advertisement


King Charles III

KrisW said:
1st: Norway (Head of State: King Harald V)
2nd: New Zealand (Head of State: King Charles III)
4th: Sweden (Head of State: King Carl XVI Gustaf)
6th: Denmark (Head of State: Queen Margrethe II)
9th: Australia (Head of State: King Charles III)
11th: The Netherlands (Head of State: King Willem-Alexander)

Those are placings from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index for 2021. (The UK is 18th).

The argument that support for a monarchy is incompatible with democracy does not hold. That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with the influence the House of Windsor has over some government decisions (especially the concerning use of the Royal Prerogative to sidestep taxation or regulation of the Royal estate), but those would be British Monarchy problems, not “Monarchy” problems.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. The fact that the larger UK monarchy is 18th on the democracy while smaller monarchies are higher, demonstrates the the larger the democracy, the heavier the downward weight on democracy
 
It demonstrates nothing of the sort. Sweden has nearly twice the population of Denmark, yet Sweden ranks as more democratic than Denmark, and at one place above the UK in that ranking you have Japan, population 124 Million, head of state: Emperor Naruhito.

At nearly double the UK’s population, should Japan not be further below the UK, rather than one place above? Again, a much better fit for the data than your argument is that there is, in fact, no correlation between a country having a monarch as head of state and it being undemocratic, regardless of size.

I have no particular interest in defending the British monarchy, but as arguments go, this one is nonsense. There’s a stronger link between the amount of green on your country’s flag and a low position on the Democracy Index than there is between Monarchies and non-Monarchies. (Although Ireland sitting at #7 sticks a fly in that argument’s ointment)
 
Tony L said:
That’s what sticks in my memory of the Diana RIP Zombiethon. I remember cycling round to Kensington Palace to have a look out of pure curiosity as, as you say, it just isn’t something one sees everyday (I’d have gone for a cycle past this one too if I was still in That London). One of the most strange examples of human behaviour I’ve ever seen and it kind of shows the other side of the mass manipulation of crowds by fascists like Hitler, Trump, religious leaders etc. The same collective mass hysteria, but unified in an abstracted parasocial “grief” rather than weaponised as hatred for political power. I do still view the way the state has milked it as a tool for normalising elite power and archaic structures though, there is something deeply uncomfortable about the whole thing. It is thought-policing/programming.
Click to expand...

"Do not allow yourself to be programmed"
 
ks.234 said:
On the contrary. The fact that the larger UK monarchy is 18th on the democracy while smaller monarchies are higher, demonstrates the the larger the democracy, the heavier the downward weight on democracy
Click to expand...
Impressive, KS. You're awesomely good, I really mean it. In case you need a new job, go into politics, they'd take you with open arms !
 
KrisW said:
It demonstrates nothing of the sort. Sweden has nearly twice the population of Denmark, yet Sweden ranks as more democratic than Denmark, and at one place above the UK in that ranking you have Japan, population 124 Million, head of state: Emperor Naruhito.

At nearly double the UK’s population, should Japan not be further below the UK, rather than one place above? Again, a much better fit for the data than your argument is that there is, in fact, no correlation between a country having a monarch as head of state and it being undemocratic, regardless of size.

I have no particular interest in defending the British monarchy, but as arguments go, this one is nonsense. There’s a stronger link between the amount of green on your country’s flag and a low position on the Democracy Index than there is between Monarchies and non-Monarchies. (Although Ireland sitting at #7 sticks a fly in that argument’s ointment)
Click to expand...
If you believe that data shows that monarchy improves democracy, I’ll leave you to it.
 
Do you also try to make it rain by opening an umbrella?

You made a claim, I showed evidence that clearly showed it to be untrue. That doesn’t mean that I support the opposite of your theory, only that your claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

A constitutional monarchy with a largely symbolic monarch can be useful for democracies, as it prevents the Head of State role from being held by divisive figures. On the other hand, granting a hereditary ruler real powers over how a nation is run is a recipe for disaster. Both are “Monarchy”, but there’s a world of difference between them. Is North Korea a Monarchy? They say it isn’t, but it looks and acts like one. Is Denmark a Monarchy? Definitely, but it’s also one of the most democratic nations on earth.

Basically, it doesn’t matter who you put in the big palace to shake hands and give out prizes to worthy citizens, or how they get there, so long as your country is a strong enough democracy to prevent one person—any person—seizing too much power. If the UK has a democratic deficit, and it does, that’s not caused by it being a constitutional monarchy. Abolishing the monarch and electing a president would be worse until the underlying problems with the UK’s democracy were addressed, because you’d have nothing to prevent a President Johnson.
 
It surprises me that we have got to page 65 of this thread without mentioning homeopathy (Guardian). One elephant in the room may not even be a trace element of the molecules within the room.
 
miktec said:
The BBC cited a figure of 25 million (across all channels)

This compares with 35 million for Lady Di's funeral (also according to BBC in the same article)
Click to expand...

This also needs balancing against a larger population too.

Diana’s death was a genuine shock. It had a conspiracy theory/reality-TV aspect to it; a then spurned superstar of the monarchy relentlessly hounded to her death by the gutter tabloid press. I’m sure that made it far more interesting to those who follow such things. The Queen was an old lady dying peacefully at a considerable age the vast majority of us will be very lucky indeed to achieve. Had she lasted another 25 years that would have been interesting as it would have vindicated the David Icke-grade lizard conspiracy theories etc, but even a genuinely nice old lady dying at 96 is not really that interesting in the grand scheme of things.
 
ks.234 said:
Bit aggressive. The monarchy you devote yourself to likes to piss on the graves of democrats does it?
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't meaning to be aggressive.

Rather I was playing with seanm's idea of the Royals dancing on your grave and then I thought dancing probably takes a lot of energy which they are unlikely to expend on you as they hold you in low esteem apparently whereas standing on the spot urinating uses very little energy and may save them some more effort later in not having to find the loo which could be a considerable distance.

Hope that clears things up for you.
 
Last edited:
KrisW said:
Do you also try to make it rain by opening an umbrella?

You made a claim, I showed evidence that clearly showed it to be untrue. That doesn’t mean that I support the opposite of your theory, only that your claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

A constitutional monarchy with a largely symbolic monarch can be useful for democracies, as it prevents the Head of State role from being held by divisive figures. On the other hand, granting a hereditary ruler real powers over how a nation is run is a recipe for disaster. Both are “Monarchy”, but there’s a world of difference between them. Is North Korea a Monarchy? They say it isn’t, but it looks and acts like one. Is Denmark a Monarchy? Definitely, but it’s also one of the most democratic nations on earth.

Basically, it doesn’t matter who you put in the big palace to shake hands and give out prizes to worthy citizens, or how they get there, so long as your country is a strong enough democracy to prevent one person—any person—seizing too much power. If the UK has a democratic deficit, and it does, that’s not caused by it being a constitutional monarchy. Abolishing the monarch and electing a president would be worse until the underlying problems with the UK’s democracy were addressed, because you’d have nothing to prevent a President Johnson.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming a cause and effect that simply is not there. The UK, with it’s monarchy, might be more democratic than any number countries without a monarchy, but to assume that the UK is more democratic because of its monarchy is a matter of faith, not fact.
 
Spraggons Den said:
Sorry I wasn't meaning to be aggressive.

Rather I was playing with seanm's idea of the Royals dancing on your grave and then I thought dancing probably takes a lot of energy which they are unlikely to expend you as they hold you in low esteem whereas standing on the spot urinating takes very little and may save them some more effort later in not having to find the loo which could be a considerable distance.

Hope that clears things up for you.
Click to expand...
Your devotion to an institution that holds its subjects in such low esteem says it all.
 
Nero said:
I suppose it’s just a matter of time before someone works out which bits they don’t want you to see again and again
Click to expand...

#1 Charles throwing a tantrum at The Royal Pen Bearer.

#2 Charles throwing a tantrum at The Royal Mover Of Desk Placed Objects.
 
gintonic said:
demonstrates he cares, unlike the comatose rest
Click to expand...

I viewed it as someone so entitled and disconnected from reality he had no idea how to interact with people, no idea how rude, arrogant or stupid he looked. A spoilt child response from someone who now even in his ‘70s likely hasn’t ever run a bath, boiled an egg, made a bed himself. A cartoon expression of privilege.
 
ks.234 said:
Your devotion to an institution that holds its subjects in such low esteem says it all.
Click to expand...

I haven't said I am devoted to the institution of the monarchy. The kids aren't named after the Royals and I don't wear Union Jack boxer shorts a la Tim Brooke-Taylor. However, I am old enough and ugly enough to realise the monarchy will endure and unlike you I don't let it spoil my day.

The low esteem thing came from seanm saying they would dance on your grave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top