The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: AATW on September 08, 2022, 01:14:26 PM

Title: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 08, 2022, 01:14:26 PM
Under "medical supervision". The family have all gone to visit her.
Even BBC1 have suspended all programming till 6pm.
Doesn't sound good :(
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2022, 01:56:05 PM
Do not worry, mortal, your leader is simply preparing for the journey back to the homeworld.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Iceman on September 08, 2022, 02:03:40 PM
It had been starting to actually feel like she’d love forever. End of an era for sure.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Crudblud on September 08, 2022, 04:43:04 PM
It had been starting to actually feel like she’d love forever. End of an era for sure.
Don't worry Iceman, the Queen's love for her subjects is eternal.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Iceman on September 08, 2022, 05:36:54 PM
I feel her love this day, as I did on my first day, as I will all my days.

She’ll be missed. Despite what I think of royalty in general and their uselessness in modern society, she’s always seemed like a pretty nice lady.

A lot of money is about to look different. Yuck.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 08, 2022, 06:22:25 PM
Well, shit.
I mean, she was 96 so fair enough.

Have a fair amount of affection for the monarchy. I’m in on the joke, I know they’re an anachronism in the modern world but I am a fan of all the pomp
And ceremony. But a lot of that affection is because of the Queen who, whatever you think of the institution, has been a tireless servant of the country for over 70 years.

All feels a bit weird, most people haven’t been through this in their lifetime, you’d have to be around 80 to remember the last succession.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 08, 2022, 06:27:17 PM
I'm torn.

She seemed like a decent person.  I will miss her.

At the same time, big picture, the UK, a powerful and modern nation with strong protections for individual liberty, has a fucking monarchy?  Is there some sort of magic sword involved in all this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 06:40:02 PM
At the same time, big picture, the UK, a powerful and modern nation with strong protections for individual liberty, has a fucking monarchy?
That's not a contradiction at all — constitutional monarchies tend to reinforce democracy because the monarch cannot be given any real power without seriously damaging the nation's legitimacy as a democracy on the world stage. Furthermore, constitutional monarchs are usually apolitical, whereas presidents are very often politicians even in presidential systems where they do not wield executive authority, meaning they may not be seen as representing the entire population.

Just look at France or the United States to see how easily a presidential democracy can be corrupted by centralising executive authority in a single office that is not accountable to any legislature. That could never happen in a constitutional monarchy without strong pushback from society, to put it mildly.

The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Roundy on September 08, 2022, 07:28:23 PM
You know Charles is all "It's about bloody time!"
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2022, 07:28:56 PM
The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics.

The existence of monarchs is undemocratic. That you've swallowed a long line of propaganda about monarchy is only representative of your own ignorance and hilarious opinion. Having your head of state, even if they have no official power, be someone who just so happened to be born to the correct person at the correct time should be an international embarrassment rather than a symbol of unity.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 07:29:41 PM
The existence of monarchs is undemocratic. That you've swallowed a long line of propaganda about monarchy is only representative of your own ignorance and hilarious opinion.
I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a point in there?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2022, 07:30:54 PM
The existence of monarchs is undemocratic. That you've swallowed a long line of propaganda about monarchy is only representative of your own ignorance and hilarious opinion.
I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a point in there?

My point is that you have none at all. You just rambled on about basic royal propaganda then said anyone who has an opposing opinion is "from people who do not understand politics" before they even have a chance to state it. It's pathetic. Do better.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 07:33:05 PM
My point is that you have none at all. You just rambled on about basic royal propaganda
I presented arguments to support my position, which is more than you have done.

then said anyone who has an opposing opinion is "from people who do not understand politics" before they even have a chance to state it.
So your response was... to not state any argument at all? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2022, 07:36:25 PM
I presented arguments to support my position, which is more than you have done.

You didn't present arguments, you rambled a bit about basic monarchist propaganda. Your post contained no data, no references, nothing that even remotely constitutes an argument. It's at best just a bad opinion, at worst, a photocopy of someone else's.

So your response was... to not state any argument at all? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Pointing out your continued inability to formulate legible points. I'm not arguing with you, as that's a waste of time. I'm stating that you are not worth arguing with and that isn't a waste of time.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 08, 2022, 07:43:44 PM
At the same time, big picture, the UK, a powerful and modern nation with strong protections for individual liberty, has a fucking monarchy?  Is there some sort of magic sword involved in all this?

I quite like Stephen Fry's take on it.
In one of his autobiographies he relates how as a teenager he broke his nose, which is why it's a bit wonky. When he started to become successful and got money he thought about getting it fixed and then he reconsidered, figuring that although it does look a bit odd it was part of him, so he left it. He says he views the monarchy the same, yes it is a bit out of place in a modern world but it's part of us as a nation and quite an important part. If I started a country now I wouldn't have a monarchy, it would be a weird thing to do. But removing it now...I kinda feel we'd be poorer for it as a nation.
All that said, a lot of that feeling is because of the Queen. I wonder how attitudes towards the monarchy will change with Charles who people don't have so much time for.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 07:44:15 PM
You didn't present arguments, you rambled a bit about basic monarchist propaganda. Your post contained no data, no references, nothing that even remotely constitutes an argument. It's at best just a bad opinion, at worst, a photocopy of someone else's.
This is a web forum, not an academic journal. If you wanted to further the discussion, you could have engaged in good faith instead of calling my arguments "propaganda" for no justifiable reason. All of your responses so far have been completely pointless, even if your criticisms of my post were valid.

Pointing out your continued inability to formulate legible points. I'm not arguing with you, as that's a waste of time. I'm stating that you are not worth arguing with and that isn't a waste of time.
Actually, you're just wasting everyone's time, mine included. If your next post doesn't contain something more substantial, I will just cease replying.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2022, 08:17:22 PM
This is a web forum, not an academic journal. If you wanted to further the discussion, you could have engaged in good faith instead of calling my arguments "propaganda" for no justifiable reason. All of your responses so far have been completely pointless, even if your criticisms of my post were valid.

You: "noooooo people have to engage in good faith!"

Also you: "The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics."

You can't "engage in good faith" by immediately calling everyone who disagrees with you "people who do not understand politics." You've just presupposed everyone who disagrees with you is wrong before they've even stated an opposing position. It comes across as very obviously egotistical. There will be lots of people who won't reply to you because they don't wish to interact with you. I've replied to point out your horrible behavior.

Actually, you're just wasting everyone's time, mine included. If your next post doesn't contain something more substantial, I will just cease replying.

I hereby order you not to respond to this post.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: rooster on September 08, 2022, 08:31:11 PM
So your response was... to not state any argument at all? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
This is Rushy's new tactic.

Anyway, it's pretty surreal that she's gone. The royal family as a whole is gross but this is obviously a big moment. I'm curious to see what it's going to be like with Charles.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 08, 2022, 08:36:04 PM
At the same time, big picture, the UK, a powerful and modern nation with strong protections for individual liberty, has a fucking monarchy?
That's not a contradiction at all — constitutional monarchies tend to reinforce democracy because the monarch cannot be given any real power without seriously damaging the nation's legitimacy as a democracy on the world stage. Furthermore, constitutional monarchs are usually apolitical, whereas presidents are very often politicians even in presidential systems where they do not wield executive authority, meaning they may not be seen as representing the entire population.

Just look at France or the United States to see how easily a presidential democracy can be corrupted by centralising executive authority in a single office that is not accountable to any legislature. That could never happen in a constitutional monarchy without strong pushback from society, to put it mildly.

The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics.

I admit I do have my biases as an American.  However I'm not seeing how a monarchy factors into the UK's success as a democracy.  Their status as a democracy exists at the pleasure of the queen, now the king.  The legal constraints on the monarchy appear too weak to really stop them dissolving parliament and nullifying any rule of law at their whim. 

The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics.

Oh.  I was confused.  I wasn't aware that England voted to install Elizabeth as the queen.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: J-Man on September 08, 2022, 08:39:45 PM
I have several coins with her face on them. She'll live as long as I do.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 08:44:46 PM
I admit I do have my biases as an American.  However I'm not seeing how a monarchy factors into the UK's success as a democracy.  Their status as a democracy exists at the pleasure of the queen, now the king.  The legal constraints on the monarchy appear too weak to really stop them dissolving parliament and nullifying any rule of law at their whim.
If you read the law outside the context of the society in which it exists, that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation. The fact is that any attempt by the monarch to impose their authority would be seen as hostile by the vast majority of the British population, and they would be faced with three options: back down and do nothing, try to seize only a little bit of power so that Parliament has enough time to pass legislation stripping it away, or start a civil war. None of them ends in the monarch actually ruling the UK.

Oh.  I was confused.  I wasn't aware that England voted to install Elizabeth as the queen.
Nor did the American people vote for John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court, or Christopher A. Wray as director of the FBI. Are you asserting that every member of a government must be democratically elected in order for the government, as a whole, to function democratically?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: J-Man on September 08, 2022, 08:47:12 PM
My kinda Brits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl5CuCmePBw&t=16s
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 08, 2022, 10:22:39 PM
If you read the law outside the context of the society in which it exists, that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation. The fact is that any attempt by the monarch to impose their authority would be seen as hostile by the vast majority of the British population, and they would be faced with three options: back down and do nothing, try to seize only a little bit of power so that Parliament has enough time to pass legislation stripping it away, or start a civil war. None of them ends in the monarch actually ruling the UK.

So it's a monarchy which tolerates a democracy in law and in practice we're assuming that if push comes to shove the citizens can overcome the military which is another power that the monarch has sole control over.

I'm not sure what the monarchy adds here.  It seems like the best case scenario is that they don't assert any power over their empire and basically function as the Kardashians.  Whereas the worst case scenario is much darker.

If instead of assuming the throne, if Charles just decided somehow that Elizabeth was the UK's last monarch do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing?


Nor did the American people vote for John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court, or Christopher A. Wray as director of the FBI. Are you asserting that every member of a government must be democratically elected in order for the government, as a whole, to function democratically?

Well not every member of the government.  But ideally at least the head of state.

Additionally this is not an accurate comparison.  We elect the people that appoint these positions. Sort of like how the people elect the members of parliament who in turn elect a prime minister.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 08, 2022, 10:39:57 PM
So it's a monarchy which tolerates a democracy in law and in practice we're assuming that if push comes to shove the citizens can overcome the military which is another power that the monarch has sole control over.
"Monarchy" and "democracy" are not antonynms. It's a (constitutional) monarchy and a democracy. Also, it is highly questionable whether the military would remain loyal to a rogue monarch. Historical precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) is against you.

I'm not sure what the monarchy adds here.  It seems like the best case scenario is that they don't assert any power over their empire and basically function as the Kardashians.  Whereas the worst case scenario is much darker.
That is because you are comparing having a monarch to simply not having a monarch, which makes no sense. You can't just remove a monarch from the system and leave everything else the same, because then you would have no head of state. You need a specific alternative for any meaningful comparison.

If you compare a constitutional monarchy to the most common democratic alternative, that being a presidential system, then meaningful statements can be made. For example, the US president is not accountable to Congress and routinely signs executive orders without needing the support of his party or the electorate. Is that what you mean by the "worst case scenario"?

If instead of assuming the throne, if Charles just decided somehow that Elizabeth was the UK's last monarch do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing?
Again, your question is meaningless because you are asking if I think it would be good or bad if the current system was replaced with something completely undefined. Some alternatives might be better, and some would certainly be worse.

Well not every member of the government.  But ideally at least the head of state.
Why?

Additionally this is not an accurate comparison.  We elect the people that appoint these positions. Sort of like how the people elect the members of parliament who in turn elect a prime minister.
And the UK Parliament also chooses not to push legislation to abolish the monarchy, because it isn't getting in the way of democracy and there are far more important issues to be getting on with. So, that's alright then?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: markjo on September 08, 2022, 10:48:01 PM
The narrative that monarchs are undemocratic comes, quite frankly, from people who do not understand politics.

The existence of monarchs is undemocratic.
Not always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: BillO on September 08, 2022, 11:10:31 PM
The Queen is dead.  Long live the King!
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 08, 2022, 11:24:18 PM
"Monarchy" and "democracy" are not antonynms. It's a (constitutional) monarchy and a democracy. Also, it is highly questionable whether the military would remain loyal to a rogue monarch. Historical precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) is against you.

So the law says the monarchy controls the military but we assume in a conflict between the people and the crown that the military will ignore the law and side with the people.

It seems to me that the system should be restructured so that the military is explicitly accountable to the people and not the crown as opposed to hoping they'll defy their oaths.

That is because you are comparing having a monarch to simply not having a monarch, which makes no sense. You can't just remove a monarch from the system and leave everything else the same, because then you would have no head of state. You need a specific alternative for any meaningful comparison.

If you compare a constitutional monarchy to the most common democratic alternative, that being a presidential system, then meaningful statements can be made. For example, the US president is not accountable to Congress and routinely signs executive orders without needing the support of his party or the electorate. Is that what you mean by the "worst case scenario"?


I think a better comparison would be Israel.  They have a parliamentary system but without a monarchy.  Would Israel be better off if they added a monarch into the mix?

Also a worst case scenario would be a monarch asserting their power in a tyranical way sort of like Mohammed bin Salman.

Again, your question is meaningless because you are asking if I think it would be good or bad if the current system was replaced with something completely undefined. Some alternatives might be better, and some would certainly be worse.


Let me ask this a different way.  If Queen Elizabeth had no defined powers over the UK would it have had any impact over her country?

Why?

So you can fire them if you're unhapppy with their choices.

And the UK Parliament also chooses not to push legislation to abolish the monarchy, because it isn't getting in the way of democracy and there are far more important issues to be getting on with. So, that's alright then?

Practically speaking I suppose.  The monarchy has had a very corgi focused agenda for quite some time.  What if that changes?  What then?

If the monarchy somehow took a tyrannical turn and parliament stripped it of any authority would you oppose this?  And to the same point, what does the UK stand to gain by preserving the power of the monarchy?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Fortuna on September 09, 2022, 06:31:19 AM
She’ll be missed. Despite what I think of royalty in general and their uselessness in modern society, she’s always seemed like a pretty nice lady.

Culture is far more powerful than politics or laws.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 09, 2022, 08:22:35 AM
So the law says the monarchy controls the military but we assume in a conflict between the people and the crown that the military will ignore the law and side with the people.
Actually, we don't need to assume anything. We have centuries of the monarch just letting Parliament get on with governing the country without interference, because starting a civil war that you are likely to lose for no reason is an absolutely insane idea.

You have to understand that this hypothetical of yours is comparable to the POTUS trying to pass an executive order declaring himself emperor for life. It is such an astoundingly absurd thing to do that, were it to receive even a modicum of support from anyone with the power to enforce it, the result would be a completely new regime and existing laws would be irrelevant anyway.

It seems to me that the system should be restructured so that the military is explicitly accountable to the people and not the crown as opposed to hoping they'll defy their oaths.
The point of what I said isn't that the system ensures victory for parliamentarians in a civil war. It is that a civil war is so obviously undesirable to all involved that it wouldn't even be contemplated. You are proposing radical, untested alterations to a system that has been working well for centuries in order to deal with an apocalyptic hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

I think a better comparison would be Israel.  They have a parliamentary system but without a monarchy.  Would Israel be better off if they added a monarch into the mix?
Israel has a non-executive president, which is functionally equivalent to a monarch in a democracy, so it is likely that nothing would change in the short term. In the long term, a non-executive president is far more likely to become an executive president than a constitutional monarch is to become an absolute monarch, so all else being equal, Israel would probably be more stable with a monarch. But there are so many more important factors than this at play that it's simply not worth contemplating a change in either direction.

Also a worst case scenario would be a monarch asserting their power in a tyranical way sort of like Mohammed bin Salman.
Or Robert Mugabe?

Let me ask this a different way.  If Queen Elizabeth had no defined powers over the UK would it have had any impact over her country?
Yes, because the monarch exercising certain powers on the advice of the prime minister is an integral part of how the British political system works.

So you can fire them if you're unhapppy with their choices.
That is not an answer to the question I asked, given the context. We have just established that you don't think every member of a government needs to be democratically elected. What is it about a head of state that means that person specifically needs to be able to be fired by popular vote, while others don't?

Practically speaking I suppose.  The monarchy has had a very corgi focused agenda for quite some time.  What if that changes?  What then?
You could ask the same question about any political system. If any system changed to be less democratic, then it would become less democratic.

If the monarchy somehow took a tyrannical turn and parliament stripped it of any authority would you oppose this?
Of course not. If there is a problem to be solved, then we should solve the problem. My objection is to you claiming that we should solve a problem that doesn't exist.

And to the same point, what does the UK stand to gain by preserving the power of the monarchy?
The monarchy has very little power, in practical (as opposed to hypothetical) terms. The institution of the monarchy is an insurance policy against an executive presidency, which is demonstrably less democratic than a constitutional monarchy.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 09, 2022, 07:44:06 PM
Actually, we don't need to assume anything. We have centuries of the monarch just letting Parliament get on with governing the country without interference, because starting a civil war that you are likely to lose for no reason is an absolutely insane idea.

You have to understand that this hypothetical of yours is comparable to the POTUS trying to pass an executive order declaring himself emperor for life. It is such an astoundingly absurd thing to do that, were it to receive even a modicum of support from anyone with the power to enforce it, the result would be a completely new regime and existing laws would be irrelevant anyway.

The point of what I said isn't that the system ensures victory for parliamentarians in a civil war. It is that a civil war is so obviously undesirable to all involved that it wouldn't even be contemplated. You are proposing radical, untested alterations to a system that has been working well for centuries in order to deal with an apocalyptic hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

It seems to me that the UK has had the good fortune of having a reasonable monarchy made up of reasonble people.  This is not the same thing as having a well designed government. The test of how well a government is designed is what happens when unreasonable people gain control. 

That is not an answer to the question I asked, given the context. We have just established that you don't think every member of a government needs to be democratically elected. What is it about a head of state that means that person specifically needs to be able to be fired by popular vote, while others don't?

We elect someone as the head state through a not so great electoral college process.  I believe it should be a direct vote but that's a discussion for a different time.  We also elect the legislative branch, mostly democratically some with caveats but that's also a discussion for another time.

So now we have a democratically elected government.  They need to appoint quite a subject matter experts to make this government function such as judges, cabinet members, heads of institutions etc.  These members of the government, while not directly elected, are accountable to the first two branches of the government which are.  If any of these appointed members does something the public finds egregious we can threaten the elected members of the government to remove them or we'll vote them out.  One only needs to look at the Trump presidency to see this system in action.

If the head of state was not accountable to the people in this country then our world would be very different today and probably not in a good way.

You could ask the same question about any political system. If any system changed to be less democratic, then it would become less democratic.

Fair point.
Yes, because the monarch exercising certain powers on the advice of the prime minister is an integral part of how the British political system works.

Do you mean ceremonial roles or actual decisions?  I only mean that question half rhetorically.  I can't actually find an article detailing any time that Queen Elizabeth intervened in government.

Of course not. If there is a problem to be solved, then we should solve the problem. My objection is to you claiming that we should solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I understand why it hasn't been fixed.  It takes expenditure of political capitol to change such things. 

The monarchy has very little power, in practical (as opposed to hypothetical) terms. The institution of the monarchy is an insurance policy against an executive presidency, which is demonstrably less democratic than a constitutional monarchy.

This is an interesting idea.  Is there some UK doctrine where this is stated explicitly or is this something that we hope they'll do in the event of a crisis?

Also, I have to say, if we're calling a president, who is elected, less democratic than a monarch who isn't then we're doing great violence to the English language.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 09, 2022, 08:22:33 PM
It seems to me that the UK has had the good fortune of having a reasonable monarchy made up of reasonble people.  This is not the same thing as having a well designed government. The test of how well a government is designed is what happens when unreasonable people gain control.
The UK is not the only democratic constitutional monarchy. There are six monarchies in the EU alone, and several more elsewhere in Europe. With the exception of the absolute monarchy of the Vatican, they all function along similar principles of limited power granted to the sovereign, whether through legislation or convention. It takes some mental gymnastics to suppose that they have all simply been fortunate for the past century or two.

If any of these appointed members does something the public finds egregious we can threaten the elected members of the government to remove them or we'll vote them out.  One only needs to look at the Trump presidency to see this system in action.
It takes 4 years to vote the POTUS out, during which time they can continue running the country with relatively few checks and balances. Meanwhile, if the King of the United Kingdom decided to try anything fishy today, you can bet that Parliament would be discussing how to put a stop to it tomorrow. Direct election is not the only possible means of accountability, nor is it a particularly efficient one.

If the head of state was not accountable to the people in this country then our world would be very different today and probably not in a good way.
That is because the head of state of the US has executive authority, whereas that of the UK does not (in practice). That has been my main point all along.

Do you mean ceremonial roles or actual decisions?  I only mean that question half rhetorically.  I can't actually find an article detailing any time that Queen Elizabeth intervened in government.
Dissolution of Parliament is a royal prerogative. When the Prime Minister decides it is time to hold an election, he or she advises the monarch of such, and the monarch dissolves the current Parliament so that a new one may be elected. I'm not saying this couldn't be done any other way, but it is the way it is done right now, so simply removing the monarch's power to dissolve Parliament would prevent the system from functioning.

Although I am not aware of this power ever being used against the PM's wishes in the UK, there was one case when the Prime Minister of Australia was dismissed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) by the Governor-General of Australia on Elizabeth II's authority. Although an exceptional event, this resolved a deadlock and enabled Australia to continue having a government at all in a time of crisis, so it is generally seen as a legitimate use of royal authority.

Of course not. If there is a problem to be solved, then we should solve the problem. My objection is to you claiming that we should solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I understand why it hasn't been fixed.  It takes expenditure of political capitol to change such things.
It's not a question of why it hasn't been fixed. I disagree that there is a problem to be fixed at all. The system merely works differently from the American system, and relies more on convention.

This is an interesting idea.  Is there some UK doctrine where this is stated explicitly or is this something that we hope they'll do in the event of a crisis?
This is my personal viewpoint, as someone who grew up in a country where Elizabeth II was head of state (but not the UK). Many others in the UK and elsewhere in the Commonwealth will have differing opinions, I'm sure.

It's not clear what you mean by "something that we hope they'll do". I didn't mention doing anything.

Also, I have to say, if we're calling a president, who is elected, less democratic than a monarch who isn't then we're doing great violence to the English language.
We are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about the monarch, I am talking about the monarchy. You are talking about an individual, I am talking about how the government functions as a whole. And yes, I do believe that a constitutional monarchy functions more democratically than an executive presidency.

Let me put it this way. In an executive presidency, you can have one individual who was elected by 51% of the population (or even less, with an electoral college) making decisions that affect everyone for years at a time with minimal checks and balances. In a properly functioning parliamentary system, you typically have a parliament composed of representatives of all viewpoints in society debating issues and coming to a collective decision. Democracy then happens daily in parliament, not once every 4 years. (The Parliament of the UK does not work in this way, but that is because of the substandard electoral system used and has nothing to do with the monarchy.)

If the cost of maintaining that representative democracy ­— in which competing interests talk to each other instead of one winning over the others for one 4-year term at a time — is that we have a single unelected individual serving in a ceremonial role, then that is a trade-off I am very happy to make.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: garygreen on September 09, 2022, 10:44:41 PM
The UK is not the only democratic constitutional monarchy. There are six monarchies in the EU alone, and several more elsewhere in Europe. With the exception of the absolute monarchy of the Vatican, they all function along similar principles of limited power granted to the sovereign, whether through legislation or convention. It takes some mental gymnastics to suppose that they have all simply been fortunate for the past century or two.

i realize i am of course doing major mental gymnastics here (probably because i just don't understand politics on your level), but do you think it's possible that these constitutional monarchies all function along similar lines because they share a common cultural and developmental heritage? like maybe the fact that they are all european is not a complete coincidence? i could be wrong, but it just seems like they're all pretty closely related to one another in space and time, so maybe we should be cautious about overgeneralizing from what is clearly not any kind of random sample.

p.s. sorry in advance if my question is meaningless ;););) wink emoji
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 09, 2022, 11:15:52 PM
i realize i am of course doing major mental gymnastics here (probably because i just don't understand politics on your level), but do you think it's possible that these constitutional monarchies all function along similar lines because they share a common cultural and developmental heritage? like maybe the fact that they are all european is not a complete coincidence? i could be wrong, but it just seems like they're all pretty closely related to one another in space and time, so maybe we should be cautious about overgeneralizing from what is clearly not any kind of random sample.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Like, yes, political culture is a very important part of any political system that relies heavily on convention? Did that need to be pointed out?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: garygreen on September 12, 2022, 02:26:21 PM
i realize i am of course doing major mental gymnastics here (probably because i just don't understand politics on your level), but do you think it's possible that these constitutional monarchies all function along similar lines because they share a common cultural and developmental heritage? like maybe the fact that they are all european is not a complete coincidence? i could be wrong, but it just seems like they're all pretty closely related to one another in space and time, so maybe we should be cautious about overgeneralizing from what is clearly not any kind of random sample.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Like, yes, political culture is a very important part of any political system that relies heavily on convention? Did that need to be pointed out?

perhaps i am misunderstanding your point in general — and of course please point it out if i am — but imo you seem to be making the claim that constitutional monarchies are very democratic because they always have impotent executives, and impotent executives are good. others have pointed out that this is not a necessary feature of a constitutional monarchy. we can easily imagine a constitutional monarchy with a strong executive.

your argument, then, was that all current constitutional monarchies have this feature, and we can/should generalize from this fact — after all, what are the odds that they would all share this feature by accident?

this brings us to my argument above: the fact that those governments all share a similar heritage/culture/time in history/etc means that we ought not generalize from their shared features. they aren't random and independent measurements. there are clear covariances.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 12, 2022, 02:33:58 PM
you seem to be making the claim that constitutional monarchies are very democratic because they always have impotent executives
That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic culture tends to be more stable and more democratic than a system with an elected president and a democratic culture. I have also made the point that this is far less important than many other factors.

Remember, this conversation got started when I replied to someone who implied that a monarchy is necessarily undemocratic. I am only asserting that that position is absurd, nothing more.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2022, 08:52:12 PM
you seem to be making the claim that constitutional monarchies are very democratic because they always have impotent executives
That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic culture tends to be more stable and more democratic than a system with an elected president and a democratic culture. I have also made the point that this is far less important than many other factors.

Remember, this conversation got started when I replied to someone who implied that a monarchy is necessarily undemocratic. I am only asserting that that position is absurd, nothing more.

This is what naturally happens when you argue with someone who:

1. Is purposefully vague about their argument and uses nebulous terms such as "tends to" without defining what "more stable" and "more democratic" even mean.
2. Already determined that anyone who makes any argument against them is simply ignorant of politics

It is obvious that a monarch cannot be democratic. It was not appointed by representatives of the people or by the people themselves. It was thrust upon them by force. That is inherently undemocratic in any sense of the spirit of democracy. Constitutional monarchies are an artifact of an era where the people had to make compromises with the existing aristocracy. The very existence of a constitutional monarchy is an embarrassment and an abomination.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2022, 08:58:39 PM
As always, Stephen Fry shows us the way

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ2Dggq4_lc
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 12, 2022, 09:10:08 PM
It is obvious that a monarch cannot be democratic.
Good thing that's not what I said, then. But you know that.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tumeni on September 12, 2022, 09:11:54 PM
Public admission to the Queen at rest in St Giles, Edinburgh, commenced earlier this (Monday) evening. By some estimates, there are 20,000 people queued three times around one of Edinburgh's public parks, and their numbers will be filing past overnight, all through the night, until sometime tomorrow afternoon.

I predict there'll be a lot of people joining the tail end, only to be turned away sometime tomorrow
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 13, 2022, 06:09:15 AM
you seem to be making the claim that constitutional monarchies are very democratic because they always have impotent executives
That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic culture tends to be more stable and more democratic than a system with an elected president and a democratic culture. I have also made the point that this is far less important than many other factors.

Remember, this conversation got started when I replied to someone who implied that a monarchy is necessarily undemocratic. I am only asserting that that position is absurd, nothing more.

Oh what a terrible thing it is for someone such as myself to walk through life so terribly misunderstood.

I thought this was obvious from the subtext but I was mocking the monarchy not because of any problem with that form of a government.  I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.

I was perfectly content to discuss England's dragon problem but you had to take a far more farcical turn, that a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, which I was happy to oblige for a time.  For a time I assume you were in on the joke but then I realized that you are in fact serious and were making an earnest effort to defend the Monarchy in the same way that a southerner in the 1800s might defend slavery.

I do not blame you.  I blame myself.  I have not had many serious conversations in this particular form and I don't know everyone's sense of humor or lack thereof.

Mea Culpa.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 13, 2022, 09:47:11 AM
I thought this was obvious from the subtext but I was mocking the monarchy not because of any problem with that form of a government.  I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.
And why is that a problem?
We've been like that for a millennium. It's going fine, thanks.
I mean...it isn't going fine, our government is a car crash and things are going to shit. But that's not because of the monarchy, it's actually because of the people we have elected, not because of the people we don't.
Seems to me that it's democracy causing the problems.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 13, 2022, 10:10:30 AM
By the way, watched Last Week Tonight by John Oliver. There was a jarring edit, clearly they'd cut something about the Queen out. Found it on YouTube. It was nothing that bad, the good people at Sky obviously think we're sensitive little souls.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 13, 2022, 01:20:24 PM
I was perfectly content to discuss England's dragon problem but you had to take a far more farcical turn, that a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, which I was happy to oblige for a time.
You continue to use those words as though they are contradictory. They are not. We are not comparing a monarchy to a democracy, but two different forms of democracy, and until you acknowledge that it makes perfect sense that you would not understand what I am saying.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2022, 02:00:05 PM
In solidarity of the Queen's passing the NHS has canceled thousands of surgeries and doctor's appointments that people have waited months to get.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/nhs-cancels-cancer-appointments-queen-elizabeth-funeral-bank-holiday/

(https://i.imgur.com/HGKEztc.png)
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 13, 2022, 02:13:45 PM
It's what she would have wanted.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tumeni on September 13, 2022, 02:35:33 PM
In solidarity of the Queen's passing the NHS has canceled thousands of surgeries and doctor's appointments that people have waited months to get.

What happened on the day of (say) JFK's funeral? Did the USA proceed as normal, or were many things cancelled?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rama Set on September 13, 2022, 04:59:17 PM
In solidarity of the Queen's passing the NHS has canceled thousands of surgeries and doctor's appointments that people have waited months to get.

What happened on the day of (say) JFK's funeral? Did the USA proceed as normal, or were many things cancelled?

Who cares?  It's 50 years since then.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 14, 2022, 05:46:55 AM
I thought this was obvious from the subtext but I was mocking the monarchy not because of any problem with that form of a government.  I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.
And why is that a problem?
We've been like that for a millennium. It's going fine, thanks.
I mean...it isn't going fine, our government is a car crash and things are going to shit. But that's not because of the monarchy, it's actually because of the people we have elected, not because of the people we don't.
Seems to me that it's democracy causing the problems.

No problem whatsoever.  I like dragons and arthurian legends.

Ask your new King to appoint your government then.  I'm sure that would go swimmingly.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 14, 2022, 06:08:59 AM
I was perfectly content to discuss England's dragon problem but you had to take a far more farcical turn, that a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, which I was happy to oblige for a time.
You continue to use those words as though they are contradictory. They are not. We are not comparing a monarchy to a democracy, but two different forms of democracy, and until you acknowledge that it makes perfect sense that you would not understand what I am saying.

Bro, I own a dictionary.  Let me know when Prince Charles wins the elections.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 14, 2022, 09:20:04 AM
Bro, I own a dictionary.  Let me know when Prince Charles wins the elections.
Once again, you are focusing on the monarch (an individual) and not the monarchy (a system of government). You are not listening to what I am saying, and instead replacing the subject of my posts with something else.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 15, 2022, 06:36:05 AM
Bro, I own a dictionary.  Let me know when Prince Charles wins the elections.
Once again, you are focusing on the monarch (an individual) and not the monarchy (a system of government). You are not listening to what I am saying, and instead replacing the subject of my posts with something else.

Ah okay.  I see how I was confused with.  My mistake.  I feel very silly getting it wrong.

So instead of me asking when Prince Charles wins an election, let me know when the UK has a head of the monarchy which was elected by the people.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 15, 2022, 06:48:56 AM
Went up to see the flowers and that.
4 stars. Would grieve again.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 15, 2022, 09:21:35 AM
So instead of me asking when Prince Charles wins an election, let me know when the UK has a head of the monarchy which was elected by the people.
Referring to the same individual with different words is not a fundamentally different response.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: markjo on September 15, 2022, 10:27:29 PM
Bro, I own a dictionary.
Then use it to look up "elective monarchy".
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 16, 2022, 05:49:40 AM
Bro, I own a dictionary.
Then use it to look up "elective monarchy".

Holing on.  I'm looking. It up.

The first few hits just showed the definition of 'contradiction'.

Went to wiktionary. I see one exmale about 1400 years ago.  I assume this had something to do with a dragon and a lady of the lake.

Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 16, 2022, 05:56:43 AM
So instead of me asking when Prince Charles wins an election, let me know when the UK has a head of the monarchy which was elected by the people.
Referring to the same individual with different words is not a fundamentally different response.

Then I believe this conversion has unfortunately run its course.

I believe that words have meaning so when I describe something as "democratic" it means someone voted for it.

You whoever seem to believe in "opposite day"  That a leader who governors with the will of the people is a tyrant.  And that a leader who has inherited his  title without any input of the people he rules is in fact more democratic than someone you would have to vote for.

This is an interesting way to assess things.  It's not without it's merits.  I have a 6 year old daughter who I will know doubt fine the mental exercise very simulating.  My son might see through it and think that it's a bit silly.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 16, 2022, 10:42:17 AM
They've paused entry to the queue to see the Queen lying in state as it filled up!
Wait was around 9 hours when I last checked.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: xasop on September 16, 2022, 12:25:47 PM
You whoever seem to believe in "opposite day"  That a leader who governors with the will of the people is a tyrant.  And that a leader who has inherited his  title without any input of the people he rules is in fact more democratic than someone you would have to vote for.
The reason you think that is because, instead of reading what I have said several times by now, you continue to erroneously interpret my statements as applying to the monarch as an individual rather than the government as a whole. I am not sure what else I can do to progress the conversation if what I have already said is not being read or understood.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 16, 2022, 04:32:47 PM
They have now re-opened the queue and are saying it'll likely be a wait of more than 24 hours.

I...think I'll pass.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: markjo on September 16, 2022, 09:22:14 PM
Bro, I own a dictionary.
Then use it to look up "elective monarchy".

Holing on.  I'm looking. It up.

The first few hits just showed the definition of 'contradiction'.
That's odd.  Perhaps your internet is broken because when I looked it up, this was my first hit:
"An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case."


Went to wiktionary. I see one exmale about 1400 years ago.  I assume this had something to do with a dragon and a lady of the lake.
Interesting.  I went to Wikipedia and found a fairly long list of examples, none which mentioned dragons or lakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy#Historical_examples
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 19, 2022, 02:13:39 PM
</queen>
<king>
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2022, 03:14:31 AM
At the Queen's funeral Joe Biden was made to sit towards the back.

(https://i.imgur.com/AgLQDL1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2022, 03:55:00 AM
oh man. How embarassing. At the social event of the season too. where was Trump sitting?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2022, 03:56:05 AM
oh man. How embarassing. At the social event of the season too. where was Trump sitting?

No former president was invited. This is also irrelevant to the fact that Joe Biden was made to sit near the back.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2022, 03:58:47 AM
oh man. How embarassing. At the social event of the season too. where was Trump sitting?

No former president was invited.

I guess Trump is less important than people made to sit at the back.

Quote
This is also irrelevant to the fact that Joe Biden was made to sit near the back.

Yeah. Man. I wonder how he is doing after this great tragedy. Not being able to peacock at a funeral must be so very, very trying. I hope he lives through the night.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2022, 04:10:57 AM
It was a congregation of over 500 world leaders. Trump is obviously a former, and not a current, president.

This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders. His being put in the back has nothing to do with Trump, only Joe Biden.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2022, 04:32:46 AM
It was a congregation of over 500 world leaders. Trump is obviously a former, and not a current, president.

Not according to Trump lol

Quote
This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders. His being put in the back has nothing to do with Trump, only Joe Biden.

Are you having trouble reading?  I’ve already agreed that this is a monumental tragedy and we should send thoughts and prayers to Joe.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: honk on September 20, 2022, 05:43:47 AM
Tom is right. Biden should have just demanded a front row seat. It's important for the president to be able to show off how important they are at all times.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 20, 2022, 05:51:46 AM
This is very telling about Trump.
He clearly thinks, as he does about all things, that a funeral should be all be about himself and his own position.

Biden was in a section for world leaders, the front was for other royals and other people who knew the Queen more personally.

One could twist facts in another direction, Biden was allowed to use The Beast to get there, most other world leaders had to get on a bus.

But the day wasn’t about Biden, or Trump. How wearying and predictable that Trump has to try and hijack the day to score points. Narcissists gotta narcissist…
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tumeni on September 20, 2022, 08:30:39 AM
At the Queen's funeral Joe Biden was made to sit towards the back

...with the front occupied by those related to the Queen, and with close connections to the Queen. As is standard practice for a funeral over here. Cannot imagine it being any different in the US.


No former president was invited. This is also irrelevant to the fact that Joe Biden was made to sit near the back.

That's great. So you agree Trump is a former President. Not the current President. He lost the 2020 election.

Yes, that's what happens when you visit someone else's country, at their invitation. You go where they tell you to go. You don't get to make your own rules, and decide where you sit. You're an invited guest.

This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders. His being put in the back has nothing to do with Trump, only Joe Biden.

Are you REALLY trying to equate being placed behind the Queen's own family and friends, at her funeral, as being some form of "pecking order" slight or insult toward Biden, something which you can use to paint him as inferior to other world leaders?

It wasn't a "room" in the sense of a conference room or meeting space. It's an abbey.

Do you think this would be appropriate behaviour at a funeral ....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iimj0j4NYME
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: AATW on September 20, 2022, 11:17:14 AM
I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.
How dare you!
In unrelated news:

Quote
The Lord Chamberlain kept tradition by breaking his wand of office on Queen Elizabeth's coffin during the committal service at St George's Chapel in Windsor on Monday.

https://people.com/royals/why-lord-chamberlain-broke-wand-office-queen-elizabeth-coffin

'Tis a silly place!
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: BillO on September 20, 2022, 12:28:04 PM
This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders.
They back was for world leaders.  The front rows of that section would be reserved for Commonwealth of Nations members.  As is usual in these tings, the very fornt rows were for closer relations.  Family, friends, royals, etc. of which there are many.  I'm sure Joe Biden understood all this.  It's obvious you don't, just like a great many things.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2022, 05:58:40 PM
As is usual in these tings, the very fornt rows were for closer relations.  Family, friends, royals, etc. of which there are many.

So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2022, 06:03:14 PM
As is usual in these tings, the very fornt rows were for closer relations.  Family, friends, royals, etc. of which there are many.

So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.

Tom, your Biden derangement syndrome is strong.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tumeni on September 20, 2022, 06:05:28 PM
being put in the back has nothing to do with Trump, only Joe Biden.

... but you introduced the topic with Trump's post bemoaning the fact, so ... it's suddenly nothing to do with Trump, because ... you say so?
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Tumeni on September 20, 2022, 06:14:03 PM
So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.

No, he was in the back because he is not in any of the following categories; family and close personal friends of the Queen; UK and Commonwealth heads of state and dignitaries.

It was a funeral, not a political assembly. You wouldn't even have mentioned it had Trump not posted about it. 
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: stack on September 20, 2022, 07:37:39 PM
First Lady Jill Biden was also seated directly next to Ignazio Cassis, the president of Switzerland.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Clyde Frog on September 20, 2022, 09:15:03 PM
First Lady Jill Biden was also seated directly next to Ignazio Cassis, the president of Switzerland.
Another injustice that never would have happened under a Trump presidency! The disrespect is now being visited upon our key allies?! It's unconscionable.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: crutonius on September 20, 2022, 10:12:55 PM
If Trump were still president then Queen Elizabeth would still be alive.

There.  I said it.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2022, 10:36:40 PM
If Trump were president, he wouldn't just get front row seats. He'd be sitting in the coffin. That, my friends, is the Art of the Deal.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: BillO on September 20, 2022, 10:51:39 PM
So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.
No.  Being the leader of a friendly foreign country does not entitle you to be considered related to the queen or being a close personal friend or another royal.  In your life it may be that if you pass within 50' of someone and war does not break out you are then BFF's or a future mate, but the rest of the world is not so alone.  I would guess Biden and the queen had no personal relationship at all.  They met briefly (total time measured in minutes) only twice their lives.  The first time Biden was a relatively young man.

Quit trolling Tom.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: markjo on September 20, 2022, 11:06:46 PM
Quit trolling Tom.
Quit taking the bait.
Title: Re: The Queen
Post by: J-Man on September 21, 2022, 01:33:36 AM
Biden had poopy pants and could be smelled rows away. He kept looking at his note card to see what the hell he was attending. What Queen?