528
Disgraced Andrew insists royal staff call him 'sir' and fetch beer (youtu.be)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

YouTube thumbnail

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I think we really should stick to calling him “Prince Andrew.” If we don’t we’re letting the monarchy separate itself from him…but that’s bullshit; he has the privilege of being a prince and his status as prince is not just what gave him the liberty to be a monster, but I think we can assume it’s what actually made him a monster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I heard a very interesting argument that if the Royal family can remove Andrew from the line of succession, then the line itself can be manipulated, and anyone else could be added. In that case, what is the point of having a royal family?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The line has been manipulated several times by Parliament, including the selection and elimination of kings.

    The point of the royal family now isn't to be a defined lineage, but an agreed upon vessel to hold power when Parliament temporarily breaks. Even then, Queen Elizabeth II was kind of shit at it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Not to mention that the current royal family was originally named Saxe-Coburg, changing it to a more palatable "Windsor" during the first World war (which was fought against subjects of the German Kaiser, who was a cousin of the British king).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Seems a little threadbare as a theory.

    People have been adding other people to royal families for the entirety of recorded history.

    Sometimes its through marriage, but sometimes its adoption, sometimes they just make up a lineage.

    Now, theres arguments against royalty, for sure, but if the royal family wasn't allowed to prune itself, find the best people and merge them into the royal family, etc, there never would've been royals in the first place. Royal families begin with individuals but they remain by caring about "good breeding" (and other ways of consolidating power).

    Consolidating is the real purpose. It can be obscured with religious lines of divinity, or what have you, but royal families are always shopping for people to incorporate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    A monarchy is a family business. Anyone in the family can run it. Monarchies are inherently unstable when the monarchs die because of this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Authoritarian forms of government will be unstable when there's no clear line of succession. It's the reason why monarchies come about. It's not like people don't understand that it's extremely arbitrary, it's just that it's better than the alternative: civil wars whenever whoever is in power dies. It's an agreement among various lords that it's better they just accept that person over there that's the son of the King will someday be King rather than having a civil war when the King dies.

    And sure civil wars would still happen, but most of the time the succession would happen without bloodshed. When there's no line of succession, it's just constant power struggles when the leader dies.

    Of course democracy is a far better way to determine who will run things, but that requires a literate population to work. Which didn't exist throughout much of human history. Sure, there were republics throughout history, but they'd usually become monarchies when the illiterate masses would decide they liked that Julius guy (he threw the best parties!) and hated that Brutus guy who killed him, even if the Julius guy was becoming a tyrant.

    So monarchies suck, but they're better than civil wars. So when the population becomes too dumb, it sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    A lot of people have a tendency to want to show loyalty to their country by showing subservience to some rich arrogant asshole that surrounds themselves with gold. See the how a significant percentage of the US population think of Trump for example.

    If there is no King the subservient portion of the population will create one. It's better to have a King that doesn't have any actual power so that won't happen. The subservient part of the population don't really care that their King has no political power, they just want to bow to someone to prove their loyalty to the country and see some pomp and pageantry. For a lot of people the concept of a country is too abstract to understand so they need some person to do all kinds the ceremonial stuff so they can express their loyalty to the country by showing loyalty to that person.

    Similar to how having a separation between government and religion, it's a separation between government and all the ceremonial pomp and pageantry stuff.

    Sure, I wouldn't directly care if there was monarchy was eliminated, but a lot of other people would. And those people would start voting in some wealthy asshole to rule over us like a king. And that's something I definitely don't want. So just give the subservient types someone they can bow to so it doesn't impact the rest of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.

    Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes

    Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?

    There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.

    As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.

    I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.

    I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.

    Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!

    I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the "King-Byng affair" in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best...but that absolutely should resolve anyone's question that the monarchy "has zero power in Canada." People generally remember this as the crown "saving us from ourselves" ...I don't have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn't have power...if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that...but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.

    But ask Australians...they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their "1975 constitutional crisis," in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam...practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.

    Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.

    I'm a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don't know this stuff...like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look...if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine... What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous...what happens if it's not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that's what happened in australia!).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.

    Now that the Governor General is Canadian it's kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there's been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would've only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn't come to that so whatever.

    You're a lawyer so you're going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren't codified into law. But right now we're all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn't abuse power and be completely corrupt because he'd be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn't happening.

    It's obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he'd be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won't abuse his position since he doesn't want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.

    We see a republic where there's basically an aristocracy that's above the law and we see a monarchy where the King's brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?

    Seems to me it doesn't really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I see what you mean about the optics of the governor general being Canadian, but legally they’re still bound to do what the monarch says, and the monarch is not bound to do what parliament says! Like, for example, if the UK wanted to drag us into a war, some Canadians might be keen…even if it’s a minority, if the governor general were one of them, we’d either be going or have a conditional crisis on our hands.

    You’re right, of course…what’s going on in the US does show the flimsiness of “western liberal democracies” in the face of fascist tactics. When push comes to shove constitutions and laws are words on paper (and Canada relies on many norms that are not even that!) and they only matter if everyone with power agrees they matter.

    On paper, the US has much more robust rights in respect of their government than Canada does, but to your point, that has obviously not lead to a more society with less government overreach!

    So I basically agree, I think it’s not right to say it’s all completely meaningless though. Like…there may well be things that the king could do to abuse his power for which we wouldn’t have the will to remove the king from power. I guess that’s my point; let’s do it on principal first. I don’t see any reason to leave the letter of the law in a shitty place (and it doesn’t seem you disagree that having a king is shitty) just because outright fascists would ignore it if they came to power. Little fascists may be stopped, non-fascists may find their path smoother, etc.

    That said, if you’re thinking the accelerationist approach of “let adversity harden the will of the people, and we’ll build a new world in the ashes of the old” then hey, more power to ya. Sign me up for the mailing list =P

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    If the King overstepped, there would just be no more King.

    If the King did anything in your hypotheicals, we'd just say "the King is not of sound mind" and either the King would have to abdicate, or we'd elminate the monarchy. No rational King wants to be the one to end the monarchy, and since any action by the King would result in the end of the monarchy, any action by the King would therefore is automatically considered the actions of someone not of sound mind, and therefore should be ignored. If the King didn't abdicate due to no longer being of sound mind, we'd end the monarchy.

    The population having a strong will doesn't mean we're going to break out a guillotine or whatever. It just means being willing to vote, protest, call your MP, etc. It means actually caring about the institution of democracy. If it came down to the King saying one thing, and the parliament saying the opposite, which would the people consider legitimate? Maybe a lawyer could argue that the King's orders are technically legitimate, but if people care about democracy, they can just ignore the legalisms. That's how it goes in a constitutional crisis.

    Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but it's not lawyers that protect us from tyrants. It's just having an educated population that won't accept tyranny. Americans, are accepting of tyranny, so they're descending into tyranny. There's nothing lawyers can do to stop it, because the lawyers on the Supreme court, the lawyers in the DOJ, and the laywers in the GOP are going along with it. The law doesn't prevent tyranny it's people not willing to go along with tyranny that prevents it.

    We have a King and we won't go along with the King's commands unless they come from parliament. We're aware of the King we know who he is, we know what to watch for. Americans didn't have a King, but they made their President into a Kings. Most of them don't even know it happened because they didn't know what to look out for. They know the President has power, but don't know which powers he should and shouldn't have.

    We have a King and we know what power he should have: none.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think I must not be making my point clearly.

    You say “if the king oversteps” and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping. Lawyers don’t usually protect us from tyranny, lawyers usually enforce tyranny; it’s just the kind of tyranny that is commonly accepted. And that acceptance matters…because people think it does, sure.

    I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these days…if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization? You think Canadians have stronger political convictions than folks in the US? I dont…Canadians seem to love to not care about Canadian politics…disinterest in politics seems to be a point of pride to differentiate themselves from those annoying Americans. And it’s way worse than 60/40 there and just look at the place. It’s a mess.

    You say you think the king should have no power and everyone knows it but the commander in chief of your military is a direct personal appointee who serves at their pleasure.

    A crisis doesn’t occur without a context…it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisis…we’d just all be on-side and do the right thing…I think that is extraordinarily naive!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You say “if the king oversteps” and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping.

    You mentioned before that most people don't even know about these things. Why is that? Because the norm is the King does as the Parliament wants.

    I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these days…if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization?

    This is what I mean about the people having a strong will. If they do, then yes. If the don't then we lose democracy.

    Again I go back to the example of the US. Them being a republic makes no difference. If the people don't have the will to stand up to a tyrant, then there will be tyranny.

    A crisis doesn’t occur without a context…it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisis…we’d just all be on-side and do the right thing…I think that is extraordinarily naive!

    Sure, but what does the existence of the monarchy have to do with any of that? Trump is a continuous constitutional crisis, doesn't seem like eliminating the monarchy prevents any of that happening. If anything having a monarch makes it more obvious when there's an abuse of power. Americans don't understand that Trump is undermining their precious constitution, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans know the President should have some power they just don't know which powers he shouldn't have. We know our head of state is supposed to only be a figurehead. It's more obvious when someone is taking some power when they're supposed to have none than someone show's supposed to have some power taking more than they should.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks for the interesting chat; i hope it's nice for you. I am tearing my hair a little, but in a fun way.

    By this logic, why have laws at all? Why not just have an absolute monarch and trust "the people will stand up" if power is misused? Laws aren't magic, they're often used to perpetuate awful things, but they do shape what people see as overreach. The reason cops who kill don't get lynched is because people believe the legal system will eventually punish them.

    I also don't think the US being a republic makes no difference. Trump isn't a king, and has struggled to get this far. He's faced injunctions that actually stopped some harms. In Canada, it would be 100x easier. Parliament can just say "notwithstanding the Charter" and ignore all rights, and courts could not stop it (unlike in the US, where they could, but SCOTUS won't because it's been packed with lunatics).

    One interesting proposal related to your ideas from constitutional scholars about how to do away with the relationship to the british royal family (looters, genociders, and pedophiles that they are) is to simply deem the King of Canada to be an individual...effectively making the King a fictional entity. That would actually make sure he has no power, eh?

    I see your point that "if we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problem" ... except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You won't know why the GG makes her choices. The monarchy has vast "reserve" powers (which as the name implies, are generally kept in reserve...like a Chekov's gun). Australia's governor-general dismissed their PM in 1975 using those powers. In Canada, the last clear example of undemocratic BS was 1961 when the LG of Saskatchewan refused consent to a passed law. But we have a perfect example in 2008: do you think the GG didn't check with her boss about proroguing to save a minority PM from a no-confidence vote? That was a real exercise of real power by an appointee of the crown.

    Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say "get this moving." If the LG (or GG) went public, she'd lose her job. So she'd quietly do it. And if it leaked? Conservatives would say "we must stay connected to the crown...tradition!... and who wants these human rights laws anyway?" Plenty of Liberals would fold too, saying "well, technically, the king actually does have the right to pick whoever he wants, and we shouldn't shake things up too much..maybe we could just get the king to agree to take it back and appoint her again? no? maybe another lady...an indigenous one? no? how about a white lesbian, would that do? okay, perfect, we'll call that a win!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    By this logic, why have laws at all?

    Laws are needed for a civilized society. but civilization is a safe area we've created for ourselves in a dangerous jungle. When we step outside of our civilization we're in a lawless place and we're just surviving based on or abilities and judgement. There's no legal way to eliminate the jungle, it will always be there. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to have nice things when living in our civilized society.

    A lot of these hypotheticals and real world scenarios are just people going out from civilized behaviour to the edge of the jungle. Whether it's a King making commands or a President ignoring the court, these are things that shouldn't be done based on the norms and laws of our civilization. So we're in jungle rules, we have to figure out how to deal with the problem based on just our abilities and out judgement.

    I see your point that “if we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problem” … except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You won’t know why the GG makes her choices.

    Parliament would know. Their job is to represent the will of the people. If the GG or King weren't doing as they were told by Parliament, the PM has able opportunity to say to the country "that's not what I wanted them to say."

    Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say “get this moving.” If the LG (or GG) went public, she’d lose her job. So she’d quietly do it.

    There were 50 MLAs that voted against that. How would the LG be able to do this quietly without the 50 people that voted against it knowing about it? When legislation gets royal assent, it's done so publicly. Someone reads it out in Parliament and the Governor gives it a nod. It's all a formality really, but who would be the person in parliament reading out legislation that didn't pass to a Governor in the first place? You'd have to have the Parliament's Clerks in on the scheme and not have them leak it to the the representatives, And they would be fired if caught doing any of this. Laws obviously have to be published so people like your self can use them in court. How would a GG, LG, or the King himself be able to do something without the elected representatives who voted against it knowing about it?

    There's a lot of process and ceremony involved in this: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/LegislativeProcess/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.html How would you slip some secret laws through all of that process?

    And I think you have it backwards. If something like this were to happen, there would be no more King. Even if the King were to force laws to come into being somehow (don't know how it would happen, so it wouldn't be the normal process, therefore very obvious) people would know and either the King would have to undo the action and abdicate or we'd just cease to be a monarchy. We'd be in the jungle and we'd be acting on our abilities and judgement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm not sure I like this jungle analogy, but in the analogy, I guess my point is that some laws "expand" civilization and "shrink" the jungle. They reduce the accessibility of "lawlessness" on the part of the government. You're right, they can always still get there, but they make the jungle further away, make it harder to get there.

    It's simply not true that we'd know if the GG was being influenced by the monarch. If the GG decided to use reserve powers (or consider using them and decide not to, like they did in 2008) we would have no way of knowing whether the King of England was behind it or not. And if your thought is "it doesn't matter we'd remove any GG or LG that tries to use any power at all" you're obviously incorrect about that :P

    I'm not saying a law, like the proposed one to abolish the HRT, would be passed in secret. I'm saying the political pressure would be secret. Of course the law must be passed publicly, and you'd have all kinds of yelling on both sides about it. In the alternative, if parliament passed something and the GG refused to give royal assent, likewise that would be very public. The influence on the GG, however, would not be!

    I would love to imagine that any constitutional crisis would be resolved immediately in favor of democracy and not on the basis of the underlying issue but I think that's very hopeful. I'm not sure how to make it more clear...I could come up with more hypothetical situations to demonstrate where the king could exercise undemocratic influence, but I don't know why that would help! I'll try one more and then I'll leave it if this doesn't help explain what I'm talking about:

    Let's imagine a parliament with a thin liberal majority, but it's expected to flip soon due to some unpopular decisions. Parliament narrowly passes a law that the residence at the Citadel of Quebec is going to become a public museum operated by the federal government. The Conservatives hate this because they consider it a waste of taxpayer dollars. The King privately opposes it because he quite likes having a vacation home in Quebec (and the GG actually uses it, so maybe she feels the same way). The GG doesn't give royal assent, but says it's for some technical deficiency, expecting an election to remove the issue...or alternatively simply says outright that the Conservatives are correct and the government can't afford it...or somesuch mildly-plausible excuse that the milquetoast canadian middle class will accept (I only suppose the thin liberal majority in order to make this plausible excuse, but you could certainly imagine others if the liberal hold on parliament was strong). If the GG does not give royal assent...you think we'd go into a constitutional crisis? I don't think anyone would think it's worthwhile (which, of course, means that such a law wouldn't pass...which is its own kind of influence being exercised passively by the Crown!).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You're overestimating the value of laws. Laws don't create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. It's far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.

    Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and it's the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.

    And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?

    So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me it's more obvious when someone doesn't give royal ascent, and it's very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems you're imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but you're not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time they're in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    As I said, I think the "jungle vs civilization" analogy is a little weird. I don't think laws create civilization. But I do think laws matter for fascists. If they didn't they wouldn't need to pack the supreme court. Project 2025 wouldn't be so focused on laws and the judiciary. They're not meaningless...at the edge of the jungle? I guess? in this analogy?

    So, when you talk about people being weak willed, you're saying that a fascist coming to power is a kind of personal moral failing of the individuals in a society. I think that's pretty absurd, and takes all responsibility away from the systems that shape people's "willpower," as well as their understanding of what is and is not overreach. If that's true then there's just nothing to be done? Just let the fascists have all the places with people who have weak wills? lol

    Okay, so I don't know why you will not engage with a hypothetical as a means of seeing the problem I'm talking about. Obviously the king isn't going to upset the balance of power in the Commonwealth for his vacation home in quebec...if you can't generalize that to something more important (such as, in Australia, the cold war), then there's no point in talking about hypothetical situations...the point is to generalize from them. But that's fine, it doesn't really matter.

    And for what it's worth, his cushy life isn't going anywhere whether the commonwealth crumbles or not. The king of england could cease to be the king of canada and it wouldn't cost him anything (except, I guess, a vacation home in quebec he never uses). I'd be thrilled if the UK decides to guillotine them, but they won't and I guess I have to make peace with that.

    I'm not proposing replacing the king, I'm proposing kicking the king out. Just don't have a king. If we must have a king, I would prefer to have a Canadian monarch and to stop legitimizing the genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles in the house of windsor...but I don't see that we need a king. We could still just have a governor general appointed by the PM...make the system actually and definitely work the way you say it works (and I agree it works 99% of the time...but why the fuck are we leaving 1% on the table just to glorify those assholes? Like...we know it doesn't work that way 100% of the time given the handful of examples I've shared).

    Honestly though, why? Like...I haven't seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Like…I haven’t seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

    I have but you haven't been paying attention. If you don't have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesn't have a King, but they've created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You don't seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And that's the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.

    You label the King as a "genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles" even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and he's being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.

    And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carney's ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?

    The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how "Presidential" they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but you'll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.

    Americans feel like they're supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they won't remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it won't seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King who's apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.

    There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldn't really change anything. Why bother removing the King?

    The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that there's something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which is... hmmmm.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    You're arguing the king is a non-entity, but a king is inevitable? Most people in most places throughout history have lived without one. If you want to look at "civilizations," the Roman Republic and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy come to mind immediately.

    And come on, are you serious? The King endorses genocide and imperialist looting by wearing "his" regalia. All the royal symbols are stolen from the people slaughtered by the monarchy. He could return all the symbols and keep all the wealth...would cost him nothing...good PR even! (I'd still say all of the wealth is stolen and should be given away to help people in the places his ancestors colonized...but luckily he's saved me the trouble by showing he doesn't care enough to even give up the symbols)

    Mark Carney isn't the right comparison. The office of Prime Minister is the right comparison to the monarchy, and it's (at least theoretically) representative.

    It's not the family I care about, it's the institution. This is like arguing that the KKK hasn't lynched anyone lately...so can we really hold the institution responsible for the crimes of the people in its past? Like...it's an institution. OF COURSE we can hold it responsible for the things it does. Every Windsor has the right and ability (and obligation) to abdicate. Children of KKK members also have the right and ability and obligation to leave the organization. I don't think that's really an appropriate comparison, the scale of the monarchy's atrocities is beyond compare. I assume we don't need to get into ennumerating the crimes of the monarchy, but if you don't know that we're talking about a 9-figure scale, we can talk about that more.

    If the king abdicated I would applaud him. If he gave away every penny of the royal family's wealth and then abdicated I'd bow before him, kiss his feet, beg the honor to host him in my home, if he was deprived I'd do my best to feed and house and clothe him myself. I'd be so proud of him, proud that a fellow human being should have that moral fortitude and courage. It's not him or his bloodline that counts (except to the institution), it's the institution that's the problem. FWIW I'd gladly have Harry over for dinner, even though he's done some half-assed-in-between thing. Good enough for me, given that he's not the monarch. I don't hate him because of his Windsor blood. Anyway the king would never do that, so whatever.

    I'm not totally clear...you're acting as if the king does have power, and provides some kind of a-political stability...but earlier you were saying he has no power? If you want him to have no power...why leave him with power? Just take it away. Make the Prime Minister a truly elected position, and have the prime minister actually appoint the Governor General...it'll work the same as always, but we escape relying on norms, leaving a constitutional crisis sitting there like a chekov's gun. I still really don't understand how you don't see that latent crisis as a problem. You seem to be saying it couldn't possibly happen (it happened in australia, and again I don't think we'd ever know the crown was involved if not for the palace letters) and if it's not impossible it's easy to handle (it wasn't easy in australia - they literally just let the monarch dissolve their democratically elected parliament and appoint someone she liked as prime minister. There were massive protests but in the end everyone moved on...you'd say they were weak-willed I guess? Are we weak willed for not immediately pulling the plug upon seeing that?). PLUS we get to separate ourselves from one of the most horrifically murderous institutions in human history? PLUS 64% of Canadians want to abolish the monarchy so it's inherently desirable? What's not to love?

    It would not take any work to remove the King...at least a lot less work than declaring a GST holiday or whatever. That takes real work. I can write the law right now: "the Queen of Canada is deemed to be a natural person that is not any existing natural person, and is deemed to exercise authority granted to her under statutes of Canada in accordance with a written request of the Prime Minister, published in the Canada Gazette" Boom, done! This would let all other laws in Canada work precisely as they already do, without amendment. The only thing that would change is who the prime minister addresses his "suggestions" to. I wouldn't mind doing the same thing to the governor general, but that might be a bit more complicated in the handoff between prime ministers, so maybe we just leave it as-is. There is an existing proposal before the HOC that's a bit more complicated, but whatever.

    And look, I'm obviously not saying America is any better, the U.S. is a fascist hellscape despite not having a king, and despite having a relatively robust constitution (things are better here but I don't think it's because we don't have a robust constitution). I'm not sure if you think I'm saying America is any better...

    All I'm saying is, Canada would be better than it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent