Are Monarchies Better?
I was thinking about how Prince Charles is basically a regular guy. He has this organic gardening stuff he is into and he likes to avoid the limelight and just do his own thing. He was forced into an arranged marriage, but in the end he got back together with his childhood sweetheart who had also been in a sort of arranged marriage.
Anyway, compare that to in the US. How many presidents recently are into farming or sustainable practices? OK, Jimmy Carter was supposedly a peanut rancher, but was he really? I heard his degree was in nuclear physics.
Anyway, currently the corporations buy the politicians, and people who are power hungry fight harder to be politicians than regular guys.
With the monarchy system, sometimes you get regular people to be the king, sometimes spoiled brats, but sometimes regular guys.
With our democratic political system, I am worried that it's only spoiled brats out of touch with things.
July 3rd, 2007 10:27pm
Jesus, the president of the US has to work for a living -- maybe you should compare that to something equivalent in the UK?
Or at least compare it to a monarchy that runs their country?
July 3rd, 2007 11:38pm
I'd prefer a lottery.
son of parnas
July 4th, 2007 12:12am
2nd division gets a life peerage? Yes, please.
5th div gets a seat on the Tube?
July 4th, 2007 12:38am
Except the monarchy has been stripped of most but the most ceremonial powers.
There's a lot to said for having someone for all the ceremoonials, leaving the real leader to get on with the leading
July 4th, 2007 4:56am
This is a poor argument for a monarchy
A much better argument goes something like this:
Who would you rather have as head of state of a country.
(a) Somebody who is good at raising lots of money from special interest groups by making them promises, and who is also able to convincingly lie or embroider or exagerrate the truth when talking to the population.... but has no prior actual training or qualifications to do the job when elected.
(b) Somebody who does not need to make promises to special interests, does not need to lie his way to the top, and who has been trained since birth to be head of state.
July 4th, 2007 5:51am
Nice One PE
Prince Charles isn't a "regular guy" at all, hes part of the royal family and no regular person would ever become king in this country (they don't let muslims in either)
Also comparing British Princes to American Presidents is weak, Charles has no real power, he does some really good things don't get me wrong but nobody is sitting around thinking about him and his actions unless they are upper class.
For me the Monarchy only serves to remind us Brits that the class structure is still here and will remain
what are you reading for?
July 4th, 2007 5:58am
Perhaps you should ask a Canadian...
a cynic writes...
July 4th, 2007 6:18am
> Prince Charles isn't a "regular guy" at all, hes part of the royal family and no regular person would ever become king in this country
Exactly! That is the principle argument in favour of (and against for that matter) the monarchy.
July 4th, 2007 6:30am
The current European monarchies are just show business. Lots of silly ritual.
Of course, I'm embarrassed by our silly rituals created by fusing the real CEO with a monarch.
For real monarchies, go to the Middle East or North Korea. The Saud family, they're real poster children for hereditary dictatorship.
July 4th, 2007 6:39am
"only spoiled brats out of touch with things."
Bill Clinton wasn't a apoiled brat. He was raised by a single mother on a limited income.
It showed in how he ran his administration, as opposed to our current Ultimate Spoiled Brat.
July 4th, 2007 6:44am
When the Australians had to vote whether to remove their theoretical monarchy, they voted to keep it.
July 4th, 2007 6:47am
Burke described the British constitution as a doughnut, with the monarchy being the hole. Their role is to ceremonially hold the absolute power of the state, while being stripped of any ability to use it. Even when the UK was a formal monarchy, the king held little power and was practically incapable of using it against the nobles.
Although recently (not just Blair), the prime minister has tended to just wield absolute power anyway. We're turning into a fairly typical centralised EU country, like France... sad.
July 4th, 2007 7:50am
>I was thinking about how Prince Charles is basically a regular guy.
July 4th, 2007 11:02am
>With the monarchy system, sometimes you get regular
>people to be the king, sometimes spoiled brats, but
>sometimes regular guys.
Trust me, they are ALL spoiled brats. Prince Charles is no exception.
July 4th, 2007 11:03am
> the monarchy has been stripped of most but the most ceremonial powers
Not in Britain. All laws have to be signed by the reigning monarch, the Government are Her/His government, the armed forces swear allegiance not to the government but to the monarch, and on and on. Basically, it is tradition that She/He does not use the powers, but they are still there, in theory. If Charles does become King he might decide to change the tradition that they aren't used as he seems to have a conscience. What chaos might ensue is another matter.
man on the stair
July 4th, 2007 11:06am
Well, I don't think Bush-II would object to being appointed King. As far as I can tell, the concept of the "Unitary Executive" matches "king" pretty well.
July 4th, 2007 12:02pm