It seemed as if an important conversation were beginning in the reflections on the RIP thread.
That more detailed conversation is worth having; members of this community may have a variety of viewpoints from which to reflect on it.
I just listened to the first speech by King Charles III here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EFKKOR4cZM
I have not been among his fans for a very long time, but I thought it was well-written, well-read, and to the point.
What thoughts do others have?
How does it look as if things will change globally, and within the Commonwealth's various spheres of influence?
M.
I think some members of the Commonwealth will leave, and more will not.
The vicious fury that often erupts on Twitter is certainly in evidence with the death of the Queen, and any private individual who expresses sorrow gets savaged pretty quickly. But I'm guessing official policies operate more slowly.
Of interest, Charles III is scheduled to meet with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth on Sunday (9/11).
Thinking about Queen Elizabeth...
She was a young girl when she came into the public eye, and had not had much of a chance to express her own opinions before becoming Queen at a very young age. As a result, she adopted and kept a neutral/ "blank slate" persona on such matters. I never thought of her as having much of a purpose, really.
Charles, on the other hand, has not had the same strictures. He has opinions on things and activities. I'd like to think he has a more active role in setting the politics of the day - hopefully in a more progressive direction.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 10, 2022, 07:36:30 AM
Thinking about Queen Elizabeth...
She was a young girl when she came into the public eye, and had not had much of a chance to express her own opinions before becoming Queen at a very young age. As a result, she adopted and kept a neutral/ "blank slate" persona on such matters. I never thought of her as having much of a purpose, really.
Charles, on the other hand, has not had the same strictures. He has opinions on things and activities. I'd like to think he has a more active role in setting the politics of the day - hopefully in a more progressive direction.
Not reinforcing progressives is purpose enough, if that was her thought process.
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech. His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
That is the traditional policy, yes, but what if he does not do this? Anyone see the BBC's 'King Charles III', about six years ago?
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I collect coins from places like Canada and Australia so naturally the only thing I am thinking about will be the new coinage with Charles's image. That will take some getting used to after a lifetime with QE2.
Why would nations leave the Commonwealth just now with a new monarch? I assume that there must be some economic advantages to remaining within it.
Well, he could always become the non-binary Quineen of England.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
Quote from: Hegemony on September 10, 2022, 10:09:43 AM
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech. His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
The one thing a monarch can (and should) champion is the constitution and system of government (as Charles did in his speech). The monarchy symbolizes the messy but continual development of democracy, independent of the peculiarities of the current office holders.
Quote from: Anselm on September 10, 2022, 10:21:41 AM
Why would nations leave the Commonwealth just now with a new monarch? I assume that there must be some economic advantages to remaining within it.
I don't think it's as much economic as cultural. Commonwealth countries are kind of like siblings, who still like to get together for holidays and family members. Generally we're all still on good terms with the one brother who disowned the family and left, but we're still OK acknowledging Mom and Dad even though we're all independent adults.
Quote from: Hegemony on September 10, 2022, 10:09:43 AM
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.
There is no such thing as
rigorous neutrality.Quote
His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
Case in point. Deporting residents
is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?
Quote
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.
Which would he choose?
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:11:10 AM
That is the traditional policy, yes, but what if he does not do this? Anyone see the BBC's 'King Charles III', about six years ago?
"King Charles III" originally was a stage play before it was adapted for BBC & PBS's "Masterpiece."
Long time "Masterpiece" fans may recall that Tim Piggot-Smith as "King Charles III" (TV adaptation) was among his final roles before his death in 2017.
If I had to guess, I'd guess he'll attempt neutrality, but that there will occasionally be a "gaffe" (he'll accidentally say the quiet part out loud).
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 10, 2022, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 10, 2022, 10:09:43 AM
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.
There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.
Quote
His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?
Quote
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.
Which would he choose?
If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.
QuoteBecoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.
What do we have in the USA that has an effect anything like it? I would say the legacy media. They use the reputation for impartiality that was earned decades ago to conceal their culture warring. King Charles is another opportunity for the political left. They want the monarchy, and they'll probably have it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 06:39:50 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 10, 2022, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 10, 2022, 10:09:43 AM
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.
There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.
Quote
His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?
Quote
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.
Which would he choose?
If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.
Fair enough. Still, not sure what the point is of wearing a crown and waving in parades.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 11, 2022, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 06:39:50 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 10, 2022, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 10, 2022, 10:09:43 AM
The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.
There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.
Quote
His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.
Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?
Quote
And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.
So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.
Which would he choose?
If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.
Fair enough. Still, not sure what the point is of wearing a crown and waving in parades.
By the king or queen not doing much to help with others pet causes, it annoys people who deserve to be annoyed.
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
I am one of those "oddly into it" because it
reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it,
every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as
every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.
It does give a country recourse to another sense of global credibility and gravitas if the PM, president, or other day-to-day executive is a fool and/or a clown and can't be fully trusted to always be the adult in the room.
M.
One wonders whether the system is useful, if there actually aren't real powers that the parliamentary head of state (monarch or Germany-style parliamentary president) cannot exercise without the consent (or actual command) of the PM/ government? This in a nutshell was the crux of the problem in 'King Charles III'. If not, why not just have a well-programmed robot in the job? This is similar to a decision to vote for the candidate with the proper party initial after his name, even if he personally is just unfit for office.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 12, 2022, 09:16:39 AM
One wonders whether the system is useful, if there actually aren't real powers that the parliamentary head of state (monarch or Germany-style parliamentary president) cannot exercise without the consent (or actual command) of the PM/ government? This in a nutshell was the crux of the problem in 'King Charles III'. If not, why not just have a well-programmed robot in the job? This is similar to a decision to vote for the candidate with the proper party initial after his name, even if he personally is just unfit for office.
Neither the British nor the German Heads of State are without power. In both cases powers are mostly for use in what can be called parliamentary emergencies. In the UK this is a response to troublemaking Kings, and in the German case this is a response to the Weimar Constitution, which gave the President one hell of a lot of power in parliamentary emergencies and messed things up big time.
Robots these are not.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 05:56:40 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.
I can be reminded in the history books.
I resent supporting the monarchy, both symbolically and financially. If I were an immigrant, I would resent being forced to pledge allegiance to the King/Queen (especially from some countries of origin).
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 12, 2022, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 05:56:40 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.
I can be reminded in the history books.
I resent supporting the monarchy, both symbolically and financially. If I were an immigrant, I would resent being forced to pledge allegiance to the King/Queen (especially from some countries of origin).
It would be interesting to compare societies that retain or peacefully give up monarchies with those that overthrew monarchies. I think you'd find generally the first group to be much better than the latter. Evolutionary change works better than revolutionary change. The evolution in the status and powers of the monarch reflect that long-term change, despite the oscillations of what party is in power.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
How much support of the Crown is there in Québec? Don't some there don't think it is more than a vestige?
What about the prairie conservatives? The libertarian aspect seems positively anti-monarchy, but other aspects could bow to tradition.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 01:00:54 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 10, 2022, 10:21:41 AM
Why would nations leave the Commonwealth just now with a new monarch? I assume that there must be some economic advantages to remaining within it.
I don't think it's as much economic as cultural. Commonwealth countries are kind of like siblings, who still like to get together for holidays and family members. Generally we're all still on good terms with the one brother who disowned the family and left, but we're still OK acknowledging Mom and Dad even though we're all independent adults.
What a good description!
I heard the PM of Antigua and Barbud (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica)a this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica) for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.
Quote from: Hibush on September 13, 2022, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
How much support of the Crown is there in Québec? Don't some there don't think it is more than a vestige?
What about the prairie conservatives? The libertarian aspect seems positively anti-monarchy, but other aspects could bow to tradition.
We're currently deciding province by province over whether or not to declare a statutory holiday for the day of the Queen's funeral. So far federal employees get a stat holiday; the Maritimes & British Columbia have decided to go with the stat holiday; Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan have decided not to. Manitoba has declared a day of mourning, but schools are open, and Alberta is dithering. I'm not sure what the territories have decided.
Quote from: Hibush on September 13, 2022, 01:06:05 PM
heard the PM of Antigua and Barbud (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica)a this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica) for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.
The fact that countries can freely choose to cut ties to the monarchy is a reflection of how the institution has changed. What was once established by force is now completely a matter of choice. That evolution over time (and the obvious implication that further evolution will continue) refutes the idea that burning everything to the ground is the only way forward.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2022, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Hibush on September 13, 2022, 01:06:05 PM
heard the PM of Antigua and Barbud (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica)a this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica) for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.
The fact that countries can freely choose to cut ties to the monarchy is a reflection of how the institution has changed. What was once established by force is now completely a matter of choice. That evolution over time (and the obvious implication that further evolution will continue) refutes the idea that burning everything to the ground is the only way forward.
While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.
Quote from: Hibush on September 14, 2022, 05:21:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2022, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Hibush on September 13, 2022, 01:06:05 PM
heard the PM of Antigua and Barbud (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica)a this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica) for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.
The fact that countries can freely choose to cut ties to the monarchy is a reflection of how the institution has changed. What was once established by force is now completely a matter of choice. That evolution over time (and the obvious implication that further evolution will continue) refutes the idea that burning everything to the ground is the only way forward.
While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.
Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put
into those places over that time?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 05:41:46 AM
Quote from: Hibush on September 14, 2022, 05:21:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2022, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Hibush on September 13, 2022, 01:06:05 PM
heard the PM of Antigua and Barbud (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica)a this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations (https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/13/british_colonialism_caribbean_antigua_barbuda_jamaica) for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.
The fact that countries can freely choose to cut ties to the monarchy is a reflection of how the institution has changed. What was once established by force is now completely a matter of choice. That evolution over time (and the obvious implication that further evolution will continue) refutes the idea that burning everything to the ground is the only way forward.
While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.
Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?
You jest right? You think the balance in in favour of the crown?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2022, 12:49:18 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 12, 2022, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 05:56:40 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 11, 2022, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Morden on September 10, 2022, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 10:12:45 AM
WRT monarchism in Canada, if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?
I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.
For sure. I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy. They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada. However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.
I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.
I can be reminded in the history books.
I resent supporting the monarchy, both symbolically and financially. If I were an immigrant, I would resent being forced to pledge allegiance to the King/Queen (especially from some countries of origin).
It would be interesting to compare societies that retain or peacefully give up monarchies with those that overthrew monarchies. I think you'd find generally the first group to be much better than the latter. Evolutionary change works better than revolutionary change. The evolution in the status and powers of the monarch reflect that long-term change, despite the oscillations of what party is in power.
You make it sound as if the monarchy just decided to step aside. Peaceful revolution is still revolution.
The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 05:41:46 AM
Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?
Well, if we look at the relative wealth of the Crown versus "those places" I think we can tell who netted most favorably.
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
I meant the October Revolution! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:17:14 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
I meant the October Revolution! :-)
And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)
And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 07:29:09 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:17:14 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
I meant the October Revolution! :-)
And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)
And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.
I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation. Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.
Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power. The British didn't relinquish authority out of the goodness of their hearts or somehow see the light. Heck, they still haven't even renounced the doctrine of discovery. They only relinquished power because they saw it was their only real choice and with pressure from the USA.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 09:04:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 07:29:09 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:17:14 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
I meant the October Revolution! :-)
And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)
And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.
I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation. Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.
Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power. The British didn't relinquish authority out of the goodness of their hearts or somehow see the light. Heck, they still haven't even renounced the doctrine of discovery. They only relinquished power because they saw it was their only real choice and with pressure from the USA.
QuoteOf course a peaceful transition is better
That's all I wanted to suggest.
And addressing monarchies, not countries. Nowadays no one is going to use force to prevent a country from leaving the British Commonwealth, whose titular head is a royal. There is no problem.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 14, 2022, 06:42:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 05:41:46 AM
Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?
Well, if we look at the relative wealth of the Crown versus "those places" I think we can tell who netted most favorably.
With Antigua and Barbuda specifically, the capital and equity went elsewhere. Imagine if they had infrastructure, equity and locally owned and financed companies based on reinvestment of all the early profits. Even deducting subsequent spending by Britain, which paid for things the local government and industry would have been responsible for. Something like that is what they are looking for.
I don't anticipate that force or violence will be helpful in getting concessions in that direction.
What if they split off a piece of the Dutchy of Cornwall, say 10,000 acres of Cornwall, and gave it to the former colony. They would own a part of the colonizer and get rent from English citizens.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 09:04:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2022, 07:29:09 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:17:14 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2022, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
QuoteThe USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...
The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.
One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.
Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct. The British peacefully gave up power in many countries. Some are doing well, but many are not.
I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic. The example of France is where they over three their own government. This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas. Apples and oranges.
Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled. Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.
I meant the October Revolution! :-)
And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)
And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.
I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation. Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.
My point was that the very possibility of a peaceful transition indicates the monarchy has already evolved from previous authoritarianism.
Quote
Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power.
Yes and no. When small colonies leave, they are typically still much less powerful than the country they separate from. It is not so much that the power is waning, but that the understanding of what is , and is not, an
appropriate exercise of that power has changed.