[Rugoz]

The Royal family is a publicly funded soap opera, come reality TV show.

Agreed. It's pathetic.

[Godstud]

Cultural Marxism is the current go-to Conspiracy Theory for people who want a nice catch-all conspiracy theory.

Congratulations to the couple. I hope they are happy.

[Ter]

I haven't had anything to say about this but here goes:

- Harry was most probably sired by his mother's body guard.
- Meghan is close to 40 years old, three years older than Harry, and she was previously married.

But I wish them well, a life of plenty awaits them.

[Rancid]

- Harry was most probably sired by his mother's body guard.

Is this something that is believed by a significant portion of UK citizens?

[One Degree]

I wish I had the words to describe how little I care about this wedding. It will have no bearing on the lives of anyone who watched it, but what ever entertains you is fine. I just don’t get the attraction.

[The Sabbaticus]

You can catch the highlights on youtube or twitter. Don't need to watch the entire ceremony.

[Rancid]

I wish I had the words to describe how little I care about this wedding. It will have no bearing on the lives of anyone who watched it, but what ever entertains you is fine. I just don’t get the attraction.

I'm of the mindset that all monarchs should be lined up and shot.

[Suntzu]

Royal fuckin tonight. It would be funny if the next royal popped out looking like Buckwheat.

[daf]

- Harry was most probably sired by his mother's body guard.

Is this something that is believed by a significant portion of UK citizens?

Prince Harry isn't even the Queens grandson.

[Rancid]

Prince Harry isn't even the Queens grandson.

Holy shit! I'm convinced! Princess Di, naughty naught girl!!!

[daf]

Mainly the nose

[Suntzu]

I thought he was the royal riding instructor. Diana was learning "cowgirl" or maybe "reverse cowgirl".

[daf]

Americans are proud, she's from "slave family"

[Kaiserschmarrn]

To be fair, Macron was elected. I have no problem with people admiring the Royal Family. I accept free will. What I don't agree with is born privilege. Give up their tax payers hand outs and powers and they can keep their estate and titles for all I care. They can even continue to pose in front of cameras.

Sure, Macron was elected, but even if he wasn't he would still have the attributes for which you admire him.

Constitutional monarchs perform head of state functions, which involve meeting other heads of state and politicians, dinners, traveling, attending ceremonies, representing the country abroad, etc., and they are by no means cheap, e.g. the EU presidency has cost up to 1 million Euro per day and a single state dinner at the White House can cost more than half a million US dollars. What's more, the former French presidents cost the French state 10 million Euros per year. However, as mentioned before, constitutional monarchies have added value, and this is especially so and blatantly obvious for the British monarchy. Seriously, around a quarter of the world's population apparently tuned in to see this wedding. The free publicity and media coverage that the UK gets in this way is surely worth a fortune by itself. I've seen estimates that value this event alone as 1 billion pounds worth for the UK economy. This is one of the reasons why I pivot between scorn and amusement when some Brits moan about the monarchy and its costs. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was a net positive in terms of money, and that doesn't even include the intangibles benefits some of which I mentioned earlier.

To some extent you have a strong point. But on the flip side, the monarchies created the conditions for facisism to begin with. So really all this proves is the success of a nation is down to economics and not tradition. And as history proves, monarchies aren't exactly saintly figures.

Constitutional monarchies didn't create the conditions for fascism or communism. The late 19th and early 20th century was a period of transitions where different countries went down different paths. My point is that those which chose constitutional monarchies are among the best countries to live in today, and hence since constitutional monarchies perform as well, if not better, than republics on average in terms of the quality of life they offer their citizens, republicans cannot honestly claim that their preferred political system is likely to create better outcomes. So all they have left is unfounded and petty resentment (e.g. tax payers' handouts) and narrow minded ideology (e.g. they are not elected).

Climate and liberty are bigger factors than traditional values in social living conditions. It is up to the people whether they want to keep their monarchies or not. And in good times they will.

Valuing continuity/stability as well as liberty is not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. And let's not forget that some of the most oppressive states emerged based on the pretext and often even sincere belief of freeing people from oppression. I'm not sure how climate is relevant in choosing a constitutional monarchy over a republic or vice versa.

With respect to your certainty that people will turn against constitutional monarchies, if you are right it would just be evidence of our fickleness and tendency to make decisions based on superficial appearance. After all, my whole point is that you have no evidence whatsoever that republics lead to better outcomes and hence republicans' insistence that the political system must be changed is based on ignorance at best and ideological pigheadedness at worst.

But what I find interesting was your last comment. For an outspoken critic of the EU and Pro-Brexit advocate, this contradicts your true belief. The EU clearly works well for the UK and has created unnecessary problems for them by trying to leave. Do you agree we should maintain the EU and prevent Brexit because you are against changing political systems? I would be more than happy to keep those tax dodgers around a little longer for a united Europe actually.

You can't be serious.

The EU is the greatest societal experiment of our time. It's the laboratory of a post-national world and I've made it clear before that in my view Britain should have never joined.

...that and born privilege, anti democratic and a burden to actual tax payers.

As long as constitutional monarchies keep assuming the responsibilities that come with the privilege, I'm fine with the latter.

For the claim that they are a burden to tax payers, please see above.

I cannot take the charge that constitutional monarchies are anti-democratic serious. Again, please look at constitutional monarchies. They were among the first countries to introduce universal suffrage and they are among the longest existing democracies. They also comprise some of the most egalitarian societies around the world. That is, the countries which have chosen constitutional monarchy as their political system do democracy exceedingly well in practice - as opposed to on paper - and that's what ultimately matters.

[Sivad]

My point is that those which chose constitutional monarchies are among the best countries to live in today, and hence since constitutional monarchies perform as well, if not better, than republics on average in terms of the quality of life they offer their citizens, republicans cannot honestly claim that their preferred political system is likely to create better outcomes.

I doubt that has anything to do with the institution of monarchy. European societies that have retained the vestiges of monarchy also have implemented a good deal of socialist policy, it's those policies, not monarchy, that have made them successful.

[skinster]

I hope they get leprosy.

Fuck the royals, may they rot in hell.

I'm of the mindset that all monarchs should be lined up and shot.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I doubt that has anything to do with the institution of monarchy. European societies that have retained the vestiges of monarchy also have implemented a good deal of socialist policy, it's those policies, not monarchy, that have made them successful.

I've already addressed this earlier. It's not my claim that constitutional monarchies necessarily produce better outcomes compared with republics. While there are some arguments to be made, in my view, in favour of constitutional monarchies, bold claims about superiority/inferiority of a whole system based on a relatively minor aspect of it, are impossible to prove. Of course, the reverse is also true and the bulk of my argument is that republicans have no evidence that their preferred political system is superior.

However, I put forward the idea that those societies who chose or manage to maintain continuity and stability over radical chance and upheaval are also good societies to live in in the long term. Additionally, I think they tend to be high trust societies which produces good outcomes as well. Constitutional monarchies rely a lot on convention and people, at least those in favour, trust that those in power don't overstep the line.

[Sivad]

All I'm saying is that the institution is irrelevant to the success or failure of modern states. The societies that retained monarchy would have gotten along just as well without it.

[Zamuel]

The EU is the greatest societal experiment of our time. It's the laboratory of a post-national world and I've made it clear before that in my view Britain should have never joined.

I agree it is a great experiment and I think it serves as a step into the future. Britain, I would say, belongs in it. They are right about the immigration issue though, member states should retain autonomy on this. I don't think EU was intended to homogenize culture and tradition.

As long as constitutional monarchies keep assuming the responsibilities that come with the privilege, I'm fine with the latter. For the claim that they are a burden to tax payers, please see above.

The constitutional monarchies have one advantage that is well worth the cost, stable leadership. The population, and the business communities have a constant role model to follow. In the US this changes every 4-8 years. It's very distinct. Under Trump we now see all authority shifting to position themselves as mini totalitarians, from the manager at the local supermarket to the CEOs in their boardrooms. Even those who oppose him subconsciously shift to the NEW paradigm. The ethics and morality of a new leader set the scene for his duration in office.

The Constitutional Monarchies put a lot more pressure on their Kings and Queens to maintain decency and fairness and having established themselves, a monarch can maintain the standards they set for a lifetime, then hand them off without radical adjustments. There is great value in this. Good leadership simply can't be bought. But of course stable ethical values limit the opportunists amongst us and they dissent. In their hearts, they want power they are denied.

Zam

[B0ycey]

Sure, Macron was elected, but even if he wasn't he would still have the attributes for which you admire him.

Constitutional monarchs perform head of state functions, which involve meeting other heads of state and politicians, dinners, traveling, attending ceremonies, representing the country abroad, etc., and they are by no means cheap, e.g. the EU presidency has cost up to 1 million Euro per day and a single state dinner at the White House can cost more than half a million US dollars. What's more, the former French presidents cost the French state 10 million Euros per year. However, as mentioned before, constitutional monarchies have added value, and this is especially so and blatantly obvious for the British monarchy. Seriously, around a quarter of the world's population apparently tuned in to see this wedding. The free publicity and media coverage that the UK gets in this way is surely worth a fortune by itself. I've seen estimates that value this event alone as 1 billion pounds worth for the UK economy. This is one of the reasons why I pivot between scorn and amusement when some Brits moan about the monarchy and its costs. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was a net positive in terms of money, and that doesn't even include the intangibles benefits some of which I mentioned earlier.

I seriously doubt 2 billion people have access to a television, let alone all watch the same show. Not to mention the time difference. I live in the UK and went out my way to not even switch on the tele. I went out and did my normal routine. And what I noticed was that it wasn't exactly quiet. There were still queues at the supermarket and cars on the road. You can never say that when England are playing football at the World Cup.

As for cost, for me It is more about privilege anyway. You can keep on harping about constitutional monarchies as much as you like. But ultimately every single law needs to pass through the Lord's, another relic from the stone age - and another house of unelected nobles that have yet to get their hands dirty in the real world. They turn up once a year to collect their prostitution money and vote down laws that effect their pockets. If you are elected, you are also accountable. The UK is the most undemocratic democracy in Europe. I don't even agree with first past the post as it makes some votes more valued than others.

Constitutional monarchies didn't create the conditions for fascism or communism. The late 19th and early 20th century was a period of transitions where different countries went down different paths. My point is that those which chose constitutional monarchies are among the best countries to live in today, and hence since constitutional monarchies perform as well, if not better, than republics on average in terms of the quality of life they offer their citizens, republicans cannot honestly claim that their preferred political system is likely to create better outcomes. So all they have left is unfounded and petty resentment (e.g. tax payers' handouts) and narrow minded ideology (e.g. they are not elected).

The constitutional monarchies we have today happen to be part of affluent nations. Most nations that suffered history hardship seems to have had revolutions to get rid of their noble overlords. So you cannot credit the Windsors for the Industrial revolution that is the true reason for our wealth and stability today. The UK were just fortunate to be sitting on piles of coal.

Valuing continuity/stability as well as liberty is not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. And let's not forget that some of the most oppressive states emerged based on the pretext and often even sincere belief of freeing people from oppression. I'm not sure how climate is relevant in choosing a constitutional monarchy over a republic or vice versa.

Economics is very important in creating stable regions. It is not a coincidence that wealthy nations have stable regions whilst poor nations have uprisings. Constitutional monarchies have no factor on this what so ever. And liberty is a democratic value. What liberty is there when only one person creates the rules for everyone?

Nonetheless climate is important in creating economic sustainable conditions. Europe has plenty of fertile land and water to Feed their population so they focus on industrialization - real wealth. In poor nations the focus is solely down to putting food on the table. Hence why we have migration as people want the Western lifestyle.

With respect to your certainty that people will turn against constitutional monarchies, if you are right it would just be evidence of our fickleness and tendency to make decisions based on superficial appearance. After all, my whole point is that you have no evidence whatsoever that republics lead to better outcomes and hence republicans' insistence that the political system must be changed is based on ignorance at best and ideological pigheadedness at worst.

Depends what you mean by better outcomes. Economics creates the best outcomes for society. During good times there is no reason to revolt as you have much to lose. During hard times, this isn't true. History shows us that the first people to be targetted during an economic downturn is nobility. This makes sense as they are unaccountable. You just vote out the PM or MP if they are shit. And that is why republics are better. There is no born privilege and everyone is accountable.

The EU is the greatest societal experiment of our time. It's the laboratory of a post-national world and I've made it clear before that in my view Britain should have never joined.

But they did join. And it made them wealthy and kept things throughout Europe in order. Trying to leave is creating uncertainty and instability. So under your own logic we should remain in the EU. That was my point.

As long as constitutional monarchies keep assuming the responsibilities that come with the privilege, I'm fine with the latter.

But it goes against the values of democracy.

I cannot take the charge that constitutional monarchies are anti-democratic serious. Again, please look at constitutional monarchies. They were among the first countries to introduce universal suffrage and they are among the longest existing democracies. They also comprise some of the most egalitarian societies around the world. That is, the countries which have chosen constitutional monarchy as their political system do democracy exceedingly well in practice - as opposed to on paper - and that's what ultimately matters.

Likewise. I can't take your claim that Constitutional monarchies are the foundations of democratic success, when Europe, the most democratic area on the planet, is a mixture of both republics and monarchies. The region has a perfect climate for habitation. And that is a much bigger factor in its success I can assure you.