Do you think the UK monarchy represents ethnic Englishness?

[MerakSahibi]

According to classical theories of nationalism, republics derive their legitimacy from the people, whereas monarchies derive theirs from God in a divine manner. In fact, since Henry, English kings have also been the heads of the Church. However, I don't think it is correct to generalize from France. Every state has its own unique story.

England today is a multicultural country. There are Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Blacks, Chinese, Poles, Turks, Arabs, Chinese... you name it. So much so that even people of Turkish and Indian descent can become Prime Minister from the Conservative Party.

So, the coronation ceremony, when the king is sipping his tea wearing his top hat and riding his horse through the garden, does he represent Englishness? Because none of this means a fucking thing to immigrants.

Yes

No

[JennaWillow]

The monarchy as an institution sure, but Charles as a King definitely not - Even the Queen, as beloved as she was, wasn't really what a monarch should be

The Monarch should be the through-line in the countries politics, that mostly stays as an observer but has the power to get involved if it comes to it, and due to it being a lifelong position and knowing they will pass the country to their children, they will have a greater depth of knowledge of administration than career politicians who have no real stake in the country if they mess it up, as they can just leave once they've made their money - a monarch can't, their entire existence is built on the promise that they do a good job. Being able to hold one person accountable is a great thing, rather than just swapping out the face in the big chair every few years to reset people's anger with the nebulous government

[jennifer_bloom]

it does not make sense to me to have a monarchy because the money would be better spent divided and shared among all the people who need it. It is not logical to me why somebody would live in a mansion just because their predecessors were rulers. That is not modern. It is good for commercialization and reputation to have a monarchy as it attracts tourists but it is flawed system that does not make sense.

[MerakSahibi]

I think questioning the legitimacy of monarchy is essentially the same as questioning private property. For example, why can a piece of land be considered someone's property? Just because his ancestor planted a stake there first, does that mean it should belong to his descendants forever? The same principle applies to royalty.

That said, there is a massive difference between an absolute monarchy and a parliamentary monarchy. In an absolute monarchy, the king has virtually unlimited power, just like Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Stalin. In practice, these figures were arguably worse than many monarchs, yet they were all leaders of republics.

The whole point of a parliamentary monarchy is to balance power. The prime minister keeps the monarch in check, while the monarch can also act as a counterweight to the prime minister. On the other hand, weakening the monarch can lead to oligarchy. When facing oligarchs, the monarch seeks the support of the ordinary people.

Think of oligarchs as the abusive older brother, and the monarch as the father.

[purplepoppy]

A monarchy is useful because they can hold politicians to account, Trump could not exist in the UK. They've also got a considerable amount of experience of international issues that politicians can tap into. As for money the cost to tax payers is pennies

[Taranis_Thunor]

Immigrant aren't English, won't ever be and shouldn't even brought up to discuss whether something is English or not, beyound undermining that it is English. Nothing the Royals do is English as the English are a warlike Germanic culture with warrior saints, myths and roots. Drinking tea is performative Britslop that ironically an immigrant would imitate so they can sell Britslop tourist products to visitors.

Our royals aren't even ethnically English and once I, a Plantagenet replace the monarchy with myself, they're going to be deported back to Germany.

[RavVid]

You have omitted that Charles III (for example) is King of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and 11 other countries that aren't that Anglo. It seems to me that you are just assuming it doesn't mean anything to immigrants.

In any case 56 are voluntarily in the commonwealth with Charles as the head so they don't exactly regard the UK Monarchy as meaningless.

Australia wouldn't have rubbed the Marxist Left's nose in their own shit in 1999 if it didn't mean anything.

[RavVid]

Thanks for a mho

[purplepoppy]

Ethnic English isn't really a thing, they're a mongrol race. But if we assume the vast majority are predominantly of Germanic stock then yes the modern monarchy is representative.

[JennaWillow]

Genetic testing shows that the average English is slight majority Celtic (Brittonic plus any Gaelic admixture), slight minority Germanic (Anglo-Saxon plus any Nordic admixture)

[Taranis_Thunor]

@JennaWillow Not true we're mainly Germanic and only slightly Celtic. The Celts were enslaved, turned into an underclass and got outbred by the us, the Freemen (Ceorls) and Nobility (Earls) were of Theodish (Germanic) ancestry which as you rightfully pointed out the Nordic "admixture" is a part of. It's not admixture if it goes right the way back before they even settled Britain though. It's as much of a "admixture" as a Scottish man marrying an Irish woman as Germanic people seperated later then Celts did.
Most history people don't realise the shared heritage between Anglo Saxons and Nordic culture so well done.

[OneViewpoint]

I think the UK Monarchy represents inbreeding in a feudal system as a means of holding onto power.

[browsingthroughthe]

But they're also heads of state to other shared or individual monarchies 👀😅👑

Since the 1920s or 1950s - and continues to evolve.

[browsingthroughthe]

And some become Republics. South Africa, Barbados. The Maldives. Etc.

[Kelly6]

@MerakSahibi Queen tried it to be seen as englishness Monarchy.

real English are from wales and some middle region of the UK island, but I'm not very expert in this. So don't take this as 100% accurate.

@

[Kelly6]

@EmmaMary
@purplepoppy

[purplepoppy]

Nope. Generally speaking the further west you go the more original British DNA and the further East the more Germanic.

[Kelly6]

@purplepoppy it's Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 in west!
East was taken more by Germanic.
North was taken by Danish.

[Kelly6]

Isn't *

[purplepoppy]

Basically you've Romano-British tribes from Cumbria down through Wales into Devon/Cornwall. saxons to the south and angles down the east coast. The angles, saxons, vikings kinda fight it out, and create England and Wales sits quietly on the sidelines. Then the French take over and you get modern Britain

[canamlusciouslad73]

Yes, but African American Los Angeles Dodger Markus "Mookie" Betts is a cousin of The Duchess Of Sussex.

[Anonymous]

They represent nothing past the 18th century at this point.

[Jackblue]

All i know is kings bring the tourist trade which is 90% of the reason they still have one.

[Smegskull]

I think the current monarchy is ethnicaly german.
The monarchy hasn't been truly English since the Normans took over in 1066.

[Lliam]

No. They are inbred Germanic royalty.

[Dargil]

I could not care less.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You seem a Turkish islamist

[Snakeyes7]

At least they used to.

[Anonymous]

Yes they did