Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[notquitethere]

The thing is, the whole monarchy as an institution undermines the notion of an egalitarian society: there's an institutional expectation to defer to someone just in virtue of their birth and that subtly undermines the whole political discourse.

[ChairmanPoo]

The Spanish monarchy isn't much more than a figurehead thing anyway.

Do you know how much does the goverment spend in the Spanish monarchy? No? Don't worry. Nobody else knows either. By combining financial obscurantism with a habit of giving them exclusive use of supposedly "public" properties (including, but not limited to, the king's yatch).
They're an expensive, meddling, Francoist fossile. The sooner they go the better.

[Guardian G.I.]

Instead of being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland it would be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or, according to Tony Benn's vision, it would be the Commonwealth of Britain. I endorse this option, hence I would seek a Commonwealth of Scotland (Common Weal o Scotland/Co-fhlaitheas na h-Alba respectively) rather than a Republic of Scotland.

What's the difference between the Commonwealth of Scotland and the Republic of Scotland?

[Owlbread]

What's the difference between the Commonwealth of Scotland and the Republic of Scotland?

This is an idiomatic definition, but I would define "Commonwealth" as a state or political entity created specifically for the benefit of the people. It would serve to remind our future governments that their very purpose is to work for the common good/wealth of the nation. The etymology of Republic on the other hand is far blander, literally meaning "entity/concern of the people".

[mainiac]

If UK becomes a republic, Ukrainian Ranger would need to change his name too, to avoid confusion.

Darn.  Whelp, guess they'll have to keep the monarchy. 

[Graknorke]

I like how they use Babar as a symbol. Fitting. I'm definitely in favour of abolishing monarchies: hopefully when Charles takes the throne he'll be so unpopular that the republican cause here will be bolstered. Don't hold much hope though: they'd have to change the name of the country and everything...

Thing is nobody is too bothered about the monarchy.
Like there's teaboos all around the world who fantasise over them but here? You only really get anything but apathy from raging nationalists and people who want to get rid of them. Like with the EU.

[Frumple]

... would anyone actually give a damn if the UK lost the monarchy and stayed UK? I can only imagine complaints about it not being a kingdom would be met with a resounding, "And?" If anyone's ever really cared about what ~arbitrary geographic boundaries~ are called I've never met enough of them to think they matter.

[TD1]

*Shrugs*

The monarchy is pretty advantageous, and it's a patriotic thing.

[/shrug]

[LordSlowpoke]

... would anyone actually give a damn if the UK lost the monarchy and stayed UK? I can only imagine complaints about it not being a kingdom would be met with a resounding, "And?" If anyone's ever really cared about what ~arbitrary geographic boundaries~ are called I've never met enough of them to think they matter.

the stability of the english monarchy (or british at the time) gave the world the industrial revolution

don't fuck with it

[Frumple]

Man, so did child labor and deadly work conditions but we've been trying pretty hard to fuck those for a while now. Don't see why monarchy couldn't get in line, or why the UK couldn't stay the UK even if it ditched the crown.

[LordSlowpoke]

i would argue that fucking child labor is in a way the inverse of what we have ever planned but that's just me being a fuckass and picking words in a low-context medium

and the uk couldn't stay the uk if it kept the crown or lost it

because you know

united kingdom

kingdoms of england and scotland

owlbread

and the kingdom part of the country's name really

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Man, so did child labor and deadly work conditions but we've been trying pretty hard to fuck those for a while now. Don't see why monarchy couldn't get in line, or why the UK couldn't stay the UK even if it ditched the crown.

That sounds a little like a false equivalency dude...

[Frumple]

Point being made: No one* would actually care if the UK consisted of nothing but a communist Sussex and still called itself UK. Whether it's a monarchy or not has zero influence on whether people call it a kingdom. People call it a kingdom because they've been calling it a kingdom, and no one* really cares beyond that.

I really don't care about the monarchy either way. I'm just objecting to the objection it would require a name change if the UK got rid of it.

*Read more clearly: Not enough to make a difference.

That sounds a little like a false equivalency dude...

Talk to LSP, not me. I'm not the one that made the comparison Lot of stuff gave the world the industrial revolution, plenty of it quite nasty.

E: More explicitly: Something's contribution, no matter how large, to the industrial revolution is no good reason to consider it inviolate.

[miauw62]

The Belgian king *technically* has the ability to not sign a law passed by the Parliament, but that makes them not-king. (Happened in 1990, when Boudewijn refused to sign an abortus law)

But if that were to happen today, Bart De Wever would probably strangle the entire royal family with his bare hands.

[Dutchling]

The Belgian pretender *technically* has the ability to not sign a law passed by the Parliament, but that makes them not-king. (Happened in 1990, when Boudewijn refused to sign an abortus law)

But if that were to happen today, Bart De Wever would probably strangle the entire royal family with his bare hands.

ftfy