How do you feel about the UK monarchy?

[trina_x]

personally I've never been huge on the monarchy but I liked the queen, without her i dont really care what happens to them

also king charles spanniel comes up before king charles the third when you search king charles

amazing

I am for the monarchy

I am against the monarchy

I am undecided

[nightdrot]

While I am an American and thus you would not typically think of as a natural monarchist, the case for constitutional monarchy is exceptionally sound and more than deserves respect.

As the historian Michael Luckacs noted, "On the surface of the map of the world they represent the last central cluster of decency, those bourgeois monarchs of northwestern Europe. Churchill knew that: for he was a monarchist not out of mere sentiment but because of his deep historical reason. In a fatherless world they are sources of a certain strength and inspiration..."

That "certain strength and inspiration" more than proved itself during the Second World War, when the British monarchy stood as a symbol around which people rallied at the UK's darkest hour. In so doing they did not simply save the Britain, they did indeed save the whole of Western civilization.

These things are easily taken for granted, particularly in a populist era where the "people" are alleged to be the font of all wisdom and goodness. Monarchy may seem to be an anachronism, but in truth it serves as a politically and socially unifying symbol.

Its political neutrality putting the state outside of politics, and thereby giving people of sharply differing political views a point of common reference and identity. Its splendor serving to give something beyond the mundane and the common.

Indeed, not for nothing do republics tend to invest so much "pomp and ceremony" in their presidents. Whether it be symbolic heads of state, as in Israel or Germany, or executive heads of government, as in France and the United States.

The funny thing in the latter case of the United States being that ceremonies like the State of the Union address or the laying of a Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown being treated with all the gravity and earnestness as any ceremony that a constitutional monarch might ever be engaged in.

In the end, it becomes monarchy in all but name. Albeit monarchy that is elective and therefore seemingly incongruous. The American or French president being expected to embody a nation's heritage and history and yet, at the end of the day, is a mere transient and indeed partisan figure.

That last point being especially pertinent. The character of the person serving in the office of Head of State then becomes paradoxically more important as such a person can never really much more represent a transient moment in a nation's partisan passions and therefore must ultimately have a limited appeal.

There perhaps being no better example than former President Trump in the United States. Whatever the merits of his policies, his penchant for pouring salt in the social wounds must mean that his capacity to serve as a unifying Head of State is inherently limited.

This is not a problem in constitutional monarchy. To be sure, the character of the monarch is not unimportant, but as one in a long line of heads of state who have presided disinterestedly over the nation, their capacity for being a unifying social force is thereby enhanced.

At the end of the day, of course, monarchy must be appropriate to the culture else it cannot work. Still, as Churchill said,

"Ministers come and go, but the King remains, always at the center of public affairs... He is the continuous element in the constitution, one of the main safeguards of its democratic character, and the repository of a knowledge of affairs that before long comes to transcend that of any individual statesman...

The victorious democracies, in driving out hereditary sovereigns, supposed that they were moving on the path to progress. They have in fact gone further and fared worse. A royal dynasty looking back upon the traditions of the past, and looking forward to a continuity in the future, offers an element of security to the liberty and happiness of nations."

[Anonymous]

I dunno, its pretty complex.

If i were choosing a system from scratch it certainly wouldn't include a monarchy and its clearly not ok that some should be born with a silver spoon in their mouths and others are born without ever having a chance at anything but without the Monarchy, there is no commonwealth and when we look upwards all we will see are self serving lying politicians.

Thats a bad deal.

Maybe, one day it will be the right thing to put an end to it but that day is not today and it is no where on the horizon either.

I wouldn't mind choosing a monarch though, Stephen Fry comes to mind, though I dont think he would want the job, which isn't surprising because I think its probably quite damaging to be in that situation, presumably only the most narcissistic cunt or short sighted fool could ever wish for such a thing.

[Anonymous]

I'm an Irish republican so not a fan but the British are happy enough with them so who am I to judge. Not a fan of Harry and Meghan, so sickening these millionaire proffessional victims selling g their family out

[jennifer_bloom]

I like King Charles more because he seems more hands on and modest and active. The previous queen was more of a fashion icon and cultural symbol than an active participant in global or social affairs.

[jshm2]

The same as I do against any monarchy - they are a necessary evil.

But you are aware the UK monarchy isn't really royal blood, right?

They got the throne because the genuine blood descendants gave up their claim, and moved to Australia.

[trina_x]

interesting point but the real monarch being in australia theory is not like that at all
the theory is the person who became king centuries ago was illegitimate and the actual legit descendent had kids who eventually moved to australia when it was discovered as nobility and the current most senior descendent is living in australia

the theory has circumstantial evidence but rlly not much

[call_me_scar]

I mean at this point they are just figure heads so I'd say it depends do they bring anything to table like let's say the British spend 10 mill a year for them to live happily but if the royals help bring in 50 mill in revenue every year then it's cool with me

[Paige90]

I am American but I don't feel like Charles is qualified to be King. He treated Diana really badly. And don't get me started how Camilla!!

[bean2k21]

Outdated. We need a society that is run by engineers. https://www.thevenusproject.com/

[pers0n]

And trannies. Just had my first transvestigation upload about British royals recently taken down on YouTube. You can still find the 5 year old original somewhere on the internet.

[Agape93]

Antiquated and worthless. Now that queenie kicked the bucket, they should be relegated to merely a tourist trap with no power

[DarkWinterNights]

The Queens death was the final nail in the coffin of the British Empire.

[Z1pTD]

I don't feel like I know enough about the monarchy to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

D. I think Charles is a douche, and the same goes for Harry's wife.

[AviatorTom]

Waiting for William...

[Brando10222]

I don't like King Charles