The Crown

[J842P]

They're basically very expensive "good will ambassadors" and paparazzi targets. How would such a person even be selected?

People in the USA have all the benefits by following the British Royal Family, with none of the expense. No, it would never work here.

I've enjoyed the series also.

The head of state can be chosen by Congress for a single term by a large majority. Someone respected by both sides. The modern presidency now costs just as much as the royal family

You are simply ignoring the fact that the U.S.A. has a three-part governing system: Legislative (Congress), Judicial (the courts) and Executive (President); and you have not given any sort of reason why we should eliminate one of those branches

I don't think this would necessitate an overhaul of the basic architecture of the American federal government. Rather, the "Head of State" would be an executive position distinct from President, that would fulfill largely ceremonial roles/duties.

More importantly, though, the *only* advantage of such a "royal-esque" role for the head-of-state would be that they *don't* serve such short terms, thus they have the longer-term interests of the state in mind (in theory). That would seem to be removed by the above proposition.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think this would necessitate an overhaul of the basic architecture of the American federal government. Rather, the "Head of State" would be an executive position distinct from President, that would fulfill largely ceremonial roles/duties.

More importantly, though, the *only* advantage of such a "royal-esque" role for the head-of-state would be that they *don't* serve such short terms, thus they have the longer-term interests of the state in mind (in theory). That would seem to be removed by the above proposition.

I can see how continuity in the figurehead might be a benefit, as Presidents/Congress Prime Ministers/Parliament come and go. Unfortunately, (as you noted) LunaWalk is talking about short term figureheads. What's worse, figureheads appointed by a majority of Congress. Yikes.

In my opinion, the only reason a Constitutional Monarchy works at all is because of its history of sovereign kings. No one gets to choose royalty, but also no one has to choose royalty - there can not be any partisanship in the decision of who will be the next king or queen. The U.S.A. never had that.

It sounds to me like LunaWalk is really suggesting a powerless Executive Branch, such as some people erroneously believe the Founding Fathers wanted.

 

[Angry Floof]

We could use something to remind us of the long view, that's for sure. We are epidemically short sighted these days.

 

[bilby]

I don't think this would necessitate an overhaul of the basic architecture of the American federal government. Rather, the "Head of State" would be an executive position distinct from President, that would fulfill largely ceremonial roles/duties.

More importantly, though, the *only* advantage of such a "royal-esque" role for the head-of-state would be that they *don't* serve such short terms, thus they have the longer-term interests of the state in mind (in theory). That would seem to be removed by the above proposition.

I can see how continuity in the figurehead might be a benefit, as Presidents/Congress Prime Ministers/Parliament come and go. Unfortunately, (as you noted) LunaWalk is talking about short term figureheads. What's worse, figureheads appointed by a majority of Congress. Yikes.

In my opinion, the only reason a Constitutional Monarchy works at all is because of its history of sovereign kings. No one gets to choose royalty, but also no one has to choose royalty - there can not be any partisanship in the decision of who will be the next king or queen. The U.S.A. never had that.

It sounds to me like LunaWalk is really suggesting a powerless Executive Branch, such as some people erroneously believe the Founding Fathers wanted.

Looking at this from the other side, I am amazed and amused by the recurring debate in the UK about whether Prince Charles should become king - there is an oft-stated opinion that, (due to his unpopularity, or his treatment of his first wife, or his choice of second wife, or his being a git, or some other stuff), the crown should instead pass to Prince William on the death of the queen.

It's almost as though these fuckwits think that they have a say. Folks, IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY. There are rules of succession, and they will be followed, absent a constitutional crisis, or a revolution. It isn't up for debate; That's the whole point of a hereditary monarchy.

Of course, it is actuarially plausible that Charles might pre-decease his mother, in which case the next British monarch would be King William V, rather than King Charles III. But this will not be decided by the will of the people - if you want to have a say in who becomes head of state, then you need to become a republic.

 

[RavenSky]

Looking at this from the other side, I am amazed and amused by the recurring debate in the UK about whether Prince Charles should become king - there is an oft-stated opinion that, (due to his unpopularity, or his treatment of his first wife, or his choice of second wife, or his being a git, or some other stuff), the crown should instead pass to Prince William on the death of the queen.

It's almost as though these fuckwits think that they have a say. Folks, IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY. There are rules of succession, and they will be followed, absent a constitutional crisis, or a revolution. It isn't up for debate; That's the whole point of a hereditary monarchy.

Of course, it is actuarially plausible that Charles might pre-decease his mother, in which case the next British monarch would be King William V, rather than King Charles III. But this will not be decided by the will of the people - if you want to have a say in who becomes head of state, then you need to become a republic.

Couldn't Charles abdicate in favor of his son, too?

But to your point, I think that this is even a discussion is an indication that 'monarchy as a figurehead' has perhaps outlived any usefulness.

I'm still enjoying the Netflix series, though

 

[bilby]

Looking at this from the other side, I am amazed and amused by the recurring debate in the UK about whether Prince Charles should become king - there is an oft-stated opinion that, (due to his unpopularity, or his treatment of his first wife, or his choice of second wife, or his being a git, or some other stuff), the crown should instead pass to Prince William on the death of the queen.

It's almost as though these fuckwits think that they have a say. Folks, IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY. There are rules of succession, and they will be followed, absent a constitutional crisis, or a revolution. It isn't up for debate; That's the whole point of a hereditary monarchy.

Of course, it is actuarially plausible that Charles might pre-decease his mother, in which case the next British monarch would be King William V, rather than King Charles III. But this will not be decided by the will of the people - if you want to have a say in who becomes head of state, then you need to become a republic.

Couldn't Charles abdicate in favor of his son, too?

Sure, he could. But why would he? Certainly not just because some tabloid talking head writes an Op. Ed. about how he isn't as popular as his mother.

But to your point, I think that this is even a discussion is an indication that 'monarchy as a figurehead' has perhaps outlived any usefulness.

I completely agree. But it's least harmful elements are likely to remain as vestigial organs of state for the foreseeable future.

I'm still enjoying the Netflix series, though

I haven't seen it yet, but I understand that it is available on cable over here.

 

[Angry Floof]

Looking at this from the other side, I am amazed and amused by the recurring debate in the UK about whether Prince Charles should become king - there is an oft-stated opinion that, (due to his unpopularity, or his treatment of his first wife, or his choice of second wife, or his being a git, or some other stuff), the crown should instead pass to Prince William on the death of the queen.

It's almost as though these fuckwits think that they have a say. Folks, IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY. There are rules of succession, and they will be followed, absent a constitutional crisis, or a revolution. It isn't up for debate; That's the whole point of a hereditary monarchy.

Of course, it is actuarially plausible that Charles might pre-decease his mother, in which case the next British monarch would be King William V, rather than King Charles III. But this will not be decided by the will of the people - if you want to have a say in who becomes head of state, then you need to become a republic.

Couldn't Charles abdicate in favor of his son, too?

But to your point, I think that this is even a discussion is an indication that 'monarchy as a figurehead' has perhaps outlived any usefulness.

I'm still enjoying the Netflix series, though

I don't think it's outlived its usefulness at all. The Queen of England serves as an emotional anchor for all her subjects. Plus, the royal family generates money for the country.

But you can't just conjure up a monarchy out of the blue. All monarchies today are inseparable from their countries' histories, and most are entangled in the histories of many other countries, too. (No country in Europe is not a little bit made of other countries in Europe.) A monarchy that springs up in a short time would be the result of massive upheaval, not long history. The best we could do in the US is Uncle Sam, a fictional mascot, as Bilby said. But no one really cares about Uncle Sam. He's less significant than Santa Claus here.

Anyway, even if we all agreed on a new mascot, to mean anything useful it would have to represent a lot of things that we really need right now, and not just bits of past history and symbols. We're founded on the pride of telling an unfair ruler to fuck off, but now we need more than anything to recognize that our tribe is even billion, not just 350 million. Any figure that could possibly reflect that would be rejected by the tribalist faction of our population.

 

[J842P]

Anyway, as long as we are asking for stuff we'd like, I nominate myself for God Emperor of Mankind:



Since I like y'all so much, you get choice positions in my Imperial Guard.

 

[Lunawalk]

They're basically very expensive "good will ambassadors" and paparazzi targets. How would such a person even be selected?

People in the USA have all the benefits by following the British Royal Family, with none of the expense. No, it would never work here.

I've enjoyed the series also.

The head of state can be chosen by Congress for a single term by a large majority. Someone respected by both sides. The modern presidency now costs just as much as the royal family

You are simply ignoring the fact that the U.S.A. has a three-part governing system: Legislative (Congress), Judicial (the courts) and Executive (President); and you have not given any sort of reason why we should eliminate one of those branches

Under a parliamentary system our government would run better. Often we have gridlock in Congress. It hasn't passed a bill since Trump took office. Because of partisanship there are many vacancies in the musical and executive branches under Obama and Trump. If a prime minister is performing his job badly they simply call for new elections. Under our system the we stuck with the President at least four years.

 

[bilby]

You are simply ignoring the fact that the U.S.A. has a three-part governing system: Legislative (Congress), Judicial (the courts) and Executive (President); and you have not given any sort of reason why we should eliminate one of those branches

Under a parliamentary system our government would run better. Often we have gridlock in Congress. It hasn't passed a bill since Trump took office. Because of partisanship there are many vacancies in the musical and executive branches under Obama and Trump. If a prime minister is performing his job badly they simply call for new elections. Under our system the we stuck with the President at least four years.

There's nothing about a parliamentary system that says terms are not fixed. The UK, for example, now has fixed parliamentary terms.

 

[marc]

Anyway, as long as we are asking for stuff we'd like, I nominate myself for God Emperor of Mankind:

View attachment 13699

Since I like y'all so much, you get choice positions in my Imperial Guard.

Granted! You get to be Emperor.... oh, and Horus is waiting for you in the next room.

 

[DolphinDynasty]

Anyway, as long as we are asking for stuff we'd like, I nominate myself for God Emperor of Mankind:

View attachment 13699

Since I like y'all so much, you get choice positions in my Imperial Guard.

Can I be the Commander of your 5th Legion and the jester f the court at the same time? Also, a ninja. In your God Emperor of Mankind rulership I am a ninja.

After that, I don't care what happens, lolz.

 

[Angry Floof]

That's the broflake self image.

 

[RavenSky]

You are simply ignoring the fact that the U.S.A. has a three-part governing system: Legislative (Congress), Judicial (the courts) and Executive (President); and you have not given any sort of reason why we should eliminate one of those branches

Under a parliamentary system our government would run better.

Debatable

Often we have gridlock in Congress. It hasn't passed a bill since Trump took office

. It isn't partisanship that has caused the current problem in D.C. As Republicans have just shown, they can pass whatever steaming pile of shit they might want to because they currently control Congress and the White House. That they haven't yet been able to do so is because the Republican party is fracturing.

Because of partisanship there are many vacancies in the musical and executive branches under Obama and Trump.

During President Obama's term, to some degree I would agree. It was pure Republican partisanship blocking anything and everything they could.

In the current administration, not so much. Republicans currently control everything. Democrats can't block anything.

If a prime minister is performing his job badly they simply call for new elections. Under our system the we stuck with the President at least four years.

Do they?

P.S. I wish we had a musical branch of government

 

[Lunawalk]

Debatable

Often we have gridlock in Congress. It hasn't passed a bill since Trump took office

. It isn't partisanship that has caused the current problem in D.C. As Republicans have just shown, they can pass whatever steaming pile of shit they might want to because they currently control Congress and the White House. That they haven't yet been able to do so is because the Republican party is fracturing.

Because of partisanship there are many vacancies in the musical and executive branches under Obama and Trump.

During President Obama's term, to some degree I would agree. It was pure Republican partisanship blocking anything and everything they could.

In the current administration, not so much. Republicans currently control everything. Democrats can't block anything.

If a prime minister is performing his job badly they simply call for new elections. Under our system the we stuck with the President at least four years.

Do they?

P.S. I wish we had a musical branch of government

Sorry I mean judicial branch. It late December and Obama care is still the law of the land because of a few republican defections . Since the democrats are united they can block somethings. It such a hyper partisanship between the parties I just think we need a unifying figure for a head of state maybe Oprah Winfrey.
I loved the crown so much I finished the second season already