Ifeel like your assessment might be a little unfair
I wholeheartedly disagree. If anything, I’m being too lenient on the ultraleech and his enablers.
He gave a speech to congress and hilighted a lot of ways in which republicans are undermining democracy
While that’s absolutely true, that rings EXTREMELY hollow coming from the head of the richest example of the most antidemocratic relic of the past.
Monarchy even existing inherently undermines democracy.
In that speech, literally in the lions den, he was more critical of Trumpism than any world leader has been in recent months
Even if that was true (and I very much doubt it), it would still smack of hypocrisy coming from an ACTUAL king that personally owns more of the world’s real estate than any other human and shielded his child abusing brother for decades before finally relenting to public pressure with the utmost reluctance.
yet he has no control
Officially, he has very little control and a gentleman’s agreement not to use whatever institutional power he DOES have unless absolutely necessary, sure.
In reality, though, he can and will break that agreement and exceed that authority whenever he feels like it and the worst that’ll happen to him is being criticized by some of the press for a while.
a monarch in a modern democracy.
Is a contradiction of terms if I ever saw one.
Hell, the UK “democracy” isn’t even that modern BESIDES him and his immediate family: ever hear of a little thing called the House of Lords?
The silly hat is silly, but traditional garb always is.
It’s far past time to abandon tradition for tradition’s sake.
It’s just peer pressure from dead people, and in the case of the UK monarchy, it’s wasting billions in public resources.
Meanwhile, regular people in the UK are increasingly impoverished and suffering under draconian austerity policies.
If it’s done well, the evolution of the British House of Lords is actually really promising.
It seems to be becoming a “House of Experts”. IMO elections result in a people of a certain personality type winning. There are a lot of people who would make excellent legislators who wouldn’t win that kind of popularity contest. There are also a lot of decisions that are unpopular in the short term (1 election cycle) but critical in the long term. If all legislators are facing re-election every 2-5 years it’s hard for them to pass those critical laws.
While that’s DEFINITELY an important step in the right direction well worth celebrating, they’re still unelected elites who get a say on the laws of the land.
Its never time to abandon tradition just for the sake of it. That’s how you lose history.
Retire it for good reason, or repurpose it for the betterment of all. Tradition is a symbol and a pillar of community.
Even the British monarchy has a place in the modern world. Banishing it to the shadow realm just because it’s out of date is not the right call. There are plenty of other options that doesn’t just throw out the baby with the bath water.
Its never time to abandon tradition just for the sake of it. That’s how you lose history.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.
I’m saying to keep traditions that have meaning to us beyond merely being tradition and stop wasting time, effort, and resources on the rest.
Retire it for good reason, or repurpose it for the betterment of all.
Agreed 100%
Tradition is a symbol and a pillar of community.
Though often not in a positive sense.
Even the British monarchy has a place in the modern world
100% disagree.
Banishing it to the shadow realm just because it’s out of date is not the right call
It’s not just because it’s out of date. It’s akso because it’s a gigantic waste of public resources and otherwise an inherently abusive exemplar of immense unearned privilege.
There are plenty of other options that doesn’t just throw out the baby with the bath water.
Bad choice of analogy. If the monarchy fits at all, it’s the filthy and cold bath water that’s no longer of use and is currently giving the baby, society, hypothermia.
king that personally owns more of the world’s real estate than any other human
Pure hysterics. He isn’t even the biggest landowner in the UK. He personally owns 46,000 hectares, while Anders Holch Povlsen owns 89,000.
shielded his child abusing brother for decades before finally relenting to public pressure with the utmost reluctance.
How did he “shield” him for decades? Charles has always resented Andrew and got rid of him as soon as he became King. Certainly without reluctance and probably with a spring in his step.
he can and will break that agreement and exceed that authority whenever he feels like it and the worst that’ll happen to him is being criticized by some of the press for a while.
As Parliament has proven in the past they can make a King suffer for thinking about exceeding constitutional boundaries.
ever hear of a little thing called the House of Lords
Which is an upper house mainly appointed by governments. It’s democratic, but not the form of democracy some people want.
in the case of the UK monarchy, it’s wasting billions in public resources.
Citation needed. The British monarchy (at £85m annual cost) is significantly cheaper than the French Presidency (£94m, excl. lifetime pension) for example.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If anything, I’m being too lenient on the ultraleech and his enablers.
While that’s absolutely true, that rings EXTREMELY hollow coming from the head of the richest example of the most antidemocratic relic of the past.
Monarchy even existing inherently undermines democracy.
Even if that was true (and I very much doubt it), it would still smack of hypocrisy coming from an ACTUAL king that personally owns more of the world’s real estate than any other human and shielded his child abusing brother for decades before finally relenting to public pressure with the utmost reluctance.
Officially, he has very little control and a gentleman’s agreement not to use whatever institutional power he DOES have unless absolutely necessary, sure.
In reality, though, he can and will break that agreement and exceed that authority whenever he feels like it and the worst that’ll happen to him is being criticized by some of the press for a while.
Is a contradiction of terms if I ever saw one.
Hell, the UK “democracy” isn’t even that modern BESIDES him and his immediate family: ever hear of a little thing called the House of Lords?
It’s far past time to abandon tradition for tradition’s sake.
It’s just peer pressure from dead people, and in the case of the UK monarchy, it’s wasting billions in public resources.
Meanwhile, regular people in the UK are increasingly impoverished and suffering under draconian austerity policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_(Hereditary_Peers)_Act_2026
They lost their hereditary status yesterday 🥳
If it’s done well, the evolution of the British House of Lords is actually really promising.
It seems to be becoming a “House of Experts”. IMO elections result in a people of a certain personality type winning. There are a lot of people who would make excellent legislators who wouldn’t win that kind of popularity contest. There are also a lot of decisions that are unpopular in the short term (1 election cycle) but critical in the long term. If all legislators are facing re-election every 2-5 years it’s hard for them to pass those critical laws.
While that’s DEFINITELY an important step in the right direction well worth celebrating, they’re still unelected elites who get a say on the laws of the land.
Oh hell yeah
Its never time to abandon tradition just for the sake of it. That’s how you lose history.
Retire it for good reason, or repurpose it for the betterment of all. Tradition is a symbol and a pillar of community.
Even the British monarchy has a place in the modern world. Banishing it to the shadow realm just because it’s out of date is not the right call. There are plenty of other options that doesn’t just throw out the baby with the bath water.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.
I’m saying to keep traditions that have meaning to us beyond merely being tradition and stop wasting time, effort, and resources on the rest.
Agreed 100%
Though often not in a positive sense.
100% disagree.
It’s not just because it’s out of date. It’s akso because it’s a gigantic waste of public resources and otherwise an inherently abusive exemplar of immense unearned privilege.
Bad choice of analogy. If the monarchy fits at all, it’s the filthy and cold bath water that’s no longer of use and is currently giving the baby, society, hypothermia.
Pure hysterics. He isn’t even the biggest landowner in the UK. He personally owns 46,000 hectares, while Anders Holch Povlsen owns 89,000.
How did he “shield” him for decades? Charles has always resented Andrew and got rid of him as soon as he became King. Certainly without reluctance and probably with a spring in his step.
As Parliament has proven in the past they can make a King suffer for thinking about exceeding constitutional boundaries.
Which is an upper house mainly appointed by governments. It’s democratic, but not the form of democracy some people want.
Citation needed. The British monarchy (at £85m annual cost) is significantly cheaper than the French Presidency (£94m, excl. lifetime pension) for example.