Royal Baby in UK

[Karl Henning]

It would have been a done deed, if the Shade of Jerry Lewis hadn't appeared to them in a telethon . . . .

[vandermolen]

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.

I doubt whether many people here still think we're a great power notwithstanding the monarchy. Interestingly Britain became more self-consciously 'Imperial' when she started to decline as a great power at the end of the 19th Century. All the royal processional stuff tends to date from then - a kind of reaction formation I guess to the fear of decline.

[Parsifal]

Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.

Be my guest.  We in the US will learn the same bitter lesson, since it is evident that the era in which the US is the dominant economic force in the world is coming to a close. 

What was it Ricky Gervais said, "I'm not from these parts. I'm from a little place called England - we used to run the world before you lot."

[Florestan]

I'm in principle fine with that. But all those who on the one hand want to claim that it is their democratic right to choose to live in an undemocratic structure should not be surprised if I then use my democratic right to free speech to mock their ludiucrously incongruous ideas of self-governance and wasteful allocation of finite public resources.

You can of course mock anything you want. But (1) mockery is no reasoning and (2) I'm absolutely sure your mockery makes the royal British family tremble for their fate... 

See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right. It's quite silly.

What's really silly is seeing a citizen of a country criticizing the constitutional system of a foreign country. What harm has the British monarchy done to you, or your family, or your ancestors, pray tell? You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. 

[Karl Henning]

Attention, Britons! We here in the US will solve your monarchy problem for you.

You're welcome.

[kishnevi]

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.

...being replaced by other pseudos who are equallly trashy and tawdry.  At least in the British version, one has a constant cast of characters whom one can keep jeering at.

I suspect the current lot make sure to manage their money and public allowances in a comparatively frugal manner.  When I visited Balmoral on my "if this is Tuesday, it must be Belgium" type of package tour,  one of the chief wonders of the place (going by how proud the tour guide was of them) were the vegetable gardens, a not very large (albeit large for a kitchen garden) expanse devoted to growing the veggies consumed throughout the year by monarch and domestic staff.

[MishaK]

What's really silly is seeing a citizen of a country criticizing the constitutional system of a foreign country. What harm has the British monarchy done to you, or your family, or your ancestors, pray tell? You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. 

I refer you, inter alia, to this:

The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.

It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies. I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech. Apparently another essential democratic concept, you have trouble with.

[Florestan]

As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.

That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.

[MishaK]

That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.

Even if it were a majority preference, when the issue is a constitutional matter, the rights of the minority are of paramount concern. And it is very much everyone's business to criticize a completely wasteful and useless diversion of public resources from the taxpayers to a very small unproductive hereditary elite.

[springrite]

Every country can use a mascot. No?

Well, some are less expensive than others. Then again, how do you hold the loosely organized British Commonwealth without a monarch, huh?

[Florestan]

It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies.

You're shooting yourself in the foot: (1) is the British society your own? Hardly; (2) as long as it's obvious you haven't found that "best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way" for your own society, it's somehow preposterous to make recommendations for other societies...  

I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech.

Free speech is a great thing, meaningful speech still greater...

[Florestan]

it is very much everyone's business to criticize a completely wasteful and useless diversion of public resources from the taxpayers to a very small unproductive hereditary elite.

That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.

Really, don't you see the ridicule of MishaK of GMG crusading against The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? 

[mc ukrneal]

That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected! And on probation!!

Seriously, the people as a whole do support it, but it is not that simple. As usual, positions differ among different parties (or wings within them). It also differs among different age groups (with the young less supportive). But it is also subject to change as events come and go (with the death of Diana being, for example, a negative PR event for them in most ways). Anyway, here is an article on it with some poll numbers (after the wedding stuff): http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons. So you are more right than wrong really as the people do more broadly support than oppose.

[Florestan]

Even if it were a majority preference, when the issue is a constitutional matter, the rights of the minority are of paramount concern.

Do you imply that the rights of the monarchical minority of the US  are of paramount concern to you? 

[Opus106]

You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. 

And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh?

[Florestan]

And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh?

Quite so. 

[MishaK]

You're shooting yourself in the foot: (1) is the British society your own? Hardly; (2) as long as it's obvious you haven't found that "best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way" for your own society, it's somehow preposterous to make recommendations for other societies...  

You're having reading comprehension issues. You highlighted the wrong bits of my quote. Let's try again.

It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies. I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech. Apparently another essential democratic concept, you have trouble with.

In other words, study the world to find the best solutions for the society that you can affect. That's the point of political science and comparative politics, really.

That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.

You seem to think you're a spokesman for the Britons? I suppose since you don't care about the democratic legitimacy of monarchs, it doesn't matter that you have no democratic legitimacy as their spokesperson either. I refer you to this:

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected! And on probation!!

Seriously, the people as a whole do support it, but it is not that simple. As usual, positions differ among different parties (or wings within them). It also differs among different age groups (with the young less supportive). But it is also subject to change as events come and go (with the death of Diana being, for example, a negative PR event for them in most ways). Anyway, here is an article on it with some poll numbers (after the wedding stuff): http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons. So you are more right than wrong really as the people do more broadly support than oppose.

Do you imply that the rights of the monarchical minority of the US  are of paramount concern to you? 

Once again, you have reading comprehension issues. No one is infringing on the US monarchists' constitutional democratic rights. They don't have a right to impose a non-democratic system on the rest of us. Whereas republicans in the UK have every right to object to a diversion of resources to a non-democratic enterprise in which they have no say. Does this distinction really escape you?

And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh?

And who seems to think he needs to ride to the rescue of British monarchy. 

[mc ukrneal]

Here is a more recent article with poll data: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

[Florestan]

study the world to find the best solutions for the society that you can affect. That's the point of political science and comparative politics, really.

The Latin American countries after gaining independence from Spain studied the world and came to the conclusion that the US system is the best, so they adopted it --- and it resulted in almost 150 years of endless civil wars and pronunciamentos. 

You seem to think you're a spokesman for the Britons? I suppose since you don't care about the democratic legitimacy of monarchs, it doesn't matter that you have no democratic legitimacy as their spokesperson either. I refer you to this:

In support of your stance you refer me to a post which concludes that I'm more right than wrong --- and you accuse me of having reading comprehensions... Your ridicule is greater with every post you write. 

[Parsifal]

That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.

Really, don't you see the ridicule of MishaK of GMG crusading against The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? 

MishaK's "mockery" was really a reasoned criticism of the institution of Monarchy and its implementation in the UK and elsewhere.  It was not a "crusade," nor was there any implication that the British Royals were "in fear" as you wrote above.  Ironically, your mockery is simply a mean-spirited cackling, lacking in any substance.  The suggestion that he has no right to criticize the institution because he did not directly suffer under it is absurd.  Did Ronald Reagan have no right to go to Berlin and say "Mr. Gorbechov, tear down this wall"?

The British Monarchy, when it actually wielded power, was a despotic regime that maintained power through brutal violence, which propagated human slavery throughout its empire and which subjugated or annihilated indigenous populations in its colonies.  To hold up the pathetic vestiges of this system as some sort of noble puppet show is an insult to human dignity, in my opinion.