Why abolish monarchies?

[Suburbia]

Stop.

Yes, monarchies in the 21st century may not be relevant socially. But they are seen as the figureheads, tradition and tourist attraction.

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore? What will they go by? Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, like the lesser known royals?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

France has quite enough tourists without the monarchy.

[Pick Up the Phone]

Stop.

Yes, monarchies in the 21st century may not be relevant socially.

Oh, believe me, they are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because monarchy is evil.

[CumbrianLefty]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

[Samof94]

Also, if Canada became a republic, would anyone notice?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

[Former President tack50]

France has quite enough tourists without the monarchy.

On this note, I somehow doubt that your average British/German tourist coming to Mallorca to party hard would somehow stop doing so if Spain became a republic.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The tourism argument is silly. We could turn Buckingham Palace into one of the most popular tourist sites in the world if it was seized and opened to the public.

I'm a republican who views monarchy as a slightly embarrassing relic but abolishing it is pretty low down on my list of priorities given its insignificance in public life except as celebrity gossip fodder.

[Del Tachi]

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore?

Not really anything different from what they do now.  The royal family's wealth is mostly held in private assets.   

[CumbrianLefty]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore?

Edward had a tolerably successful career in TV production, so would probably be alright even if the family's assets were expropriated. William would probably have to depend on the rubber chicken circuit, but I don't think he'd starve.

[Lord Halifax]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.

[Suburbia]

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore?

Edward had a tolerably successful career in TV production, so would probably be alright even if the family's assets were expropriated. William would probably have to depend on the rubber chicken circuit, but I don't think he'd starve.

Won't they still be British socialites? They will still be rich, they will go to London or Manchester nightclubs and hang out with rich Brits like the Beckhams, Jack Grealish, etc.

Nightclubs are where middle class and lower class commoners hang out to drink and have a middle class life....

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

The tourism argument has been weakened over the past 18 months.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

European elite circles are full of various people claiming descent from this deposed family or whatever; of all the arguments to claim in favour of the monarchy the idea that Princess Eugenie will starve is not really a credible one. (Indeed, by far one of the most annoying things about a monarchy is the entourage, so I doubt many would give a crap.

I am a soft republican because I oppose hereditary positions for, y'know, enlightenment reasons, but it's hardly one of my big passions in life.

[Alcibiades]

I too am a soft republican (because I cannot actually justify it in anyway), but it is pretty far down my list of priorities for constitutional reform in the UK - well below electoral reform and probably also below an elected Lords.

[rc18]

Nothing about the last few years has convinced me republics and presidencies are worth the hassle.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Any country with good marketing skills can turn just about anything it has to offer into a successful tourism interest. Even filming locations for an underwhelming film franchise or television series.

[Suburbia]

European elite circles are full of various people claiming descent from this deposed family or whatever; of all the arguments to claim in favour of the monarchy the idea that Princess Eugenie will starve is not really a credible one. (Indeed, by far one of the most annoying things about a monarchy is the entourage, so I doubt many would give a crap.

I am a soft republican because I oppose hereditary positions for, y'know, enlightenment reasons, but it's hardly one of my big passions in life.

Princess Eugenie won't starve.

Her uncle, Charles, Prince of Wales, wants nothing to do with the other royals when the Queen dies. Charles downsized the already declining British monarchy....only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, George, Charlotte and Louis will matter.

Harry and Meghan will end up like Eugenie, Beatrice, Peter, Zara and Prince Edward's children....they will have to work in the private sector.....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.

I don't know what these words are really supposed to mean. On a purely grammatical sense, "bad" is not relative - the relative form is "worse". On a philosophical level, if you view evil as a deviation from / absence of good, then it is in a sense also relative, since it's only defined in relation to good. Either way, I don't see a particular instance of something that could be bad but not evil or vice versa.

[Lord Halifax]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.

I don't know what these words are really supposed to mean. On a purely grammatical sense, "bad" is not relative - the relative form is "worse". On a philosophical level, if you view evil as a deviation from / absence of good, then it is in a sense also relative, since it's only defined in relation to good. Either way, I don't see a particular instance of something that could be bad but not evil or vice versa.

Things and people can be more or less bad, only humans can be evil and if they are that's an absolute term. "Sarah is a good person" doesn't mean she has no character flaws, while "Sarah is evil" doesn't leave room for any mitigating circumstances about her character or personality (you can't say "Sarah is an evil woman, but she does have a great sense of humor", once you've characterized her as evil, that's it, she can still be intelligent, good-looking, good at tennis and have other objective features, but you've used an absolute term about her character that can't subsequently be nuanced, whereas you can say e.g. "Ben was a bad man who hurt a lot of women, but he did love his children").  

It's similar to a color being various shades of grey compared to black. You can't be more or less black. In the same way as black is a color which results from the absence (or complete absorption) of visible light, evil implies the absence of any traces of empathy, goodness or mitigating circumstances. Evil is a much stronger and more explicit term than good, which has a broader meaning and is usually used in a relative meaning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because monarchy is evil.

Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.

I don't know what these words are really supposed to mean. On a purely grammatical sense, "bad" is not relative - the relative form is "worse". On a philosophical level, if you view evil as a deviation from / absence of good, then it is in a sense also relative, since it's only defined in relation to good. Either way, I don't see a particular instance of something that could be bad but not evil or vice versa.

Things and people can be more or less bad, only humans can be evil and if they are that's an absolute term. "Sarah is a good person" doesn't mean she has no character flaws, while "Sarah is evil" doesn't leave room for any mitigating circumstances (you can't say "Sarah is an evil woman, but she does have a great sense of humor", once you've characterized her as evil, that's it).   

It's similar to a color being various shades of grey compared to black. You can't be more or less black. In the same way as black is a color which results from the absence (or complete absorption) of visible light, evil implies the absence of any traces of empathy, goodness or mitigating circumstances. Evil is a much stronger and more explicit term than good, which has a broader meaning and is usually used in a relative meaning.

I get what you mean. I guess it feels more like a semantic distinction than a philosophical one to me. No person is truly purely good or evil either way, so when we call them good or evil it's merely as a shorthand.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm joining the chorus of "soft republicans" in this thread with the addition that, as someone who lives in the first republic to be founded in modern times, I've recently noticed hostility to random foreign monarchies coming into vogue as a way for young Americans to sound like radical leftists without actually focusing on the US's own problems. These days I have a reflexive distrust for the motives of any American who focuses like a laser on the evils of the House of Windsor rather than more relevant issues.