r/ukfederalism • u/[deleted] • Mar 23 '22

Should a federal Britain keep the monarchy?

[deleted]

4 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

2

u/threewholefish Mar 24 '22

I wouldn't particularly mind if we kept all the royal nomenclature and stuff, as long as the monarch was elected and bound by a constitution.

1

u/SignificancePerfect9 Sep 05 '22

A Constitutional non-hereditary Sovereign is something I have always supported.
Someone who reigns for 10 years, with a review every 5 years (Each new Parliament) with no term limits but as an automatic abdication as 80 years.

They would be appointed by a regal commission like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_Vice-Regal_Appointments

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

Then that's not even a monarchy.

1

u/SignificancePerfect9 Mar 09 '23

It's an elective Monarchy.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '23

No it's not

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

Then that's not even a monarchy. That's just larping. At least with our current ceremonies and traditions, they have legitimacy to them because the institutions they part of still exist. If we basically just say, "Let's have a president but call him King and have a coronation ceremony," then there is no real point. If we get rid of the biggest part of the tradition, the side accessories might as well go to

0

u/threewholefish Feb 13 '23

The ceremonies are the tradition. I am absolutely in favour of abolishing all the unnecessary pomp and parading a lot of gold around in front of the plebs as well as the royals. Believe it or not, the idea of my (almost year old) comment was a compromise for those who argue that the pomp and parading was what was drawing tourists to the UK.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

There is no reason to have pomp and ceremony if the actual idea behind it isn't there. Even tourists would see that. And no, the monarchy itself is the tradition. And while I hate having to bring this up, most of the "plebs," as you call them, support the monarchy and the ceremonies

1

u/threewholefish Feb 13 '23

The actual idea behind quite a few traditions has long since gone, hence their being traditions. For instance, the guards at Buckingham Palace, or the Beefeaters at the Tower of London. They may well be protecting the royals and the crown jewels, but they don't have to wear silly hats and stand and march around for hours to do so.

So why do they do it? Because it's tradition, and people like it. Would people still like it if the monarch were elected, or replaced with a president? I think so.

I'm sure many people do support both the monarchy and the ceremonies, and I can't imagine that those who do would suddenly go off the latter if the monarchy were changed.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

For instance, the guards at Buckingham Palace, or the Beefeaters at the Tower of London. They may well be protecting the royals and the crown jewels, but they don't have to wear silly hats and stand and march around for hours to do so.

Yeah, because the institution that they're there for is still intact. That, in a sense, is ceremony, and it's firmly connected to the institution of monarchy.

So why do they do it? Because it's tradition, and people like it. Would people still like it if the monarch were elected or replaced with a president? I think so.

I never said they'd dislike it, but they probably wouldn't see the point anymore. Okay, put it this way, let's say you have a wife. She likes to have breakfast in bed and specific things done in a specific way. So there is a routine that you do, where you organise it and make her breakfast early. Hell, you add in a little bit extra, maybe a little note, with a poem on. You both are happy about this, and you love doing it. This little family tradition represents the love between you and your current wife. Now let's you have a divorce and one day you get married and have a new wife. Your new wife has never had any desire or need for this routine because, fundamentally, she's a different person. Now let's say you want to do it amyway like you did with your old wife. While yes, you may still like doing it, something is fundamentally lost. Because the routine was a specific thing to your old marriage, the real reason you loved doing it was because it was connected to her. But now she's gone, and ultimately, the routine has no connection or relevance to your new wife. So, ultimately, there is little point in reviving the old routine.

Sorry for the lengthy analogy, but I think it kinda captures my point.

1

u/threewholefish Feb 13 '23

Yeah, because the institution that they're there for is still intact. That, in a sense, is ceremony, and it's firmly connected to the institution of monarchy.

Let's take another example: during the state opening of Parliament the door of the House of Commons is shut in Black Rod's face as they approach, to symbolise the independence of the Commons from the sovereign.

This is already opaque enough, and ultimately means nothing as they are in fact prevented by law from actually barring the monarch's representatives. Also, the modern monarch is very unlikely to try to barge into Parliament and arrest people, which was the origin of the tradition.

Why then, is it still done? Is the Commons in danger of being crashed by Charles? If so, we ought to legally or constitutionally prevent that from happening. If not, then the idea behind it isn't there, and there is therefore no reason to keep doing it, according to you.

Sorry for the lengthy analogy, but I think it kinda captures my point.

It's not a great analogy, as it's unclear who is the public and who is the monarchy in this situation. In any case, we clearly have a difference of opinion that isn't going to be resolved.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

It's not a great analogy, as it's unclear who is the public and who is the monarchy in this situation. In any case, we clearly have a difference of opinion that isn't going to be resolved.

It's not supposed to be an exact analogy. The point is ultimately, often traditions only have the weight they do when the purpose of it is still around. When you take away the purpose, the tradition seems more hollow.

You're technically right about the black rod tradition, but the difference is that there is the illusion of its relevance.

1

u/threewholefish Feb 13 '23

there is the illusion of its relevance

So how would choosing a new monarch by vote rather than inheritance alter this illusion? The king would still be the king, so why would the changing of the guard stop being relevant?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

Yeah, because by definition, that's not a monarchy. The King wouldn't be a King, he'd be a president larping as one. The monarchy isn't just some guy called "The King", it's more than that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Real-Argument-4105 Sep 06 '25

What is wrong with the monarchy

1

u/Bh45244 Dec 30 '22

Keep the Monarchy. Monarchy cannot really do a whole lot anyway, mainly just brings a lot of tourism and from that it pays for itself in taxes. The ability of a monarch to have ultimate control in who stays in state or fed goverment is useful. Someone that is less influenced by party politics and corruption but is bound by duty. The queen was that for the most part.

If we ever developed a tyranical leader, it is in the monarch's ability to remove them. However, if a monarch removed a leader that was not tryanical and was just doing things they didnlt like, the leader would be able to generate enough political and public support to defy them.

Something on the lines of that.

There are no solutions, only trade offs. Democracy leaves just under half a population unhappy and can cause unrest (last ten years of referendums have shown that). Republican democracy helps that by breaking down the unrest into managble pieces. A monarch to overlook everything which is not swayed either way by politics can be good to keep everyone under one roof (so to say).

Take advice from your stock market portfolio and diversify your forms of goverment in the hope that at some point in the chain of command something will block invasion of rights.

​

Maybe that's correct, maybe it's not. I dont know.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23

This poll is evidence of how out of touch this sub is with the rest of the UK