Royal Baby in UK

[The new erato]

I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking and that is why so many deride it. I think that argument is pretty obvious and not in any way insulting.

[Karl Henning]

Thank you both, incidentally, for acceding that I was not in any way defensive.

[Parsifal]

If you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.[/font]

Apparently you haven't had your coffee yet:

What's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?

[MishaK]

I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking and that is why so many deride it. I think that argument is pretty obvious and not in any way insulting.

Well, in the case of a "constitutional monarchy" as in the UK, where the Queen doesn't even have any constitutional powers, it's even more absurd: why should the citizens of a democratic state divert significant resources to pure ceremonial pageantry enacted by a hereditary clicque that accomplishes nothing productive (or at least nothing approaching a break-even point on the financial investment)?

[Karl Henning]

I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking....

Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy.  I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.

[Karl Henning]

If the point is that my digressive illustration regarding religion was an irrelevance, I see it (though I do not completely agree).  To perceive me as somehow "defensive" thereby was on odd fallacy.

Of course, this is a forum on the Internet. Odd fallacies are in some measure the norm.

[MishaK]

Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy.  I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.

Yes, there is a good argument to be made for a more gradual and peaceful transition of state power from the crown to the people, as happened in England, as opposed to the more bloody type of overthrow, as happened in France. But that was a debate for the 18th and 19th century. How does that, in the 21st century, justify indefinitely continuing public subsidizing of a large royal family and their landholdings when they no longer have *any* meaningful function within the democratic state, having ceded all of them long ago?

If the point is that my digressive illustration regarding religion was an irrelevance, I see it (though I do not completely agree).  To perceive me as somehow "defensive" thereby was on odd fallacy.

Of course, this is a forum on the Internet. Odd fallacies are in some measure the norm.

As I said before, it was hard not to read your non sequitur as you still having a sore spot from a prior debate and trying to indirectly air some grievance.

[Parsifal]

Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy.  I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.

If I take a glass containing oil floating on water and vigorously stir it the oil and water will appear to mix.  (This is called an emulsion.)  That doesn't change the fact that water and oil are immiscible.  After a few minutes the two liquids will separate again and you will find the oil floating on the water.  The fact that it took a finite time for democracy to abolish the powers of the Monachy in England does not imply any compatibility between the two forms of government. 

[The new erato]

How does that, in the 21st century, justify indefinitely continuing public subsidizing of a large royal family and their landholdings when they no longer have *any* meaningful function within the democratic state, having ceded all of them long ago?

I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.

[MishaK]

I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.

And many people likewise live through movie, TV, sports and pop celebrities. But we don't publicly subsidize those. As one article linked here earlier put it , it's like the US subsidizing the Kardashians.

[The new erato]

And many people likewise live through movie, TV, sports and pop celebrities. But we don't publicly subsidize those. As one article linked here earlier put it , it's like the US subsidizing the Kardashians.

I don't condone it, but I see it as the most plausible theory for this strange phenomenon surviving. Also there are other reasons; eg in Norway, quite a young nation really, the rift with Sweden in 1905 was strongly linked to us getting our own king, also what happened under WW2 has sustained the support for the monarchy. Also; they are much more likeable then many other monarchs, and far from filthy rich. Doesn't make it less anachronistic of course. 

[Parsifal]

I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.

It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money.  The US has the Kardashians, it is true, but at least American pseudo-Royalty can be discarded and replaced when they get tedious.

[The new erato]

It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world,

Obviously a part of the explanation for the situation in England, nostalgia for things past, perceived as better than today.

[MishaK]

I don't condone it, but I see it as the most plausible theory for this strange phenomenon surviving. Also there are other reasons; eg in Norway, quite a young nation really, the rift with Sweden in 1905 was strongly linked to us getting our own king, also what happened under WW2 has sustained the support for the monarchy. Also; they are much more likeable then many other monarchs, and far from filthy rich. Doesn't make it less anachronistic of course.

Oh, sure. It's the whole panem et circenses thing. But it's precisely that which one would hope the free markeplace of ideas of a democracy would work to abolish sooner rather than later.

[pencils]

It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money. 

Ha. Interesting perspective. Completely accurate, not at all insulting, and nothing like the sort of stereotypical American comment that folk in Europe come to expect from some inside the World's Great Superpower.

[Parsifal]

Ha. Interesting perspective. Completely accurate, not at all insulting, and nothing like the sort of stereotypical American comment that folk in Europe come to expect from some inside the World's Great Superpower.

Do I detect a hint of mockery? 

[pencils]

Do I detect a hint of mockery? 

Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.

[springrite]

Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.

Or unbiased third party observation.

[Karl Henning]

I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.

Well, think of the bizarre global attachment to the late Princess of Wales.  (Oh, maybe that's an argument against continuing the monarchy . . . .)

[The new erato]

And just imagine how close the French were to having Dominique Strauss-Kahn as president!