Jump to content

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


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

The best argument I’ve heard of monarchy is that the hereditary monarchs, paradoxically, tend to have higher approval ratings than the elected government. Probably because they’re not subject to the same debate and because they’re rarely doing anything controversial. 

Right now in Sweden: 

Prime minister: 33%
King: 65%

The idea is that the king represents the whole nation, not just those who voted for him (because no one did).

Then again, the Finnish president, who also has a largely ceremonial role, has approval ratings of 90% so maybe that argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Take what you want and leave the rest.

They should never have taken the very best....

 

12 hours ago, mormont said:

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.

Not really, no.  That's not what's been seen in practice among elected ceremonial heads of state.  Take the Israel example I mentioned earlier. 

The candidates who "campaign" for the presidency don't have any real "political," or policy, agenda at all.  When Shimon Peres was elected president he had been in the Knesset for almost a half century.  He clearly was a major "political" - and partisan - actor basically dating back to Israel's founding.  But he was elected by the Knesset because of the wide-ranging respect everybody had for him in spite that. 

Similarly, the current president Isaac Herzog, elected in 2021, was a prominent member of the Labor party for years - even the leader of the opposition as recently as 2018.  Yet, still, he received signatures/endorsements from members of every non-Arab party in the Knesset because he (nor anyone else for that matter) did not have any type of agenda beyond upholding the basic duties of the office. 

And this tack is useful in providing some semblance of unity.  Indeed, an important annual survey that was released just today showed Herzog had more support than essentially every other major Israeli institution outside of the IDF.

12 hours ago, mormont said:

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.

I'm sorry but this is a misunderstanding of what sovereignty means.  Mayhaps because the British monarch is commonly revered to as "the sovereign."  But they aren't.  Ceremonial monarchies are not where sovereignty lies in any country we've discussed.  Sovereignty refers to the ultimate authority to govern a given territory/constituency.  And in that vein, in all of the countries we've discussed sovereignty lies with the legislature and/or the functional head of government.

Again, as I said in my first post, should it be up to the people to choose whether to retain/adopt a hereditary monarchy as a ceremonial head of state?  Absolutely.  But if they do, then THAT'S democracy.  Subsequently, there are obviously clear checks and regulations on a ceremonial monarch's limited powers - usually via parliament/the legislature. 

Which is why, in terms of constitutional design, it's a perfectly acceptable set up that doesn't threaten democracy.  Democracy means being governed by the will of the people.  As long as the people approve of a hereditary monarch as their ceremonial head of state - who by definition has minimal to no role in governing - how is that not democratic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, as I said in my first post, should it be up to the people to choose whether to retain/adopt a hereditary monarchy as a ceremonial head of state?  Absolutely.  But if they do, then THAT'S democracy.

True people can choose options that lead to undemocratic outcomes.

Like if a majority of a populace voted to take away suffrage for women.

 

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Subsequently, there are obviously clear checks and regulations on a ceremonial monarch's limited powers - usually via parliament/the legislature. 

Not always no.

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Which is why, in terms of constitutional design, it's a perfectly acceptable set up that doesn't threaten democracy.

Sure it does—the logic pursuent to justify any monarchy could be applied generally to autocracy in general. 
 

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

As long as the people approve of a hereditary monarch as their ceremonial head of state - who by definition has minimal to no role in governing - how is that not democratic?

It’s not democratic when they’re not actually allowed to vote to remove them and even if all the monarch does is rubber stamp laws and be mouth piece for a current government they’re still taking part of the process of governing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True people can choose options that lead to undemocratic outcomes.

Like if a majority of populace voted to take away suffrage for women.

Suffrage is a fundamental right in any democracy.  How and/or whether to have a ceremonial head of state is decidedly not.  Again, all democracies choose to delegate certain powers to unelected actors - which necessarily mean the outcomes of such actors will be "undemocratic."

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sure it does—the logic pursuent to justify any monarchy could be applied generally to autocracy in general.

Not any more than a presidential system.  Indeed, a presidential system is far more susceptible in its logic and practice to lead to autocracy compared to constitutional monarchies.  Both theoretically and - quite demonstratively - empirically.

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s not democratic when they’re not actually allowed to vote to remove them.

Well, like I've been saying, they should be.  Once again, I'm approaching this theoretically.  However, as I've also demonstrated, almost all hereditary monarchies (if not all) would currently win a majority if held to a referendum based on polling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm sorry but this is a misunderstanding of what sovereignty means.  Mayhaps because the British monarch is commonly revered to as "the sovereign."  But they aren't. 

No, they literally are, I'm afraid - at least on a theoretical level, which is what we're discussing.

Governments exercise sovereignty, but in a democracy, that's on behalf of the people. The people are the theoretical possessors of the authority you mention. But in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is there precisely because they are the descendants of the people who used to have actual sovereignty, both in theory and in practise. In such countries, rather than a complete transferal of power, an accommodation was reached where the monarch would continue to symbolically represent national sovereignty. (All the crowns on things are a clue. So too the oaths, state opening of Parliament, King appointing Prime Ministers, etc.)

Ah, but that's purely symbolic! Yes, and that's what we're discussing.

Look, the essence of the discussion seems to be this. I'm saying there's a logical tension between the concept of democracy and the concept of hereditary monarchy. You keep saying that this isn't a problem because in practice, there are ways to resolve that tension (and your point about the consent of the public is another example of this - though in the UK, at least, it's never been put to a vote).

I've never disagreed with that. But that doesn't mean the logical problem doesn't exist at all. None of your arguments would be points to be made if there was no problem!

Still, we're obviously not getting anywhere so let's drop it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of mention of democracy on this thread, but I have not seen any mention that those democracies are in fact all representative democracies.

Now partly that is because population size makes direct democracy unviable, but also in my mind it is to prevent democracy descending into mob rule; a situation in which any change can be made to the law or the constitution whenever a bare majority can be whipped up for it by populists, the web, biased news channels, tabloid newspapers, and their ilk. Never mind if the implications of the change are not understood by that bare majority or are successfully kept from them. This could easily lead to such things as reintroducing the death penalty, to taking votes away from some groups of people, or even (whisper it) to Brexit.

So making a democracy a representative one is a necessary check & balance. Humans being what they are, then a good political system requires as many of these as possible. In my personal opinion, a very useful additional one is to center the mystique of power on a ceremonial head of state who does not have to think about standing for re-election in future, rather than on the executive. Possibly making this role hereditary is not ideal, but there are worse approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Ah, but that's purely symbolic! Yes, and that's what we're discussing.

Sovereignty is not "symbolic."  Sovereignty is where the power to control a territory is actually, practically, vested in.  And in all constitutional monarchies that power is undeniably vested in the legislature which is popularly elected.  In other words, vested in the people.  Particularly at a theoretical level, the legislature should have the ability to regulate, oversee, and even abolish a ceremonial head of state (this is also the case in reality).  This is the basis of democracy, and it's very odd - as well as inaccurate - to argue that constitutional monarchies are not democracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You mean there aren't any lords in the House of Lords?

Well, yes.

Would it surprise you to know that the vast majority of the House of Lords is appointed by Parliament?

I believe there are now about 90 hereditary peers (out of almost 800 total)

Would it also surprise you to know that the power of the House of Lords is basically nothing other amendments (which the Commons must agree to) and stall tactics? It has no veto power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the entitlement of most of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and of the 91 hereditary Peers who retain their seat in the Lords, 75 were elected by their fellow hereditary Peers.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-are-there-still-hereditary-peers-in-the-house-of-lords/

Would it surprise you that their titles as duke etc. all hang on a monarchy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the entitlement of most of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and of the 91 hereditary Peers who retain their seat in the Lords, 75 were elected by their fellow hereditary Peers.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-are-there-still-hereditary-peers-in-the-house-of-lords/

Would it surprise you that their titles as duke etc. all hang on a monarchy?

No, it doesn't surprise me l, because I just told you that.

As I said, The House of Lords is fucked up and the hereditary peerage should be abolished but pretending that these 90 hereditary peers have real power and are ruling over the peasants is pretty far from reality. The majority makeup of the House is made up of former politicians and party donors, who are being nominated by the Government. Obviously this is sketchy because you get the usual corruption where people are rewarded for past loyalty, donations, etc.

What is funny is that there are a lot of Americans in this thread railing about the supposed powers of the Monarch, when the reality is that they don't have real executive power at all. The theoretical idea of the Monarch vetoing Parliament and replacing His Majesty's Government is so unbelievably farfetched, and really shows that people don't understand the Westminster system at all.

The Commons retains all power, and any supposed power grab by the Monarch would be simply not be allowed by Parliament. It doesn't matter if the Monarch has this theoretical power because we are talking about a country with a "constitution" that is a collection of both written laws and unwritten conventions. The fact is that the Monarch overiding Parliament would violate parliamentary sovereignty and be found invalid.

Unless the Parliament was in on it too, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord of Oop North said:

I just told you that.

What you told me was I didn't know anything about Parliament.

You know, it's pretty difficult to not learn a great deal about that body -- and royalty, etc. -- when one spends years studying the history of the United States and Americas, particularly when that includes the history of slavery.  Which, of course in England goes back to the 16th C and Elizabeth I's clande$tine investment for the privy purse in the trade (as was her economic participation in in piracy/bucaneering/privateering).

It's also difficult not to know anything about it growing up in the religion I did, where we studied for years carefully every detail of the history of the Reformation and Lutheranism and the dissolution of the Faith in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I kind of like with monarchy is the honesty. This is the royal family and they’re born into it and that’s it. You can never be one of them. Whereas being born to any other filthy rich family is totally different because in theory anyone can become that rich, never mind the game being stacked against you and the chance of ever reaching that kind of wealth is less than winning the lottery. At least the royal family admit they’re favoured by the system. 

To me, the fact that we have a hereditary king that has very close to zero power bothers me a whole lot less than the fact that the richest 10% owns 74% of the capital. In Sweden of all places, the socialist paradise, the fucking beacon of equality, yet somehow in reality the 12th most unequal country on Earth. Yes, worse than the US. And the rate is accelerating. 

When we talk parasites who live off the work of others, the king has no game on the richest shareholders on the stock market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Sweden of all places, the socialist paradise,

As you see behind rose-tinted lenses, you are behind the times.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/16/how-a-former-neo-nazi-party-became-swedens-third-largest/

Quote

 

How a Former Neo-Nazi Party Became Sweden’s Third-Largest

Sweden’s elections are over, the victorious Social Democrats are scrambling to form a government, and the country’s third-largest party is a populist right-wing group with roots in the country’s neo-Nazi movement. Let that sink in for a moment. In Sunday’s election, the Sweden Democrats, which has turned xenophobia and anti-immigrant posturing into a political growth ...

You also might like to consider that a lot of your rosy wealthy royalists have LOTS OF GAME  among stockholders of the Be$t Financial $tuff. Not entirely unlike Elizabeth I and Charlies I and II did in the African Slave Trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

To me, the fact that we have a hereditary king that has very close to zero power bothers me a whole lot less than the fact that the richest 10% owns 74% of the capital.

 The World Income Database says the share of wealth held by the top 10% is 58.9%, not 74%. Finland is at 56%. Denmark is at 50%. Norway is at 52%. (The number is comparable to Germany, also at 59%, per the same source)

This paper from a couple of years ago, by a pair of economists at a think tank, raises some reasonable points about some of the debate in the media around how to conceptualize and measure inequality, among them the fact that some of the comparisons people are making between countries are drawing from different datasets that define things differently, so it's a bit apple to oranges. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

What you told me was I didn't know anything about Parliament.

You know, it's pretty difficult to not learn a great deal about that body -- and royalty, etc. -- when one spends years studying the history of the United States and Americas, particularly when that includes the history of slavery.  Which, of course in England goes back to the 16th C and Elizabeth I's clande$tine investment for the privy purse in the trade (as was her economic participation in in piracy/bucaneering/privateering).

It's also difficult not to know anything about it growing up in the religion I did, where we studied for years carefully every detail of the history of the Reformation and Lutheranism and the dissolution of the Faith in England.

We are talking about how the UK works in 2023, just after the death of Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth I. I can assure you, it functions much differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

 The World Income Database says the share of wealth held by the top 10% is 58.9%, not 74%.

Income and wealth are two different things.

Since this thread is about the British royals, I do believe much of their wealth is real estate... Which a cynic might say ought to belong to the British people. Especially since it seems the monarchy is really good at dodging taxes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...