The Royal Family: Mass Consumed Intellectual Garbage.

[EGarrett]

This video angered me enough to write this post...

Ra5J1m3pSzg

My reply...

This really exposes Chris Matthews and that twit woman next to him. The moment public opinion goes against rationality, like endorsing monarchy and the ridiculous idea that Diana was an incredibly beautiful woman who lived a fairy tale life...these idiots start parroting it in the same way they tow the politically-correct (and logical) lines against racism, for freedom and democracy and for their party's goals.

I will give Matthews slightly more credit because he at least tries to act like there's a "rational debate" about whether monarchy is valid (the mere idea that there's a debate is ridiculous, but at least he tries). But it goes to show that many people, like Chris Matthews and this idiot woman, are not intelligent, but just have the amazing fortune to live in a societal structure that is (by and large)...and they use it as a crutch. Without it, as shown, he and her and millions like them are nothing but puppets.

I won't break Godwin's Law...but it's quite obvious how dictatorship can take power, when this is the true quality of most people's independent thinking. Which is exactly how things like the "Royal Family" can still exist and be exalted in 200-freaking-7.

Rant over.

(btw, if you want to move this to Politics, go ahead. Even though the idea that some people are divinely or magically imbued with the right and ability to lead an entire nation might as well be in the Paranormal section.)

[UserGoogol]

People, for some reason, want meaningless figureheads. Even in countries without monarchs, they usually have some sort of "head of state" whose job it is to "represent the values of our country" or some bull like that. Sometimes they do this as a side gig (as with the President of the United States) and sometimes all they have to do is sit back and feel important and have the Prime Minister do the real work (like the President of Ireland). If you are going to have such a meaningless figurehead position, you might as well give out that position in a meaningless way. It's symmetrical, if nothing else.

The problem is not that countries give out positions through such an outdated way (although if I moved to a country with monarchy, I would certainly be annoyed by it) but that countries have such positions at all. Symbolizing the values of a country is what a flag is for. There's no point in hiring some guy to do it for you, and even then I'm uncomfortable. Democratic countries shouldn't have values which can be represented by some guy. Everyone should have their own profoundly distinct values. A president should just be the highest ranked official in the hierarchy of the executive branch; nothing more. Honor is for communists.

[Q-Source]

I still fail to see what this is all about Diana. She was not interesting at all, she made no contribution to anything. There is something wrong about the British public that looks for futile and shallow people all the time, being in the Monarchy, in reality programmes like big brother, in junki rock stars or any other person.

[EGarrett]

I still fail to see what this is all about Diana. She was not interesting at all, she made no contribution to anything. There is something wrong about the British public that looks for futile and shallow people all the time, being in the Monarchy, in reality programmes like big brother, in junki rock stars or any other person.Well, unfortunately the American public does also. The obsession with Diana, though, I find particularly disturbing. It's nearly Paris Hilton level, especially the way she's basically been made into a Saint after her death, and she is regularly exploited by the media and, particularly, garbage magazines looking to slap her on the cover and sell a few more copies.

[EGarrett]

People, for some reason, want meaningless figureheads. Even in countries without monarchs, they usually have some sort of "head of state" whose job it is to "represent the values of our country" or some bull like that. Sometimes they do this as a side gig (as with the President of the United States) and sometimes all they have to do is sit back and feel important and have the Prime Minister do the real work (like the President of Ireland). If you are going to have such a meaningless figurehead position, you might as well give out that position in a meaningless way. It's symmetrical, if nothing else.

The problem is not that countries give out positions through such an outdated way (although if I moved to a country with monarchy, I would certainly be annoyed by it) but that countries have such positions at all. Symbolizing the values of a country is what a flag is for. There's no point in hiring some guy to do it for you, and even then I'm uncomfortable. Democratic countries shouldn't have values which can be represented by some guy. Everyone should have their own profoundly distinct values. A president should just be the highest ranked official in the hierarchy of the executive branch; nothing more. Honor is for communists.Absolutely, and the fact that it makes no difference that they worship a family with no objective merit of their own truly disturbs me. It doesn't make a difference if the person is really able or worthy, as long as there is someone there.

But I admit that my mind is so numbed to all the "notable" people being thrown around in the media that I barely check credentials anymore either.

[hgc]

That woman Eve Pollard says something really quite stupid. In response to Matthews' forceful inquiry to whether she is monarchist or republican, she says, "I'm only a monarchist because I don't want a politician, a President Blair, or even a President Thatcher [as Head of State]." That, I think, is the weakest argument I could ever imagine for monarchy. I can only assume she says it because she's the editor of a tabloid paper and a large part of her business is driven by the British royals.

As for Matthews, his excessive drooling over Diana's supposed beauty are typical of his bizarre, embarrassing behavior on air. He has a strange track record of waxing inappropriate about women, either in cringe-enducing admiration or, in the case of Hillary Clinton, something else altogether.

It's always a pleasure to hear Hitchens call Prince Charles "bat-eared."

[Brian Pears]

I find this thread mystifying. I'm British and a staunch monarchist because I think our democratic monarchy is the best form of government we could have - but I certainly don't worship the RF and I thought Diana was an embarrassment to the RF, her own family and the country. Nor do I understand why the idea of a non-political head of state should be regarded as a weak argument for a RF; I personally think it is an excellent reason. As indeed is keeping the ultimate control of major institutions like the military, the courts and indeed the government itself out of political hands. Then there are the ceremonial aspect of royalty - great tourist attractions and much loved by the Brits as well.

And what's the alternative? Like the French with their succession of dodgy characters as heads of state - or the Irish who are represented by folks barely known in their own country let alone overseas - or the Americans who rarely manage to elect anyone with more than half a functioning brain cell and when they do - Nixon, Clinton - the opposition take them out of the equation by impeachment over trivialities.

No - the RF, with all their faults, are much better than any of these. And despite the efforts of the press to portray it otherwise, it's clear that the majority of the population support our monarchy. Just check out what happened around the country in June 2002 on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee - the 50th anniversary of her succession. How many leaders around the world would attract a million-strong crowd around their home for an anniversary?

[UserGoogol]

A state is nothing but a government and its territory, and government is nothing but a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats. The idea of separating the head of state from politics is therefore absurd, since government is political by definition. At best, it's like separating sausage from sausage-making, merely putting a pretty face to distract people from the messy realities of government, which is a mixed blessing at best.

Granted, monarchy does attract the tourists, and I suppose that provides the United Kingdom benefits financially from that so that's a plus, although that argument only holds for some monarchies; Canada for instance is essentially subsidizing the UK's tourism industry by having Elizabeth as their head of state.

[Brian Pears]

Granted, monarchy does attract the tourists, and I suppose that provides the United Kingdom benefits financially from that so that's a plus, although that argument only holds for some monarchies; Canada for instance is essentially subsidizing the UK's tourism industry by having Elizabeth as their head of state.

But just think of how much the Canadians are saving by sharing our head of state instead of having one of their own! :)

[LashL]

But just think of how much the Canadians are saving by sharing our head of state instead of having one of their own! :)

Nah, we're just being polite and keeping the old broad on as a figurehead. Perhaps (hopefully), after QE2 kicks off, we'll ditch the whole monarchy thing entirely. :)

[Ranillon]

While I am no monarchist, I would like to note that I think some of the attitudes given here toward the UK's current system strike me as ill-informed. It's too easy and simplistic to just write the whole thing off as nothing more than hero worship or a living tourist attraction. Likewise, Monarchy even as an institution with real power was more than just a scam to keep a certain elite in power.

Ideally, the Monarch operated as a symbol of the culture and strength of a particular society, a sort of living reflection of what it supposedly represented. In a (perfect) feudal system the Monarch is merely the most prominent member of the great machine of the state, a machine where in his own way a farmer or soldier occupies as cherished a position as the king. They are all servants of the larger order of things. Ideally, the Monarch would devote his life to the service of his nation just like everyone else.

Of course, kings and nobility often failed to live up to this standard and would use their power for more selfish ends -- or, perhaps more accurately, would confuse their selfish ends with enlightened service to the nation. Point is, this system wasn't just about the king and the nobility pulling a political scam on everyone else. The Monarch was seen as the ultimate expression of the social and cultural values of his nation. His continued rule was therefore an indication that those values were solid and lasting. Likewise, to remove the king was tantamount to admitting those values were false.

While we have progressed past the need for kings (or queens) as absolute rulers, they can still retain the old role of symbolizing the social values and system of their nation. In effect, the Monarchy as an institution represents those national values that continue on regardless of whoever might actually have political power at a given time. Likewise, the Monarch (ideally) acts as the custodian of those values, protecting and nurturing them as best he or she can.

So, in the case of the UK (and, to a lesser extent, the Commonwealth) Queen Elizabeth acts as a sort of living guardian of collective values and self-worth, the calm center in a storm of change if you will. One can't just glibly scoff at such social and cultural ideals -- they are, arguably, the most important things a group has as a group.

That doesn't mean that I personally believe a Monarch is the best way to promote national identity and values, but on the other hand having a Constitutional Monarch in such a role is not, I would argue, an obviously idiotic notion nor a sign that the a nation's citizens are nothing more than mindless sheep. Monarchies rose out of the systems and beliefs of the past and therefore make sense as representatives of such things in the present.

As an American it may not be my particular cup of tea, but I can certainly respect the institution when used in this fashion. Certainly, to write the whole thing off as mindless hero worship seems pretty ignorant to me. There is far more going on than that.

[EGarrett]

I find this thread mystifying. I'm British and a staunch monarchist because I think our democratic monarchy is the best form of government we could have - but I certainly don't worship the RF and I thought Diana was an embarrassment to the RF, her own family and the country.Thank you for sharing a contrary opinion. I actually wasn't sure one existed.

How can you think a democratic monarchy is superior to a democracy?

Nor do I understand why the idea of a non-political head of state should be regarded as a weak argument for a RF; I personally think it is an excellent reason. As indeed is keeping the ultimate control of major institutions like the military, the courts and indeed the government itself out of political hands.The problem is (talking about ultimate control here), that you're taking them out of the hands of career politicians and putting them into the hands of an effectively random person. If this person is incompetent (keep in mind that even the worst elected officials have to survive months of debates, speeches and campaigning) you are in major trouble. And you can't get rid of this random person in 4 years either.

And what's to happen if the monarch becomes corrupt with power? Say, if he decides to start beheading his wives for not giving him children? Or if she decides that bathing in the blood of virgins will keep her young? Those are both real examples of course, but it could get worse than that. What if he decides that he doesn't like Red-headed people and wants to get rid of them all? There's no rational way to combat this person's whimsy, nor is there a peaceful and logical way to remove him from power.

If a President goes insane, he still has his powers checked by Congress, and he can be impeached at any time. Let alone having to be re-elected every 4 years.

Then there are the ceremonial aspect of royalty - great tourist attractions and much loved by the Brits as well.At the beginning you say you don't worship the royal family and thought Diana was an embarrassment, but you also feel that it's good that people love and gawk at the Royal Family? That encourages people to worship them.

And what's the alternative? Like the French with their succession of dodgy characters as heads of state - or the Irish who are represented by folks barely known in their own country let alone overseas - or the Americans who rarely manage to elect anyone with more than half a functioning brain cell and when they do - Nixon, Clinton - the opposition take them out of the equation by impeachment over trivialities.You surely don't want to compare "bad examples" of democratically-elected leaders versus non-elected leaders, do you?

I'd rather have a leader impeached than a leader impaling people on poles at his slightest distaste. And democratic elections are key to freedom and meritocracy. Monarchy (rule by absolute edict) severely hinders both.

No - the RF, with all their faults, are much better than any of these. And despite the efforts of the press to portray it otherwise, it's clear that the majority of the population support our monarchy. Just check out what happened around the country in June 2002 on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee - the 50th anniversary of her succession. How many leaders around the world would attract a million-strong crowd around their home for an anniversary?Please see my topic title. I don't mean to be harsh, but I did refer to it as "mass-consumed" for a reason.

[Disenchanted]

I find this thread mystifying. I'm British and a staunch monarchist because I think our democratic monarchy is the best form of government we could have - but I certainly don't worship the RF and I thought Diana was an embarrassment to the RF, her own family and the country. Nor do I understand why the idea of a non-political head of state should be regarded as a weak argument for a RF; I personally think it is an excellent reason. As indeed is keeping the ultimate control of major institutions like the military, the courts and indeed the government itself out of political hands. Then there are the ceremonial aspect of royalty - great tourist attractions and much loved by the Brits as well.

I would rather have control of government that gives as much voice as possible to the people paying the taxes.

And what's the alternative? Like the French with their succession of dodgy characters as heads of state - or the Irish who are represented by folks barely known in their own country let alone overseas - or the Americans who rarely manage to elect anyone with more than half a functioning brain cell and when they do - Nixon, Clinton - the opposition take them out of the equation by impeachment over trivialities.

I would take the worst democratic head of state over an unelected leader.

The role the queen provides could be provided by the Prime Minister, cabinet member or ambassador. So the royal family is essentially a huge waste of money.

What happened with Nixon was not over a trivial matter.

No - the RF, with all their faults, are much better than any of these. And despite the efforts of the press to portray it otherwise, it's clear that the majority of the population support our monarchy. Just check out what happened around the country in June 2002 on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee - the 50th anniversary of her succession. How many leaders around the world would attract a million-strong crowd around their home for an anniversary?

The Pope would. In fact the devotion to the royal family draws an almost identical type of following.

I was disgusted with all of the coverage given to Diana and I embarrassed that so many people in this country pay attention to the royal family, as it has somewhat of a religious feel to it.

[UserGoogol]

The role the Queen provides should not be served by anyone. A democratically elected non-executive head of state might be a lesser evil, but it's still a stupid and vaguely undemocratic institution for a government to have. Pluralism is one of the most important parts of democracy. If the whole point of democracy is that each person can have whatever the hell values they want, (although a certain amount of respect for democracy itself is generally appreciated) how on Earth is there supposed to be some person who represents "the values of the nation?" The very institution of head of state is a slap in the face of pluralism. States are nothing but a government and the people it rules. The government already has a head, and the people do not need one.

I suppose that governments do need to have state dinners and stuff like that for diplomatic purposes, and it's not really that bad to have the "Dinner-eater in Chief" to be an inherited title. (Since a stupid job might as well be given out in a stupid way.) But it all seems so silly.

[malbui]

Guillotine them all. The international TV rights would pay for getting the NHS and the railways back to how they should be.

[geni]

Thank you for sharing a contrary opinion. I actually wasn't sure one existed.

How can you think a democratic monarchy is superior to a democracy?


Athens didn't do to well under democracy or at least did better under a representative democracy but still lost.


The problem is (talking about ultimate control here), that you're taking them out of the hands of career politicians and putting them into the hands of an effectively random person. If this person is incompetent (keep in mind that even the worst elected officials have to survive months of debates, speeches and campaigning) you are in major trouble. And you can't get rid of this random person in 4 years either.


Can. Have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution


And what's to happen if the monarch becomes corrupt with power? Say, if he decides to start beheading his wives for not giving him children? Or if she decides that bathing in the blood of virgins will keep her young? Those are both real examples of course, but it could get worse than that. What if he decides that he doesn't like Red-headed people and wants to get rid of them all? There's no rational way to combat this person's whimsy, nor is there a peaceful and logical way to remove him from power.

There is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts

We've been running this system long enough to work out the more obvious bugs. Most of the remaining issues are to do with conflict between the two houses of parliment.

[Bob Klase]

I agree. We have a much more sensible system in the US. Our monarchy are people who are selected on something other than who their mother was. Things like who can throw a baseball over home plate the faster, or or can throw a basketball through a little circle more than other people.

[EGarrett]

Athens didn't do to well under democracy or at least did better under a representative democracy but still lost.I agree that representative democracy is indeed superior to pure democracy. And I agree countries that use types of democracy are not guaranteed to not have problems. But I asked what is superior about democratic monarchy in specific. How does monarchy improve the democratic system?

Can. Have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland

There is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts
The Regency Acts are Acts of the British Parliament passed at various points in time, to provide a regent if the British monarch were to be incapacited or in minority (under the age of 18).

Scanning the page further, I still don't see anything beyond it simply being a special provision for who should take over if the King is hurt or too young. If this were to answer my point, it would have to be a provision for switching leadership if the King is decided to be mad or incompetent (that's different than being sick or incapacitated). And even then, all that does is make it less monarchy and more democracy.

We've been running this system long enough to work out the more obvious bugs. Most of the remaining issues are to do with conflict between the two houses of parliment.That may be true, but your reply hasn't shown me anything nor answered my points in any clear way that I see.

[EGarrett]

I agree. We have a much more sensible system in the US. Our monarchy are people who are selected on something other than who their mother was. Things like who can throw a baseball over home plate the faster, or or can throw a basketball through a little circle more than other people.You know...now that I think about it...even if we DID elect a monarch based on who was the best basketball player in the country...that would STILL be superior to handing it over based on bloodline.

A person who is a skilled basketball player is at least sure to be mentally capable, hand-eye coordinated, possessing of some understanding of people's psychology and conflict strategy, and a strong will. A person who's Mom was a queen is not sure to have ANYTHING but some of her DNA.

I'm 100% serious in saying this. Basketball Monarchy would be superior to "Royal Family" Monarchy.

[hgc]

I find this thread mystifying. I'm British and a staunch monarchist because I think our democratic monarchy is the best form of government we could have - but I certainly don't worship the RF and I thought Diana was an embarrassment to the RF, her own family and the country. Nor do I understand why the idea of a non-political head of state should be regarded as a weak argument for a RF; I personally think it is an excellent reason. As indeed is keeping the ultimate control of major institutions like the military, the courts and indeed the government itself out of political hands. Then there are the ceremonial aspect of royalty - great tourist attractions and much loved by the Brits as well.

...


Oh, so politicians are not so great. But I still don't understand why a hereditary head of state is preferable. At least with politicians (in a democracy), the people have an opportunity to vote in new ones.

I get the point about tourism. But that has nothing to do with the disdain for politicians as head of state.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I couldn't care less about monarchy vs. republicanism there, kind of like the way I don't care if the Catholic church lets priests marry or not. I just can't fathom any sense in this argument against republicanism.

[geni]

I agree that representative democracy is indeed superior to pure democracy. And I agree countries that use types of democracy are not guaranteed to not have problems. But I asked what is superior about democratic monarchy in specific. How does monarchy improve the democratic system?

Means that there is no mistakeing the person for the institution. I've seen people argue that is is unpatriotic to attack a president. A bit hard to argue that in the case of a mere prime minister.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland


What's the problem we won.



Scanning the page further, I still don't see anything beyond it simply being a special provision for who should take over if the King is hurt or too young. If this were to answer my point, it would have to be a provision for switching leadership if the King is decided to be mad or incompetent (that's different than being sick or incapacitated).

Second para. I think it assumes that most people know that George III was incapacited by reason of being insane.

Incompetent can be delt with through other means.


And even then, all that does is make it less monarchy and more democracy.

De facto ultimate power lies in the hands of parliment. Parliment can chose the head of state but wont intervene unless it thinks there is a problem. The result is that most of the time you have a head of state with a lot of experence and training so you don't have to worry about them learning the ropes so much. Rather like the british civil service except that isn't meant to be an inherited role. Of course govenor generals mess this up since their apointment doesn't last so long and from time to time they have ended up haveing to take action (tend to feel sorry for John Kerr in that respect). Generaly when something has gone wrong such as being occupied by Argentina.