Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[kiko]

1 hour ago, kiko said:

I have to confess, I'm really confused by parts of discussion. This is what I got so far.

There are countries that are headed by a sometimes more, sometimes less ceremonial hereditary ruler. They have more or less official influence and probably a bit more unaccounted influence due to their wealth, network and history. Their influence may or may not be limited by rules and agreements. The true extend of their power is usually untested and not completely understood. This is true for people like crown prince MBS of Saudi Arabia on the one end of the spectrum and the currently deceased last princess of Hawaii. The other  monarchies and their members are somewhere in between.

Right?

Now. Can anyone explain to me, why they want someone to have influence over their life, however minuscule when this someone arrives at that position by accident of birth and where they have not even a theoretical option to escape that influence?

So far we have
-it's nice to have this piece of living history around. 
-I've never felt impacted by the Swedish royal family in any negative way [I guess that means appeals to conservatives?]
-sharedcontinuity is very useful

-shared cultural centre and soft cultural power

[Cas Stark]

Royal families are like Christmas.  They're fun, they [can] bring people together and at the bottom they stand for generally positive attributes.  Christmas:  generosity, reflection, family.  Royals: duty, history, nation. You don't have to believe that Baby Jesus really was born in a manger where three wise men visited him or that he was the living son of the creator of the universe to enjoy some nice decorations, carols and gift giving.   You don't need to believe in the divine right of kings to enjoy the ceremonial monarchies.  

*Yes, I know not everyone celebrates Christmas, but rather than step into a minefield by using other similar holiday/traditions which I am less familiar with, I use Christmas because that is my tradition and for most of US history was an American tradition. 

*Yes,  I know all about the history of how Christmas was a co op of earlier pagan rituals and do not need to be educated on this point.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So why accept the lie when you know it's a lie? It's always going to come down to that.

[Cas Stark]

Take what you want and leave the rest.

[Heartofice]

Some lies are useful. We all believe lies all the time because they benefit us or make us feel better. 

[Rippounet]

The lie is that some people are born better, or at least special. Royals are pretty much a living symbol of this idea.

But if that's the connection to the past you want... 

[mormont]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, k.  I'm not really sure what this means. 

Basically that while constitutional monarchies are (mostly) passively political. in that they represent a politics of the status quo, if you elect a leader they're going to campaign and define for themselves what they stand for, and that's going to have consequences both good and bad.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

As long as they have no influence on policymaking, it's really not.  Hell, even if they did, there are plenty of unelected actors in democracies between the courts and the bureaucracy that have a much more substantive role on policymaking.  Obviously those aren't hereditary, but what's contradictory about that is a meritocratic holding.

I'm somewhat confused by this line of argument. It's one thing to say that a constitutional monarchy is usually in practice consistent with democracy, and that would be wholly consistent with your line above about there being no influence on policy-making as well as the bit about other unelected actors, the points others have made about inherited wealth/power from other sources, or the practical impact of the monarchy on their everyday life.

But your argument was specifically about the logical and theoretical consistency. That's exactly the level on which the problem exists, surely? Like, it's a theoretical and logical problem in a democracy if the people are not sovereign, because the sovereign is sovereign. The people in a constitutional monarchy can't choose their head of state: can't ever be the head of state, individually. Royals don't represent the people: that's the entire point of royalty. So whatever the practical realities, on the theoretical/logical level, it's not consistent with the fundamental point of a democracy - that the people are sovereign.

[Rippounet]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:15 PM, SeanF said:

Peter Mandelson was right when he said he had no problem with people getting filthy rich.

Whoever that guy is is a moron. Beyond certain amounts, wealth is taken from other people. To condone this is basically condoning a new form of aristocracy.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

As long as they have no influence on policymaking, it's really not.  Hell, even if they did, there are plenty of unelected actors in democracies between the courts and the bureaucracy that have a much more substantive role on policymaking.

The British monarch totally has an influence on policymaking btw.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

 

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

But your argument was specifically about the logical and theoretical consistency. That's exactly the level on which the problem exists, surely? Like, it's a theoretical and logical problem in a democracy if the people are not sovereign, because the sovereign is sovereign. The people in a constitutional monarchy can't choose their head of state: can't ever be the head of state, individually. Royals don't represent the people: that's the entire point of royalty. So whatever the practical realities, on the theoretical/logical level, it's not consistent with the fundamental point of a democracy - that the people are sovereign.

The thing is, the monarch is NOT sovereign, only has the appearance of sovereignty. Parliament is sovereign in the UK, the Monarchy only has the facade of power. So in the UK, the people ARE sovereign, some might say too sovereign.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Whoever that guy is is a moron. Beyond certain amounts, wealth is taken from other people. To condone this is basically condoning a new form of aristocracy.

I’m sure Peter Mandleson, the architect of New Labour, would have no issue with a new aristocracy.

[Rippounet]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The thing is, the monarch is NOT sovereign, only has the appearance of sovereignty. Parliament is sovereign in the UK, the Monarchy only has the facade of power. So in the UK, the people ARE sovereign, some might say too sovereign.

Academic hair-splitting : whether Britain actually has popular sovereignty is debatable. Outside the UK, it's often considered that Parliament has one type of sovereignty and the monarch another, but Britain hasn't formally embraced popular sovereignty yet.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The lie is that some people are born better, or at least special. Royals are pretty much a living symbol of this idea.

But if that's the connection to the past you want... 

which is why so many(not all) American conservatives simp so hard for the British monarchy.

Its represents everything they want—an eternal political authority not bound by the assent by those they consider lower than than them.

[Alester Florent]

I am a monarchist, but my general political approach could perhaps best be described in general terms as "republican": that is, a belief that the state should be run for the benefit of its citizens, but that democracy is a secondary part of that process. It is not necessary for an entity to be elected in order to be legitimate, nor is entrusting decisions to the popular vote necessarily wise. I do think the people should have a say, but I am not a big fan of direct democracy, am fearful of tyrannies of the majority, and have been horrified by invocations of "the will of the people" as a trump card to overcome reasonable objections in recent years.

Or perhaps to put it another way, I'm a 1689 Whig.

The monarch's role in the system is functionally cosmetic. In that position, I think heredity is as good a way to choose a head of state as any, and the pomp and circumstance associated with it can be actively useful.

In fact, of the three limbs of the king-in-parliament sovereign entity at the heart of the British constitution, I think the monarchy is the only one which is actually functioning properly: the others are broken.

 

Now, I think I'm actually a monarchist because something about it pushes some buttons deep inside the more primitive recesses of my brain rather than as the outcome of a logical thought process - and if it didn't exist I probably wouldn't invent it. But having thought about it and tried to distill my overall political thought down to its core, I do also believe what I say above.

[Varysblackfyre321]

45 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

In that position, I think heredity is as good a way to choose a head of state as any, and the pomp and circumstance associated with it can be actively useful.

A random lottery of self selected civil servants would work better. 

Or a trained monkey.

If you see it as purely cosmetic that kinda negates it’d being a safeguard against tyranny of the majority—which is much rarer than tyranny of a minority with monopoly of certain property.

51 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

a trump card to overcome reasonable objections in recent years.

 

Be specific.

[Jace, Extat]

Fine, I will accept the job of Empress of the Universe but first I wanna go to fucking GREECE

And I will need a crew 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, whatever... said:

Fine, I will accept the job of Empress of the Universe but first I wanna go to fucking GREECE

And I will need a crew 

No.

[Jace, Extat]

It was worth a try

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, whatever... said:

It was worth a try

No.

[Jace, Extat]

I mean I would have settled for jester+ free mesa bar access