About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
Robert - I am surprised at you! This is NOT a harmless fiction, It is a fiction that inherently relies on the idea of hereditary privilege - that some people are born better than others, not because they are in any way gifted, or markedly more intelligent than others, but simply because of who their parents are. And that goes back to the fact that centuries ago, their ancestors were in the right place at the right time, better at killing people and better at theft than others around at the time. The royal family are obscenely wealthy and yet we, British tax payers, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to put food on their table, had to pay for this ridiculous extravaganza that we had absolutely no say in whether or not it happened. It is also not true to say that the king has no power. As has been shown recently, the royal family get the chance to see legislation that might affect their interests before it is ever seen by MPs, and they have, on many occasions, insisted on changes to such legislation that will further benefit them financially. And having those who disagree with the idea of monarchy arrested before they had even started to peacefully protest, again shows that this is not harmless.
Our new king is known to require servants to put the toothpaste on the toothbrush for him! And although his friend Jonathon Dimbleby tried to claim that he would find the idea of anyone swearing allegiance to him repugnant, it is absurd to suggest that the idea of having people swear an oath of loyalty, not just to him but to his successors, was something put in the coronation ceremony without his approval or desire. It is also totally anachronistic that, in a country where the majority of people do not see themselves as Christians, that our new king was swearing to uphold the protestant religion. How offensive to everyone who does not see themselves as protestant! Giving representatives of other denominations and religions tiny walk on parts in this ceremony does not make this right. If the UK is ever to even start to achieve any improvement in its quite hideous levels of inequality, both of status and of wealth, we must get rid of these symbols of totally unearned hereditary wealth and privilege.
I'm a dual UK-US Citizen living and working in Arizona – and have spent most of my adult life in the US. Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee Award for graduate research and study (home or abroad) brought me to Columbia University and changed my career and life - for the better.
The British Monarchy exists to serve the people, give them hope and unite the nation. Despite the Royal soap opera and intrigue, amplified no-end by the press, the same can't be said for a large number of numbskulls occupying Parliament. In the US we are barely beginning to recover from the events leading up to the 2016 election after which Trump, a patently incompetent, seditious narcissist infested the People's House - the White House, and through his low IQ convinced millions of Americans that Covid was some kind of hoax that would evaporate by Easter 2020. Over 1 million Americans have died as a direct result and in 2020 Trump set about destroying our democracy in order to remain in power like some insane King devoid of decency and taste.
Neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Kind Charles III would ever dream of abusing the roles and titles they hold for personal gain and power. The Monarchy has no political power at all. It serves at the pleasure of the people and for the people. Britain's armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown not to Parliament - as such they are completely apolitical even though they are of course permitted to vote and hold personal views of one sort or another.
In our now global society where, it seems, every living and inanimate thing is treated as an exploitable commodity from which profits are to be extracted as quickly and for as long as possible, Britain's Monarchy operates as a social gyroscope combatting political extremes, corruption and exploitation that are so frequently engaged in by elected officials. We most definitely need to do better in the US starting with ethical oversight of lawyers and especially the Supreme Court. We need a better justice model than the two tier one so clearly in operation today.
So as a dual citizen there are times when I feel decidedly betwixt and between both nations. But the United States is my home and where the bulk of my family now are. I just hope that we in the United States can correct our course and find, in new leaders in Congress and all levels of government, that social gyroscope that enables us to set a course for a better future and tack our way toward it - together rather than apart.
I am a Brit, and have mixed feelings about our royals. I think it's a good idea to have a head of state who is a) decorative, and b) has no real powers. On the other hand, the idea of a head of state by birth encourages too many among the rich and powerful to think in terms of entitlement rather than worth. Birth should not give anybody anything. The royals set a bad example for the rest of us.
Not sure that fascination with royalty is harmless. The notion that someone is actually born higher than others is not different from believing the reverse. Like accepting slavery.
I say this as a scot and a Brit... the monarchy is an embarrassment and seem to be an excuse for a portion of the population to believe that they have ‘betters’ and are doing their duty by paying attention to the drama while excusing any number of ‘indiscretions’ in the name of tradition. It should be left in the past and represented in museums. America, there is much I do not envy about the USA right now but your lack of monarchy is one thing.
The aristocracy and gentry control at least 30% of the land in England, according to the Guardian. This, of course, is probably only a small portion of the land that the monarchy owns or controls worldwide (it is very difficult to find exact figures). I can't help but wonder what the British economy would look like if there were to be major land reform, allowing citizens and their government to control an additional third of their country. In terms of their impact on the economy, and the ability of their citizens to own property and thus build intergenerational family wealth (yes, I am sitting in on your Wealth and Poverty class for a second time), I think it is too generous to see them as a benign force in their society. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author
I think this is the 21st century and we need to put things that belong in the past in the past, such as royalty, internal combustion engines, and animal agriculture.
I wish that we Americans would pay less attention to British royalty. We fought a war to rid ourselves of Royalty yet many Americans follow the royalty celebrities like our own Hollywood folk--and neither group are worthy of much attention. We do expect to much ceremonial activities of our president when the primary duty is and should be governance.
I, for one, think the monarchy is a distraction that is holding us back. Everybody goes on about how good for tourism they are, but what about the other side of that. How bad for the economy are they? With our eyes to the past wee have got complacent. We aren't doing anything much with the intellectual and cultural capital we have and where financial services took the focus, even those are going overseas after brexit. We are in real trouble in terms of jobs (please look past the numbers to the actual what people are doing). Nostalgia, the Royals, the fairy story, imagine how much we could do if we didn't have them, They're a complacency machine, and it is killing us.
I agree with Robert. And I think the media, in the last few weeks, have been very un-insightful and unoriginal, unanimously proclaiming that no one cares about the Charles and the coronation. Not really true. I do have to say, though, I thought that both Charles and Camilla looked a little awkward with those crowns. Embarrassed, and nervous that the crown would fall off.
About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
Robert - I am surprised at you! This is NOT a harmless fiction, It is a fiction that inherently relies on the idea of hereditary privilege - that some people are born better than others, not because they are in any way gifted, or markedly more intelligent than others, but simply because of who their parents are. And that goes back to the fact that centuries ago, their ancestors were in the right place at the right time, better at killing people and better at theft than others around at the time. The royal family are obscenely wealthy and yet we, British tax payers, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to put food on their table, had to pay for this ridiculous extravaganza that we had absolutely no say in whether or not it happened. It is also not true to say that the king has no power. As has been shown recently, the royal family get the chance to see legislation that might affect their interests before it is ever seen by MPs, and they have, on many occasions, insisted on changes to such legislation that will further benefit them financially. And having those who disagree with the idea of monarchy arrested before they had even started to peacefully protest, again shows that this is not harmless.
Our new king is known to require servants to put the toothpaste on the toothbrush for him! And although his friend Jonathon Dimbleby tried to claim that he would find the idea of anyone swearing allegiance to him repugnant, it is absurd to suggest that the idea of having people swear an oath of loyalty, not just to him but to his successors, was something put in the coronation ceremony without his approval or desire. It is also totally anachronistic that, in a country where the majority of people do not see themselves as Christians, that our new king was swearing to uphold the protestant religion. How offensive to everyone who does not see themselves as protestant! Giving representatives of other denominations and religions tiny walk on parts in this ceremony does not make this right. If the UK is ever to even start to achieve any improvement in its quite hideous levels of inequality, both of status and of wealth, we must get rid of these symbols of totally unearned hereditary wealth and privilege.
I'm a dual UK-US Citizen living and working in Arizona – and have spent most of my adult life in the US. Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee Award for graduate research and study (home or abroad) brought me to Columbia University and changed my career and life - for the better.
The British Monarchy exists to serve the people, give them hope and unite the nation. Despite the Royal soap opera and intrigue, amplified no-end by the press, the same can't be said for a large number of numbskulls occupying Parliament. In the US we are barely beginning to recover from the events leading up to the 2016 election after which Trump, a patently incompetent, seditious narcissist infested the People's House - the White House, and through his low IQ convinced millions of Americans that Covid was some kind of hoax that would evaporate by Easter 2020. Over 1 million Americans have died as a direct result and in 2020 Trump set about destroying our democracy in order to remain in power like some insane King devoid of decency and taste.
Neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Kind Charles III would ever dream of abusing the roles and titles they hold for personal gain and power. The Monarchy has no political power at all. It serves at the pleasure of the people and for the people. Britain's armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown not to Parliament - as such they are completely apolitical even though they are of course permitted to vote and hold personal views of one sort or another.
In our now global society where, it seems, every living and inanimate thing is treated as an exploitable commodity from which profits are to be extracted as quickly and for as long as possible, Britain's Monarchy operates as a social gyroscope combatting political extremes, corruption and exploitation that are so frequently engaged in by elected officials. We most definitely need to do better in the US starting with ethical oversight of lawyers and especially the Supreme Court. We need a better justice model than the two tier one so clearly in operation today.
So as a dual citizen there are times when I feel decidedly betwixt and between both nations. But the United States is my home and where the bulk of my family now are. I just hope that we in the United States can correct our course and find, in new leaders in Congress and all levels of government, that social gyroscope that enables us to set a course for a better future and tack our way toward it - together rather than apart.
I am a Brit, and have mixed feelings about our royals. I think it's a good idea to have a head of state who is a) decorative, and b) has no real powers. On the other hand, the idea of a head of state by birth encourages too many among the rich and powerful to think in terms of entitlement rather than worth. Birth should not give anybody anything. The royals set a bad example for the rest of us.
Not sure that fascination with royalty is harmless. The notion that someone is actually born higher than others is not different from believing the reverse. Like accepting slavery.
I say this as a scot and a Brit... the monarchy is an embarrassment and seem to be an excuse for a portion of the population to believe that they have ‘betters’ and are doing their duty by paying attention to the drama while excusing any number of ‘indiscretions’ in the name of tradition. It should be left in the past and represented in museums. America, there is much I do not envy about the USA right now but your lack of monarchy is one thing.
The aristocracy and gentry control at least 30% of the land in England, according to the Guardian. This, of course, is probably only a small portion of the land that the monarchy owns or controls worldwide (it is very difficult to find exact figures). I can't help but wonder what the British economy would look like if there were to be major land reform, allowing citizens and their government to control an additional third of their country. In terms of their impact on the economy, and the ability of their citizens to own property and thus build intergenerational family wealth (yes, I am sitting in on your Wealth and Poverty class for a second time), I think it is too generous to see them as a benign force in their society. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author
I think this is the 21st century and we need to put things that belong in the past in the past, such as royalty, internal combustion engines, and animal agriculture.
Actually most of the UK friends I have gotten to know are ready to ditch the monarchy altogether
They look silly.
I wish that we Americans would pay less attention to British royalty. We fought a war to rid ourselves of Royalty yet many Americans follow the royalty celebrities like our own Hollywood folk--and neither group are worthy of much attention. We do expect to much ceremonial activities of our president when the primary duty is and should be governance.
I, for one, think the monarchy is a distraction that is holding us back. Everybody goes on about how good for tourism they are, but what about the other side of that. How bad for the economy are they? With our eyes to the past wee have got complacent. We aren't doing anything much with the intellectual and cultural capital we have and where financial services took the focus, even those are going overseas after brexit. We are in real trouble in terms of jobs (please look past the numbers to the actual what people are doing). Nostalgia, the Royals, the fairy story, imagine how much we could do if we didn't have them, They're a complacency machine, and it is killing us.
I agree with Robert. And I think the media, in the last few weeks, have been very un-insightful and unoriginal, unanimously proclaiming that no one cares about the Charles and the coronation. Not really true. I do have to say, though, I thought that both Charles and Camilla looked a little awkward with those crowns. Embarrassed, and nervous that the crown would fall off.