Quite.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Coronation of Christian King Charles III
- Thread starter Elihoenai
- Start date
And yet, could not the United Kingdom abolish the monarchy altogether, popularity notwithstanding? Heck, that's how the UK got to a constitutional monarchy -- by stripping away royal power and authority at the will of the nobility. (No, it was not at the will of the people -- nobody asked them, and nobody cared what they thought.)
And in the end, I think you and I will both find that it is "popular support" that determines how the government of the UK is constituted. After all, that's how it's been going so far.
Sounds remarkably like Donald Trump, to me.
I wonder if you'd be keen to do a similar analysis of American Presidents. And doing it honestly -- after all, George III wasn't actually mentally ill, he was suffering from porphyria and the "treatment" of his doctors at the time.
And admit that the Nazi collaborator never made it all the way to a coronation, and was soundly rejected by the people? Or acknowledge that not only George V opposed women's suffrage, so did every other leader (elected or not) of the day?
On the subject of "Catholic suffrage," could you expound on how Queen Mary (Tudor) protected Protestant suffrage?
And judging by recent reports from Politico, I wonder if you could talk about how even Supreme Court Justices don't use their offices to enrich themselves personally. (By which I mean, can you acknowledge that Kings and Queens and Justices are all, at the end of the day, human beings.)
And finally, when I compare Boris Johnson to the late Queen, I find you remark about "track records" to be surprisingly stupid.
As did Pericles (considered a liberal of his time), and Demosthenes, and Xenophon, and Lysias, and… Your point? (Just playing devil’s advocate here.) We are so self-righteous today, aren’t we?
Who do you think is arguing that abolishing the monarchy would solve all our ills?
Any extreme view is normally destructive.
Republicanism isn't an extreme view.
Or Canadian Governors-General?
Whatever the cause, he was mentally incapacitated but still nominally in the job, and in a different political environment, he might have been able to continue ruling in his own right without a regent.
His coronation was delayed because he initially didn't want one. He was king longer than Charles has been so far.
Well, no.
... but you reminded me: at least two kings opposed women's suffrage. I had been thinking of Edward VII; once he was dead, progress started to be made on the issue fairly rapidly.
But George V's misogyny was far from universal, and you can tell that many leaders of the time supported women's suffrage because they enacted women's suffrage during his reign (and over his objection).
She didn't, but I'm not sure why you think bringing up another oppressive monarch does anything but help my argument.
The big difference: there's a mechanism to remove corrupt Supreme Court justices from office. With kings, short of getting the guillotines out, you can't remove one who refuses to step down.
Compare Bojo's actions to the crap that Charles got up to when he was Prince of Wales. With our current king, I'm happy for the neglect that our monarchy shows the colonies.
And again: crappy Prime Ministers can be removed; crappy monarchs generally can't.
I caught you watching it in the RF staff lounge.
(They were all in there transfixed by the new King's inauguration.)
So you're a fan of both wasteful vapid ceremonies, eh.
Seems a bit presumptuous that you wouldn't bother to put enough effort into reading to get my point but then ask me to explain it to you.
Oh, I get your point, alright, and have decided to play the devil’s advocate with it in questioning one of your implied premises. A little game, it is; within this game you must remember that I am not stating my own views or acting as myself, but rather as the devil’s advocate, wherein one does not necessarily state one’s own views. You seem to indicate that opposing women’s suffrage renders a leader somehow unfit for rule. The devil’s advocate (and this should by no means be taken as reflective of my personal views on the matter, just the devil’s views) has noted that allowing women to vote has not been regarded positively by men within all historical and contemporary contexts, such as in the Ancient Greek poleis and in many contexts within the Muslim world today. Are/were the (male) leaders within all of these socio-political contexts unfit for rule? The devil’s essential query is: should suitability for rule within all human contexts be determined by the values of the modern liberally democratic Anglosphere? How do you respond?
Last edited:
We might do so in several decades, just as Americans might vote to get rid of all their guns. But both are unlikely in the near future.
But that is the whole issue with monarchies, given that they mostly are/were just power struggles between various undeserving factions and such coming from historical and supposedly hereditary rights. Allied to some bestowed rights from God in many cases too of course. Unless you truly believe power makes right? Such that we can't have true progress until we cut the chain and start to develop better societies based on better principles. And unfortunately along with the monarchy we have all the rest of the hierarchy and where privilege there is often not earned but handed out as favours. No one is going to say that removing the monarchy would therefore make the future better, but having it in place surely holds up any possible progress as to a better one without such.
Augustus
…
Barbados becomes a republic
In order to become a republic, the Barbados Parliament had to amend the Barbados Independence Order 1966, something that required a two-thirds majority. Although some questioned whether this was possible, as an independent country Barbados could amend or repeal any part of its statute book, including acts and orders passed by the UK Parliament before 1966.The Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 was introduced to the Barbados Parliament on 20 September and was passed unanimously on 6 October. This effectively transferred the responsibilities of the Governor-General to a new position of President, elected by Parliament. It meant that the oath of allegiance would be to the state of Barbados rather than to the Queen.
On 12 October 2021, Dame Sandra Mason was jointly nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as the first President of Barbados. She was elected by the Barbados Parliament on 20 October and will formally be sworn in today (30 November).
At midnight tonight (4am GMT) the Prince of Wales will represent the Queen at a ceremonial handover in Bridgetown’s National Heroes Square.
Why do people continue to play this bizarre game where they pretend people couldn't vote to get rid of the monarch even though there are multiple examples of people doing just that? It just makes them look foolish. Charlie even went along to wave them off
I'm pretty sure we'll get quite a few more examples over the coming years, I wonder at what point these strange folk will actually be forced to pay attention to reality rather than their irrational fantasies?
*2030, as 17th country votes to replace Charles as head of state*
"King Charles literally owns you and could force you to become an archer and invade France to recapture the Duchy of Gascony for the crown and there's not a single thing you could do about it!!! Only a democratically elected ceremonial figurehead as head of state can stop this. we need a republiiiiiiiic!!!!!"
Altfish
Veteran Member
Augustus
…
What specific reforms do you think the parliament cannot pass due to there being a hereditary, rather than elected, figurehead as the head of state?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Wow. Seem to have stirred up a whole load of reactions. Just make a few points.
The rush to compare the UK to the US as if it was typical of the distinction between having a written constitution and not, seems to be highly selective considering the large number of countries in the world who also have such a document, including most of Europe. The US is an outlier amongst western democracies in many ways and the bar for amending the constitution is set very high.
I regard being given power and privilege purely on the basis of who mummy and daddy were, to be obnoxious and absurd (and yes, that it my opinion). The explicitly Christian (and specifically Protestant) trappings are inappropriate to what is now a minority Christian country.
I would not rush to a constitution and abolition of the monarchy from where we are now. By far the most undemocratic part of our system is the 'first past the post' voting system for Parliament, where (as is the case today) a party can win a huge majority, and become, effectively, an elected dictatorship, on only a minority of the popular vote. So change the voting system to a proportional one, then reform the other absurd anachronism, the House ofCronies and Political Donors Lords, then address the constitution and monarchy.
I realise too that this is not going to happen any time soon. The only way it might start is if the Labour party becomes the largest party after the next election but without an overall majority and is forced to compromise with the Liberal Democrats and introduce electoral reform. I can dream.
The rush to compare the UK to the US as if it was typical of the distinction between having a written constitution and not, seems to be highly selective considering the large number of countries in the world who also have such a document, including most of Europe. The US is an outlier amongst western democracies in many ways and the bar for amending the constitution is set very high.
I regard being given power and privilege purely on the basis of who mummy and daddy were, to be obnoxious and absurd (and yes, that it my opinion). The explicitly Christian (and specifically Protestant) trappings are inappropriate to what is now a minority Christian country.
I would not rush to a constitution and abolition of the monarchy from where we are now. By far the most undemocratic part of our system is the 'first past the post' voting system for Parliament, where (as is the case today) a party can win a huge majority, and become, effectively, an elected dictatorship, on only a minority of the popular vote. So change the voting system to a proportional one, then reform the other absurd anachronism, the House of
I realise too that this is not going to happen any time soon. The only way it might start is if the Labour party becomes the largest party after the next election but without an overall majority and is forced to compromise with the Liberal Democrats and introduce electoral reform. I can dream.
That is not the point. The whole hereditary thing should simply be abolished (for any supposed heads of state) and a decent liberal democratic system put in place, and where such hopefully would then represent the views and votes of the people. Why have such figures apart from simply being a cultural link to the past - and a source of revenue from tourism and all the rest? We would need something rather better than we currently have, but at least we would be rid of the ties to the past and be allowed to make our own future. Too big a step for many?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you are not that we and neither am I. So if it happens there is a we, but not until it happens.
What is “right”? It is an inherently vague term. If you mean civil/social “rights” (privileges), as in the royal motto “God and my right”, then yes, might makes right. Civil rights are by their very nature, things granted to subjects (the weak) by their sovereign lord (the mighty); in the case of a republic the Law takes the place of the sovereign. If, as I suspect, by “right” you mean “morality”, then I (along with scores of ethical philosophers, most notably F. Nietzsche) question the very fact of objective mores. Do you believe that there is anything objective about morality? Like David Hume, I am a sensualist. I believe that people view as moral those things which create positive emotional responses in them, and nothing more. The problem with that is that it causes shifting moralities, based upon the fickle nature of human emotion.