Print

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

[Owlbread]

So basically Woman= New and 'Progrssive' and Male= Archaic and Medieval?

Yeah, exactly. Authoritarianism, such as in the case of the monarchy or in the time of Margaret Thatcher's government, is more palatable to the masses when exercised by a woman.

[GlyphGryph]

For the same reason I imagine it's a lot more common for people to live with their mothers far longer than they should rather than living the same amount of time with their fathers. Sort of a maternal representation that makes people unwilling to cut the apron strings. Culturally, the Western world is a lot more likely to be rebellious against father-figures and a lot more likely to think favorably of mother-figures.

The Queen is in many minds a mother figure. But Kings? Not so much. They are just the guy in charge.

Additionally, it's because people have a very different set of associations when they think of Kings and Queens. And there are decent historical reasons for it it too. English Queens have generally been not-nearly-as-terrible as English Kings.

It's not really all that new and progressive. Victoria, Elizabeth, Boudica. But it's easy to get the feeling that culturally, Queens care about their people, and Kings cause nothing but trouble. While there may be as many (or more) well liked kings as there are queens, percentage-wise the Queens blow the Kings out of the water, and they've had less opportunities to field truly terrible individuals so there isn't as much of a stigma.

[Owlbread]

For the same reason I imagine it's a lot more common for people to live with their mothers far longer than they should rather than living the same amount of time with their fathers. Sort of a maternal representation that makes people unwilling to cut the apron strings.

The Queen is sort of a mother figure. But Kings? Kings are for overthrowing, obviously! Everyone knows that.

But in large part, it's because people have a very different set of associations when they think of Kings and Queens. And there are decent historical reasons for it it too. English Queens have generally been not-nearly-as-terrible as English Kings.

It's not really all that new and progressive. Victoria, Elizabeth, Boudica. But it's easy to get the feeling that culturally, Queens care about their people, and Kings cause nothing but trouble. While there may be as many well liked kings as there are queens, percentage-wise the Queens blow the Kings out of the water.

Even though in the case of Victoria and Elizabeth I they were basically the same as any other bog-standard King. I think the real reason why the Queens "blow the Kings out of the water" percentage-wise is that there hasn't been enough of them.

But, yeah, the whole "mother figure" thing really makes my skin crawl.

I suspect that the reason why the Government and the general British establishment gave Prince William and Kate all that attention with the big, high publicity royal wedding and all that is to reinforce the next "pleasant face" of the monarchy after Elizabeth dies. Charles is an old man now and, given that Camilla is an unpopular wet blanket, he's a one man show. He will probably abdicate for William and Kate - a young, attractive, happily married couple is the "pleasant face" to use when a King is inevitable.

[kingfisher1112]

So basically Woman= New and 'Progrssive' and Male= Archaic and Medieval?

Yeah, exactly. Authoritarianism, such as in the case of the monarchy or in the time of Margaret Thatcher's government, is more palatable to the masses when exercised by a woman.

Erm....



What?
The royals don't have DIRECT power of legislation. They can certainly fire people, but not be ' Authoritarian'. And I don't think old Marge was very well loved, if the fucks who planned on raiding her funeral exist.

For the same reason I imagine it's a lot more common for people to live with their mothers far longer than they should rather than living the same amount of time with their fathers. Sort of a maternal representation that makes people unwilling to cut the apron strings. Culturally, the Western world is a lot more likely to be rebellious against father-figures and a lot more likely to think favorably of mother-figures.

The Queen is in many minds a mother figure. But Kings?

But in large part, it's because people have a very different set of associations when they think of Kings and Queens. And there are decent historical reasons for it it too. English Queens have generally been not-nearly-as-terrible as English Kings.

It's not really all that new and progressive. Victoria, Elizabeth, Boudica. But it's easy to get the feeling that culturally, Queens care about their people, and Kings cause nothing but trouble. While there may be as many well liked kings as there are queens, percentage-wise the Queens blow the Kings out of the water.

I don't know, George VI was pretty well treated.

[Owlbread]

Erm....



What?
The royals don't have DIRECT power of legislation. They can certainly fire people, but not be ' Authoritarian'. And I don't think old Marge was very well loved, if the fucks who planned on raiding her funeral exist.

They can dissolve parliament and approve legislation, are our heads of state and are in a position of great influence on British and Commonwealth society. The fact that rather than being elected but instead "appointed by god" because we can't trust ourselves with an elected President is authoritarian. Margaret Thatcher was also well loved by enough people in Britain to get the Conservative party elected three times.

I don't know, George VI was pretty well treated.

I think that's because he was youngish and handsome and such. If he was an ugly man with no charisma, or indeed if he was stuffy and bearded like his predecessors, I doubt he'd have been so popular. It really is that shallow.

[GlyphGryph]

It's not really so much about individuals as much as the cultural vibe. Basically, the bits of history that actually enter the pop culture. Is George IV well known?

But what does pop culture know of kings?
The terrible Kings from Shakespeare? The King that sent the colonies into revolt? The one that killed all his wives?

What do they know of Queens?
Current monarch is a queen, she seems alright. Everyone loves the princesses too! Historically... Victoria has a whole era named after her that most people romanticize.

On the negative side, the Queens only really have Bloody Mary, who as indeed terrible but is popularly conflated with Mary, Queen of Scots, who is well liked historically! So it's a wash, there.

It's really not hard to see why people would be more comfortable with Queens.

[kingfisher1112]

Erm....



What?
The royals don't have DIRECT power of legislation. They can certainly fire people, but not be ' Authoritarian'. And I don't think old Marge was very well loved, if the fucks who planned on raiding her funeral exist.

They can dissolve parliament and approve legislation, are our heads of state and are in a position of great influence on British and Commonwealth society. The fact that rather than being elected but instead "appointed by god" because we can't trust ourselves with an elected President is authoritarian. Margaret Thatcher was also well loved by enough people in Britain to get the Conservative party elected three times.

I don't know, George VI was pretty well treated.

I think that's because he was youngish and handsome and such. If he was an ugly man with no charisma, or indeed if he was stuffy and bearded like his predecessors, I doubt he'd have been so popular. It really is that shallow.

No it's not Authoritarian. Not here, anyways. Over in England? Sure. Over here? No.

[Owlbread]

No it's not Authoritarian. Not here, anyways. Over in England? Sure. Over here? No.

Regardless of what is considered normal for other countries - it is authoritarian. It's the same kind of thing when you look at totalitarianism in China and the human rights abuses and it gets described by careful American politicians as "Chinese culture".

[kingfisher1112]

No it's not Authoritarian. Not here, anyways. Over in England? Sure. Over here? No.

Regardless of what is considered normal for a country - it is authoritarian. It's the same kind of thing when you look at totalitarianism in China and the human rights abuses and it gets described by careful American politicians as "Chinese culture".

Thing is, this is an Australasian politics thread. Sure, it's all Authoritarian ( Nothing wrong with that, the royal family is pretty benevolent) but I don't care. It's not likely that it's going to affect me, because we have more ties with the US than the UK.

[Owlbread]

Thing is, this is an Australasian politics thread. Sure, it's all Authoritarian ( Nothing wrong with that, the royal family is pretty benevolent) but I don't care. It's not likely that it's going to affect me, because we have more ties with the US than the UK.

Thank you for acknowledging your support of authoritarianism over complete democracy. You have done something a scarce few are willing to do in the UK, and I think the standard of debate is lowered because of that lack of backbone.

And, ultimately, she's still your Queen. Not just mine, no matter how close you are to the US or China or anywhere else.

[kingfisher1112]

Thing is, this is an Australasian politics thread. Sure, it's all Authoritarian ( Nothing wrong with that, the royal family is pretty benevolent) but I don't care. It's not likely that it's going to affect me, because we have more ties with the US than the UK.

Thank you for acknowledging your support of authoritarianism over democracy. You have done something a scarce few are willing to do in the UK.

What? Authoritarianism only works when it is done right. The Royal Family give back millions of pounds of tourist money, and perhaps an inspiration. I wasn't saying that I supported Authoritarianism over democracy. In China, it doesn't work. Just like in Africa, democracy doesn't work. Implementation is more important than the system.

[Owlbread]

What? Authoritarianism only works when it is done right. The Royal Family give back millions of pounds of tourist money, and perhaps an inspiration. I wasn't saying that I supported Authoritarianism over democracy. In China, it doesn't work. Just like in Africa, democracy doesn't work. Implementation is more important than the system.

I'm not sure why you opened that statement up with "What?", seeing as you didn't really contradict anything I said. By supporting an Authoritarian structure like the Monarchy over a democratically elected Head of State you support Authoritarianism over Democracy. Your reasons can be anything under the sun, but that's the substance.

You also go on to say that "democracy doesn't work", so... you know. It's ok though, you shouldn't be ashamed of your views. If you're forthcoming with them the standard of debate is generally raised rather than beating about the bush because you don't like the label.

[kingfisher1112]

What? Authoritarianism only works when it is done right. The Royal Family give back millions of pounds of tourist money, and perhaps an inspiration. I wasn't saying that I supported Authoritarianism over democracy. In China, it doesn't work. Just like in Africa, democracy doesn't work. Implementation is more important than the system.

I'm not really sure why you opened that statement up with "What?", seeing as you didn't really contradict anything I said. By supporting an Authoritarian structure like the Monarchy over a democratically elected Head of State you support Authoritarianism over Democracy. Your reasons can be anything under the sun, but that's the substance.

You're assuming that
A) I don't want a republic.
B) I just thought that the British System isn't broken.
The thing is, you are painting it like it's a bad thing.

[Dutchling]

He's painting it like the queen eats babies.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

She very well might, it would explain her unnerving longevity.