R.I.P. Queen Elizabeth II

[Uri]

Good morning - I don't have much time - this is the beginning of my working weak and I have to go, but for now:

I do think your proposition is somewhat opportunistic about this particular moment in American history.

I'm not saying I'm not opportunistic - but if I am, it's Netanyahu and the Likud party who're on MY mind. And that's my point - we are at a point of time when Populism raises its ugly head globally and that's why monarchism all of a sudden seems attractive. Alas, it has to be a centuries old institution for it to work. You can not create one out of the blue. So - some democracies are lucky to have it. Others have to find other ways for maintaining their survival.

[Mister Tee]

Sorry I've taken so long to weigh in.

Like everyone else, I find this an interesting proposition. I wish I had the full historians' background with which to respond/engage. I'm wondering if there are differences between countries that have evolved from full-on royalty to a voting-derived system vs. those (like the US) that never had that tradition as background.

I do think your proposition is somewhat opportunistic about this particular moment in American history. US voters have, over the centuries, definitely revered certain presidents -- both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, Obama (there was a whole cut on one of The First Family albums that introduced JFK as "the star of our country") -- and certainly there's been grumbling about The Imperial Presidency from FDR forward. But, until Trump, I don't think anyone ever thought of it as a danger to the stability of the country, as in the other countries you note.

And here, you have a unique situation, where it's not simply Trump, but the party behind him, which, seeing that it's demographically/culturally losing any hope of prevailing in pure popular vote, has put all its chips on corrupting the system to preserve their power by other means. Which is to say, I think it's not so much the focus on the individual that creates the danger, as the coalescing of his party behind the l'etat c'est moi principle (something they'd strongly resist if it were a member of the other party). I wouldn't be sure such a thing as this couldn't happen in some of those other countries you see as less prone to it.

None of which is to undercut your general theory, which, as I say, I find quite intriguing and worth exploring.

[Okri]

Not sure I agree, Uri, but its definitely something worth ruminating on.

[Uri]

Monarchies – as well as other forms of government - evolve, and my “theory” is about modern day (post WW II) ones. The world of the ‘20s and ‘30s was radically different. My take is relevant to Spain of the ‘70s when the reinstallation of the monarchy was a way to bridge the gap between a dictatorship and a democracy.

Another example is the (very smart) decision (by the Americans – I’ll give you this) not to abolish the throne in Japan after the war and to leave the emperor as a symbolic-only head of state, which allowed for that nation to move ahead with the changes needed.

[mlrg]

having a monarchy in place in Spain certainly didn’t prevent the likes of Franco from rising to power.

Care to elaborate?

[danfrank]

Interesting idea, Uri, and there may be some truth to it, though having a monarchy in place in Spain certainly didn’t prevent the likes of Franco from rising to power. The very concept of a monarchy, with autocratic rule, consolidation of power and wealth, exploitation of labor, and the reinforcement of class distinctions such that those at the top are considered superior beings, is abhorrent. Even a largely symbolic monarchy, such as the one in England, perpetuates the legitimacy of these abhorrent concepts, and I fear feeds the fantasies of people like Trump that they, too, could be king. Too many people romanticize the monarchy, and I think it is dangerous.

[Uri]

I'm such a huge monarchist (as if I have anything to do with it) I had to post my take on it because I usually tend to agree with you Tee.

In all the rankings of the countries of the world - according to social indices, lack of corruption, etc. – placed at the top of these lists are Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Netherlands can be found in a respectable place, as is Belgium, despite its demographic complexity. Even Spain, a young democracy with a recent past of dictatorship and a bloody civil war is not lagging that far behind. Among the countries in Asia (and in general), Japan leads in many indices.

Common to all these countries, as well as to the United Kingdom, is the adoption of a successful democratic government model which preserves the tradition of a royal house, but with virtually all powers taken away from it, being a ceremonial institution only. The advantage of this combination, which ostensibly represents a built-in paradox, is the separation between a secular nature, devoid of an inherent holiness, of the democratic idea and the mythological, romantic, divine splendor embodied in the "eternal" succession of the royal family. A king or a queen embodies in their form all the theatrical fantasies which appeal to a large portion of the public, but in these constitutional monarchies, this yearning strengthens an institution that is devoid of any real power. Facing them are politicians, who have real power, but, by definition, are devoid of glory and majesty. They are leaders for a moment, successful/ popular to a certain degree, but hardly anyone mistake them for monarchs. Unlike kings, they do not represent eternity and certainly do not embody the state.

In democratic countries where there is no monarch, there is always the danger that an elected leader will be seen as a substitute for a king. Putin in Russia, Erdoğan in Turkey, Berlusconi in Italy, Netanyahu in Israel, Trump in the US - all of them are/were leaders who seem to believe in full identification between them and their country and between their own personal interests and those of the public they are supposed to serve. They portray in their conduct Louis XIV's statement, "I am the state".

Such a glorification of an elected prime minister is not possible in a country like Great Britain. In 1945, after the Nazi threat was over, it was George VI who represented the continuity of national existence, while the national hero, the revered Prime Minister of the nation, Winston Churchill, was deposed from office in that year's election. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair to Boris Johnson - the premiership does not give the (temporary) elected official a lofty aura. This is reserved for the monarch, and because the monarch has no real power, so - too - is the pathos.

So, the kind of monarchy practiced in the UK is a very sophisticated and effective tool for a democratic nation to preserve and defend its own democracy from the dangers of populism. Ostensibly despite - and in fact because - of the inherent irony of it.

[Mister Tee]

My position is generally that the monarchy is a hopelessly outdated curio, which drains quite a bit more in expense from the populace than it provides in service.

That said, I've always had warm feelings about this particular woman -- who's been Queen literally my entire life-span -- on a personal level: she's mostly seemed admirable as a human being, at least as far as I could tell. It's strange to bid goodbye to someone who's been such a constant presence in your life.

[mlrg]

The end of an era. Probably the most important figure of the last 100 years.

[Big Magilla]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/queen-e ... d=18641713