UK monarchy
- Thread starter Jazzy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
IMO, my opinion pretty much doesn't matter... the issue of the UK monarchy is up to the UK.
THAT SAID, it seems pretty much symbolic. The monarch is a connection to its history and tradition, a symbol of the nation and culture and often a model of British morality (someone to honor and look up to) and ethnicity And the Brits seem to appreciate and honor that. And most are willing to pay the cost (and I guess it's considerable).
Any real POWER has slowly been stripped away from the Monarch. What LITTLE they still have is purely because they are honored and respected... and they retain that by staying out of political fray.
Again, it's up to our British friends over on the other side of the pond. A slogan of the American Revolution, "No king but King Jesus." I'm good with that.
.
THAT SAID, it seems pretty much symbolic. The monarch is a connection to its history and tradition, a symbol of the nation and culture and often a model of British morality (someone to honor and look up to) and ethnicity And the Brits seem to appreciate and honor that. And most are willing to pay the cost (and I guess it's considerable).
Any real POWER has slowly been stripped away from the Monarch. What LITTLE they still have is purely because they are honored and respected... and they retain that by staying out of political fray.
Again, it's up to our British friends over on the other side of the pond. A slogan of the American Revolution, "No king but King Jesus." I'm good with that.
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 14,695
- Location
- Realms of chaos
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
The cost of the monarchy isn't actually as much as you might think. Some years ago in a discussion I worked out that a year's budget for the Civil List was about 12 minutes worth of the national welfare budget. I think the monarchy is much better value, put in those terms. Admittedly there are other factors that can be considered - some news outlets have been reporting about the very substantial estates passed from generation to generation without the inheritance tax that would be levied against anyone else (the Duchy of Cornwall being one such example) but since ultimately it belongs to the Crown anyway it seems like it would just be an opportunity for more government waste to take something that belongs to the Crown, force its sale so it could be taxed, for the government to then waste the money. It would seem like a good way to get some money now at the price of costing more money later.
The idea of a hereditary monarchy is certainly at odds with the more modern approach of elections, especially when it confers such a level of privilege. My impression is certainly that the Queen understood very well her immense privilege and dedicated her life to serving the people of the UK and Commonwealth. Some of her children appeared to take the privilege for granted - Prince Andrew was dubbed "Randy Andy" and "Air Miles Andy" by the media, although there's obviously merit in the observation that the media tells us what they want us to see. I believe it was the now-King Charles who started the push for a slimmed down monarchy, putting more emphasis on the members who are actually going to be working royals and trimming the spending on those further from the core of it.
The passing of the Queen is certainly a strange time. In the US the head of state is potentially changed every four years, with eight years being the maximum. In the UK elections are held no less frequently than every five years and even though there aren't term limits it's very rare for a Prime Minister to serve for extended periods (Margaret Thatcher served as PM for ten years, which was an unusually long time). The Queen reigned for 70 years. A majority of people in the UK weren't even alive when she took the throne. Assuming King Charles enjoys comparable health to the late Queen Elizabeth he can be expected to reign for 20-25 years, by which time William will be in his 60s and could be expected to reign for maybe 30 years.
If my understanding is correct the monarch actually has a lot more power than people appreciate, even if much of it is theoretical. I believe when a law is passed by Parliament it still requires royal assent so, in theory at least, the monarch could refuse to sign it. After an election the monarch invites the leader of the winning party to form a government and, in theory, I believe the monarch could ignore the election results and invite anyone of their choosing to form a government. In practice if the monarch ever did such a thing it would trigger all sorts of problems and almost certainly accelerate the demise of the monarchy.
The monarchy certainly drives a good chunk of tourism in and around London and around other royal residences. I think there's something about an actual working monarchy that is more appealing than the kind of setup in France where the buildings remain but the monarchy is long since gone. I think there's also something about having a nominal head of state who is outside of politics and who isn't driven by short-term electoral advantage, even if they have very limited power that they can practically wield.
My hope is that King Charles can carry the late Queen Elizabeth's mantle and continue the monarchy.
The idea of a hereditary monarchy is certainly at odds with the more modern approach of elections, especially when it confers such a level of privilege. My impression is certainly that the Queen understood very well her immense privilege and dedicated her life to serving the people of the UK and Commonwealth. Some of her children appeared to take the privilege for granted - Prince Andrew was dubbed "Randy Andy" and "Air Miles Andy" by the media, although there's obviously merit in the observation that the media tells us what they want us to see. I believe it was the now-King Charles who started the push for a slimmed down monarchy, putting more emphasis on the members who are actually going to be working royals and trimming the spending on those further from the core of it.
The passing of the Queen is certainly a strange time. In the US the head of state is potentially changed every four years, with eight years being the maximum. In the UK elections are held no less frequently than every five years and even though there aren't term limits it's very rare for a Prime Minister to serve for extended periods (Margaret Thatcher served as PM for ten years, which was an unusually long time). The Queen reigned for 70 years. A majority of people in the UK weren't even alive when she took the throne. Assuming King Charles enjoys comparable health to the late Queen Elizabeth he can be expected to reign for 20-25 years, by which time William will be in his 60s and could be expected to reign for maybe 30 years.
If my understanding is correct the monarch actually has a lot more power than people appreciate, even if much of it is theoretical. I believe when a law is passed by Parliament it still requires royal assent so, in theory at least, the monarch could refuse to sign it. After an election the monarch invites the leader of the winning party to form a government and, in theory, I believe the monarch could ignore the election results and invite anyone of their choosing to form a government. In practice if the monarch ever did such a thing it would trigger all sorts of problems and almost certainly accelerate the demise of the monarchy.
The monarchy certainly drives a good chunk of tourism in and around London and around other royal residences. I think there's something about an actual working monarchy that is more appealing than the kind of setup in France where the buildings remain but the monarchy is long since gone. I think there's also something about having a nominal head of state who is outside of politics and who isn't driven by short-term electoral advantage, even if they have very limited power that they can practically wield.
My hope is that King Charles can carry the late Queen Elizabeth's mantle and continue the monarchy.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,760
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
I feel supportive of the monarchy continuing on. It is a unifying force, has all the benefits referred to by Josiah, and tends to moderate the kinds of partisan warfare that we suffer under in the USA. It has often been said, by the way, that the monarchy is expensive, but that is offset by a significant amount of tourism to the UK and the very significant revenue that it generates. There is not much romance or ceremony involved with whoever happens to be the prime minister at the moment.
It was reported on one of the morning shows today that an estimated 4,000,000,000 (that's right, billion) people from every part of the globe tuned into the TV coverage of the funeral yesterday. That's a majority of the world's population. I wonder how many viewers will be similarly interested in the events surrounding the death and funeral of some other nation's sovereign?? Norway or the Netherlands, for example.
It was reported on one of the morning shows today that an estimated 4,000,000,000 (that's right, billion) people from every part of the globe tuned into the TV coverage of the funeral yesterday. That's a majority of the world's population. I wonder how many viewers will be similarly interested in the events surrounding the death and funeral of some other nation's sovereign?? Norway or the Netherlands, for example.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 14,695
- Location
- Realms of chaos
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Even more so, how many people would tune in the funeral of Donald Trump or Joe Biden?
I read an interesting comment about the Queen's funeral, that noted every single one of the world dignitaries there must have watched the funeral knowing very well that when their time came their funeral would be significantly less grandiose.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,760
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Nothing like the funeral of Ronald Reagan, that's certain.
Stravinsk
Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,562
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Deist
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Widow/Widower
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- No
Josiah's view (point 2) pretty much sums what I think the general public opinion is, and this could not suit the monarchy better, because it is completely untrue.
The monarchy is exempted from facing criminal charges in their own courts. They are exempt from Freedom of Information acts on disclosing their assets and wealth (and how much tax they pay). The royal family is head of Freemasonry worldwide. Charles is a speaker/influencer at the world economic forum (had called for a great reset even before Schwab). The queen (or King) can dismiss whole governments in the commonwealth countries (and did so in Australia many years ago), replacing them with ones that suit them.
In short, their wealth and power is hidden from the general public through a fog of lies and half-truths put forth in media and entertainment. This suits them for the public to think they are just relics of a bygone age. If someone thinks extremely wealthy and powerful people just let time and circumstances just slowly erode immense wealth and power and does nothing about it, I think that person is naive.
Just a case in point. The powerful in Britain were behind WW1 and WW2. The fact that they were was admitted in Winston Churchill's own autobiography.
The Windsor (real name Saxe-Coburg) and Rothschild families have long historical ties. This is not a coincidence and also didn't disappear in the 20th century. Chances are good if you are reading this, you are in a Western country and your Central Bank is an approved entity of Rothschild.
US presidents and other powerful people of state are often given honors and medals from the monarchy. Again, naivety would claim they are merely some symbolic head nodding to a bygone era of the rule of kings and queens.
The monarchy is exempted from facing criminal charges in their own courts. They are exempt from Freedom of Information acts on disclosing their assets and wealth (and how much tax they pay). The royal family is head of Freemasonry worldwide. Charles is a speaker/influencer at the world economic forum (had called for a great reset even before Schwab). The queen (or King) can dismiss whole governments in the commonwealth countries (and did so in Australia many years ago), replacing them with ones that suit them.
In short, their wealth and power is hidden from the general public through a fog of lies and half-truths put forth in media and entertainment. This suits them for the public to think they are just relics of a bygone age. If someone thinks extremely wealthy and powerful people just let time and circumstances just slowly erode immense wealth and power and does nothing about it, I think that person is naive.
Just a case in point. The powerful in Britain were behind WW1 and WW2. The fact that they were was admitted in Winston Churchill's own autobiography.
The Windsor (real name Saxe-Coburg) and Rothschild families have long historical ties. This is not a coincidence and also didn't disappear in the 20th century. Chances are good if you are reading this, you are in a Western country and your Central Bank is an approved entity of Rothschild.
US presidents and other powerful people of state are often given honors and medals from the monarchy. Again, naivety would claim they are merely some symbolic head nodding to a bygone era of the rule of kings and queens.
Last edited: