Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 13,429
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
It was Queen Anne, actually, and she died of obesity and depression, not truncuation. Dismal life, either way.
-
Features
Elizabeth II has died
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
This list is incomplete. Is the Isle of Man technically part of the U.K.? I won't waste a Wiki to find out, but Jersey and Guernsey are surely missing from the list. AFAIK some such bailiwicks are NOT part of the U.K. (though they presumably have very generous trade agreements), but rather adhere to Her Majesty in her capacity as Duke of Normandy.Elizabeth II lists what she is sovereign over. I've reordered the list by the end of her reign, then by either the beginning of her reign (1952*) or by the beginning of the territory's independence from colonial status.
[ LIST]
laughing dog
Contributor
Imagine my disappointment upon reading a thread that I misread as I as "The Queen Elizabeeth II THROWS down".
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,814
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That's what monarchy is. It's not 'playing along with the game', it's recognising what we are looking at.
It's also undeniable that both Charles I and Charles II were king; And that they were father and son. So even if you exclude the Commonwealth from the duration of the monarchy (which is reasonable enough), you cannot say that it started in 1660. You could reasonably subtract the period 1649-1660, or even 1642-1660, and you could also reasonably start counting the 'current monarchy' from 1066, 1487, or even 1688, rather than from the 890s. But it's certainly true that the monarchy as an institution (though not as a continuous dynasty) has existed, with only brief interruptions (the largest of which was the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and subsequent Commonwealth) for in the order of 1,000 years.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 13,429
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Not every British monarch has been the offspring of their predecessor, though. I feel like trying to make characterizing since Athelstan as having had same throne, governing over the same nation, is wallpapering over the simple fact that monarchy is inherently an unstable and unsustainable political system that breaks and causes horrific loss of life on a regular basis.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,814
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I don't think it is wallpapering over the cracks; If it's an attempt to, it's failing, because it's obvious that, as a system, monarchy sucks in direct proportion to the power wielded by the monarch.
England as a political entity has existed since Æthelstan, with several breaks in the succession of monarchs, and at least a couple of periods without monarchs at all (the civil war between Stephen and Mathilda probably counts, as nobody was quite sure who was meant to be in charge; And the C17th Commonweath obviously counts here). But the political entity has remained, despite discontinuities in the lineage of the monarch.
Elizabeth I would likely view Elizabeth II as having been completely stripped of her throne in all but name. Yet II sees herself as the clear successor of I. I suspect both would be right.
lpetrich
Contributor
I remember once getting into an argument with someone over whether "crowned republic" would be a good term for a nation that is a nominal monarchy but that operates for the most part like a republic.
That was provoked by me mentioning John Adams's book John Adams: Defence of the Constitutions, 1787 He became President in 1796, joining the club of President-scholars that includes Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Barack Obama. JA discussed "democratical republics", "aristocratical republics" and "monarchical republics".
"Monarchical republic" may seem like a contradiction in terms, but his examples, Britain and Poland, were what we now call constitutional monarchies, monarchies with strong republican elements.
That was provoked by me mentioning John Adams's book John Adams: Defence of the Constitutions, 1787 He became President in 1796, joining the club of President-scholars that includes Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Barack Obama. JA discussed "democratical republics", "aristocratical republics" and "monarchical republics".
"Monarchical republic" may seem like a contradiction in terms, but his examples, Britain and Poland, were what we now call constitutional monarchies, monarchies with strong republican elements.
lpetrich
Contributor
Abolition of monarchy - Monarchy has been in a steep decline. Before recent centuries, nearly every nation-state was a monarchy, and some monarchies were very long-lived, even if not very continuous, like the Pharaonic and Chinese monarchies. Some republics became monarchies, like the Roman Republic and the Dutch Republic, with the stadholder becoming a de facto monarch.Making the US a republic was a very daring move, and it helped that George Washington didn't want to make himself King George I. France became a republic in its big revolution, but it did so by chopping off the king's head. The revolutionaries squabbled and reorganized and chopped off a lot of other people's heads, and they became a bad advertisement for republicanism. As a result, nation-builders in European nations wanted monarchs for their new nations. Holland, Belgium, Norway, Italy, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria.
This trend was interrupted by World War I, a war which got in the way of an aristocrat going to Finland and becoming that nation's monarch. That war also ended four big monarchies, both directly and indirectly, the Prussian/German one, the Austrian one, the Russian one, and the Ottoman one. Most of the nations that emerged from that war had no monarch, though Hungary didn't have one because Hungarians were split on whether to have a Habsburg or a local aristocrat as monarch.
European monarchs in Italy and Greece fell from association with disliked dictators, and those of Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania fell from Communist takeovers.
Looking elsewhere in the world, when most of Latin America became independent in the early 19th cy., the revolutionaries chose republics for their new nations, with the exception of Brazil. That nation's monarchy fell late in that century.
Most of the nations that became independent in post-WWII decolonization became independent as republics, with the exception of Middle Eastern and North African nations. But some of those nations also became republics.
lpetrich
Contributor
Only a few monarchies have been restored, notably those of Spain and Cambodia.
The most recent monarchy to fall is Nepal's, in 2008, as opposed to declaring independence from some monarch, like Barbados most recently.
List of countries by system of government - here are those that have locally-based monarchs:
The most recent monarchy to fall is Nepal's, in 2008, as opposed to declaring independence from some monarch, like Barbados most recently.
List of countries by system of government - here are those that have locally-based monarchs:- Absolute: Brunei, Eswatini (Swaziland), Oman, Saudi Arabia, (Vatican City)
- Constitutional, active: Bahrain, Bhutan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Morocco, Qatar, Tonga, United Arab Emirates
- Constitutional, ceremonial: Belgium, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,607
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
I'd have said James II & VII, who made war on Parliament's forces and got his ass handed to him at the Battle of the Boyne, but escaped with his life and died in exile of natural causes. What did Anne do that you regard as asserting her primacy over Parliament? Veto a bill? Nobody at the time regarded that as a constitutional crisis. U.S. Presidents veto Congressional bills all the time; who perceives that as Presidential primacy over Congress? It's just separation of powers. It looks to me like Anne was simply exercising her constitutional role at a time when the respective authorities of Monarch and Parliament were still evolving.
lpetrich
Contributor
Monarchies are gradually disappearing | The Week - February 3, 2020 - The slow decline of royal families
It must be noted that some nations have gone in the direction of becoming monarchies. "Baby Doc" succeeding his father "Papa Doc" in Haiti, Bashar Assad succeeding his father Hafez in Syria, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Khadafy of Libya wanting to be succeeded by one of their children. The biggest example is, I think, North Korea, which is in its third generation of its ruling family.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 13,429
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
She's the last person to have used the power I described in my post. No, it wasn't a crisis, let alone a beheading.
lpetrich
Contributor
lpetrich
Contributor
Vlogger Lindsay Holiday has vlogged on which European monarchs might be next to go.
- Which European Monarchies Might be Abolished? - YouTube
- 5 European Monarchies Most Likely to be Abolished - YouTube
- Popularity of the Monarch
- Popularity of the Royal Family
- Cost to Taxpayers
- Historic Significance
- Happiness of the Populace
- Roadblocks to Change
| What | PopMon | PopFam | CstTax | HstSgn | HapPop | RbkChg | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Maximum) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| Denmark | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| Luxembourg | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| Liechtenstein | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Sweden | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
| Norway | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 8 |
| Monaco | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Belgium | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| UK | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Spain | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
lpetrich
Contributor
Anti-monarchist organizations:
As far as I can tell, they want parliamentary republics, like Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, and Switzerland, not one with a US-style Presidency or a France-style one.
- Republic - UK
- Republiek, staat voor iedereen - NL - Republic, stands for everyone
- Republik NU | Danmark skal være en republik - Republik NU - DK - Denmark must be a republic - Republic NOW
- Norge som republikk - NO - Norway as a republic
- Republikanska föreningen - SE - Republican association
- Red Republicana – Sitio Web de la RED REPUBLICANA, asociación en favor de la República Española - ES - Red Republicana - Website of the RED REPUBLICANA, association in favor of the Spanish Republic - Republican Network
- Alliance of European Republican Movements | Working together for a monarchy-free Europe.
As far as I can tell, they want parliamentary republics, like Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, and Switzerland, not one with a US-style Presidency or a France-style one.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 13,429
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
I kind of wish the US had a parliamentary system! It's a more functional model. Though all governments drift back toward the same compromised mean eventually.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Yeah, what is Great Britain to do now when their most expensive social welfare recepient isn't feeling well? How is the country supposed to manage to keep going on now when she's stopped doing the job she doesn't have. It'd be a true tragedy if Prince Charles had to jump in and take over the reigns. Let us pray he's as capable of not having a job as well as his mother. Or perhaps he will make a break in the family tradition and make something of himself. Perhaps he'll be the first of his family who finds a way to support his famiily?
God bless the queen.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,607
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
It seems to me anybody who gets a guaranteed weekly one-on-one meeting with Boris Johnson has a great deal more political power than the average Briton. All the more so since he can't replace her for disagreeing with him and is barred by protocol from putting on headphones and listening to his audiobook during their meetings. Unless she's using their private tete-a-tetes to discuss her concerns over the Buckingham Palace china, a person with that much power cannot reasonably be described as not having a job. You might as well claim our National Security Adviser doesn't have a job on account of Mr. Biden being free to disregard his input.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,814
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Monarchy is the tip of the aristocratic iceberg, and aristocracy essentially lost its raison d'être with high speed communications.
Even if a king is deemed necessary, the modern world has little purpose for Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts or Barons. Yet these (and the various ranks of Bishops) still carry huge weight in the UK, both as members of parliament (though their influence there has been sharply reduced in recent years) and as hugely wealthy landowners, who still own between them a very significant fraction of the land.
It's arguably more useful and less damaging to the system to eliminate these archaic hangers-on than it would be to remove the monarch - although obviously there's no reason not to do both.
Even if a king is deemed necessary, the modern world has little purpose for Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts or Barons. Yet these (and the various ranks of Bishops) still carry huge weight in the UK, both as members of parliament (though their influence there has been sharply reduced in recent years) and as hugely wealthy landowners, who still own between them a very significant fraction of the land.
It's arguably more useful and less damaging to the system to eliminate these archaic hangers-on than it would be to remove the monarch - although obviously there's no reason not to do both.