This seems like a consensus building post tone-wise. Would be nice to cut back on this sort of thing in favour of posts emphasizing facts, reasoned arguments and other light (as opposed to heat) generating things.
I disagree. The existence of a monarchy necessitates the belief that the royal family is ordained by god to rule over their people. It requires you to buy into the idea that these regular people are somehow more worthy than anybody else. I think that by itself is inherently "evil".
Also, I don't see how this is a "republican propaganda" talking point. Online I've seen many conservative pundits celebrating the coronation.
No it doesn't. I am an atheist and I do not believe the King is ordained by any form of deity. I look past that and support the constitutional monarchy settlement on the grounds of tradition/culture, how it provides constitutional checks and balances, how it can be a unifying figure against the negatives of elected head of state populists etc e.g. president Blair or president Farage. I am not saying this is the setup which I would use for any new countries, but it works at least for us. It also works for many countries in Europe.
You don't have to be religious to recognize that this is the stated reason for which the royal family was given its legitimacy. Obviously that is not the sole reason for its continued existence, but (as an outside observer) all of the rituals and ceremony surrounding the coronation seem to further entrench that idea.
But religion was also the stated reason given for the legitimacy of the US revolution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The US becoming far more atheist doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the US democracy, even if the original stated basis isn't regarded as valid any longer. The same can be true of the monarchy.
Mind you, I'm not actually a supporter of the monarchy. Where I'm from, we don't bow to monarchs. I'm just saying that this argument against the monarchy does not seem valid to me.
The US Revolution kicked the British government out of the region that would become the United States, but did not itself create the government that the US operates under. That happened 13 years later, when the present secular US Constitution went into effect.
Nuance there is that the legitimacy in the form of line of succession has been governed by law too (and no doubt conquest historically) at least following the glorious revolution of 1688. It has jumped around.
> It requires you to buy into the idea that these regular people are somehow more worthy than anybody else.
Not necessarily. I'm fairly neutral on the (UK) monarchy: I don't particularly like the idea, but some people do and it doesn't negatively impact me at all.
I can see some (small) value in keeping a historical anachronism around, for the sake of culture and tourism. That view doesn't require any belief that a certain family is ordained by God or more worthy than anyone else.
If they had any actual political power I would feel very differently.
I suppose the part that sours it for me is watching the extreme displays of wealth and decadence at a time when a large number of people in the UK are struggling financially. Quite a lot of countries in Europe still have monarchies, but the degree to which they are visibly celebrated in the UK seems to be much greater. This is where the argument for culture and tourism comes in, but I still think its wrong.
It probably negatively impacts your post-tax income. All of that showy opulence has to be paid for by someone and I'm pretty sure Chuckie Threes hasn't worked a day in his life.
I see more and more of this style of heated "fuck the outgroup!" posts on hackernews now. I don't know why this has started happening, but it's pretty sad watching HN decline...
Once you go down this rabbithole you see how most people are hostage to their school system. Most European countries with monarchies today have a majority of their population approving of the system - or so we're told in polls.
Seeing as the monarchy is completely against any other modern values of equality and equity and diversity, the only explanation is indoctrination in the school system somehow works. I cannot fathom for example how progressive countries like the Netherlands are pro-monarchy, but I live here among them and can tell you that while there's dissent, the majority of the country supports it. It's the subject that most boggles my mind in the modern world.
Sweden and Denmark being more examples of countries that say they are pro equality while keeping a family above all others.
The main reason why the Netherlands at least doesn't care so much about their monarch is because the role is completely neutered by the Dutch constitution. The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped).
This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still.
Its less "people approve of the system" and more "people don't have any issues with the system". Anti-monarchism just isn't really a thing here because the monarchy is just... kinda bland? The most solid argument here is that it's a money sink, which is a fair point but not enough for most to protest it.
There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.
It's a strange world when you can be convinced that voting is worse than "God's appointments".
Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
The rationale goes like this: If you don't like the monarch, who has this job purely as an accident of birth, well, too bad, they're a person, that's all you were guaranteed. They might have a grating voice, or love hot pink way too much, or insist on calling people "Mate" for no god damn reason, but nobody picked them.
And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them.
They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol.
Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People.
Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.
Well, in the US, Supreme Court appointments are for life. That's for a reason - it's supposed to be isolated from politics so as to judge justly. It's not, but it would be even more subject to politics if judges were appointed to four-year terms (or worse, elected).
This rising tide of populism you speak of implies people in the Netherlands would prefer the "greater evil" of an elected head of state. Why not give people what they actually want?
It's probably hard to build an honest accounting of the financial benefits of having a monarch. The diplomatic missions and relations they maintain probably have some (hard to measure) benefit. They have an entertainment value (for some). Tourism income (especially in the UK)?
> The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped).
This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.
So the Queen read bills and gave her opinion on them, which is public record, before they were debated? And that constitutes political power?
It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it.
I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way.
I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did.
Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc.
I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.
> This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still.
It's exactly like you've described for the Netherlands. Our Monarchs have no actual power, beyond the power that comes with being famous wealthy old white people anyway. English Kings haven't had real power over the Westminster Parliament since it executed King Charles in 1649.
Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted, Parliament disagreed, Parliament won and since he didn't accept that outcome they executed him. That's pretty definitive. He was dead, they were not.
Monarchy is a system, and like all systems it has all sorts of parts, including the lonesome fellow wearing the crown. "Our king has no power" yet there is all that machinery of state and you think it is just for 'sentiment and aesthetic' reasons?
That song and dance to beguile the masses is how the ruling keep ruling. Does this really need to be spelled out?
Charles was executed because he, as king, was in conflict with his own set: the ruling class. It was a civil war. But if he was in accord with his class you can bet your pretty neck that it would be in jeopardy if you went againt that ruling class.
> Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted
That is right. A monarch is there so that an entire class can do whatever it wants. But s/he will not fare well if they act against the class that upholds their reign. It is the same exact precise equation the world over modulo some rare historic exceptions.
For most people, the monarchy just means a bunch of state-sponsored celebrities who participate in weird rituals. They don't bother opposing it for ideological reasons, because it's pretty inconsequential. The monarchy is a symbol, like the flag or the national anthem. It costs some money, but people don't see any particular reason to get rid of it, because there is no obvious harm in it.
History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it.
Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.
Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much.
That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.
In Australia I don't really hearing much of an anti-monarchy argument in school, but also not a pro-monarchy argument either. There was just a statement of fact about the monarchy that we live in.
Society as a whole maintains it. As long as not enough people object strenuously enough, it simply doesn’t get discussed and continues on the way it is - that’s pretty much the definition of status quo, “the existing state of affairs”.
> I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner.
I doubt that. What’s an example? Objectively, the existence of a monarchy is opposed to the ideals of an egalitarian society. Any discussion of a monarchy’s mere existence without covering such topics serves to reinforce the status quo - it normalizes its existence and lies by omission about its negative impacts.
In Australia, I think fear of getting something like the US political system is why the monarchy is somewhat tolerated. (Though it wouldn’t survive a simple popular vote, the question is what is the “better” thing to replace it with, which monarchists successfully use as a wedge to divide the republican supporters)
There is indoctrination and manipulation going on at all levels. Can't speak about the Netherlands or Denmark, but in Spain the press never published anything remotely negative about the previous king, we typically had to find out from foreign press or minority separatist press. At one point, there was so much stench of degeneracy and corruption from that king (plus the ascent of a left-wing party with anti-monarchy tendencies in polls) that the powers that be apparently decided that it wasn't possible to keep the people content about him anymore, so they made him abdicate.
Now the press does talk somewhat about his exploits (probably disproportionally little, but it does) while the current king is reported as basically a saint and nothing remotely bad is ever said about him (to his credit he doesn't seem as much of a thief as his father, but if you read the mainstream Spanish press, you would think he pisses gold).
That's at least definitely not the case in NL. There's been quite vocal criticisms about the kings choice to go on holiday during the pandemic, about subsidies for royal estates that are closed to the public, etc.
