The Monarchy

[Radical]

I dont think I need to even begin to explain how wrong Monarchy is.

In your opinion, what messures do you think we as Leftists need to take to "end" the Monarchy.

Would you advocate Armed Stuggle as a means to take down the Monarchy in Britan?

Discuss

[graffic]

There is no need. The monarchy powers have been slowly eroded over the past 20 years.

Gordon Brown wants to go further and grant the right of the house of commons to declare war by it's own means. All the queen does now is give a diplomatic nod to the prime ministers decision.

She has no power. If she wanted to use her powers then the government would take tougher action on reform because the monarchy knows most of the electorate think they are illegitimate.

So the monarchy exists but it no longer serves a relevant purpose other than traditional convention and tradition. The only reason the monarchy has not been totally abolished is because of the conservatives who believe in gradual change.

[Radical]

There is no need. The monarchy powers have been slowly eroded over the past 20 years.

Gordon Brown wants to go further and grant the right of the house of commons to declare war by it's own means. All the queen does now is give a diplomatic nod to the prime ministers decision.

She has no power. If she wanted to use her powers then the government would take tougher action on reform because the monarchy knows most of the electorate think they are illegitimate.

So the monarchy exists but it no longer serves a relevant purpose other than traditional convention and tradition. The only reason the monarchy has not been totally abolished is because of the conservatives who believe in gradual change.

The Queen still has superior power to anybody else. And shes born into that superior power = wrong.

[bellyscratch]

There's a thread about the Queen here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-queen-t105593/index.html?

My personal view is that the monarchy have more power than people realise, but people are fooled in to believing that they do not have much power because they don't see them using it. However they do have more power than the average citizen and could potentially be quite dangerous. They own a lot of land and have strong ties with the military as well as other powerful people. If threatened, they could well use their power.

I don't think that there is going to be a strong movement against the monarchy any time in the near future, and they will only be taken down if there is a mass revolutionary anti-capitalist movement.

Also, this is an interesting article showing what potential power the Monarchy does have
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm)

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I'm not British and I don't live there so I probably don't have a great perspective on the subject--she the Queen is a nice tourist attraction, she and all her "stuff" and traditions and all of that are real interesting to watch and there are lots of people that like the Drama of it all. The monarch makes people's lives interesting--and there's nothing wrong with that. In a sense they are no different than movie stars or other celebraties.

The problem come in when some lady because of being born in a particular time and place into a particular family gets to rule over you. They can tell you what to do--and I find that notion vastly absurd.

[Kronos]

The problem come in when some lady because of being born in a particular time and place into a particular family gets to rule over you. They can tell you what to do--and I find that notion vastly absurd.

But there are many people in society who "rule over you" who do not have that power because of bloodline or inheritance, so that isn't the problem. Nor is the fact that there are "rulers" a problem, either, since government and legislation will always compose a legal system where authority is held by those who have executive power.

The problem is this: that in a monarchy one is given power without any merit, and that they acquire mass amounts of wealth which they do not work for.

Like capitalists, monarchs are parasites.

[Bud Struggle]

Like capitalists, monarchs are parasites.

But there are a lot of Capitalists that DO work. A lot don't, I'll grant you that, but a lot do. Also, (if you're British for example) you can't escape from being ruled by a Monarch. You are born a "subject." On the other hand no one forces you to work for anyone in particular--or anyone at all in Capitalism. I myself found it uncomfortable to work for other people--so I chose not to. You have a choice in Capitalism--and that isn't a bad thing.

[trivas7]

I myself found it uncomfortable to work for other people--so I chose not to. You have a choice in Capitalism--and that isn't a bad thing.
Nope, for most of us choice is an illusion.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, for most of us choice is an illusion.

True, but as long as they are fed enough have their iPods and their plasma TVs, their American Idol and Football games most people are quite happy with the illusion. And the ones that aren't happy with the illusion--for them it isn't an illusion, they can have their choices.

That's the beauty of the system.

[und]

But there are a lot of Capitalists that DO work. A lot don't, I'll grant you that, but a lot do. Also, (if you're British for example) you can't escape from being ruled by a Monarch. You are born a "subject." On the other hand no one forces you to work for anyone in particular--or anyone at all in Capitalism. I myself found it uncomfortable to work for other people--so I chose not to. You have a choice in Capitalism--and that isn't a bad thing.
ALL capitalists, be definition, exploit the working class, so the fact that they work themselves is no excuse.

In response to your second point, people are definitely forced to work for capitalists. It's either work or die from starvation (in "less economically developed" countries of course).

[und]

True, but as long as they are fed enough have their iPods and their plasma TVs, their American Idol and Football games most people are quite happy with the illusion. And the ones that aren't happy with the illusion--for them it isn't an illusion, they can have their choices.

That's the beauty of the system.
If you could have one can of coke instead of zero, you might be happy with that. But if you knew you could be getting two but were only receiving one would you still be happy?

[Bud Struggle]

If you could have one can of coke instead of zero, you might be happy with that. But if you knew you could be getting two but were only receiving one would you still be happy?

I think most people are happy with what they have. I think the Capitalists would be the Revolutionaries if they weren't allowed to be Capitalists.

(I am discussion America here--I have no doubt that America is exploiting other places in the world and that those people living there have no choices.)

[und]

I think most people are happy with what they have. I think the Capitalists would be the Revolutionaries if they weren't allowed to be Capitalists.

(I am discussion America here--I have no doubt that America is exploiting other places in the world and that those people living there have no choices.)
But if they knew that if their entitlement wasn't going to a greedy capitalist pig sitting at his desk they would be getting more, then I doubt they'd be happy with what they have.

[Radical]

The point I'm trying to make is this.

Its completly irrelivent that the Queen is a tourist attraction. I wouldent care if the Monarchy brought in £99999999999999999 billion. I still wouldent advocate it.

The point is, The queen is born into having superior power to everybody else = Wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

The point I'm trying to make is this.

Its completly irrelivent that the Queen is a tourist attraction. I wouldent care if the Monarchy brought in £99999999999999999 billion. I still wouldent advocate it.

The point is, The queen is born into having superior power to everybody else = Wrong.

Fair enough for me. Your country--you call the rules.

[Robert]

The queen is born into having superior power to everybody else = Wrong. What real power does the queen have? Specifically? Answer: None.

I am sure the UK government has made a study of whether the tourism that having the monarchy generates offsets the cost of keeping the lights on at Windsor Palace. The Brits here should know this. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/49476

Personally, I think if the Windsors were smart, they'd do a lot more to make that palace accesible to public use and get rid of some of the preposterous jobs like "Deputy Train Bearer" and, I guess, the queen's personal attendants. Make her teach school or cook or something in exchange for keeping the crown. The way they've been living, they're just asking for trouble.

Here is an opinion of what I suspect is the opinion of her majesty's more normal subjects:


The Queen's power is primarily honorary. She or any reigning monarch, cannot enter the House of Commons, Parliament, unless she is invited as a guest. Prime Ministers often seek the Queen's advice and they must go to her when they wish to dissolve Parliament. One of the reasons for the distinction is that the Queen is the titular head of the Church of England., and a definite separation of church and state is maintained.
The Queen and other monarchs before her are always kept up to date on political issues.
I tend to be a monarchist. I see the monarchy in Great Britain as the solid enduring base on which Britain and what's left of the commonwealth can stand and survive. In times of great turmoil, the politicians can make the tough decisions with quiet diplomacy with the monarch, but the monarch is called upon to show the grounded strength that is Great Britain and, by doing so, to ease the fears of the people.
Is it worth the stipend paid to the monarch? You bet.
I am sure others would disagree. But I see how hard the Royal Family works for charities, etc., and I wouldn't want to work that much.
Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy. It is not the kind of monarchy where the reigning king or queen is the government.
Given today's politics...is a Republic really better? Government in Great Britain continues to work quite well with it's Parliament and Monarch.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070831233421AAZx5JC

I don't know about all that charity work he describes.

[und]

What real power does the queen have? Specifically? Answer: None.
Money=Power, and I'm sure you'd agree that she's born into money.

[apathy maybe]

What real power does the queen have? Specifically? Answer: None.

(Ignoring the whole "money" thing already mentioned.)

The Monarchy in Britain only survives because it hasn't pissed off the House of Commons too much. While, theoretically, the queen has a lot of power, in reality, if she tried to do anything, out the door with her!

"The power of Parliament grew slowly, fluctuating as the strength of the monarchy grew or declined." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
Gradually, slowly, but surely, the House of Commons reduced the power of the House of Lords (see the article for more details). All the while, the Parliament has reduced the power of the Monarchy.

It is now the case, that the House of Commons is the only body which has any real political power in England (and, ignoring the devolved parliaments, in the UK).

[NewWorldTimmy]

I think a really rushed abolition of the monarchy is a bad idea. I think it should be done quickly but not violently. While Capitalism remains in the UK the monarchy will be phased out if it is removed at all

[graffic]

The way they've been living, they're just asking for trouble.

And they do... The tabloid press hammer them and they get ridiculed in much of the comedy on TV.

Princess Diana died in a car crash in a tunnel whilst she was being trailed by an army of paparazzi camera guys. It's doubtful she would have been driving in that manner on that route if she was not constantly pursued by the press.

But then most royals live in castles and never work so it's fair enough

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

To be absolutely fair the many in the royal family do actually function as ambassadors and diplomats for the british government. Not to mention the ones in the military and the others who have actual jobs admittedly not enough of them work for enough of the time to pay for half the shit the British public have simply given them but it's not all loafers and crumpets before a trip to the east library for a quick browse of Latin poetry.

Graffic I'm astounded by what I can only assume was unfortunate phrasing. Diana wasn't driving at all. Her (or her boyfriend's I cannot recall) bodyguard/driver was.

Ahh I see I advocate a more Lenin and the Cheka guard approach to royalty having removed the ruler you remove the royal family cleanly from public view and when you're sure you don't need a bargaining chip you execute the lot to remove them as a rallying point for counter-revolution.

[Old Man Diogenes]

The Queen still has superior power to anybody else. And shes born into that superior power = wrong.

Comrade, I could not agree more.

[Il Medico]

God save the queen! If you get rid of her, what pointless figure head will I be able to make jokes about that include the term, Heelllllllllllllllooooooooo! ?? No monarchs that are left have any real power, they are just the there as a remnant of their rule long ago. For example there is a priest I know who's family used to be royalty in Germany, now he is a poor preist living in Florida. As long as there is a class system, capitalist will want to say to the people "here are your betters". So in that sense there will be a few kings and queens until the revolution. The capitalist won't allow them any real power though, they learned from the nobels what that leads to.