Why abolish monarchies?

[Suburbia]

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.

The House of Mountbatten-Windsor is still relevant, that is why
Britain is still a superpower, in a sense

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

There are a lot of peculiarities of US political discourse that I find insufferable (I mean, As You Know) but I always found the dogged (and yes, largely performative) distaste for monarchy to be one of its saving graces. No, it doesn't really matter as such, but it displays the right instincts.

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

[Suburbia]

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.

There are a lot of peculiarities of US political discourse that I find insufferable (I mean, As You Know) but I always found the dogged (and yes, largely performative) distaste for monarchy to be one of its saving graces. No, it doesn't really matter as such, but it displays the right instincts.

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Monarchy is fascinating to a lot of people. America has it's own monarchies: The Kennedys, The Trumps, The Kardashians, The Hiltons, The Steinbrenners

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

The House of Mountbatten-Windsor is still relevant, that is why
Britain is still a superpower, in a sense

Both of those two sentences can be questioned, but more importantly there is no connection between them.

[CumbrianLefty]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

[Zinneke]

I don't believe in monarchy and think the House of Lords system in the UK is particularly vile because I believe in some form of meritocracy, and not the meritocracy that is sold by the capitalist/libertarian pipe dream but certainly a meritocracy where one is not born with titles and power from the go, but must earn it instead.

HOWEVER, I do understand the constitutional value of having a head of state separate from a head of government.

[Conservatopia]

I'm not a fan of monarchy or rather more accurately I'm not a fan of hereditary succession.  I mean just because Little Charlie popped out one particular womb he is now Head of State?!

Nevertheless it's not a big deal and anyway I dread to imagine what abomination we would come up with as a replacement.

Ultimately abolishing constitutional monarchy is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist and it's just not a priority.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

Possibly, but I've also seen plenty of generic libs fawn over royal weddings and such. It seems like more of an indicator of general shallowness and celebrity-culture brain poisoning than a genuine political belief.

[Хahar 🤔]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

I don't think this is right at all. The right-wing media embarrassed itself recently (or at least would have if it were capable of embarrassment) with its passionate defense of the British monarchy following the Oprah Winfrey interview earlier this year, but that (like everything) was based on the belief that it would in some way be owning the libs, not out of any ideological commitment to the British monarchy. While I find this sort of base anglophilia contemptible, I don't think it has any strong relationship to partisan politics. There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

[parochial boy]

There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

On that note, I always found it bizarre that Downton Abbey was somehow perceived as a liberal show in the USA. Like one of the best things about America is not having that nonsense, why would you want to go romanticise it just because Trump was a bit rude or whatever? Totally contrary to any real egalitarian principles

[Suburbia]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

I don't think this is right at all. The right-wing media embarrassed itself recently (or at least would have if it were capable of embarrassment) with its passionate defense of the British monarchy following the Oprah Winfrey interview earlier this year, but that (like everything) was based on the belief that it would in some way be owning the libs, not out of any ideological commitment to the British monarchy. While I find this sort of base anglophilia contemptible, I don't think it has any strong relationship to partisan politics. There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

Doesn't conservatism correlate to "hierarchy", so Tories worldwide will support them, even 1776 rightwingers?

I think American rightists like Queen Elizabeth II and her service to her nation. They admire her apolitical behavior, her sense of duty and her reign, despite the fact that Americans don't care so much for royalty. Yes, it is fascinating, but most Americans don't care for it. American rightwingers respect her sense of duty.

1776 rightwingers don't like Duchess Meghan's behavior and they feel that she has emasculated Harry. From a bad boy drunk soldier to a beta male, this is what I hear from Candace Owens, etc.

Leftists worldwide don't care for the monarchy and find hierarchy bad, when they view themselves as morally superior....the irony and hubris of that.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

On that note, I always found it bizarre that Downton Abbey was somehow perceived as a liberal show in the USA.

It was? The show was created by a Conservative peer and praised by David Cameron as an embodiment of his "Big Society" (lol) idea.

[buritobr]

I don't have a positive view on monarchies. If I live in the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden or Norway, I would answer against the monarchy if I were asked, but I would not have any little effort to fight against the monarchies, since they are not important for the daily life. These countries are liberal democracies like any other western european country.
If I live in the Spain, I would be a little more willing to support a transition to a republic because of the history of how the monarchy was restored. But even though, I would not do so much effort too, since Spain is also a well functioning liberal democracy.

[Tintrlvr]

There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

On that note, I always found it bizarre that Downton Abbey was somehow perceived as a liberal show in the USA. Like one of the best things about America is not having that nonsense, why would you want to go romanticise it just because Trump was a bit rude or whatever? Totally contrary to any real egalitarian principles

It wasn't perceived as liberal show, but rather it was coded liberal to enjoy the show, just as in America it's coded liberal to enjoy literally anything that isn't explicitly and overwhelmingly American. It's almost unimaginable that any non-American television show could ever be coded anything other than liberal in the U.S. or achieve any meaningful viewership among American conservatives (even a show with extremely conservative values; it would go entirely ignored before developing a conservative following). Maybe with the exception of a conservative Canadian show (do those exist?) since the accent wouldn't necessarily make it obviously non-American.

[Agonized-Statism]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

Well, the Windsors are extremely wealthy---they are the British ruling class. Commoners, even rich commoners like Kate Middleton are seen as commoners because they don't have titles. However, the Middleton family has ties to gentry and Baroness Airedale......

Self-made fortune

Others here are wincing at the notion that a young woman whose family’s self-made fortune is larger than many in the landed gentry is being so strongly defined by her bloodline in 21st century Britain. It shows, observers say, that despite the rise of mega-rich commoners such as Richard Branson and J.K. Rowling, this is still very much a society where status is measured in birthright and breeding.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/kates-a-commoner-but-a-wealthy-one/

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

But if there is a rich family that is rich, why is that a problem?

Shouldn't people aspire to be rich?

[Agonized-Statism]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

But if there is a rich family that is rich, why is that a problem?

Shouldn't people aspire to be rich?

So you think under a monarchy, every family should aspire to become the monarchy, with all the powers and luxuries that entails? How does that work? Strongest family wins? No wonder they keep gun laws so tight over there.

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

But if there is a rich family that is rich, why is that a problem?

Shouldn't people aspire to be rich?

So you think under a monarchy, every family should aspire to become the monarchy, with all the powers and luxuries that entails? How does that work? Strongest family wins? No wonder they keep gun laws so tight over there.

Not aspire to be the monarchy, a lot of men and women probably would like to date royals, but when you marry into royalty, you have to know what you are getting into.....Lady Di, Sarah Ferguson, all faced that....

[ingemann]

One of the worst thing about a republican with a small r is the low quality of non-royal head of states, the best of them are complete non-entities and the average of them is not fit to shine the boots of a prostitute and the worst of them belong at Hague.

So we really have a choice between a hereditary caste which mostly don’t embarrass us too much and the scum of the earth. Maybe the Corsicans were right when they elected Virgin Mary as head of state.

[The Last Kennedy]

Absolute monarchies in which the head of state has some sort of political authority in the modern day and age should not exist. The concept of a class of people who have more rights and privileges than others is pretty grotesque.  The only form of government that is even worse than monarchy is authoritarian republican governments. At least monarchies have some sort of constraint such as custom or tradition.

[Flyersfan232]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

I don't think this is right at all. The right-wing media embarrassed itself recently (or at least would have if it were capable of embarrassment) with its passionate defense of the British monarchy following the Oprah Winfrey interview earlier this year, but that (like everything) was based on the belief that it would in some way be owning the libs, not out of any ideological commitment to the British monarchy. While I find this sort of base anglophilia contemptible, I don't think it has any strong relationship to partisan politics. There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

the uk is our biggest ailles