Always felt that the European Union was a valuable sanity check on the UK’s (and other nations’) erratic politicians. Now that it’s gone (for U.K.), I suspect that many look to the monarch to fulfil a similar role. The monarchy’s connection to the military establishment, though symbolic, probably feeds this perception, however fatuous it may be.
Yes, the crown kinda owns most swans. It dates back to when they were eaten in feasts (no longer). Now its meaningless. It is just a way of saying they are a protected species
The monarchy is an amazing marketing device. Britain is a small island/country, but the coronation has gained saturation coverage here in the US and all the networks were glued to the event. (And America rarely even notices the rest of the world). These royal events are quite simply a fabulous show. There's nothing like them anywhere, and people around the world love them. That can only help the British brand, surely? One might just as well ask what's the point of, say, the Oscars? (Answer: It helps marketnHollywood and its products). You can't buy this type of publicity. Sorry to be cynical or mercantile, but there it is.
Perhaps the monarchy’s irrelevance, in terms of political power, is the secret of its success and the reason to keep it. This is a variation of the ‘continuity’ argument you dislike but there is a virtue in having a locus of authority above the day to day political fray and which generally does good work. Strengthening the role of the second chamber might be a more efficient way forward.
In my one visit to the UK, I stayed with English friends in London. I learned from them and from English readers' comments on the internet that British monarchs are sacrosanct. You can't even criticize their clothes. (I mentioned the Queen's weird helmet-hat at Prince Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales and was answered by glares and harrumphs.) I don't think Brits understand the entirely different mindset of people who live in a republic.
Thanks for the comment. I am glad to report that while this view might have been more common in 1969, it would be very rare now. Monarchs are certainly not sacrosanct — they can be and are made fun of, criticised, even ridiculed. It is true that Queen Elizabeth was personally treated with great respect, although even she was satirised in puppet TV shows and the like. But Charles has long since lost any sense of being sacrosanct. He has actually shown a healthy lack of seriousness about himself, too. I dislike the monarchy, but recognise that some of the individuals are good people.
During this same visit, we saw some swans in a lake, and someone stated proudly that all swans belong to the Queen. I said, "I wonder what the swans think about that," and I was met with astounded wide eyes and mouth agape.
A little exaggerated I think - you overlook the influence Charles can exert in international affairs both as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, especially on issues such as climate change. This will always be in accordance with the wishes of the government of the day, but it’s hard to deny that many foreign government are susceptible to a bit of royal cajoling.
Exactly! How can someone with questionable morals and deceitful actions be the leader of any nation? Well, yes, USA elected an unacceptable #dotard but hope that was a fluke.
But "King", and next William; I as a person of the Earth hope neither of them rule EVER! Especially William and "Kate"...
In another 20 years, Kate will take over and wwiV will happen.
Always felt that the European Union was a valuable sanity check on the UK’s (and other nations’) erratic politicians. Now that it’s gone (for U.K.), I suspect that many look to the monarch to fulfil a similar role. The monarchy’s connection to the military establishment, though symbolic, probably feeds this perception, however fatuous it may be.
Yes, the crown kinda owns most swans. It dates back to when they were eaten in feasts (no longer). Now its meaningless. It is just a way of saying they are a protected species
The monarchy is an amazing marketing device. Britain is a small island/country, but the coronation has gained saturation coverage here in the US and all the networks were glued to the event. (And America rarely even notices the rest of the world). These royal events are quite simply a fabulous show. There's nothing like them anywhere, and people around the world love them. That can only help the British brand, surely? One might just as well ask what's the point of, say, the Oscars? (Answer: It helps marketnHollywood and its products). You can't buy this type of publicity. Sorry to be cynical or mercantile, but there it is.
Perhaps the monarchy’s irrelevance, in terms of political power, is the secret of its success and the reason to keep it. This is a variation of the ‘continuity’ argument you dislike but there is a virtue in having a locus of authority above the day to day political fray and which generally does good work. Strengthening the role of the second chamber might be a more efficient way forward.
Seems like Brits are lost and searching for identity. Maybe Monarchy-fluid would be more appropriate?
In my one visit to the UK, I stayed with English friends in London. I learned from them and from English readers' comments on the internet that British monarchs are sacrosanct. You can't even criticize their clothes. (I mentioned the Queen's weird helmet-hat at Prince Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales and was answered by glares and harrumphs.) I don't think Brits understand the entirely different mindset of people who live in a republic.
Thanks for the comment. I am glad to report that while this view might have been more common in 1969, it would be very rare now. Monarchs are certainly not sacrosanct — they can be and are made fun of, criticised, even ridiculed. It is true that Queen Elizabeth was personally treated with great respect, although even she was satirised in puppet TV shows and the like. But Charles has long since lost any sense of being sacrosanct. He has actually shown a healthy lack of seriousness about himself, too. I dislike the monarchy, but recognise that some of the individuals are good people.
During this same visit, we saw some swans in a lake, and someone stated proudly that all swans belong to the Queen. I said, "I wonder what the swans think about that," and I was met with astounded wide eyes and mouth agape.
A little exaggerated I think - you overlook the influence Charles can exert in international affairs both as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, especially on issues such as climate change. This will always be in accordance with the wishes of the government of the day, but it’s hard to deny that many foreign government are susceptible to a bit of royal cajoling.
Thanks. I think the question is what weight to put on this. And to ask how King Charles will differ from Prince Charles
Exactly! How can someone with questionable morals and deceitful actions be the leader of any nation? Well, yes, USA elected an unacceptable #dotard but hope that was a fluke.
But "King", and next William; I as a person of the Earth hope neither of them rule EVER! Especially William and "Kate"...
In another 20 years, Kate will take over and wwiV will happen.