Royal Baby in UK

[Karl Henning]

Cool, Britannia!

Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.

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. 

they still haven't managed to suss out how we skipped the junta and Generalissimo stages . . . .

[Florestan]

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

Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.

I rest my case.

[MishaK]

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. 

Not ONE country in Latin America has "the US system". Unless you're painting with extremely broad brushstrokes, in which case the UK as well has the "US system". You might have also paused to notice that there are a few Latin American countries that did not "gain independence from Spain".

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. 

You claimed (1) that I claimed that Britain was "my" society, which I didn't; and (2) claimed that in order to have any standing to critcize any system of government I must have personally established the perfect system of government in my society myself. If the latter isn't the most idiotic justification to muzzle all dissidents in all societies and all systems of government, I haven't seen a better one. You're getting a little emotional here and aren't reading what people are actually saying.

[Florestan]

The British Monarchy, when it actually wielded power, was a [...] regime that [...] propagated human slavery throughout its empire and which subjugated or annihilated indigenous populations [...].  [/b]

Exactly so did the US "democracy" in the 19th century. 

[MishaK]

Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.

I rest my case.

You do realize that I nowhere claimed that there wasn't popular support for the monarchy in the UK, right? What was your case?

[Florestan]

You do realize that I nowhere claimed that there wasn't popular support for the monarchy in the UK, right? What was your case?

My case was clearly stated and exactly that: that the British monarchy has significant popular support. Speaking of reading comprehension issues... 

[Florestan]

Not ONE country in Latin America has "the US system".

By 'US system' I mean a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers. Last time I checked, ALL Latin American countries had that system.

[MishaK]

My case was clearly stated and exactly that: that the British monarchy has significant popular support. Speaking of reading comprehension issues... 

You've been fighting me as if I had ever claimed otherwise.

By 'US system' I mean a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers. Last time I checked, ALL Latin American countries had that system.

The US system is not "a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers." To the contrary, it is a federal constitutional democracy in which the federal executive has very limited powers, tightly circumscribed by the constitution and checked and balanced by the judiciary, the legislature and the rights and powers of the individual federal states. Latin American countries come in a wide variety of more or less constitutional arrangements, likewise more or less demorcatic (some indeed quasi-monarchic and hereditary, viz. Cuba). To lump them all together in one pot (together with the US - the archenemy of many of those!) is to betray an absurd level of ignorance and arrogance.

[pencils]

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.

Didn't realise that this was still going on 

I am happy to perhaps bring another perspective. There is a British mentality that lives with the status quo. The last significant grass roots revolt in these islands was The Great Revolt of 1381 (discounting the brief flirtation with Republicanism under Cromwell, which was less grass roots). In the Romantic era when Europe was chopping its way through the crowned heads in revolution, we were refining afternoon tea and thinking about inventing cricket. Since then, we are basically indifferent and live with the monarchy, and you are right to suggest that those who oppose vehemently are smaller in number than those who are not necessarily happy in an active sense, but indolently content.

Ultimately? We are apathetic.

[kishnevi]

Didn't realise that this was still going on 

I am happy to perhaps bring another perspective. There is a British mentality that lives with the status quo. The last significant grass roots revolt in these islands was The Great Revolt of 1381 (discounting the brief flirtation with Republicanism under Cromwell, which was less grass roots). In the Romantic era when Europe was chopping its way through the crowned heads in revolution, we were refining afternoon tea and thinking about inventing cricket. Since then, we are basically indifferent and live with the monarchy, and you are right to suggest that those who oppose vehemently are smaller in number than those who are not necessarily happy in an active sense, but indolently content.

Ultimately? We are apathetic.

What about the Chartist movement?  The British elites certainly seemed to think that was not an inconsiderable threat to the status quo (cf. Peterloo).

Apropos of the political theory side of the question, here's a limited defense of the monarchy from a Brit expat who is now an American libertarian
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/25/the-benefits-of-monarchy

summarizing quote

I admit that I don't like many things about the British monarchy, an institution I absolved all allegiance to when I became an American citizen. The pomp and circumstance is irritating, and the seemingly blind observance of tradition many British royalists demonstrate is at times disturbingly cultish. In fact, I would not count myself as a royalist, and would support the U.K. undergoing some rather significant constitutional reforms that would change the role of the head of state. Despite its flaws the fact remains that an unelected head of state provides a check on political power that keeps politicians comparatively humble, something America's founding documents, some of the most brilliant pieces of political theory in history, have not been able to achieve.

[lisa needs braces]

 
*

[Florestan]

The US system is not "a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers." To the contrary, it is a federal constitutional democracy in which the federal executive has very limited powers

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.

[Florestan]

an absurd level of ignorance and arrogance.

That coming from the GMG smart-ass-in-residence... You really made my day. 

[Parsifal]

That coming from the GMG smart-ass-in-residence... You really made my day. 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[pencils]

What about the Chartist movement?  The British elites certainly seemed to think that was not an inconsiderable threat to the status quo (cf. Peterloo).

summarizing quote

Agreed. Chartism was a groundswell movement, but lacking the ultimate revolutionary bite which either 1381 or Cromwell offered in potentially removing crowned heads, I think.

Either way, I won't be buying any Royal Baby souvenirs any time soon, despite the fact that the British Monarchy actually does generate a significant national income.

[Todd]

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.

No, they'd agree completely.  All three wanted even more power than they had (all presidents do), and all three were hampered by their opponents.  Even the mighty FDR became politically weaker the longer he was in office.  The war was great for him, because he got to act with complete freedom in executing the war.  But he could not do a thing about some domestic political and social issues (eg, race related issues), and he knew it.  Lincoln was under pressure from the Radical Republicans to do more than he wanted, and constantly at odds with the Northern Democrats.  Suspending habeus corpus was a great abuse of power, sure, but even so he never achieved European-style dictatorial power.  Bush, well, despite his reputation as a doofus under the control of Cheney, he knew how to get the Democrats to vote for some of what he wanted, at least in the first term, though his second term was a bust from a policy perspective.  Presidential power, outside the realm of using the military overseas, is limited, and in the second term, it withers away.  This arises primarily from one thing, of course: it is Congress that controls the purse.

[mc ukrneal]

Here's an article that talks about Scottish independence and the monarchy as well: http://news.yahoo.com/britains-newest-royal-heir-stirs-scottish-independence-debate-163937360.html

[MishaK]

Despite its flaws the fact remains that an unelected head of state provides a check on political power that keeps politicians comparatively humble, something America's founding documents, some of the most brilliant pieces of political theory in history, have not been able to achieve.

Query whether that's because of the crown or because of the fact that England has a lot less power these days and needs to tread more carefully due to its colonial legacy.

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.

You are completely missing my point because you primarily focus on wartime presidents. Yes, as commander in chief the president has considerable powers (though still limited as Todd points out), and as president of the most powerful country those powers are not insignificant. But you forget that by the terms of the constitution, the federal government only has authority over foreign affaris, taxation and interstate commerce. Compared to almost every other government on earth, democratic or otherwise, that is a laughably limited scope (it's a joke, really, compared to the nearly unchecked and unlimited power of many of the South American heads of state with which you were comparing the US presidency). And that is the reason why to many outsiders the US government often seems rather inept in domestic affairs, because most outsiders don't realize how limited those powers are. And even then, as Todd points out, the president is constrained by the courts and the legislature.

[kishnevi]

Query whether that's because of the crown or because of the fact that England has a lot less power these days and needs to tread more carefully due to its colonial legacy.

Mind you, that quote was from the original article.  The author's main point was that keeping the roles of head of state and head of government  apart created at least a slight limitation on the powers of government, and at least some stability.   Our head of state and head of government  changes every four or eight years, depending on election results.  The British head of state changes only at (usually) long intervals even though the head of government changes at every election (in theory), and there are some things which remain the same in the British system that don't in the US system.  Moreover the British crown does have some (limited and as time goes on the limits keep growing) power to check the powers of the head of state--the most and almost only important one is the power to actually choose the person who will be the incoming prime minister--it's almost a rubber stamp operation nowadays, of course, but not completely, and if the prospective prime minister was a truly obnoxious person who didn't have a powerful political base, the monarch might feel justified in picking someone else, and facing down the inevitable constitutional crisis--or at least telling the assembled politicos to go away and come back with someone better.

And it's not so much that a non elected head of state keeps politicians humble so much as it limits their arrogance in office.  No matter how high they rise, there's always someone above them.

Of course, dividing head of state and head of government into two people is not a sure fire remedy.  Both France and Israel have an elected head of state who is different from the elected head of government, and still manage to have a messed up political system.

[MishaK]

Jeffrey,

I'm aware of all that. I just don't think that has anything to do with monarchy per se. Look for instance at Germany, where the office of the federal president is likewise almost purely ceremonial and also consists of mostly rubber-stamping legislation. There it has happened that the legislature wanted to do something obnoxious and the president put his foot down and refused to sign, sending them back to the drawing board. But you don't need a subsidized hereditary luxury caste to achieve that result.