Harry and Meghan Talk To Oprah

[Thebestoftherest]

Beastro that is completely and utterly a fair point.

[TGLS]

Gotta say though, other countries have proven that you can keep the palace without the monarchs.

And how old are those countries institutions? Oh, right, the oldest (The US) is little over 200 years old. The monarchy in Britain goes back over a millennium.

With all the various shenanigans (including changing succession laws and war), I think it's a bit of a hard sell to say the Monarchy went much further back than 1688 (which happens to line up with when Britain began to have a government that resembles its modern form) much less before 1485 (when Henry VII seized power following Bosworth).

Well this is America. And let me tell you about how we do things.

Given that your country's in the process of falling into stasis, I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at older, more stable systems of government if I were you.

The monarchy may have lasted a very long time, but just because it has a monarch that allegedly descended all the way back to about a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's the same government. Depending on how you want to dice it, modern British government was established between 1689 (with the Bill of Rights) and 1721 (with the first Prime Minister). The United States was established in 1789 (with the first congress and the ratification of the constitution). That makes, oh, maybe an hundred year lead. Not nothing, but not some huge advantage either.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well this is America. And let me tell you about how we do things.

Given that your country's in the process of falling into stasis, I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at older, more stable systems of government if I were you.

Well that was undoubtedly an unexpected direction of response.

[Muzer]

Obligatory something something Magna Carta.

Personally I'm happy for the Royal Family to remain purely as a ceremonial/traditional thing, and there are many countries in Europe that have traditional monarchies with little or no actual power.

As for keeping the Queen's current constitutional role, I have mixed feelings about this and nothing has really managed to persuade me either way.

In any case, a few things:

* Even ignoring tourism, government actually makes money off the royal family, because of an old agreement the government can collect rent on royal land (which there's rather a lot of), which if the royal family were abolished, would still belong to the family most likely... This rent adds up to more than the money that's given to the family. Do you really think the Treasury would be keeping them in such luxury otherwise, given how completely miserly they are even at the best of times? Frankly I've found myself more and more recently coming around to seriously consider calls to #AbolishTheTreasury since they've shown time and time again a complete inability to make sensible big-picture financial decisions, instead treating every penny spent as a penny wasted. But that's getting offtopic, sorry.
* Others have noted the theoretical constitutional importance of the Queen, but it must be said that in recent times of political shenanigans she hasn't exactly shown willingness to intervene when maybe she should (I'm thinking most notably when parliament was prorogued unlawfully; the Queen should probably have stopped that from happening. Instead it fell to the Supreme Court. I feel like since the Supreme Court was introduced it has really taken on a lot of these decisions).
* Most Brits I know really care little about the day-to-day goings on on the Royal Family. This could be classic selection bias based on who my friends actually are, but I don't know many people who have a strong opinion on Harry and Meghan even besides a general feeling that they have been mistreated. As for the other royals, with the exception of the nonce of course, it's very much a case of "meh". Anecdotally it does seem that Americans care more about our royal family than we do...
* I have heard a general opinion that the Queen is the only thing keeping the royal family together, and that once Charles becomes king the whole thing will collapse. I've even heard this said about the Commonwealth. Personally I don't see it either way. But then I really don't know enough about the backstory of Charles to judge why people might react to him so badly — I vaguely know that he involved himself politically perhaps a little too much (in terms of complaining about brutalist architecture etc.) but assuming he's sensible enough to realise he should not be doing anything like that as King, I'm not really sure what the big deal is.

[Beastro]

Well this is America. And let me tell you about how we do things.

Given that your country's in the process of falling into stasis, I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at older, more stable systems of government if I were you.

Well that was undoubtedly an unexpected direction of response.

Stah-sis, not stay-sis: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/07/an ... -conflict/

Thucydides writes that “one city after the next fell into stasis” as that war progressed and inflicted economic hardships that set citizen against citizen. His description of the results of this infighting could just as easily be applied to modern politics, writing that “reckless audacity was thought to be loyal courage, while careful delay was veiled timidity; reasonableness was a guise for cowardice … the extremist was always to be trusted, the moderate to be suspected.” Norms collapsed in the increasingly violent competition as “men set the example in their retribution against one another of undermining those common laws which all alike can rely on in adversity.” Outside powers, Thucydides notes, would play both sides against the middle, seeking their own advantage at the expensive of the stricken polity, just as they do today, but in every case it was divisions within the city that made outside interference effective. Thucydides grimly declares, as many pundits today fear, that competition will escalate into bloodshed until “as is wont to happen in such events, there was no limit that the violence did not surpass.”

My favourite example of this crap was near the end of the Peloponnesean War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... e_generals

The monarchy may have lasted a very long time, but just because it has a monarch that allegedly descended all the way back to about a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's the same government. Depending on how you want to dice it, modern British government was established between 1689 (with the Bill of Rights) and 1721 (with the first Prime Minister). The United States was established in 1789 (with the first congress and the ratification of the constitution). That makes, oh, maybe an hundred year lead. Not nothing, but not some huge advantage either.

That's the key point right there. It doesn't matter what the government is, what matters is the embodying of a continuing and stabilizing element in the social hierarchy that is above a government or even a single monarch.

The king is dead, long live the king!

Besides that, it'll be coming up nearly 400 years since the last Civil War in British parts while the US seems to have a knack for having trouble come along every so often (Americans don't like to think of it that way, but the War of Independence was one as well; it sure was to the United Empire Loyalists kicked out that were a size part of the population).

We'll have to see, and pray to God, you can make it 200 years without another one of those flaring up.

* Others have noted the theoretical constitutional importance of the Queen, but it must be said that in recent times of political shenanigans she hasn't exactly shown willingness to intervene when maybe she should (I'm thinking most notably when parliament was prorogued unlawfully; the Queen should probably have stopped that from happening. Instead it fell to the Supreme Court. I feel like since the Supreme Court was introduced it has really taken on a lot of these decisions).

That is the great danger she's walking. She's tried to preserve the monarchy and royal family's place so much she risks losing it by playing it too safe.

A monarchy today survives by a good example, and that requires more than just passivity. The Thai monarchy is a good example to look at even if you disagree with how things are handled outside of the monarchy itself.

* I have heard a general opinion that the Queen is the only thing keeping the royal family together, and that once Charles becomes king the whole thing will collapse. I've even heard this said about the Commonwealth. Personally I don't see it either way. But then I really don't know enough about the backstory of Charles to judge why people might react to him so badly — I vaguely know that he involved himself politically perhaps a little too much (in terms of complaining about brutalist architecture etc.) but assuming he's sensible enough to realise he should not be doing anything like that as King, I'm not really sure what the big deal is.

People don't like Charles, I don't, but a monarchy is more than one current king.

I think at his age, much of what has made Charles disliked has faded away. At the very least, he won't be around for long to be disliked until William can follow. William and Kate have build a wonderful successor relationship and it might be good for Charles to handle things a few years before abdicating rather than completely foregoing succeeding his mother.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Gotta say though, other countries have proven that you can keep the palace without the monarchs.

And how old are those countries institutions? Oh, right, the oldest (The US) is little over 200 years old. The monarchy in Britain goes back over a millennium.

I was talking about France

[Beastro]

Gotta say though, other countries have proven that you can keep the palace without the monarchs.

And how old are those countries institutions? Oh, right, the oldest (The US) is little over 200 years old. The monarchy in Britain goes back over a millennium.

I was talking about France

I suspected that since we last touched on this.

France has had two kingdoms, two empires, five republics and a puppet state all within just the past 220 years. The last Republic has been going well (still needs eight more years to beat the Third Republic as the most lasting state since fall of the original kingdom), but it's still just a year older than Hawaii and Alaska have been states.

They are not an example to point towards.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I just can't get over how much you sound like the guild leaders in a Terry Pratchett novel.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well this is America. And let me tell you about how we do things.

Given that your country's in the process of falling into stasis, I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at older, more stable systems of government if I were you.

Well that was undoubtedly an unexpected direction of response.

Stah-sis, not stay-sis: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/07/an ... -conflict/

Thucydides writes that “one city after the next fell into stasis” as that war progressed and inflicted economic hardships that set citizen against citizen. His description of the results of this infighting could just as easily be applied to modern politics, writing that “reckless audacity was thought to be loyal courage, while careful delay was veiled timidity; reasonableness was a guise for cowardice … the extremist was always to be trusted, the moderate to be suspected.” Norms collapsed in the increasingly violent competition as “men set the example in their retribution against one another of undermining those common laws which all alike can rely on in adversity.” Outside powers, Thucydides notes, would play both sides against the middle, seeking their own advantage at the expensive of the stricken polity, just as they do today, but in every case it was divisions within the city that made outside interference effective. Thucydides grimly declares, as many pundits today fear, that competition will escalate into bloodshed until “as is wont to happen in such events, there was no limit that the violence did not surpass.”

My favourite example of this crap was near the end of the Peloponnesean War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... e_generals

The monarchy may have lasted a very long time, but just because it has a monarch that allegedly descended all the way back to about a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's the same government. Depending on how you want to dice it, modern British government was established between 1689 (with the Bill of Rights) and 1721 (with the first Prime Minister). The United States was established in 1789 (with the first congress and the ratification of the constitution). That makes, oh, maybe an hundred year lead. Not nothing, but not some huge advantage either.

That's the key point right there. It doesn't matter what the government is, what matters is the embodying of a continuing and stabilizing element in the social hierarchy that is above a government or even a single monarch.

The king is dead, long live the king!

Besides that, it'll be coming up nearly 400 years since the last Civil War in British parts while the US seems to have a knack for having trouble come along every so often (Americans don't like to think of it that way, but the War of Independence was one as well; it sure was to the United Empire Loyalists kicked out that were a size part of the population).

We'll have to see, and pray to God, you can make it 200 years without another one of those flaring up.

* Others have noted the theoretical constitutional importance of the Queen, but it must be said that in recent times of political shenanigans she hasn't exactly shown willingness to intervene when maybe she should (I'm thinking most notably when parliament was prorogued unlawfully; the Queen should probably have stopped that from happening. Instead it fell to the Supreme Court. I feel like since the Supreme Court was introduced it has really taken on a lot of these decisions).

That is the great danger she's walking. She's tried to preserve the monarchy and royal family's place so much she risks losing it by playing it too safe.

A monarchy today survives by a good example, and that requires more than just passivity. The Thai monarchy is a good example to look at even if you disagree with how things are handled outside of the monarchy itself.

* I have heard a general opinion that the Queen is the only thing keeping the royal family together, and that once Charles becomes king the whole thing will collapse. I've even heard this said about the Commonwealth. Personally I don't see it either way. But then I really don't know enough about the backstory of Charles to judge why people might react to him so badly — I vaguely know that he involved himself politically perhaps a little too much (in terms of complaining about brutalist architecture etc.) but assuming he's sensible enough to realise he should not be doing anything like that as King, I'm not really sure what the big deal is.

People don't like Charles, I don't, but a monarchy is more than one current king.

I think at his age, much of what has made Charles disliked has faded away. At the very least, he won't be around for long to be disliked until William can follow. William and Kate have build a wonderful successor relationship and it might be good for Charles to handle things a few years before abdicating rather than completely foregoing succeeding his mother.

tl/dr?

[CharlesPhipps]

Got to say, if their relationship goes south, Harry is going to be one lonely man. Meghan, she's fine. She has her own life, family and friends in the States. But Harry? He didn't just leave his family, he insulted them in public with the most famous interviewer there is. His relationship with Wills and Charles is never going to be the same no matter what happens. Not to mention that Harry is now deeply unpopular in Britain, his name is mud every time he comes up now.

He just got hired to be on a Silicon Valley tech company's board because he's good looking and royalty.

He's fine.

At the end of the day - its their word against the Royal Family. No reason to believe him, her or them over anyone else.

Harry risked his life in Afghanistan and his brother didn't?