Are there any heredity monarchist supporters here?

[wearestardust]

Is the question about the specific case of Australia, the specific case of England, constitutional monarchies, or monarchies in general? They have different answers.

Look at the Australian, English, Dutch and Danish parliamentary systems. All constitutional monarchies. All of them actually work pretty well. I'm unpersuaded (but happy to listen to arguments) there is anything inherently irrational or dysfunctional about any of those systems.

In the case of Australia, I (ever so slightly reluctantly) favour a republic. I support a republic because (i) the British monarchy is not particularly relevant to an increasing proportion of the Australian population and (ii) our ties to Britain are, in fact, pretty much irrelevant these days, so we ought just cut the strings. I'm less than 100% in favour, though, because (iii) pragmatically, I get worried about major changes to our constitutional arrangements, which work quite well, for the sake of symbolism (albeit extremely important symbolism), and (ii) I have a good sense of history and understand the roots of our particular system. Many of the good things about our parliamentary system evolved out of evolution of the relationship between the Crown and parliament. but, then, same for the US and they get by.

In the case of the UK: sure the royals are utterly ghastly and huge amounts of money are wasted on them, but I'm not sure that's an argument against the principle of constitutional monarchy.

The middle-eastern 'royalties' are a bad thing in every way. But that's about lack of constitutional monarchical democracy, I think.

And the Dutch and Danish systems: they are relatively inoffensive families who help tie together their communities (as do the ghastly brits, for that matter).


Disclosure for transparency: the reading pile next to the bed includes both Michael Braddick's Gods's Fury, England's Fire and Geoffrey Robinson's the Tyrannicide Brief

[Mithridates]

Not sure if I've got the quote exactly right, but I think Thomas Paine said that an hereditary monarch was as absurd as an hereditary mathemetician or an hereditary doctor. That about sums up my view of hereditary monarchy.

In the interest of complete honesty, I should qualify that a little, since, as a person with a keen interest in pre-modern history, I actually read a fair bit about the doings of various royals centuries ago. It's the current royals who bore me shitless

Regards

Mithridates (an ancient Eastern King who took on the Republic of Rome - and, after some initial success, got his arse handed to him on a plate )

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by Mithridates

Not sure if I've got the quote exactly right, but I think Thomas Paine said that an hereditary monarch was as absurd as an hereditary mathemetician or an hereditary doctor. That about sums up my view of hereditary monarchy.

That rings a bell. Paine is generally right on most things. Absurdity is not always a guarantee of non-functionality, though

In the interest of complete honesty, I should qualify that a little, since, as a person with a keen interest in pre-modern history, I actually read a fair bit about the doings of various royals centuries ago. It's the current royals who bore me shitless

Vote 1 Catherine the Great!

Mithridates (an ancient Eastern King who took on the Republic of Rome - and, after some initial success, got his arse handed to him on a plate )

My only exposure to Mithridates is via McCullough. Ought I have a better opinion of him?

[IVPITER]

Originally Posted by Mithridates

Not sure if I've got the quote exactly right, but I think Thomas Paine said that an hereditary monarch was as absurd as an hereditary mathemetician or an hereditary doctor. That about sums up my view of hereditary monarchy.

I think it is this quote below from the Rights of Man. I've read the first half and it's not a bad book.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

...the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate.

I also like this quote as well.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

All hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. An heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful name such things may be called, have no other significant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and herds.

I wish we had the courage to just become our own nation with our own head of state. I think most people realise it's not going to change for a long time and while some republicans are waiting for the queen to die, I doubt even a King Charles alone will result in us becoming a republic.

[Darwinsbulldog]

wearestardust wrote:-

Look at the Australian, English, Dutch and Danish parliamentary systems. All constitutional monarchies. All of them actually work pretty well. I'm unpersuaded (but happy to listen to arguments) there is anything inherently irrational or dysfunctional about any of those systems.

1. Monarchies gained their initial authority [mostly] by military conquest. And then they reinforced it by taking advantage of the invention called religion.

2. Monarchies [however benign] create biases in the community stability that favoures the elite.

3. Monarchies, and their hangers on [church, upper classes, etc] have undue influence in politics and the state more than their numbers would suggest they should have in a democracy.

4. At least in the UK, monarchies, by being "defender of the faith" actually stifle healthy dissent from customs. This includes excluding other faiths, and for that matter, people of no faith.

5. Political stability, at the cost non-awareness [Marx's "opium of the masses comes to mind], is arguably, unhealthy stability.

6. So monarchies are both irrational and dysfunctional. To straw-man a little, the Nazi's certainly made the trains run on time. I would rather have a more slightly unreliable trains system, if it gave rise to a more rational and equitable society.

I also dispute your claim of the money spent on Royals. Actually, they are better value for money than they ever were. The theatre of monarchy is a major tourist cash cow, and there is no doubt that at least as far as Elizabeth II goes, the monarchy is a great diplomatic asset as well.

[bruce1937]

Originally Posted by wearestardust

Is the question about the specific case of Australia, the specific case of England, constitutional monarchies, or monarchies in general? They have different answers.

Look at the Australian, English, Dutch and Danish parliamentary systems. All constitutional monarchies. All of them actually work pretty well. I'm unpersuaded (but happy to listen to arguments) there is anything inherently irrational or dysfunctional about any of those systems.

In the case of Australia, I (ever so slightly reluctantly) favour a republic. I support a republic because (i) the British monarchy is not particularly relevant to an increasing proportion of the Australian population and (ii) our ties to Britain are, in fact, pretty much irrelevant these days, so we ought just cut the strings. I'm less than 100% in favour, though, because (iii) pragmatically, I get worried about major changes to our constitutional arrangements, which work quite well, for the sake of symbolism (albeit extremely important symbolism), and (ii) I have a good sense of history and understand the roots of our particular system. Many of the good things about our parliamentary system evolved out of evolution of the relationship between the Crown and parliament. but, then, same for the US and they get by.

In the case of the UK: sure the royals are utterly ghastly and huge amounts of money are wasted on them, but I'm not sure that's an argument against the principle of constitutional monarchy.

The middle-eastern 'royalties' are a bad thing in every way. But that's about lack of constitutional monarchical democracy, I think.

And the Dutch and Danish systems: they are relatively inoffensive families who help tie together their communities (as do the ghastly brits, for that matter).


Disclosure for transparency: the reading pile next to the bed includes both Michael Braddick's Gods's Fury, England's Fire and Geoffrey Robinson's the Tyrannicide Brief

Actually my question was regarding hereditary monarchies in general, although obviously prompted by the current gushing about the UK/Australian queen.
I will concede that a constitutional monarchy may have some value if the appointment procedure is based on merit.
My main objection is the implication that a particular family deserve to be treated as super special for no reason other than that their ancestors were probably incredibly ruthless murderers and manipulators who set themselves and their offspring up to be above all others.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by wearestardust

Look at the Australian, English, Dutch and Danish parliamentary systems. All constitutional monarchies. All of them actually work pretty well. I'm unpersuaded (but happy to listen to arguments) there is anything inherently irrational or dysfunctional about any of those systems.

I've never heard anybody claim that they are dysfunctional. It is irrational to view a particular hereditary line as being the best at a job, and unjust to pay them millions of dollars of public money for merely being born. It is certainly irrational in the case of the monarchies you mention, to think that they have been appointed to their position by God. Of course those monarchies are not dysfunctional, because the monarchs are just well paid symbols, with no real power (other than the power that being rich and famous for being born entails).

[Mithridates]

@wearestardust

Although I tend to be more interested in classical antiquity and the Renaissance, I have read a biography of Catherine the Great and I would agree with your assessment

In regards to Mithridates, I think he does get rather unfair treatment by Colleen McCullogh. Although I respect the depth of her research, she has a tendency to cast the Romans as the good guys and their opponents as almost pantomime villains (also she goes in for the Hollywood habit of the good guys having white teeth and the bad guys having stained teeth - a bit of wishful thinking on her part, as most people's teeth in those days would probably have been pretty rank by the time they were adults ).

Mithridates certainly seems to have had remarkable charisma as he repeatedly managed to raise huge armies composed of disparate nationalities, despite repeated defeats at the hands of the Romans (there were three "Mithridatic Wars" in all). If only he'd had a little more success on the battlefield, he might be as well known as Hannibal.

Regards

(not the real) Mithridates

[AustralAlien]

Originally Posted by owheelj

We can easily have equality of opportunity without having an elected head of state. I strongly support a republic model where the head of state is appointed by parliament, similar to the model we have now. Unless we were going to completely change our system of government, it's obviously better to have an appointed head of state than an elected partisan one. What do you imagine the head of state would do, that justifies electing them?

I was thinking more in line of the American system of presidents. But I do see your point. The Queen is technically the head of state but has no real 'power' any more and the role is symbolic if anything.

So yes, you are correct, we probably would have to change our system of government completely to incorporate an elected head of state that had powers. I don't know whether that would be a good thing or not really, because it might cost a lot and there'd be some massive issues to overcome.

[wearestardust]

Rather than debate the meaning of the word "rational", I'll clarify my meaning. I agree that if one were starting from scratch, one would not start with a hereditary monarchical arrangements. But I'm not entirely convinced that, as a matter of general principle, constitutional monarchies in practice need to be ditched. I think ours should be, for reasons pertaining to Australia, but as I noted the Dutch and the Danes (and I might add the Swedes) seem to get by with inoffensive and not obviously insane royals.