Queen Elizabeth II has died

[Todd]

The benefit of monarchy can be summed up this way: the Queen was the symbol and representative of the UK. Without her the symbol and representative of the UK the last few years would have been...Boris Johnson.

I admit the gap between the new King Charles and Liz Truss is not nearly as big, but it's still there.

First, monarchy is not unique to the UK.

Second, Johnson was head of government, not head of state, so your example would only be accurate if the British decided to have the PM be head of both government and state.  Other structures are possible and in use in the world today.

Your summation is wrong.

[JBS]

First, monarchy is not unique to the UK.

Second, Johnson was head of government, not head of state, so your example would only be accurate if the British decided to have the PM be head of both government and state.  Other structures are possible and in use in the world today.

Your summation is wrong.

Your republicanism is boring.

[Todd]

Your republicanism is boring.

I guess royalists survived past 1783 after all.

[JBS]

I guess royalists survived past 1783 after all.

I'm not a royalist.
I didn't say republicanism is boring.
I said *your* republicanism is boring.

Have a good night.

[Spotted Horses]

My overall impression is that the warmth the public felt for Queen Elizabeth II is of great significance. The "pomp" (all those people parading around in archaic uniforms) was absurd and added nothing to the first thing. The fact that her mortal remains were paraded around the country in that fashion strikes me as grotesque and disrespectful, using her remains as a prop. This is just how it struck me, and I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

[vandermolen]

There is no valid reason why any family or small number of families should have members who serve in lifetime roles as head of state.  All senior leaders, actual or ceremonial, should be able to be replaced by the people at regular intervals. 

Of course, I understand that a small number of countries will retain monarchies for various reasons.  It just seems all so 17th Century.

That's true and it's not very logical in the 21st Century to retain a monarchy but it is very much part of who we are and connected with history and national identity. It may not survive in the long-term after the death of the Queen although, speaking personally, I hope that it does (and I am not a particular Royalist).

[Florestan]

My overall impression is that the warmth the public felt for Queen Elizabeth II is of great significance. The "pomp" (all those people parading around in archaic uniforms) was absurd and added nothing to the first thing. The fact that her mortal remains were paraded around the country in that fashion strikes me as grotesque and disrespectful, using her remains as a prop. This is just how it struck me, and I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

I respect your opinion but I can't help saying that what you call absurd and grotesque I call admirable and moving. Here is a people who is proud of their centuries old history (actually, the British monarchy stretches back in time more than a millenia), customs and traditions and unafraid/unashamed to show it. This is a great lesson, especially in our world and times, when many people, especially many if not most youngsters, seem to believe that the world has been born when they were born and have only a vague idea of their own history and national and cultural identity (if they don't reject them altogether, that is).

(NB: All of the above is in no way an attempt to start a polemic with you on the issue. You expressed your opinion not trying to convince anyone, I expressed my opinion not trying to convince you or anyone else.)

[Todd]

I'm not a royalist.

That's good to know.

[Irons]

That's good to know.

Why? You don't pay for it. It is not part of the fabric of your nation. Why do you feel so strongly about something not on your remit that when someone feels the same makes you feel good. I don't understand.

[Spotted Horses]

A point of comparison would be the funeral procession for Ronald Reagan, shown here on Constitution avenue, en route to the Capital.

[Karl Henning]

Not sure I consider it any more grotesque than a garden-variety wake. After Lincoln's assassination, his remains traveled around the country to give citizens an opportunity to bid him farewell. I suppose television made that unnecessary in Reagan's case, although it would not surprise me if people traveled to DC to "see him off" as it were.

[Florestan]

Why? You don't pay for it. It is not part of the fabric of your nation. Why do you feel so strongly about something not on your remit that when someone feels the same makes you feel good. I don't understand.

Fanatical republicanism believes republic to be an international one-size-fits-all form of government but I doubt that even the most fanatical British monarchist thinks that the US should become a kingdom or that Brazil should restore their Emperor. As on so many occasions and with respect to so many issues, common sense and pragmatism lie precisely where they are said to be missing. 

[Todd]

Why?

He is American.  American royalists would be slightly more troublesome than American communists.

Fanatical republicanism believes republic to be an international one-size-fits-all form of government but I doubt that even the most fanatical British monarchist thinks that the US should become a kingdom or that Brazil should restore their Emperor.

About a fifth of UK residents support a republican form of government.  I don't know how many Brazilians favor a new emperor. 

From an American standpoint, the UK's form of government is less important than if they go along with US policy - as they have with Echelon, Iraq, AUKUS, and so forth.  The UK and other countries can and will maintain quaint institutions and elevate very special families to places of permanent prominence.  Some will then talk of how civilized they are.

[Fëanor]

The benefit of monarchy can be summed up this way: the Queen was the symbol and representative of the UK. Without her the symbol and representative of the UK the last few years would have been...Boris Johnson.

I admit the gap between the new King Charles and Liz Truss is not nearly as big, but it's still there.

In a parliamentary democracy a monarch can represent the nation in the domestic and international eye in a way the an elected president is unlikely to.  (For instance, who is the President of Germany?  Who knows?  Who cares?)

Beyond that, (in a parliamentary system), an hereditary monarch provides stability and continuity and obviates the need for potentially contentious, periodic elections for a president who is all most entirely a figurehead.  I don't see a good reason that a country with a long history as a constitutional monarchy should convert to a republic;  that includes Canada IMHO.

I'm a monarchist but not a royalist.  That means I support monarchy constitutionally, not because I necessarily admire the king/queen or the royal family.

[Fëanor]

My overall impression is that the warmth the public felt for Queen Elizabeth II is of great significance. The "pomp" (all those people parading around in archaic uniforms) was absurd and added nothing to the first thing. The fact that her mortal remains were paraded around the country in that fashion strikes me as grotesque and disrespectful, using her remains as a prop. This is just how it struck me, and I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

Nah!! The funeral was great TV.  Tradition is a delightful if irrational think.  That said, the funeral of Charles III is likely to be trimmed down considerably.

In Elizabeth II's case it was fortuitous that she died in Scotland and is a good thing from a certain POV.  That's because it was a chance to reinforce the connection of the monarchy, and hence the UK, in Scotland where independence is a popular idea ... and independence is popular as much because Scottish politics is much more left-leaning than is England's than for any other reason.

Incidentally I believe that current, pro-independence Scottish First Minister is in favor of retaining current British monarch as monarch of Scotland ... very sensible IMHO.

[Todd]

In a parliamentary democracy a monarch can represent the nation in the domestic and international eye in a way the an elected president is unlikely to.  (For instance, who is the President of Germany?  Who knows?  Who cares?)

Beyond that, (in a parliamentary system), an hereditary monarch provides stability and continuity and obviates the need for potentially contentious, periodic elections for a president who is all most entirely a figurehead.

How contentious are elections for presidents in parliamentary systems, especially if presidents hold no real power? 

Ultimately, nothing you wrote strengthens the case for monarchy.  Rather, it reinforces the fact that monarchy is rather lacking in democratic legitimacy.  Ain't no families out there that are all that.

[Fëanor]

How contentious are elections for presidents in parliamentary systems, especially if presidents hold no real power? 

Ultimately, nothing you wrote strengthens the case for monarchy.  Rather, it reinforces the fact that monarchy is rather lacking in democratic legitimacy.  Ain't no families out there that are all that.

There is nothing undemocratic about a constitutional monarchy such as Britain's.

[Todd]

There is nothing undemocratic about a constitutional monarchy such as Britain's.

Aside from the hereditary monarchy bit.

[Fëanor]

Aside from the hereditary monarchy bit.

That's just wrong:  the hereditary monarch doesn't detract from democracy in the slightest way.  To imply that is a gratuitous affront the British people.

[Todd]

the hereditary monarch doesn't detract from democracy in the slightest way.

Hmm.