often.
The video fully explains how the idea that they somehow make more money than we spend on them is a lie yet half the people in this topic seem to be bringing it up without addressing the points Shaun made?
Also fuck her for that horrific austerity speech.
Also fuck her for that horrific austerity speech.
I made literally this exact point in multiple posts of mine you've quoted in this thread.
Why do the women in your life need "distracting" ?
All the stuff, crowns, castles, palaces and parks that people come to see will still exist, it's not like she had queues of people waiting for her to sign a teatowel or something for £150 a pop. other countries have charities, life goes on without a bunch of royals.
I need distraction too. Don't look so deep into the word "distraction".
Yes, hence the part after you quoted where I stated that it's a whole pandora's box of issues that need to be addressed, and given how well we're dealing with one major constitutional change at the moment, maybe opening up another front isn't the most appealing of ideas.
Imagine Chris Grayling in charge of this constitutional reform. I have very little confidence that our current batch of politicians could cope with the ramifications and the necessary changes in a vaguely competent way. They'd probably invest the royal prerogative in the PM, which could theoretically mean that someone like Theresa May, who's stated in the past a desire to rewrite the Human Rights Act and pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, enjoying what would be an pretty much unlimited elected dictatorship.
As for someone who has the worlds best king, this guy:
I just wanna keep the Monarchy around until he dies. He's too adorable to be abolished just yet.
After that, it's all fair to get rid of it. All across Europe, we've been dragging our heels a bit on the subject for over 100 years since the end of WW1.
I just wanna keep the Monarchy around until he dies. He's too adorable to be abolished just yet.
After that, it's all fair to get rid of it. All across Europe, we've been dragging our heels a bit on the subject for over 100 years since the end of WW1.
I'm not sure who you're responding to because I never said I want the monarchy to be abolished by the current government or gave any timetable at all. For the record, I think it should only happen if there is a democratic mandate for it--whether that's from a referendum (probably not advisable) or from a party with republicanism in their manifesto winning a general election--and that's not the case now nor does it appear likely to be so in the foreseeable future. (Who knows what Charles might manage with his mad PR skills once he takes the throne :V but even he is unlikely to tip the scales.) In any event, I agree that the May ministry would be completely unsuited for the task.
I love Shaun but I feel this video was a bit of a wasted opportunity. Most people in the UK know the statistics they just don't care because they like the royal family and the idealised version of Britain it represents.
As someone who spends most of his time deconstructing how various institutions (and the people who support said institutions) affect minorities in the US, I find it a bit disappointing that he didn't attempt the the same there. I'm sure there's a huge overlap in right-wing shit bags in the UK and people who long the (mostly fabricated) good old days of the British Empire that the Monarch still represent.
Oh well.
As someone who spends most of his time deconstructing how various institutions (and the people who support said institutions) affect minorities in the US, I find it a bit disappointing that he didn't attempt the the same there. I'm sure there's a huge overlap in right-wing shit bags in the UK and people who long the (mostly fabricated) good old days of the British Empire that the Monarch still represent.
Oh well.
A lot of us are hoping he helps kill it off, but he's getting too old to be a proper interfering pain in the arse.
No they wouldn't. Tourism regarding england's history isn't going to disappear just because the monarchy no longer exists.
Calls to abolish the monarchy are pretty idiotic when you consider that the politicians who would handle the aftermath of such a tectonic shift are also the same politicians currently driving the country towards Brexit and doing that oh so well.
Yeah let's have the Conservative government write a Constitution. That will turn out well.
Yeah let's have the Conservative government write a Constitution. That will turn out well.
Fuck 'em. Strip them of the titles, land, and wealth given to them. Put them in a nice council house and give them whatever benefits they are due.
And loose all that sleep during the queen's speech at Christmas? Or all the front pages the rags publish every time they need to deflect from the government fuck ups? All for just £1 per person in the UK (apparently....)
Or hear about Prince Phillip last racist Remark? Nahhhh
Or hear about Prince Phillip last racist Remark? Nahhhh
When you have someone like Blair who didn't really do cabinet and a large majority, our system is nuts.
Be thankful May doesn't have a majority because you would have Turnips and union jack bunting for xmas.
It's probably the right thing to do, but at the same time it isn't one of the main pressing points in UK politics at the moment.
I've never found the economic arguments for or against the monarchy particularly compelling either way. If having a monarch is good or bad for the UK, that argument should be able to made based solely on political considerations. But yes, CGPGrey's video did have quite a few questionable claims. I do wish the real security costs of the royal family were more transparent; it's not helpful when opposing parties in any argument just talk past each other using different numbers.
I only ever see something like this working if it had enormous cross-party and societal support. Abolishing the British monarchy is decades away unless people's views change massively, very quickly.
And to be honest, from a democracy point of view, the House of Lords is far more offensive than the royal family. They're partly hereditary and still actually exercise power.
I only ever see something like this working if it had enormous cross-party and societal support. Abolishing the British monarchy is decades away unless people's views change massively, very quickly.
And to be honest, from a democracy point of view, the House of Lords is far more offensive than the royal family. They're partly hereditary and still actually exercise power.
The queen doesn't write these speeches; the government does. She's a mouthpiece.
OP
OP
This is frankly my biggest issue with the idea. As of right now, I have no faith that the current government will properly handle abolishment. Even Corbyn's Labour government would likely use the funds to starve off the effects of Brexit.
Call me when you guys get your mess together and then we can discuss abolishment.
It'd be ancient nonsense if the monarch had any political power to begin with, but that's not really the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time here. And it's pretty much the same in most western countries with a royal house these days.
So what's the point of a largely symbolic function these days? Having a head of state who can be above party politics if the situation demands it. Let's say a hurricane hits a coastal city and the head of state visits the area afterwards in order to provide comfort to the local citizenry. Remember Obama's visit after Sandy? Half the country was immediately like: "Eh, it's a campaign stunt." And of course, Obama realized that if he fudged his trip, he'd pay a political price for it, so it was political in his mind too.
The "no man should be above others because of where he was born"-arguments I'm seeing here are missing the point, because of the symbolic status of the king/queen nowadays. You're not really above others because the position comes with a crapton of restrictions on your own personal freedom while you get no real political power to make up for that. Functioning as a national non-partisan mascot/symbol only works as long as you can manage to stay above the fray, no matter how you personally feel about matters. The moment you start throwing your weight around, you destroy the very institution you're upholding as part of your job.
Personally, as a Dutchy, I wouldn't want to trade places with Willem Alexander.
The monarchy isn't really about power anymore. What the question of this thread really comes down to nowadays is: Do you, in these increasingly partisan times where practically everything is political nowadays, see the value in heads of state who aren't affiliated with a specific political party?
We already know what to do with the Monarchy, just this time we shouldn't let them back in or have a dour, manically depressed hardcore Protestant as head of state during the interregnum.
That's fine, if you boot Liz we'll set up a palace in Australia for her. Probably in Queensland, I mean it's named appropriately and it's also where all the other old people go to retire anyway. She's already the Queen of Australia so it'll be nice to have her in country regularly.
Wait, did that original video really use an image of St. Michel as an example of a british castle?
Anyway i fully agree that the royalty should be made illegal and i cannot conceive of any democratic country that would still support a monarchic lineage.
Anyway i fully agree that the royalty should be made illegal and i cannot conceive of any democratic country that would still support a monarchic lineage.
Feel like with hbomberguy going quiet lately Shaun and Contra are single-handedly reclaiming YouTube from the right wing shills.
I don't disagree that monarchies should be phased out, but I don't know about this video. I feel like goes over his points a little too quickly and loosely. A lot of his solutions seem overly simplistic. Maybe we're meant to assume we'd be working with a trustworthy, competent and progressive government, and society wouldn't politicise the asset seizure with massive scaremongering campaigns? The current administration has been proving they can't be trusted with long-lasting decisions.
I'm not familiar with the original video, but I assumed the final bit was intended to be a joke? The tone changed to be more hyperbolic and jabby, and then leads into a playful comparison that just happens to contradict the point? To me that seems like a deliberate set-up for a joke, presumably rooted in how both places have the same name when you translate their name.
He admits that he's had a history with this video, so I think it might be clouding him a little bit. He probably should have just removed the reacting-video framing entirely, and done one from scratch on the subject. This came across as a little sloppy and petty.
I'm not familiar with the original video, but I assumed the final bit was intended to be a joke? The tone changed to be more hyperbolic and jabby, and then leads into a playful comparison that just happens to contradict the point? To me that seems like a deliberate set-up for a joke, presumably rooted in how both places have the same name when you translate their name.
He admits that he's had a history with this video, so I think it might be clouding him a little bit. He probably should have just removed the reacting-video framing entirely, and done one from scratch on the subject. This came across as a little sloppy and petty.
It did and still does yeah.
Watched the video yesterday, I thought it was excellent. Personally, I never even get the idea that it goes to costs. It should be wrong to even entertain the idea that people can be born into different societies, it is morally wrong so that should be reason enough to dissolve the monarchy.
Probably step one to dissolving the Commonwealth of Nations, as if Brexit was't enough. Say what you will about the monarchy being only a symbolic figure head, having the queen plastered on ex-colony currencies and the the sheer length of Elizabeth II's tenure through modern history grants the UK some level connection and courtesy that elected government never will. It's great branding.
I guess having a monarch isn't necessarily a bad thing. living in a country that abolished it's monarchy exactly 100 years ago only to be followed up by a failed democracy and the evilest dictator of them, a separation of the country and eventual reunification I'ld say there were times when such a symbol could have been helpful.
On the other hand castles do work as a tourist attraction without being in use by a reigning monarch (or a monarch in the first place). See Neuschwanstein or Eltz.
On the other hand castles do work as a tourist attraction without being in use by a reigning monarch (or a monarch in the first place). See Neuschwanstein or Eltz.
Yeah i agree (there was text after "nonsense").
It's still ancient nonsense though to have this privilege based on old birth rules. But thus far, i'm fine with the monarchy in The Netherlands. It's just a bit hard to justify these days.
That doesn't have to be a monarch though. See the President - elected by parliament - in Germany. It's been working pretty well so far.
Queen Elizabeth is the head of state in Canada, and since every bill needs royal consent the monarch can effectively veto them.