Monarchy

[Bluegoat]

This came up as an aside in the thread on Christian pacifism, and katy said,

 

I would love if you would start a spin off thread on benefits of monarchy.

 

So - here it is.

 

It's a bit hard to know where to begin with this, so perhaps it would be easiest to give a brief blurb on what I mean by monarchy, as I kow many people have no real experience or sense of how they work. 

 

I'm thinking specifically of modern constitutional monarchy, particularly attached to a Parliamentary system.  This is a system that developed over time, bit by bit, not always smoothly, but as problems arose or ways of thinking changed.  This evolutionary quality I think is one of the reasons it often is a very effective system - elements that seem to be working are kept, while adjustments are made to address needs.  There is no wholesale sweeping away of institutional elements, which can very easily result in important elements being lost, because they are invisible to us and we don't see how they are functioning.  Societies are very complex, and probably impossible to engineer from the ground up.

 

Anyway - in a typical constitutional monarchy, the people are governed by elected officials who sit in Parliament to pass legislation.  In a Westminster system there are two houses, one of which is elected while the other may not be.  The government is headed by a Prime Minister, who may be the leader of the party with the most seats, or in some systems is chosen by the house as a whole.  Typically the party with the most seats forms the government, and the one with the next most seats is the official opposition, but sometimes there can also be coalition governments formed by several parties.  Always, the government rules by consent of the house - if the house as a whole makes a vote of non-confidence, the government will fall.  This is unusual when the government has more than half the seats but not so much when they have fewer.

 

So - as for the role of the monarch in this.  She forms and dissolves Parliament, and she signs all legislation into law.  In times where there are certain procedural questions, the monarch may have to make a decision - for example the case a few years ago in Canada about proroguing Parliment in order to avoid a vote of non-confidence.

 

But the most important part of her role is really that she embodies the state.  In a criminal court, it is so and so vs the Queen.  She holds common lands, and in a sense all land and resources (depending which coutry to some extent.) She gives up, in a real way, many aspects of personal or private citizenship - she cn't vote, for exmple, or even express many political opinions.  She is nonpartisan - her interest is not a particular viewpoint about how to run the government, but the commonweal, the health of the state as a whole.

 

There are a few specific benefits compared to  Republic.  I think the idea that the good of the state, and the state itself, is something beyond partisan concerns is a really important one. I think the ability to identify with the head of state despite political differences is important. I think the fact that the head of the military is non-partisan is important. I think the idea of a commonweal is important.  I think the example of sacrifice of particular interests for the common good is important. 

 

Also - I think that there is a question of how we understand the state to be constituted.  There is a tendency in some Republics to see it as constituted primarily as a legal entity, a kind of contract.  As if all the citizens have contracted to be a society together.  I think that is untrue on the face of it, and I tend to think it leads to particular kinds of social misunderstanding.  In our system, we do not look at a document, we look at a person, and by extension a family - not just the royal family today but all the monarchs through time.  Some were good, and some were bad, and some were strange, and others inspiring.  But what that reflects back to us is that the state, the nation, is a kind of family.  It may include all kinds of people, some better and some worse.  None of us asked to be born into it, or the particular role we find ourselves in.  But what is necessary to live a good life is to treat each other with love and consideration, because that is how a family operates.

 

Anyway - there are other practical aspects of this kind of system, but these are the most important ones to me.  If others have comments or questions, maybe some other thoughts will come out.

 

There are actually a lot more constitutional monarchies than many people realize.  They don't all work identically but there are some common themes.  They include Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Spain, and many others.

[bolt.]

I'm Canadian, and this is familar to me, but some of your descriptions are not consistent with how I think things actually happen.

 

For us, the Queen us very much a name-only role. The idea of monarchy might effect how we think about things (ie feelings of national identity), and how we got to this system -- but it has no practical effect on how our nation is actually run.

 

The "requests" of the Prine Minister are mandatory, and can not legally be refused. The laws passed by Parliment are laws that can not be vetoed by the Monarch just because they bear her name and are signed by her representative. These things are polite fictions and do not contain any true power of decision or obstruction. Literally *no* decisions actually fall under the influence of our titular 'head of state'.

[Laura Corin]

Another practical point: the Queen in the UK carries out a lot of ceremonial  duties, freeing up the politicians' time.  She also helps to avoid the cognitive dissonance where, for example, someone in the US might revere the President as symbol of the country, but disagree vehemently with his policies.  I tend to think of the Queen as a more useful Flag, a flag that can go and cut ribbons at new schools and watch gymnastics displays.....

 

 

[MeaganS]

From a purely economic standpoint, I found this article really interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/04/news/uk-royals-kate-charlotte-economy/

[Tanaqui]

Another practical point: the Queen in the UK carries out a lot of ceremonial  duties, freeing up the politicians' time.  She also helps to avoid the cognitive dissonance where, for example, someone in the US might revere the President as symbol of the country, but disagree vehemently with his policies.  I tend to think of the Queen as a more useful Flag, a flag that can go and cut ribbons at new schools and watch gymnastics displays.....

 

Yes, I can see how it can be handy to separate the head of state from the head of government. A monarchy isn't the only way to handle that, though - you could have two different elected positions, one for the baby kissing and one for the bill signing.

 

[Bluegoat]

I'm Canadian, and this is familar to me, but some of your descriptions are not consistent with how I think things actually happen.

 

For us, the Queen us very much a name-only role. The idea of monarchy might effect how we think about things (ie feelings of national identity), and how we got to this system -- but it has no practical effect on how our nation is actually run.

 

The "requests" of the Prine Minister are mandatory, and can not legally be refused. The laws passed by Parliment are laws that can not be vetoed by the Monarch just because they bear her name and are signed by her representative. These things are polite fictions and do not contain any true power of decision or obstruction. Literally *no* decisions actually fall under the influence of our titular 'head of state'.

 

I'm also Canadian.  I actually used a Canadian example in the OP which suggests that there is in fact a practical element - it was up to the GG to make a decision about whether they could prorogue in order to avoid a non-confidence vote, not the PM.  If it were up to the PM that would have been a pretty significant, and problematic, conflict of interest.

[Bluegoat]

 

 

Yes, I can see how it can be handy to separate the head of state from the head of government. A monarchy isn't the only way to handle that, though - you could have two different elected positions, one for the baby kissing and one for the bill signing.

 

 

But if the baby-kisser were elected, the people who voted for the other guy might not want him kissing their babies.

[Spy Car]

If this family embodies the state, God help you all.

 

Bill

[Laura Corin]

 

 

 

Yes, I can see how it can be handy to separate the head of state from the head of government. A monarchy isn't the only way to handle that, though - you could have two different elected positions, one for the baby kissing and one for the bill signing.

Yes. That is what France has. However if both are partisan politicians, you haven't overcome the cognitive dissonance

[Guest]

I see no real benefit to monarchies that outweigh the expense and drama. But that's just me.

[Haiku]

Having lived in a constitutional monarchy, I am of the opinion that there is no benefit at all to a monarch. It's a huge drain on taxpayer money and supports the idea that some people are more special because of the family they were born into. Imo, it's antithetical to the ideas of equality and opportunity. I see no place for monarchy in a modern world.

Edited November 19, 2015 by TaraTheLiberator

[Bluegoat]

I see no real benefit to monarchies that outweigh the expense and drama. But that's just me.

 

I'm not sure this plays out in practice.  If I want drama in government I tend to think of places like France or Italy or the US.  I don't think about Denmark or Luxembourg or Norway or Canada.  And I don't tend to think about them having particularly expensive governments either.  In the UK, the royal family actually make money for the economy though that is not necessarily usual.

[Bluegoat]

Having lived in a constitutional monarchy, I am of the opinion that there is no benefit at all to a monarch. It's a huge drain on taxpayer money and supports the idea that some people are more special because of the family they were born into. Imo, it's antithetical to the ideas of equality and meritocracy. I see no place for monarchy in a modern world.

 

i have a hard time equating a meritocracy with equality.

 

[Haiku]

i have a hard time equating a meritocracy with equality.

 

 

Meritocracy is the idea that people earn their power in government based on ability. Although I don't live in a country that is a pure meritocracy (or a pure anything, for that matter), where I live we vote for the people we think are best able to lead. I don't find that at odds with equality in any way.

[Laura Corin]

Meritocracy is the idea that people earn their power in government based on ability. Although I don't live in a country that is a pure meritocracy (or a pure anything, for that matter), where I live we vote for the people we think are best able to lead. I don't find that at odds with equality in any way.

But a modern monarchy does not lead. We vote for leaders, and the monarchy does the decorative bits whilst bringing in tourist dollars.

[Violet Crown]

If this family embodies the state, God help you all.

 

Bill

I'd take the Windsors over the Kardashians any day.

[Bluegoat]

Meritocracy is the idea that people earn their power in government based on ability. Although I don't live in a country that is a pure meritocracy (or a pure anything, for that matter), where I live we vote for the people we think are best able to lead. I don't find that at odds with equality in any way.

 

In a meritocracy, the assumption is that the best people end up in positions of wealth and power.  But what does that say about the people who don't end up with wealth and power?  It's on that basis that they are often marginalized both in terms of access to resources and political influence - if they aren't the best sort of people, why should their views be given serious consideration in the political realm?  Are they not responsible for their own failure to do better financially?

 

There are things we can do I think to create a more equal social system, something closer to functional equality, public education up through university or vocational training is a good example. But the fact is that there are many things we have no control over that will affect our place in life, and that nature and nurture will always give us a society where some have more success than others, or where some people are waiters and some are CEOs.  All of those jobs are important ,and the people who are waiters or sales clerks or delivery drivers also need to have fair wages and social benefits.  There is an element, always, of randomness in the lot we draw in life, and yet we need to contribute according to the position we find ourselves in.

 

I don't see any kind of evidence that western republics are doing this in a significantly more effective way that constitutional monarchies.  In fact constitutional monarchies in the west seem to have pretty high standards in terms of things like social programs and opportunities to be involved in the political realm for people from all backgrounds.

[Pam in CT]

I do believe Oprah Winfrey is the closest we get to a monarch, lol.

 

 

I can see the potential value in a unifying symbol, who transcends politics (if the monarch is able actually to pull that off):

 

Another practical point: the Queen in the UK carries out a lot of ceremonial  duties, freeing up the politicians' time.  She also helps to avoid the cognitive dissonance where, for example, someone in the US might revere the President as symbol of the country, but disagree vehemently with his policies.  I tend to think of the Queen as a more useful Flag, a flag that can go and cut ribbons at new schools and watch gymnastics displays.....

When the US President (of either party) throws the first baseball pitch of the season, or attends the funeral of another head of state, or expresses condolences after an overseas earthquake... or any other event in which he is representing the Presidency and the State rather than a particular policy perspective... we (both parties) have IMO a difficult time separating the person from the position.  Many, many Americans (both parties) refuse to stand for a President of the opposing party.

 

An institution that gave us the capacity to separate President (or head of state, whatever the title) from party would I think be healthy for us, though I cannot imagine how (other than Oprah) we could possibly get to such an institution...

 

 

 

 

Yes, I can see how it can be handy to separate the head of state from the head of government. A monarchy isn't the only way to handle that, though - you could have two different elected positions, one for the baby kissing and one for the bill signing.

 

Yes. That is what France has. However if both are partisan politicians, you haven't overcome the cognitive dissonance

 

 

Right.  It has somehow to be structured so that the position transcends politics.  While not democratic (!), birth inheritance accomplishes that...

 

 

[Haiku]

Perhaps I have misused the term meritocracy. What I mean is that people should earn their positions based on their abilities, not based on their family ties.

[Katy]

Perhaps I have misused the term meritocracy. What I mean is that people should earn their positions based on their abilities, not based on their family ties.

 

I agree with you, but many people still find that concept offensive...  people aren't born into equal circumstances and that's not fair!

[Bluegoat]

I do believe Oprah Winfrey is the closest we get to a monarch, lol.

 

 

I can see the potential value in a unifying symbol, who transcends politics (if the monarch is able actually to pull that off):

 

When the US President (of either party) throws the first baseball pitch of the season, or attends the funeral of another head of state, or expresses condolences after an overseas earthquake... or any other event in which he is representing the Presidency and the State rather than a particular policy perspective... we (both parties) have IMO a difficult time separating the person from the position.  Many, many Americans (both parties) refuse to stand for a President of the opposing party.

 

An institution that gave us the capacity to separate President (or head of state, whatever the title) from party would I think be healthy for us, though I cannot imagine how (other than Oprah) we could possibly get to such an institution...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right.  It has somehow to be structured so that the position transcends politics.  While not democratic (!), birth inheritance accomplishes that...

 

I think this is a real barrier in countries with no historic position of that sort - how do you find someone willing to commit to what is essentially ceasing to exist as a private person?  And say their descendants are obliged to do so as well?

 

There are possibilities, but not always as satisfying.

 

[Haiku]

people aren't born into equal circumstances and that's not fair!

 

I completely agree. And we should work to eradicate inequality of opportunity. But regardless, some people will be more capable than others for certain jobs, and that, in itself, is not a bad thing. I believe in equality of opportunity, but we can't force equality of outcome. 

 

Anyway, I believe that my original point has been muddied. I don't think that monarchy has any place in a society where we believe in the equality of people and don't award special status to people based solely on their birth.

Edited November 19, 2015 by TaraTheLiberator

[Ausmumof3]

Perhaps I have misused the term meritocracy. What I mean is that people should earn their positions based on their abilities, not based on their family ties.

The downside I see to this is often simply being born in a wealthy family gives people educational and life skill advantages that mean they will always be best suited to the position. Certain policies targeting discrimination mitigate the effect but don't eliminate it.

 

I feel like no matter how a society is structures inequalities grow over time. It's like a society needs some form of reset button every couple of hundred years.

[Pam in CT]

Yeah, while I do see the cognitive dissonance argument (and can imagine how it might conceivably heal some of our struggles, though I surely can't imagine how we could possibly get there from here even if we wanted to)....

 

...it is hard from an American vantage point to grasp how the unifying-symbol benefit works for Canadians / Australians etc.  Do y'all see the monarchy as a unifying national symbol, or a symbol of a trans-national history, or something else entirely?

 

 

 

(I also think there have been junctures where the Thai, Cambodian and Jordanian monarchies have played a stabilizing face-saving role in tenuous circumstances.  That's a bit different from workaday cognitive dissonance, though.)

[Laura Corin]

 

 

...it is hard from an American vantage point to grasp how the unifying-symbol benefit works for Canadians / Australians etc.  Do y'all see the monarchy as a unifying national symbol, or a symbol of a trans-national history, or something else entirely?

 

 

I think I'd feel very differently about monarchy if I was Canadian or Australian, rather than British.

[Spy Car]

I'd take the Windsors over the Kardashians any day.

 

The difference is the Kardashians aren't the heads of state,

 

Interesting (telling) that the Kardashians were the family you chose to compare with the "Windsors."  :blink:

 

Bill

[Guest]

Also, Britain invented tabloid culture, did they not? It's not as if you have no celebrities with no merit because there's a queen.

[Laura Corin]

If this family embodies the state, God help you all.

 

Bill

 

If this piece of tacky nylon hanging slack from a pole embodies the state, god help you all.

 

It's not the thing itself, it's what it means to people.

[Rosie_0801]

But a modern monarchy does not lead. We vote for leaders, and the monarchy does the decorative bits whilst bringing in tourist dollars.

 

I read that the Queen is very useful for negotiating with the monarchies of the Middle East. Apparently they don't like dealing with Johnnie Come Latelies like Prime Ministers.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Rosie_0801

[Rosie_0801]

I'm fine with the Queen. While she doesn't have any official power here, if politics all went to pot, we could apply to her as head of state and tell her to fix it. Maybe it'll be useful one day to have that backup, from someone who doesn't give a flying fruit tingle what goes on here beyond not having the place implode. Without that, what would happen? Civil war?

 

These would be ponderings, not hand on heart level beliefs.

[abba12]

Shes disolved australian parliment entirely once. I like that backup

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, while I do see the cognitive dissonance argument (and can imagine how it might conceivably heal some of our struggles, though I surely can't imagine how we could possibly get there from here even if we wanted to)....

 

...it is hard from an American vantage point to grasp how the unifying-symbol benefit works for Canadians / Australians etc.  Do y'all see the monarchy as a unifying national symbol, or a symbol of a trans-national history, or something else entirely?

 

 

 

(I also think there have been junctures where the Thai, Cambodian and Jordanian monarchies have played a stabilizing face-saving role in tenuous circumstances.  That's a bit different from workaday cognitive dissonance, though.)

 

 

I would say in Canada it varies, and not necessarily by age group.  Strictly speaking, the our monarch is in fact the Queen of Canada, she also happens to be the Queen of the UK.  There have always been some difficulties between the French and the monarchy here, though it's mixed in odd ways.  Aboriginals tend to be fairly positive to the monarchy, and I think it would be fair to say there is sometimes more positive feeling for the monarchy than the government in that community.

 

Of course we don't actually have the Queen here most of the time so the Governor General fulfills that role.  It is in many ways a somewhat quieter position.  The current GG seems to fit that bill, though the previous one did not.  She was a Haitian by birth and French Canadian.   She endeared herself to the aboriginal community by eating raw seal heart when she was visiting the North.  The one before that was actually called upon to fulfill her political function and make a significant decision about parliamentary procedure.

 

One thing I think that makes a difference here is that we see the American government at work pretty closely, and in general it doesn't excite many as a political option.  Which is not totally fair because that is a very specific form of republicanism, and not one that has been widely copied, so perhaps not the best possible option. 

 

But - it makes it quite difficult to take seriously the idea that republicanism will lead to a more equal society, or more openness to others, or even be more politically expedient, or that it would somehow make the ceremonial aspects of government cheaper.

[Pam in CT]

I would say in Canada it varies, and not necessarily by age group.  Strictly speaking, the our monarch is in fact the Queen of Canada, she also happens to be the Queen of the UK.  There have always been some difficulties between the French and the monarchy here, though it's mixed in odd ways.  Aboriginals tend to be fairly positive to the monarchy, and I think it would be fair to say there is sometimes more positive feeling for the monarchy than the government in that community.

 

Of course we don't actually have the Queen here most of the time so the Governor General fulfills that role.  It is in many ways a somewhat quieter position.  The current GG seems to fit that bill, though the previous one did not.  She was a Haitian by birth and French Canadian.   She endeared herself to the aboriginal community by eating raw seal heart when she was visiting the North.  The one before that was actually called upon to fulfill her political function and make a significant decision about parliamentary procedure.

 

One thing I think that makes a difference here is that we see the American government at work pretty closely, and in general it doesn't excite many as a political option.  Which is not totally fair because that is a very specific form of republicanism, and not one that has been widely copied, so perhaps not the best possible option. 

 

But - it makes it quite difficult to take seriously the idea that republicanism will lead to a more equal society, or more openness to others, or even be more politically expedient, or that it would somehow make the ceremonial aspects of government cheaper.

 

:lol: It'd be a crying shame to let our particular experience scare you off from republicanism generally.  I do think our difficulties mostly stem from how polarized the population currently is, not the mechanics of the system, which is IMO reasonably sound, more or less sane and resilient enough to withstand changing circumstance.  

 

But, yours too.  It's instructive and healthy to have different governance models around the world.  

[Bluegoat]

I completely agree. And we should work to eradicate inequality of opportunity. But regardless, some people will be more capable than others for certain jobs, and that, in itself, is not a bad thing. I believe in equality of opportunity, but we can't force equality of outcome. 

 

Anyway, I believe that my original point has been muddied. I don't think that monarchy has any place in a society where we believe in the equality of people and don't award special status to people based solely on their birth.

 

I don't quite understand how possessing brains is not about the luck of birth just as much as having money, or supportive parents, or owning a family business is.

 

But I think that is perhaps in a way part of the point.  Constitutional monarchy is in part about controlling power and the symbols of power.  When those things are too much together, you can get things like a Putin, or a family political dynasty in a presidency.

 

Do you feel that constitutional monarchies are generally places where there is more inequality than in other systems?

[sewingmama]

I don't mind having a Monarchy. Without them we'd have a lot more trashy celebrities on the front cover of our magazines.

 

Excluding Charles and Camilla ...they are a good looking lot who have adorable babies that we love watching grow up. I'd much rather follow adorable little George in his smocked overalls then blinged out mini adult celebrity baby.

 

I don't think we will dump the Monarchy just yet...not whilst Dianas boy has a chance to be King. I think there is still loyalty there. And then there is little George to come ... yes I'm just a sucker for families who show a bit of class and pop out the worlds most adorable babies. (Princess Mary gets love from me too).

[Bluegoat]

:lol: It'd be a crying shame to let our particular experience scare you off from republicanism generally.  I do think our difficulties mostly stem from how polarized the population currently is, not the mechanics of the system, which is IMO reasonably sound, more or less sane and resilient enough to withstand changing circumstance.  

 

But, yours too.  It's instructive and healthy to have different governance models around the world.  

 

 

My understanding is that people who study political institutions tend to think there are some fairly serious problems in the American system which are probably impossible to fix from within the system.  I don't know much about it though.  there are some republics that seem to work quite well however.

 

Polarization is a serious problem, but I wonder if their isn't a conceptual relationship.  I remember back after 9/11 that people in the US who were suggesting that anyone who was cautious or against the military response were being un-american, or were even traitors.  there was a sense that the actions of the government were somehow intrinsically related to being a good citizen.  And I think it is a similar way of thinking when someone from one political position will claim that the presidency is trying to destroy the country, because he is following a different political view.  There seems to be a lack of an citizenship identification above political partisanship

 

[Rosie_0801]

Shes disolved australian parliment entirely once. I like that backup

 

No, the GG did that even though the parliament had voted no confidence in Fraser. When Gough rang her up the next morning it was a bit awkward.

 

Queen: "Good morning, Mr Prime Minister."

 

Gough: "Actually, not so much."

[Tsuga]

Having lived in a constitutional monarchy, I am of the opinion that there is no benefit at all to a monarch. It's a huge drain on taxpayer money and supports the idea that some people are more special because of the family they were born into. Imo, it's antithetical to the ideas of equality and opportunity. I see no place for monarchy in a modern world.

 

I agree completely and you stated this very well.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

Do you feel that constitutional monarchies are generally places where there is more inequality than in other systems?

 

The UK and the US have almost equally bad figures for social mobility, so having a constitutional monarchy doesn't seem to be key in this regard.

[Melissa in Australia]

I think avoiding cognitive dissonance is the only positive about having a monarch ( and then, only one who has no real power ). 

 

Otherwise, it's just expensive nonsense.

 

Charles and Camilla were here recently - they cost us $100 000 a day. Money which could be better spent on almost anything else.

 

I think it's ridiculous that AU, a country in Asia, has a British Queen as head of state.

wrong  Australia is most absolutly not in Asia. We are our own continent thank you very much.

[Melissa in Australia]

I for one will vote against getting rid of the monarchy every time. I think it is  neat to have a queen and be part of the commonwealth.

[LucyStoner]

On a practical level, starting a new monarchy just would never work. Take the USA. Would this new Royal family be selected via reality TV or would they have to invade Washington? Maybe the show is a competition to see who can invade Washington most successfully? Wait, this could be a trio of dystopian novels.

 

Also on a practical level, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue of what value modern monarchies serve. The British monarchy for instance raises far more money than they cost the government, both from their vast amounts of leased land and tourism.

[Bluegoat]

The UK and the US have almost equally bad figures for social mobility, so having a constitutional monarchy doesn't seem to be key in this regard.

 

No, and it doesn't seem to show that the society is less egalitarian either, but that seems to be the suggestion of some - that it is somehow an undemocratic or unequal form of governance.  If we look at a wide range of each type, the constitutional monarchies, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, and so on, that doesn't seem to play out - they are not less equal, progressive, democratic, or classist, than the republics are.

[Bluegoat]

On a practical level, starting a new monarchy just would never work. Take the USA. Would this new Royal family be selected via reality TV or would they have to invade Washington? Maybe the show is a competition to see who can invade Washington most successfully? Wait, this could be a trio of dystopian novels.

 

Also on a practical level, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue of what value modern monarchies serve. The British monarchy for instance raises far more money than they cost the government, both from their vast amounts of leased land and tourism.

 

To be a really American institution, I think it would have to be nomination based, with some sort of reality tv show where viewers vote someone off each week.

[Laura Corin]

To be a really American institution, I think it would have to be nomination based, with some sort of reality tv show where viewers vote someone off each week.

There's a very good Borges short story about a society in which all roles are assigned and changed periodically by lottery. You could be a slave one day and an owner of 1000 slaves the next.

[Spy Car]

If we're talking about "monarchies" as a powerless revenue-generating attractions, then we should drop the other pretensions. The UK could sign a deal with Disney, the country could be turned into (more of) a giant amusement park with rides at Windsor Castle, and "the royal" could live on endorsement deals.

 

Sort of like now, but BIGGER!

 

Bring in a few Americans, and we could make this great, really great. 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[Farrar]

There's a very good Borges short story about a society in which all roles are assigned and changed periodically by lottery. You could be a slave one day and an owner of 1000 slaves the next.

 

Borges.  :001_wub:

 

I like the idea of separation of government and head of state with the head of state being someone of cultural importance and trust whose roles are mostly ceremonial. I second Oprah. I looked up who's the most trusted person in America and the internets told me Tom Hanks. That seems okay too.

[Bluegoat]

Oprah brought us Dr Oz and Dr Phil.  That trust might be misplaced.

 

I wouldn't be eligible to nominate but if I could I'd suggest Wendell Berry.

[Farrar]

Oprah brought us Dr Oz and Dr Phil.  That trust might be misplaced.

 

I wouldn't be eligible to nominate but if I could I'd suggest Wendell Berry.

 

And Tom Hanks did make Joe Versus the Volcano... ;)

 

Yeah, 'Merica... who knows who we'd choose as our head of state if we had that choice. I'll bet it would all be football players I've never heard of.

[Penguin]

I'm not sure this plays out in practice. If I want drama in government I tend to think of places like France or Italy or the US. I don't think about Denmark or Luxembourg or Norway or Canada. And I don't tend to think about them having particularly expensive governments either. In the UK, the royal family actually make money for the economy though that is not necessarily usual.

 

Not to nitpick, but there is plenty of drama in Danish politics. It just doesn't make the international news very often. I haven't watched Borgen, so I can't comment on its accuracy:)

 

The Queen seems pretty popular here.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Penguin