zlacker

[return to "Queen Elizabeth II has died"]
1. PaulDa+db[view] [source] 2022-09-08 18:12:41
>>xd+(OP)
I was born in the UK, in 1963. Because of my step-father's love of first-wave UK punk, the first thing I did on hearing this news was to play the Sex Pistol's "God Save the Queen".

It is remarkable how much the Queen's standing has improved during the time since that song (1977). My (UK) family are (as far as I know) staunch republicans, but the last couple of decades have seen all of us soften our disgust with the monarchy as Elizabeth represented it. We might still want the whole concept destroyed, but there is nothing close to the vehemence of Johnny Rotten (Lydon)'s lyrics from that song.

Nevertheless, that is how a bunch of people felt in 1977, and as our memories become even more gilded and rose goggled now that she has died, it may be worth remembering those feelings too:

God save the queen / The fascist regime / They made you a moron / A potential H bomb / God save the queen / She's not a human being / and There's no future / And England's dreaming

These days, I think even us staunch republicans/anti-monarchists would begrudgingly admit that "She could have been worse" and that she actually was a human being.

Maybe Charles will have the guts to end it all, but it doesn't seem likely.

◧◩
2. bambax+Pw[view] [source] 2022-09-08 19:35:04
>>PaulDa+db
> We might still want the whole concept destroyed

Be very careful what you wish for. As a French, living under the rule of an elected monarch who changes often, but doesn't answer to anyone during their reign, there is something extraordinary to see the British PM bow to the Queen, and do that (I think?) every week.

◧◩◪
3. ertian+gU[view] [source] 2022-09-08 21:27:55
>>bambax+Pw
I've been thinking about this for a while. Watching a swing towards autocracy around the world, it strikes me that republics seem somehow more vulnerable. The existence of a monarch, even as a functionally ceremonial role, creates a sort of conceptual top spot--and fills it. You _can't_ rise to the level of the head of state in a monarchy, that position is taken and can only be gained by inheritance.

At the same time, if the monarch (in a system like that of Britain) actually started using and abusing their theoretical powers, they'd quickly have the whole of the country turn against them. And they have a lot to lose if that happens!

In a presidential system, the President is both the theoretical and actual head of state. They're already in the top spot, and the only thing preventing them from staying there is convention or laws which are subject to change, and enforcement of which is largely under the President's control.

A more ceremonial President might work as well, but the thing is, an elected head of state has less to lose by abusing his powers, and far more to lose by properly following convention and thus stepping down.

◧◩◪◨
4. scaram+K31[view] [source] 2022-09-08 22:32:28
>>ertian+gU
And then the monarch secretly interferes with legislation, while being exempt from FOIA. And gets involved in coups, and has an army which swears loyalty to them, and not the democracy.

https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-s... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-c...

But don't worry, as long as people live in a fantasy world where they believe they are just ceremonial figureheads and a benign presence, their position at the top will never be challenged. And at any moment when it does, peoples emotions/grief will be exploited to maintain the institutions by using north korea style propaganda campaigns and security operations:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-ope...

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ertian+wK1[view] [source] 2022-09-09 05:14:44
>>scaram+K31
Are Republican systems immune from the head of state messing with legislation, or abusing executive privilege to keep things secret, inappropriately? The President of the US pushing for legislation--openly or otherwise, and including legislation that directly affects him--has been a feature of the American system basically from the start. And there are many examples of information being kept secret in the name of national security or whatever.

Between the two...could you really picture Queen Elizabeth attempting to seize total control of the state--much less accomplishing it? Or the monarchs of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Japan?

I can picture a President attempting to seize power in a Republican system. In fact I can point to several specific examples from the past few decades, successful or otherwise.

I'm definitely not saying constitutional monarchy is the perfect system, at all. I'm just saying that after spending most of my life with the assumption that monarchies were just a quaint anachronism left over from days gone by, a sort of political appendix...I've started to notice that they seem to have interesting properties and robustness that other systems might lack. It's possible that the monarchy serves a useful purpose after all (actually...much like the appendix).

[go to top]