A Political Thread pt. 2

[Welsh Exile]

Why's that? Especially amongst the Scots?

Firstly you've got the Britishness part (queue High School Musical cast singing "We're all in this together"), but also the historical aspect which ties Scotland very much into the royal family

Mainly because the history is different. Though the monarchy have been almost as oppressive towards Saxons as they were towards Celtic people.

I just find it strange when I see my fellow country men and women celebrating an institution that essentially sought to eradicate them. A monarchy that led to a culture of looking down on Welsh and Scottish people by doing their best to insert their own culture, remove their language and generally treat them like absolute ****.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Tudors were Welsh, the Stuarts were Scottish, everything's way more intermingled than many would like to admit - which isn't surprising considering we live on a pretty small Island
German, Greek, Russian, French

The Royal Family is basically anything but English

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

just find it strange when I see my fellow country men and women celebrating an institution that essentially sought to eradicate them. A monarchy that led to a culture of looking down on Welsh and Scottish people by doing their best to insert their own culture, remove their language and generally treat them like absolute ****.

This is basically just all of history though, do you just hate everyone and everything on that principle? If you do, nice consistency, but it must all be a little depressing

Should people in the north of England hate Scotland for what they did to them hundreds of years ago?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Tudors were Welsh, the Stuarts were Scottish, everything's way more intermingled than many would like to admit - which isn't surprising considering we live on a pretty small Island
German, Greek, Russian, French

The Royal Family is basically anything but English

Indeed. I prefer not to look at them as a family but as an institution.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Tudors were Welsh, the Stuarts were Scottish, everything's way more intermingled than many would like to admit - which isn't surprising considering we live on a pretty small Island
German, Greek, Russian, French

The Royal Family is basically anything but English

This is part of why I like it, and my vision of the UK - it is a real mixing pot of so many cultures and peoples that is a living embodiment of the evolution of Britishness

 

[Welsh Exile]

This is basically just all of history though, do you just hate everyone and everything on that principle? If you do, nice consistency, but it must all be a little depressing

Should people in the north of England hate Scotland for what they did to them hundreds of years ago?

I don't hate anyone really. Not proper hate anyway. I especially don't hate people I've never met for events that happened centuries ago, that would be silly, much in the same way I would never feel proud about something my ancestors did centuries ago. I think that's also a bit silly.

Having said that, history shapes culture, it shapes attitudes and feelings in the present day and I just find it weird from passionate, patriotic Welsh people who love their country lining up the streets to celebrate an institution that didn't, and still doesn't, give them the tome of day and actually seeked to eradicate that culture.

My main problem with the monarchy has nothing to do with history really (maybe a tiny bit) but it's much more to do with democracy, which I quite like. You know, that representation bit. I don't like what they symbolise but ultimately it comes down to me much preferring to have an elected head of state seeing as we're meant to be a democratic country. This weird sense, which you alluded to, of being connected to your history seems strange to me, especially with a controversial thing like the monarchy. Should we bring back empire and slavery as well just because it's part of our history? Surely we should evolve like most other countries have done. I think I'll be waiting a while sadly.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Disagree on the first point; although it is likely never gonna happen, the monarchy is, in theory at least, capable of a self destructive action to remove a dictatorial figure in the UK if one ever came to power, though it would destroy itself in the process.

In theory that is the case, in principle they would be swept aside. Look at the ease with which Johnson crapped all over the supposed rules of interactions with the monarch to the extent of lying to her face about Parliamentary matters. Tony Blair was able to twist them in knots over the Diana issue and brought them to heel. When push comes to shove, the monarchy is powerless against a government that wants to ride roughshod over them.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Surely we should evolve like most other countries have done

That's exactly what it has done though no? It has kept the "good bits" whilst getting rid of "the bad" (mostly)?

In theory that is the case, in principle they would be swept aside. Look at the ease with which Johnson crapped all over the supposed rules of interactions with the monarch to the extent of lying to her face about Parliamentary matters. Tony Blair was able to twist them in knots over the Diana issue and brought them to heel. When push comes to shove, the monarchy is powerless against a government that wants to ride roughshod over them.

Maybe, but it's better than nothing. If you see it as a one shot weapon, neither of those instances would be worth firing it. I admit it is an ulikely (hopefuly) backstop.

 

[Saintjay]

Just my thoughts on this.I'm pretty pro royal mainly on the basis of it's probably the UK's one big point of difference to most of the world. We do pomp and ceremony rather well. Do the benefits out weigh the costs I've no idea. Is France a better country because it decided to get rid of it's monarchy? Again no idea. It's kind of like how i see public schools. You are always going to have the (haves and have nots) Will average Joe public truly be better off without these I'm not sure.

In a year or so would having President Starmer make much difference. It seems so many things are tied up with the monachy, the house of lords, justice system etc.

How far do you go in removing history and tradition as times moved on. So much of it on face value is stupid and not really needed. Barristers in wigs, soldiers in bear skins and red tunics. Police men in pointy hats. How much money could be saved getting rid of the hundreds of stupid things we do in the name of history and tradition. The honest answer is probably quite a lot. Would we be better as a country for it probably not.

 

[Which Tyler]

Any link past the paywall?

https://archive.ph/dr3H7

 

[Bada-Bing!]

TBH he will be blamed for whatever happens but it's not really his fault. He has the whole Diana thing over his head but the rest of the scandals appear to be other royals making themselves dislikeable (Andrew, Harry, William and probably others).

I really can't understand why anyone would be ardently pro-royalist. Most people will likely end up as either apathetic, anti but don't see the point changing or anti and want change. The simpering and fawning the press give the royals though is so cringeworthy. When Phillip and Queenie died, it just went on and on and on.

He's certainly less popular than his mother. BBC new reported post her diamond jubilee 75% of all ages supported the monarch and only 13% against. Balance being indifferent. It's a big shift in attitude but not enough to replace it which I think is the biggest inertia point for retaining the status quo.

As @ Welsh exile has said I have nothing against the individual members (apart from Andrew) but more the institution of monarchy and the concept of succession (what has William and in turn George done to deserve to be King?). At least when Bojo did try to become a deaf to one there was a way to turf him out.

The ludicrous tax breaks they get is scandalous to maintain their vast wealth. The media (BBC, Daily heil, Express etc) are part of the mechanisms which help embed them in our society. Barring a revolution they are here to stay.

I think they represent the worst of the UK which is gaining their position and privilege by accident of birth.

 

[Welsh Exile]

That's exactly what it has done though no? It has kept the "good bits" whilst getting rid of "the bad" (mostly)?


Maybe, but it's better than nothing. If you see it as a one shot weapon, neither of those instances would be worth firing it. I admit it is an ulikely (hopefuly) backstop.

Yes and no. For sure it's evolved. Much like how Christianity is very canny with the way it's moved the goalposts over the years. It's changed so much that they're essentially redundant. I'd say might as well go the way most other western countries have gone and get rid of them all together. I don't think we'll agree though. However I think you're right, people want them to stay not out of any tangible benefit they bring or because they care about being slightly less democratic. They want them to stay because of how it makes them feel, which is harder to fight against. It's a bit like Brexit or religion. People can feel a certain type of way about something and once they're at that point they're hard to move. I obviously include myself in that.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Just my thoughts on this.I'm pretty pro royal mainly on the basis of it's probably the UK's one big point of difference to most of the world. We do pomp and ceremony rather well. Do the benefits out weigh the costs I've no idea. Is France a better country because it decided to get rid of it's monarchy? Again no idea. It's kind of like how i see public schools. You are always going to have the (haves and have nots) Will average Joe public truly be better off without these I'm not sure.

In a year or so would having President Starmer make much difference. It seems so many things are tied up with the monachy, the house of lords, justice system etc.

How far do you go in removing history and tradition as times moved on. So much of it on face value is stupid and not really needed. Barristers in wigs, soldiers in bear skins and red tunics. Police men in pointy hats. How much money could be saved getting rid of the hundreds of stupid things we do in the name of history and tradition. The honest answer is probably quite a lot. Would we be better as a country for it probably not.

Would we be a better democracy by having more representation or less? Would you want more unelected officials in our system or more?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Yes and no. For sure it's evolved. Much like how Christianity is very canny with the way it's moved the goalposts over the years. It's changed so much that they're essentially redundant. I'd say might as well go the way most other western countries have gone and get rid of them all together. I don't think we'll agree though. However I think you're right, people want them to stay not out of any tangible benefit they bring or because they care about being slightly less democratic. They want them to stay for because of how it makes them feel, which is harder to fight against. It's a bit like Brexit or religion. People can feel a certain type of way about something and once they're at that point they're hard to move. I obviously include myself in that.

Yeah this is it really in a nutshell, it's beyond policy or anything like that

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yeah this is it really in a nutshell, it's beyond policy or anything like that

Im hoping those younger people wil keep hold of their views later in life but they'll probably become more indifferent as they get older.

 

[Saintjay]

Would we be a better democracy by having more representation or less? Would you want more unelected officials in our system or more?

That's the problem with democracy. It still needs rules and structure. How much representation is enough? Do you hold votes every time public opinion changes. If you disbanded the monarchy and later people wanted it back isn't the democratic thing to do is have a vote? It would be maddness.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Looks like Fox News has sacked Tucker Carlson - possible fallout from the Dominion case?
i.e. If he's said not going to play ball and will continue to spout the stop the steal BS

Apparently they were still advertising his show as recently as earlier today so looks like whatever happened happened quickly

Where does he even go from here?
Go fully online (youtube? Podcasts?) like the other alt right shills? I would've thought his audience base would be too old for a move like that

 

[Which Tyler]

Looks like Fox News has sacked Tucker Carlson - possible fallout from the Dominion case?
i.e. If he's said not going to play ball and will continue to spout the stop the steal BS

Shoves John Oliver right the top of the "must watch" pile this weekend.
Hell, he might even do a mid-week mini for this!

 

[ncurd]

I think its fair to say removing the monarchy would have extremely little to no impact on our democracy. You remove some level of pomp and circumstance.

It boils down to two things.

• National Identity - A complex philosophical question is it part of being British? Do we loose something of ourselves if we remove it?
• Monetary - Research I've seen in the past suggests it would have little impact in terms of loosing money from tourism. However that was by anti-monarchist groups so what do you expect. Monarchist groups haven't done the research which probably means they'll get an answer they don't want to hear.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Looks like Fox News has sacked Tucker Carlson - possible fallout from the Dominion case?
i.e. If he's said not going to play ball and will continue to spout the stop the steal BS

Apparently they were still advertising his show as recently as earlier today so looks like whatever happened happened quickly

Where does he even go from here?
Go fully online (youtube? Podcasts?) like the other alt right shills? I would've thought his audience base would be too old for a move like that

Newsmax maybe?