Why Monarchy?

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's a terrible rock, lol. This reminds me of arguments in the US for retaining Confederate symbols (not to dredge up that old gem).

Beyond treason those objections are weird. The English Monarchy was established by an invader with a loose claim to a throne. American Sovereignty was also built on invasion and further war.
Yeah, the CSA had slaves and did fight to protect slaves, but the South also has a distinct culture and heritage. The Confederate flag represents who they are, just as the flags of Wessex represented the West Saxons and their kingdom and ambitions before they, and the other few remaining Saxon kingdoms, would be replaced by a united flag and monarchy that represented the completion of a whole, Christian England. And despite the ambitions and completion of a united England by Wessex, it was short lived and it is the England and Monarchy established by William 1 the English today trace their origins from. That was nearly 1000 years ago.
The English Monarchy, for the good and bad it has done, is still where the English draw their history and cultural heritage from. Just as the Confederate flag represents the South, for the good and bad they've done.

If religions want to keep their authoritarian institutions thats up to them. I was more interested in discussing monarchy as a political system (though it is interwoven with religion, no doubt).

Many European countries have an official religion, have a top church figure as a top state figure, and many are doing better than America in social welfare, upward mobility and social liberty. Lots of them are even in the EU, who condemned America for ending Roe v Wade.
I tend to think results that work for the citizens is more important than such ideological concerns. Secularism is working in France, it seems. But it's failing in America and despite Constitutional law is prone to getting buried. And, personally, I'd rather live in the officially "authoritarian" UK or Canada or Australia now than the officially Secular America.

I don't know about the old Anglo-Saxon system but I'm interested in learning more.

The Witenagemot (land owners, thegns, nobles, all the important people) would meet and decide.

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed, what makes something legitimate other than the power to make it so, be it the one, the few, or the many who hold that power.

You seem to express the need for a moral component for legitimacy, but what about the contrast between a society that optimizes satisfying individuals goals vs a society that emphasizes the collective well-being over any one individuals needs. Is one more legitimate than the other on moral grounds?

The two have to be balanced. In the case of a society like North Korea, I don't think they can even make a case for collective will being that's based on anything but propaganda and wishful thinking.

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't want charlie full stop.

Then it seems like there's no point in calling them a monarch? Since they perform none of the functions of an actual monarch. Seems purely vestigial as @MikeF noted.

I disagree,a monarch has a lot of sway in non political reforms,Charles III even before he became king impacted agriculture and architecture,I’m not a royalist but what do you have that’s non political to offer

 

[syo]

why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy?

The problem is why we still have democrazy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

If you want to hear someone gush about how great the monarchy is....

Lindy Beige claims constitutional monarchies have the happiest and best educated populations and that they resist certain problems that republics struggle with.

He gives a 45 minute talk about why the Queen is good at her job and why constitutional monarchies have a quality to preserve. In it he talks first about the Queen's tireless visitations and ceremonies, how she inspires loyalty in the soldiers. He points out that the Queen's choice to stay in the public eye and her ability to avoid gaffs. He points out her personal humility. He points out one historical event in which a monarch in Spain quells a mutiny of the army against parliament. He points out that the Queen inspires admiration from around the world. He says she is sensible rather than perceived as diabolical, not a great public speaker.

Spoiler: Lindy Beige on why the Queen was good at her job

 

[Left Coast]

Beyond treason those objections are weird. The English Monarchy was established by an invader with a loose claim to a throne. American Sovereignty was also built on invasion and further war.
Yeah, the CSA had slaves and did fight to protect slaves, but the South also has a distinct culture and heritage. The Confederate flag represents who they are, just as the flags of Wessex represented the West Saxons and their kingdom and ambitions before they, and the other few remaining Saxon kingdoms, would be replaced by a united flag and monarchy that represented the completion of a whole, Christian England. And despite the ambitions and completion of a united England by Wessex, it was short lived and it is the England and Monarchy established by William 1 the English today trace their origins from. That was nearly 1000 years ago.
The English Monarchy, for the good and bad it has done, is still where the English draw their history and cultural heritage from. Just as the Confederate flag represents the South, for the good and bad they've done.

The Confederacy was specifically founded to secede from the United States because they wanted to retain institutional slavery so bad they didn't want to be part of thr US anymore. If people want to celebrate that, that ought to be their right IMO but it's a different story whether I have to agree that it's a noble symbol. Similarly, I agree that British folks may see the monarchy as a symbol that represents their heritage. My preference is for a symbol that doesn’t represent a millennium of theocratic antidemocratic rule. I would think you'd be on board with that? Perhaps not. But I'd also rather not derail this thread into a debate about Confederate flags.

Many European countries have an official religion, have a top church figure as a top state figure, and many are doing better than America in social welfare, upward mobility and social liberty. Lots of them are even in the EU, who condemned America for ending Roe v Wade.
I tend to think results that work for the citizens is more important than such ideological concerns. Secularism is working in France, it seems. But it's failing in America and despite Constitutional law is prone to getting buried. And, personally, I'd rather live in the officially "authoritarian" UK or Canada or Australia now than the officially Secular America.

The reason for the success of those other Western democracies is specifically because they've almost entirely disempowered their monarchs. They are monarchs essentially in name only. So yes, I agree with you that many of them have better living standards than the US, because they are actually secular and democratic despite a figurehead monarch.

 

[Secret Chief]

a monarch has a lot of sway in non political reforms

An unelected person or organisation should have no sway.

what do you have that’s non political to offer

The monarchy is an anachronistic adjunct to a political structure, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to offer as an alternative to such a pointless entity. The head of state could be an elected president, for instance.

 

[MikeF]

The two have to be balanced. In the case of a society like North Korea, I don't think they can even make a case for collective will being that's based on anything but propaganda and wishful thinking.

I don't have a problem with creating a legitimacy concept or definition that incorporates a value or preference component.

I would just assert that there will be a technical/legal definition that recognizes governments as legitimate without that component.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Confederacy was specifically founded to secede from the United States because they wanted to retain institutional slavery so bad they didn't want to be part of thr US anymore. If people want to celebrate that, that ought to be their right IMO but it's a different story whether I have to agree that it's a noble symbol. Similarly, I agree that British folks may see the monarchy as a symbol that represents their heritage. My preference is for a symbol that doesn’t represent a millennium of theocratic antidemocratic rule. I would think you'd be on board with that? Perhaps not. But I'd also rather not derail this thread into a debate about Confederate flags.

It's cultural aspects they both represent, both with some rather gnarly stately origins. But even before then the cultural identity was present.

The reason for the success of those other Western democracies is specifically because they've almost entirely disempowered their monarchs. They are monarchs essentially in name only. So yes, I agree with you that many of them have better living standards than the US, because they are actually secular and democratic despite a figurehead monarch.

They really aren't secular. Paid clergy on the government payroll, Church leaders as heads of state, official state religion, they aren't secular democracies.
America is an example of why being without monarchy and religion isn't necessarily better. It can do worse, it can fall behind, and it'll be religious anyways.

 

[Left Coast]

I disagree,a monarch has a lot of sway in non political reforms,Charles III even before he became king impacted agriculture and architecture,I’m not a royalist but what do you have that’s non political to offer

What do non-monarchies have in the way of cultural figures that aren't political? Is that what you're asking?

 

[England my lionheart]

An unelected person or organisation should have no sway.



The monarchy is an anachronistic adjunct to a political structure, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to offer as an alternative to such a pointless entity. The head of state could be an elected president, for instance.

Donald Trump was elected so was Putin.

 

[Left Coast]

It's cultural aspects they both represent, both with some rather gnarly stately origins. But even before then the cultural identity was present.

They really aren't secular. Paid clergy on the government payroll, Church leaders as heads of state, official state religion, they aren't secular democracies.
America is an example of why being without monarchy and religion isn't necessarily better. It can do worse, it can fall behind, and it'll be religious anyways.

I guess I can understand that, and I don't mind a figurehead monarch as much as an actual one, of course. It just strikes me as an unnecessary vestige of a deeply problematic way of organizing society.

 

[England my lionheart]

What do non-monarchies have in the way of cultural figures that aren't political? Is that what you're asking?

Yes that,I’m not optimistic.

 

[Left Coast]

Donald Trump was elected so was Putin.

Elections in Russia are notorious for being shams. Putin literally has his political opponents killed.

Trump was elected because we have an absurd undemocratic electoral college process for electing Presidents.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes that,I’m not optimistic.

Celebrities, artists, athletes? Why do we need a monarch to be a cultural icon?

 

[Secret Chief]

Donald Trump was elected so was Putin.

Yes that's two countries. France and Germany are two more.

 

[an anarchist]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

You're on the right track Left Coast

For your question, replace "monarchy" with "government".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess I can understand that, and I don't mind a figurehead monarch as much as an actual one, of course. It just strikes me as an unnecessary vestige of a deeply problematic way of organizing society.

Charles III is an actual monarch. He may not have the power of Henry VIII, he won't face military command as Richard I, he can't even guide the direction of his country that much, but he's still very much a monarch. The English Monarch's power has often waxed and waned, the only difference is today the power has waned to it's lowest.
But Elizabeth, in a manner similar to Eleanor Roosevelt, showed us how unofficial power can still influence others.

 

[Left Coast]

You're on the right track Left Coast

For your question, replace "monarchy" with "government".

Not an anarchist, sorry.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm probably late to the discussion following the death of Queen Elizabeth, but it has got me thinking: why in 2022 does any country on this planet still have a monarchy? What rational reason is there to ever have one? I understand that in many countries the monarchs today are more figureheads or cultural symbols than anything but...still strikes me as problematic.

Thoughts?

I think we like our fairy tales. Even the US has families that we call our "royalty:" the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc.