JCC The Royal Family Thread

What?

This is exactly backwards. The only thing i have in fact said is that royalty, as an idea, is bad. I have been asking for two days straight and across a half dozen pages of this thread for someone to give me a reason to think otherwise. Instead, all I've gotten for the most part is non-sequitur criticisms of modern America.

I'm perfectly open to new ideas. I'd love to hear why the idea of monarchy is good. Just give your reasons! Not comments about how at least it's not Pol Pot, or discourses on how the electoral college doesn't have a legitimate purpose in American Presidential elections. Just tell me. Why. You think. The idea of royalty is good.

 

It gives an impartial person that can step in when the parliamentary system is not currently working in the people's interest. Recently there was a leadership change in Australia, the new/old PM Kevin Rudd had to have the confidence of the parliament in order to govern as PM. If he had not, the Governor General, HM 's representative, would have called an election.

The Queen is not tied to party, he impartiality is her best asset.

 

Bwahaha

Man, the Windsors are very lucky. They managed to have two well-liked monarchs with incredibly long reigns in two centuries. Imagine if they hadn't, as with pretty every dynasty ever. And they cloaked themselves in British identity to avoid being overtaken by that wave.

 

I don't think anyone honestly believes they are superior people. It's a hereditary head of state position, that's all.

The monarch of England is still the head of state for a good chunk of the world beyond the UK. Weddings and births are basically the most significant things that the British monarchy can still do. And both William and Kate seem like a very modern, happy, friendly, normal couple, which people see as inspiring and some see them as role-models. And this trend within the royal family started with Diana. That's why they're getting this attention, from people in the Commonwealth and beyond. Now, I personally wouldn't mind if the UK abolished the monarchy, but even the royal family would still probably be celebrated.

 

Ender and Jello have both admitted to thinking the British Royal family is superior to them (and everyone else).

 

Not really. Most of the Commonwealth of Nations, including the giant countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria, don't have the Queen as their head of state, and many of those that do are very tiny.

 

*ahem*

 

I see your reading comprehension has not improved.

Unless you mean Australia is a giant landmass. Okay? Does that really count when there are only like 25 million people compared to India's 1+ billion?

 

Autsralia and Canada have the Queen as the head of state. A d neither can be described as "very tiny".

 

I said most. Yes, the white (I'm sure that has nothing to do with them keeping the monarchy) former colonies aren't particularly tiny in terms of population, but Tuvalu, Barbados, the Bahamas, and others that deign to call Liz their head of state are.

 

Whilst the Queen and the royal family are generally well regarded in Australia, there is still a very strong and vocal Republican movement. I think the institution of the monarchy and the concept of royalty are entirely stupid but the only reason why I don't really care to change our current system in Australia is because I don't want to see resources wasted on changing a system which works well and would only be changed for the sake of change. But Wocky is right, there is absolutely no legitimate reason why we should as a society grant privileges to a particular family based purely upon some notion that the divine right of kings is a concept that still holds any relevance today.

 

As far as I understand, most people are willing to defer the question if becoming a republic until the Queen has gone, though William and Kate may liven things up.

JW, I gave you an answer. Does that satisfy you?

 

So when do we speculate what cool toys William and Kate will buy for the baby?!

 

I was trying to wait to offer something thoughtful. But yes, it, does. Though (as I'll probably get into later, and Even has touched on), I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, I do honor you hugely for doing what literally no one else on your side of the argument had the courage or intellectual honesty to do. Respect, Katana.

 

I can appreciate why people think the Monarchy is antiquated. Still, as a guy who automatically distrusts anyone who aspires to a position of power, I much prefer having a hereditary -- rather than elected -- Head of State. Partially because of the sense of grand continuity it provides, yes, but mainly because it prevents the position from being a prize and instead frames it as a duty.

I'd feel differently if I lived in an absolute monarchy, of course.

 

An excellent point.

For as much as we've been focusing on the pomp and circumstance of this week's events, we should always recall that as much now as when they were being crowned Emperors in India, the British Crown can never be separated from the weight of this young white man's burden.

 

Blair never tried to dismantle it and talks at length of his fondness for Her Majesty.

Google popular support for the monarchy in the UK wocky. Then go back to your grubby little presidency and silly Republic!

 

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!

 

Pity they weren't quite so strong or quite so vocal when Australia had its referendum offering to turn Australia into a Republic, of course.

 

The Windsors are simply descendants from a line of ancestors whose legitimacy and authority as monarchs was derived on the basis of divine right - the more recent laws give practical legal effect to that authority and privilege but are not the source of it.

 

Perhaps next time you might commence an argument against the monarchy by not comparing ascension to head of State by dint of bloodline with ascension to head of State by "experience and skill", as you did at the start, Wock? That's where the argument started. And as I said before, I don't need to argue for the monarchy. I merely need to illustrate the silliness of the comparator system you chose.

 

I thought the monarchy was established when Aegon and his sisters flew their dragons over the countryside and subdued the masses into accepting the Targaryen dynasty.

 

Field of Fire never forget