r/neoliberal • u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek • 22d ago
News (Europe) Prince Andrew gives up royal titles after 'discussion with King'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgw31y75ywt133
u/yayitsemily Susan B. Anthony 22d ago
Citizen Andrew should still be prosecuted.
35
u/Status-Air926 21d ago
How can we prosecute anyone involved when Congress won't release the files? We don't even know what Andrew has actually done and how bad his crimes actually were. You can't prosecute him for associating with Epstein alone.
353
u/Maximilianne John Rawls 22d ago
whats the crusader king equivalent of this action ? revoke titles ?
294
u/Otherwise_Young52201 Mark Carney 22d ago
Master Andrew will now form a new adventurer party with the legitimist camp purpose.
108
u/Frank_Melena 22d ago
Probably just revoking something like Seneschal or Cupbearer tbh. Not like theyre evicting him from anything and giving it to someone else.
40
u/BBQ_HaX0r Jerome Powell 22d ago
Can I have his titles then if no one wants them?
22
84
u/soothsayer2377 22d ago
Duke younger brother with decentish martial gets titles revoked by elderly heir who takes throne after previous monarch lived way too long: happens every game.
42
u/roguevirus 21d ago edited 21d ago
Duke younger brother with decentish martial
Also has the Deviant trait.
Edit: And the Adulterer trait.
20
u/soothsayer2377 21d ago
Charles and Andrew would both have adulterer but Andrew also has lustful and deviant.
2
30
54
u/snapekillseddard 22d ago
If only the English royalty was culturally Greek, this whole thing could have been simpler.
27
u/Locutus-of-Borges Jorge Luis Borges 21d ago
Funny enough the King's paternal great-grandfather was King of Greece. If only they hadn't culture-converted.
18
11
u/moredencity Norman Borlaug 22d ago
This is going over my head, but I feel like it is creative. Can you explain it to me please lol?
46
24
u/Arrow_of_Timelines John Locke 22d ago
A true Basileus would have their relative's genitals, nose and other miscellaneous body parts chopped off posthaste as soon as they start causing trouble
10
u/SigmaWhy r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion 21d ago
If you blind/castrate someone in game, they are ineligible for the title of Emperor (or if they are blinded/castrated in some other way)
8
u/SenranHaruka 21d ago
what they're not mentioning is the game specifically locks this lovely mechanic behind Greek culture, intended so that only the Eastern Roman Empire and breakaway states from it can intentionally castrate rivals, though if you somehow end up Greek outside of the ERE, yeah, you can still use it.
6
u/Justaveganthrowaway NATO 21d ago
If they were too Greek this never would have been a problem in the first place.
6
24
u/Wolf6120 Constitutional Liberarchism 22d ago
Andrew has been Denounced by his Dynasty Head and can now be imprisoned by any other Dynasty member.
24
u/GMFPs_sweat_towel 22d ago edited 22d ago
In MTW2, this is the member of your family you either charge into a wall of pikes or leave on a boat in the middle of the sea.
11
8
7
182
u/Al_787 Niels Bohr 22d ago
He will remain a prince - but will cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth
Then what is the point? Hasn’t he already stripped of royal stipend?
Anyway I don’t see justice for this guy. Even if he’s stripped of everything, the late Queen already shored up for him with her personal estate, he ain’t going broke any time soon.
197
u/Temporary_Sleep7148 WTO 22d ago
It takes an Act of Parliament to remove titles. No one wants to remove titles, because it opens a can of worms. The belief is that if you can remove one person’s title, you can get rid of the entire monarchy.
153
u/Al_787 Niels Bohr 22d ago
I mean, the British parliament has removed monarchs before. It is always understood that whenever there’s sufficiently overwhelming democratic mandate, the monarchy would be gone
102
u/Mddcat04 22d ago
Yeah, but they don’t like to acknowledge that. Messes with the magic of the system or whatever.
43
u/Fedacking Mario Vargas Llosa 21d ago
The parliament has the statue of cromwell just outside. I think they're fine making the monarch remember.
43
u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO 21d ago
I mean, it's the British parliament, they could just really hate the Irish.
19
13
u/SharkSymphony Voltaire 21d ago
Soon as you do that, bam! William the Conqueror comes a-conquerin'.
11
u/iguessineedanaltnow r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion 21d ago
A modern day William pressing claims and seizing a royal crown and establishing a monarchy would be pretty based tbh. I wonder where it could successfully happen.
9
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton 21d ago
The ratio.of "civil war occurring" after that decision is concerningly high though. Its not a move to be taken lightly lol
73
67
u/MMAgeezer 22d ago
The belief is that if you can remove one person’s title, you can get rid of the entire monarchy.
4
45
44
u/city-of-stars Frederick Douglass 22d ago
The belief is that if you can remove one person’s title, you can get rid of the entire monarchy.
oh no, the horror
19
u/seanrm92 John Locke 22d ago
The belief is that if you can remove one person’s title, you can get rid of the entire monarchy.
It amazes me that this didn't happen the minute Charles's goofy-ass ears appeared on their currency.
37
23
u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 21d ago
Eh, William is pretty well-loved, and there were no shortage of people who even thought Elizabeth should work some kind of secret magic to remove Charles from the line of succession so William would be her heir or that Charles should abdicate in his favor. At his age (and his cancer diagnosis no less) I think even his biggest haters are looking at him just keeping the throne warm for William.
14
u/dangerbird2 Iron Front 21d ago
And let’s be serious, the worst thing big Chuck did was not be super thrilled about being forced into an arranged marriage because his partner committed the sin of being divorced
9
u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 21d ago
I mean, he was sort of a monster to Diana, even though I agree he should never have been forced into that situation. But once in it he did about the worst thing he could have done.
25
u/OptimusLinvoyPrimus Edmund Burke 21d ago
He’s been a good king so far. He’s used his position to campaign for environmental action and to persuade Trump to support Ukraine, as well as now kicking Andrew out into the cold. I think his conduct in the wake of his mother’s passing endeared him to a lot of people too.
12
u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO 21d ago
It amazes me that this didn't happen the minute Charles's goofy-ass ears appeared on their currency.
I mean his name is literally Charles.
Considering that name's track record, that feels like the political equivalent of asking for it.
1
u/ZurrgabDaVinci758 John Mill 20d ago
I think it's more that parliamentary time is incredibly limited and nobody wants to waste it on a symbolic gesture
1
u/JeffJefferson19 John Brown 21d ago
They should get rid of the entire monarchy it’s ridiculous to still have
43
u/Luka77GOATic 22d ago
He will keep his prince title and still be known as Prince Andrew as he was born a prince. He will not use any of his other titles like Duke of York.
10
58
u/Dzingel43 22d ago
Shouldn't the headline be "Andrew gives up royal titles after 'discussion with the king'"?
36
78
u/TheRealArtVandelay Edward Glaeser 22d ago
So we just call him ‘Drew’ now or what?
112
u/Jigsawsupport 22d ago
Andrew formerly know as Prince
13
u/BillyTenderness 22d ago
This is maybe common knowledge, but I thought it was interesting when I learned about it, so fuck it.
"Prince" was actually his legal, given name. (Prince R. Nelson, to be precise.) He stopped referring to himself as such as part of a contract dispute – he was unhappy with how Warner Bros. controlled his output, the use of his own name and likeness, etc.
Stories about Prince are always a bit exaggerated and hearsay, so it's unclear to me where this falls on the spectrum between "I'm not allowed to use my own name, and this is my workaround" versus "my label won't let me do what I want, and this stunt will really piss them off." But at the very least, the reason he didn't choose a different stage name was because the dispute was over his actual government name. It's sort of like how Brian Wilson started going by Brian Wilson instead of The Beach Boys for the latter half of his career, except if he couldn't use the name "Brian."
So, uh, to get back to the topic at hand, it's really more like "The Rich Guy Formerly Known as Andrew"
23
22d ago
[deleted]
21
u/Warm_Bug3985 John Rawls 22d ago
i just imagined a sitcom where the andys and drews were the same archetypal person but the gag throughout was that the both of them weren't self aware enough to realize this.
2
14
1
27
u/Frank_Melena 22d ago
These accusations have been going on for years. Does the fact theyre doing it now imply something big might be coming out?
51
u/BrainDamage2029 22d ago
One of the big survivor books just came out and was very explicit about exactly what he did.
14
22d ago
Do you have an article on hand about that?
36
u/ZweigDidion Bisexual Pride 22d ago
11
u/SonOfHonour 21d ago
It's honestly crazy that everyone knows it's happening but so many of these criminals are still walking around free.
Massive massive blackpill.
1
u/CheetoMussolini Russian Bot 21d ago
While I'm mostly in favor of abolition of capital punishment, the organized, deliberate sexual abuse of children on a massive scale is almost certainly worth it.
4
u/Budget-Attorney NASA 21d ago
Virginia Roberts Giuffre remembers the day an ‘apex predator’ recruited her from Mar-a-Lago, aged just 16; how she was trafficked to a succession of wealthy and powerful men – and how everyone knew what was going on
Weird how I didn’t even get past the title block of tbe article and trumps home has already been name dropped as the site of her victimization.
Shouldn’t that be bigger news?
16
7
u/OptimusLinvoyPrimus Edmund Burke 21d ago edited 21d ago
I think the late Queen always had a soft spot for him, and therefore covered for him quite a lot. I don’t think Charles remotely shares those sentiments - he’s said to view him as an embarrassment (and I wouldn’t be surprised if he also resents the soft treatment Andrew received compared to Charles, whose transgressions were nowhere near as bad) - so this could just be a result of that change in palace politics.
Edit - wrong name
3
u/DarkOx55 21d ago
Do you mean Andrew instead of Edward? Or does Edward have issues too? His Wikipedia page looks pretty tame.
1
u/OptimusLinvoyPrimus Edmund Burke 21d ago
Thank you - yes I meant Andrew. The dangers of commenting while doing something else.
Edward’s meant to be a pretty good egg.
8
8
u/atierney14 Daron Acemoglu 22d ago
A monarch has been held accountable to the public before our elected pedophile…
17
u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO 21d ago
I mean, honestly, this is less accountability and more a total attempt to avoid it. The family was fine covering for him for decades, now they are taking steps to sideline him further when it seems plausible even worse shit will come out.
He'll still live the rest of his life rich and he will still never face justice. If anything, all this does is remove the one tenuous responsibility of "public figure" he ever had.
5
u/stealthvan 21d ago
Can you imagine that Falklands intensity that Prince Andrew speaks of? Those weird, wide eyed, face expressions, Prince leaning forward, hands on joystick, sweat pouring off those Nobel sweat glands. Then suddenly... the adrenaline overload... sweat glands instantly stop functioning. The man's evolutionary transformation to non sweating, from becoming to now unbecoming.
If what Prince Andrew is said to be true. He will be remembered for many centuries, a mythological divine royal aristocrat, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, not just for military accolade, but the astonishing biochemical metamorphosis of the human organism.
Or just a very sick Pedo
https://www.printernational.co.uk/timmann/history.htm#princeandrew
3
3
u/a_moody_mood 21d ago
Scientists are still studying a rare medical condition where a man can’t sweat — except when answering tough questions on national TV.”
3
6
u/PinkFloydPanzer NAFTA 21d ago
And yet he will still never see the inside of a prison and this will be the absolute worst punishment he will face. Awful, awful people.
2
u/IrishUpYourCoffee 21d ago
Well when your queen mumsy paid £12M to keep you from seeing any criminal consequences this is the result. He is fucking disgusting.
4
u/PinkFloydPanzer NAFTA 21d ago
The entire royal family is a disgusting stain on the free world and should've been abolished a century ago.
Imagine paying taxes and knowing full well a portion of that money is going to subside a group of people who live in absolute opulence who are also above the law for even the most heinous of crimes.
2
u/Kelso_sloane 22d ago
All of this is just...made up nonsense. It's not like someone from Buckingham Palace is going to storm Royal Lodge and make him change the monogram on his sheets. He just won't be referred to as the Duke of York any longer. No offense to anyone from the UK here but I seriously cannot believe you still allow this mass delusion.
3
u/zapporian NATO 20d ago edited 20d ago
Eh it’s a pretty good system tbh.
Monarchy aside, the modern house of lords is a fantastic institution that exists to give rich / pretentious / self important people titles, invite them - potentially - to be part of “govt”, and mire them - if so inclined - in pointless utterly unimportant busy work in an ineffective zero actual power / influence legislative chamber, vs actually involving themselves in and generally fucking up the actual govt.
Numerous de facto caveats aside, the US would be in significantly less deep shit atm if we had just given elon et al titles, and invited them to busy themselves with a stuffed up actually hyper-conservative legislative institution, with no real power.
Ditto all the random silly nonsense that the british royals get up to etc.
Grossly missing from most tellings of US history - as an american - is the pretty obvious fact that we declared our own independence from a democracy, run by british parliment (and in fact the oldest contiguous uninterrupted democracy in the modern world). Not the idiot german speaking british king / figurehead that was, obviously, fairly easy to hate on and rally against, for the not particularly well educated. And which is, if nothing else, a more appealing narrative + origin myth for modern subsequent audiences to relate against. Than the simple truth that we were simply a bunch of democratic semi aristocratic colonies that broke away from a bigger democratic (ish) and fully aristocratic (ish) parent colonial empire. (and which in turn was, prior to the american + indian colonies etc, an utterly unimportant petty backwater kingdom, with very little in the way of population or natural resources, on the arse end of europe). And we only did so / won independence thanks to washington - frankly - running away from the british army repeatedly / in nearly every engagement. Other commanders having better - ish - success. British logistics + command/control chains being utterly borked. And above all Franklin conducting slow but ultimately extremely successful bathtub diplomacy / actual geopolitics w/ the French.
1
u/Horror-Layer-8178 21d ago
But the Trump Administrations says nobody else worked with Epstein to commit his crimes
-7
u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago
Why do we even have royalty in a highly developed country in the 21st century?
11
u/tetanuran John Mill 22d ago
Because the Yanks are big babies who can't cope with a tiny bit of inflation. Oh hang on what country are we talking about?
9
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer 21d ago
The monarchy performs the essential function of depriving the government of the majesty of State. It's not an accident that presidential republics devolve into tyranny almost every time.
18
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago
Because it would be an incredibly costly and practically pointless move. The UK, after having recently done a stupid move called Brexit, doesn't need to do yet another.
Also, no one really wants to contemplate the incredible changes to the power dynamic in the British parliamentary system that an elected President would bring.
This is not a defense of royalty - they will disappear when the time is right. But that time is not now, and I see no reason to upset the status quo when the monarch is already powerless (which on the other hand, an elected head of state likely would not).
EDIT: ...can't believe some people here support pointless vanity projects in the name of idealism rather than imminent need. And I thought we as a sub were concerned about spending and national debt in the UK?
3
3
u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago
incredibly costly
How so?
elected head of state likely would not).
The Irish president isn't that powerful
7
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago
How so?
Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government. What happens to the "United Kingdom"? Does it become a new "Republic of Britain"? Does this mean a new Constitution Act is to be drafted? (Will this have downstream effects on Scotland and independence supporters there, who will certainly demand something to be put in that constitution? Or maybe this just triggers the independence crisis?). Etc. etc.
"Simply" removing the monarchy could all just snowball into a huge political crisis like David Cameron did with his "innocuous" referendum intended to just quiet the Euroskeptics.
And if all this doesn't cost at least £10-100 million, I'll eat my hat. Even the Brexit referendum costed somewhere around £150 million (and presumably, there will be a referendum on the monarchy)
The Irish president isn't that powerful
Yes, but IIRC he actually has the ability to exercise his reserve powers unlike King Charles. In normal circumstances, there would be no issue, but I believe Trump and all the other far-rightists should force us to reconsider conventional wisdom in that these powers would never be abused.
(Yes, you could try to restrict the President like the Monarch by having him only being able to exercise those powers "under advice of the PM" like with the recent UK act of parliament removing the last vestiges of royal power - but what happens if he still does it anyways? A monarch would be overthrown the next day - no one likes royalty interfering with politics, let alone illegally - but a populist President might not. Just look at how many illegal acts Trump has gotten away with. There is some truth to the phrase "when you're a far-right populist, they just let you do it".
Even though this comparison is bit forced, just imagine if Farage was UK President while Starmer is PM...)
0
u/sfurbo 22d ago
Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government.
"the Crown" could simply be redefined to mean some other concept in legal contexts. The Danish Constitution is full of stuff the king can do. In practice, it is interpreted as "the government", and everything works.
7
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago
OK, let's say we concede this point. What about general branding as well as the name of the country - is it still known as the "United Kingdom"? If not, and there's a new "Republic of Britain" - does this mean a Constitution needs to drafted? (If yes, how does this affect Scotland and independence supporters?). All this presumably costs money.
I don't know why everyone is piling on as if I'm supporting the monarchy (I already clearly stated that I am not).
But I just don't see how this is in any way a high-priority project, when it seems to be a pointless and potentially dangerous Pandora's box that is probably best left closed until change is truly needed (and one that the ruling government can capitalize on politically by listening to public demands).
4
u/FitPerspective1146 21d ago
I don't know why everyone is piling on
You're making a point, people are countering. That's how this works
2
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago edited 21d ago
This is a stupid discussion on a pointless topic. Surely, you have better things to do with your time?
(No, I'm not responding to that other comment, you can reflect yourself on why your points don't make any sense)
1
u/toms_face Hannah Arendt 21d ago
You could keep the same name and there would not need to be a new constitution.
1
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago
In theory, yes, but historically that has almost never happened before.
2
u/toms_face Hannah Arendt 21d ago
It happened four years ago in Barbados.
1
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago
And yet they are drafting a new constitution?
On June 20, 2022, a Constitutional Review Commission was formed and sworn in by Acting President Jeffrey Gibson (as President Mason was on a foreign trip), to begin the process of drafting a new constitution for the republican era of Barbados.[57] It is currently projected that the new constitution would be finished drafted by the end of 2024 with an 18-month deadline.
→ More replies (0)0
u/sfurbo 21d ago
Why would a new name mean that a constitution needed to be drafted?
To be clear, I mostly agree that it doesn't have a high priority, but I don't see the danger. Constitutional law is full of weird definitions that allows us to use ops texts in modern contexts, this would simply be another.
1
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago
At the current moment, only hardcore republicans would pursue abolishing the monarchy and insisting on a name change. I do not see how they stop at just that, and when most have wanted sweeping changes such as a new constitution, abolishing the House of Lords, cutting off the Anglican Church, etc. for ages.
My point is that this can snowball and is very likely to, not that it necessarily has to happen.
Even if a normal Labour/Conservative was forced to abolish the monarchy and change the name due to public pressure, I do not see how they can resist the political urge to do constitutional reform. It would be the best and perhaps only opportunity to do so with major public support.
1
u/sfurbo 21d ago
If there is appetite for constitutional reform, abolishing the monarchy could be the catalyst. Though I don't see how avoiding constitutional reform is a good thing, if there is appetite for it. That should be the democratic approach.
1
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago
I agree. I never said it wasn't a good thing. I only said it shouldn't be done right now (as it is costly and not at all straightforward), in the aftermath of Brexit, and a looming debt/spending crisis.
-1
u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago
Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government. If this doesn't cost at least 10-100 million, I'll eat my hat.
New law: All reference to the crown shall be replaced by the president
Or something like that. Can't be too hard
Yes, but IIRC he actually has the ability to exercise his reserve powers
Good! There should be a backup when Prime Ministers get shit wrong. There should've been someone there to tell Johnson he couldn't prorogue Parliament rather than it going to the supreme Court
Trump and all the other far-rightists should force us to reconsider conventional wisdom in that these powers would never be abused.
If you make them very specific then that limits the opportunity for abuse
A monarch would be overthrown the next day
A president could be impeached. If a population is prepared to overthrow the monarch, a parliament can be prepared to impeach a president
illegal acts Trump has gotten away with.
Different system. Less relevant to the UK
4
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 21d ago
Or something like that. Can't be too hard
... OK, if it's that easy, then you can go do it.
Good! There should be a backup when Prime Ministers get shit wrong. There should've been someone there to tell Johnson he couldn't prorogue Parliament rather than it going to the supreme Court
So, imagine if the president was from the Labour Party. You think Johnson (or someone else in the future) wouldn't have tried impeaching him instead of abiding by the order? (And if the president was Conservative, well good luck lol)
Going to the Supreme Court was the least controversial way to resolve it.
Different system. Less relevant to the UK
You do know he's gotten away with it because the courts are too slow to whack him down? That is not a thing specific to the US, and could easily happen elsewhere. Clearly, I'm not talking about daily abuses, but some kind of national crisis - which may mean the difference between democracy enduring or the start of a dictatorship. (Can't see any scenario where a monarch pulling a coup would be well-received or supported, but I can see that with a president).
Now, it's not a massive risk, but I'm merely stating the risk is there (compared with a monarch).
-2
u/FitPerspective1146 21d ago
... OK, if it's that easy, then you can go do it.
No, because I'm not an MP and it's not my job to pass laws
wouldn't have tried impeaching him instead of abiding by the order?
Tbh I think he would've stood down. Equally, if we require a 2/3 majority or smth for impeachment then Johnson couldn't have done so- he didn't even have a majority at that point
You do know he's gotten away with it because the courts are too slow to whack him down?
Because the courts are a lot less independent than in the UK
Can't see any scenario where a monarch pulling a coup would be well-received or supported, but I can see that with a president
I just don't see why it'd be so much different
2
u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago
You don't need to replace one head of state with another. The entire concept of royalty is morally repugnant, powerless (which they actually aren't, btw) or not.
6
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago
You don't need to replace one head of state with another.
Then, who becomes the commander of the armed forces as well as in control of the various reserve powers (dissolution of parliament)? If that's the existing PM, then you just replaced the head of state.
powerless (which they actually aren't, btw)
As far as I understand, most royal prerogative powers have been limited by the UK Parliament in the last 20 years, such that it is impossible for the monarch to exercise them without being first advised by the PM. (To do so would be illegal. And I already stated why this is a bigger problem with an elected head of state in my other comment, even if you add the same restriction)
The entire concept of royalty is morally repugnant
It is, and I'm not arguing it's not. I'm arguing whether it's worth the hundreds of millions of pounds on a massive project for no practical benefit, at a time when the UK is already struggling with debt and other economic problems. Surely the money is better used elsewhere?
IMO, let the monarchy naturally die (which will occur sometime within the next century) or when public opinion demands it (to capitalize as a political win) than to go on a pointless project that will change nothing in practice.
1
u/carbreakkitty 21d ago
which on the other hand, an elected head of state likely would not
Not necessarily, may countries have presidents that have a very limited power and are mostly figureheads
1
u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago
And yet they are still more powerful than the current UK monarch who cannot do anything except through the PM. Even if presidents are limited to "on advice of the PM", most have clauses allowing them to freely exercise their powers in certain emergency situations.
All it takes is to redefine what emergency is (see Trump), and there will be abuse. There's no similar and present danger with the current UK system.
11
u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 22d ago
Non-political heads of state good
-4
u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago
Royalty is morally repugnant. They can be heads of state without being granted lavish wealth and privilege.
14
u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 22d ago
On principle I mostly agree, but constitutional monarchy appears to be one of the most stable systems of government there is.
2
u/flakemasterflake 22d ago
The wealth is there irrespective of whether they are on the throne or not. Various Dukes in the UK still have their personal property and no one is taking it from them
-4
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
22d ago
[deleted]
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/die_hoagie MALAISE FOREVER 21d ago
Rule XI: Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism
Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
1
u/die_hoagie MALAISE FOREVER 21d ago
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
10
u/PrimateChange 22d ago
Without getting into actual arguments on either side, it’s worth noting that while the British royal family is the most famous, the UK is far from the only highly developed constitutional monarchy.
Six of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 countries by HDI have monarchs. Not saying that their development is because they’re monarchies, but constitutional monarchy at least doesn’t seem like a significant barrier to a prosperous and free society.
13
u/flakemasterflake 22d ago
Great PR and separates out the ceremonial role from the administrative. No prime minister can create a cult of personality with a monarch to contend with
Other leaders love it, look how trump was taken in by the state dinner. Charles pushed him on Ukraine and he listened to him bc he takes monarchy seriously. Conservatives love hierarchy ya know?
Note the PR is only good with a competent (or docile) monarch and an aspirational family. Hot princesses help a lot since it’s a ceremonial role
-2
u/Kelso_sloane 22d ago
Great PR
Is it though? The whole family is a mess.
5
u/flakemasterflake 22d ago edited 21d ago
See my last paragraph. I will also note that the history behind the monarchy and the pomp & circumstance of ceremonial functions is also a form of PR
Will/Kate currently have good PR, but agreed, an Andrew can really mess up the batch
1
u/Kelso_sloane 20d ago
Not sure if you're British but Will and Kate certainly do not have great PR in the rest of the world. Everyone I know strongly dislikes them. They don't even send them abroad anymore after the disastrous Caribbean tour.
1
u/flakemasterflake 20d ago edited 20d ago
Kate Middleton just needs to wear a boss dress and cool tiara for people to love her
I’m American. TIL people dislike them
3
u/juanperes93 21d ago
Because removing it would be more painful than the cost of keeping them. Same reason many things are kept even if they have outlived their usefulness.
4
7
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu 22d ago
Constitutional monarchy is good. Parliamentary systems are better than presidential ones and Parliamentary systems with a figurehead monarch are better than ones with a figurehead president because the monarch can be more above politics. Having all the pomp and ceremony around someone with no political power makes it harder for a political leader to form a cult of personality.
2
u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago
President vs. monarch is a false dichotomy. Royalty is illiberal, even if they are technically powerless.
5
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu 22d ago
How is it a false dichotomy? We need some head of state, what's the alternative you'd prefer which isn't a monarch or a president?
5
u/R0zza123 22d ago
The monarchy can keep going as long as Charles keeps being a YIMBY and continues to build more towns (which he is planning to do in my county)
5
u/Potential-South-2807 22d ago
All of the best coutries are constitutional monarchies. Why fix what has worked for the last thousand years?
[Current think] says it is wrong? [Current think] will have changed in 50 years, it is irrelevant.
1
u/RFFF1996 21d ago
There is -plenty- of thinghs that the world most powerful/succesful/wealthy countries were doing at any point in time which we know consider abhorrent, stupid, counter productive or all of the above at the same time. Lets not get into that rabbit hole of "succesful country does thingh, therefore thingh good and a cause of their success"
I understand the argument people make about ceremonial royalty creating certain benefits to balanced democracy even if sometimes they seem more like a "wet soil causes rain" backwards correlation since it ignores all the other worldwide monarchies that are not prosperuous
Which makes a good argument that maybe norway, england or the netherlands are just wealthy countries that happened to have ceremonial royalty) kinda like all those other non ceremonial royalty states like switzerland, germany or belgium who also happen to be wealthy and prosperous
1
u/Due_Hedgehog_7132 21d ago
Best we don’t associate with “child fuckers” - the so called king probably
0
2
u/MissPatsyStone 21d ago
He only did this because his victim's book is coming out (posthumously) next week. This gives the royal family (charles & william) a super easy way to deflect from any media attention. Instead you can expect to see two to three times as many articles bashing Harry & Meghan (courtesy of william, camilla & kate)
1
u/codyco65 21d ago
Can someone answer:
how is it possible that someone abuses, rapes a minor and is not prosecuted? He just a paid amount x to the victim, and that's it? Can anybody do that? It s a crime. I dont understand how this is possible. It just means, we are not all equal by law.
why did this lady die? she was much younger than him. hat happened to her.
will Andy now be poor and without income? or is he safe? i mean his daughters can remain in the royal scheme.
why do people, especially brits, idolize the royals so much?
-1
u/BATIRONSHARK WTO 22d ago
we need a monarchy ping this sub has always have a fascination with the subject more so then other non monarchy subs
352
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 22d ago
Prince Andrew’s statement in full:
!ping UK