The King doesn't own all the swans in Britain
weirdmedievalguys.substack.com
weirdmedievalguys.substack.com
But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great Britain. He has every swan in England, Wales, and Scotland except: - those on the Orkney and Shetland islands - those "marked" with leg bands as being owned by the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.
You could claim that he's really just licensing the swans to anyone with a swan mark, so it's really just the Shetland and Orkney swans he doesn't own.
You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them.
It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
- The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam.
(note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form.
In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party...
Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
Ireland proves that isn’t true.
The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
I think this does need to be considered more in nation building though. The focus in Afghanistan and Iraq was more on writing a constitution.
Unfortunately the British system is seen more of a rickety accretion rather than something to aim for.
If you are looking for a constitutional system to emulate, I think Germany would be a good choice - a federal parliamentary republic with a written constitution. I don’t think anyone should slavishly copy every minor detail of the German system, but at a big picture level I can’t think of anyone who does it better
The UK is not a good model - no written constitution; a unitary state (even if devolved) rather than federalism (national government has unlimited powers to interfere in regional governments, which takes away an important check on that national government’s powers). Constitutional monarchy may still work for some countries, but trying to introduce a monarchy into a country which doesn’t already have one is a non-starter in today’s world.
The US is a federal republic with a written constitution, so in those respects is a better model for emulation than the UK. But the presidential model is inferior to the parliamentary model-many political scientists believe it has been the cause of much of Latin America’s political instability. Centralising so much executive power in a single person encourages the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos), such as Peron or Trump. And while the US managed in the 20th century to avoid the instability which plagued Latin America, maybe that was just good luck, and maybe the events of the last few years (with caudillo Trump) are a sign that its luck is finally running out
Ok, my degree is in political science and I, too, can go on and on about the significant impacts of political structure but I simply can’t imagine blaming Latin America’s 20th Century instability on local presidential systems and then topping it off by suggesting that maybe the US was just lucky it, with a presidential system, avoided the same fate.
At some point, you have to consider the international/geopolitical context and not assume everything is explained by domestic constitutional structure.
But the finding that parliamentary systems produce superior outcomes has good empirical support in the literature. See for example https://www.bu.edu/sthacker/files/2012/01/Are-Parliamentary-... https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-...
I would never claim that 100% of the problems faced by either the US or Latin America are due to a presidential system. My claim is merely that it hasn’t helped them, and that while a parliamentary system is no panacea, it likely would have avoided or lessened some of them
>My conclusion is that culture is more important in democracy than written laws
Britain and it's ex dependencies may not have model constitutions or any constitutions but it still somehow works.
It's reasonable for the PM to ask for such a self-serving thing, it's not for that ask to have been acquiesced to.
There were three options (that I can think of) for dealing with that situation:
1. Allow the coalition to form government.
2. Hold another election, a month after the previous one.
3. ...Suspend parliament for a few months, so that the coalition can't hold a vote to push the minority government out!
#2 is pretty nuts, but kind of justifiable, but #3 was absolutely nuts. (And had the bonus points of threatening that a non-confidence election half-a-year after the previous one is 'okay', despite Parliament being entirely non-functional for most of that intervening time.)
That there aren't clear rules about this, or that a minority PM can prevent a majority coalition from ousting him is the maddening part.
Why would the PM advise the GG to withhold Royal Assent? It's rare, but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. It could also happen if a PM governing in minority faced a parliament passing legislation they strongly disagreed with.
At least in Australia (don’t know how they do things in Canada), it is standard practice nowadays to put a clause in all Acts saying the Act enters into force on a date to be proclaimed by the GG. So, in the event that an Act is found to be unworkable after passage by Parliament, it isn’t necessary for the GG to refuse/withhold/reserve assent. Instead, the GG assents to it, and it goes on the statute book. But the ministers never advise the GG to issue a proclamation setting an entry into force date, so it never enters into force - like if you commit code guarded by a feature flag, release that code to production, but then decide to never turn the feature flag on so it never actually runs. Parliament can then pass an amending Act fixing the flaws, and the GG can proclaim an entry into force date after assenting to the amending Act.
It has happened before that Parliament passes some controversial Act, GG assents to it, Cabinet decides to hold off entry into force pending some review, Cabinet decides to drop the whole idea, Parliament passes a repeal Act, GG assents to that, Act was enacted then repealed without ever entering into force-like merging a PR to remove code for a feature for which the feature flag was never enabled in production.
An entry-into-force proclamation isn’t quite like a feature flag though, in that you can choose when and if to turn it on, but once you turn it on there is no way to turn it back off. It can however be selective - you can make different sections of the Act enter into force at different times, and some sections may never be brought into force at all
In other areas of law, where certainty on start dates is less crucial, setting a start date by proclamation is much more common
If he starts to take a direct political stance on things they would remove his powers. The constitution can be changed by a 2/3rd majority in parliament, a king that starts to "use" his powers would be opposed by far more than 2/3rd of parliament regardless of their political affiliations.
If he had sufficient popular support from the armed forces and a enough of the general public he might manage it.
The likely outcome though would be a considerable loss of support.
Having spent more time thinking about political systems than I should, I'd say that this arrangement probably isn't a unique to the Brits (or their past colonies), but rather a universal political fact.
In general, words aren't worth the paper they're written on, unless they conform with the political reality. There's no monarch in the world that could actually exercise their powers on paper unless they also have the political clout to back them up.
The uniqueness of the British system is how weak the monarchy has gotten over the years, and how acutely aware they are about the situation. England's monarchy comes from a really long line of succession, due to the relative ease of defending an island from invaders. Monarchs that rule by right of conquest are generally strong and authoritative, their heirs becoming less so for each succession. (Japan shares this trait and hence the political system is somewhat similar)
And then, the near-death experience during the 1600s made the British monarchy even weaker, and more conscious about the dangers of angering the common mob. And so they invented the idea of constitutional monarchy, that is somehow "just like" the other democratic republics, except without the regicide part :)
Before this democracy thing became popular, it used to be cool for monarchs to proclaim to have more power than they actually had in political reality. After revolutions and regicides became a thing in Europe, they started to do the opposite and claimed to have less power than they had on paper.
But what I'm trying to say is, many monarchs (whether British or not) historically had little real power anyways, and would have most likely would have triggered constitutional crises if they disagreed with their ministers (or the powerful elites).
I think the re-imaging of the British monarchy as mentioned above is truly ingenious, and while I took my sweet time deconstructing it, I still think it's an amazing narrative. I'd classify it as "anti-republicanism propaganda", but it's brilliant nonetheless.
Note: used to be a British subject before 1997. Hah.
and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.
It’s how laws that exempted the Monarch from race discrimination laws, why leaseholders in the Duchy of Cornwall can’t buy their freeholds etc.
Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.
Well, of course he can't — if you own something by definition, then if you sell it, you still own it; so you can't really sell it (without that being a con), can you? ;)
In other words, Crown property has always been the King’s, however, exceptionally he is allowed a second personhood so that he can buy, sell and (importantly) bequeath property like a normal person can.
Since then quiet a couple things have changed, i recommend checking out some 19th/20th century history
Perhaps of some interest:
> The King's Two Bodies (subtitled, A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology) is a 1957 historical book by Ernst Kantorowicz. It concerns medieval political theology and the distinctions separating the "body natural" (a monarch's corporeal being) and the "body politic".[1]
On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country, to the point that his subjects need to pledge allegiance to him on official documents, but on the other hand, he has no power. One might argue he has even less power than a commoner as he is forbidden from offering a political opinion. He is the titular owner of "Crown Lands", but he can't actually do anything with that ownership.
The whole thing is just so bonkers that if I were an alien and I landed on Earth and someone explained the situation to me I'd just say "Y'all are too f'n weird for me, I'm gonna peace out."
I presume you are from the US? It seems a substantial number of US citizens believe the British monarchy to be an outlier and the only one worthy of comment.
1. English language and media being more widespread than e.g. Danish
2. The commonwealth - the English monarch is also the (figure)head of the commonwealth which is another ten or so countries spread across the globe.
There are other reasons too - perhaps tourism plays a big part. If you visit London then you'll almost certainly go to Buckingham palace to see the stupid palace guards and all that pomp. Millions of people do it every year and are told the Queen/King is living right there. Especially if you're a child that puts them into an important position in your imagination.
I don't think this amount of pompous touristy bullshit surrounds any other modern monarch.
And finally, a large swath of English people either love or hate the monarch, while a large swarth of Irish also hate them, both of which fuel attention. Most other European monarchs are just sort of... there, to my understanding.
> I don't think this amount of pompous touristy bullshit surrounds any other modern monarch.
Ahem.
Hans Majestet Kongens Garde (Norway): https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=29281
Den Kongelige Livgarde (Denmark): https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/palaces-and-the-royal-yacht/cha...
Livgardet (Sweden): https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/activities/events/the-royal...
Guardia Real (Spain): https://www.esmadrid.com/en/whats-on/changing-guard-royal-pa...
What is the purpose of an army? To defend their nation. What is the essence of a monarchic nation? ... Armies in monarchies tend to have these type of honour guards and traditions, even if their typical audience is tourists. Armies in republics also love a bit of pomp and circumstance and will gladly show off their troops marching, their aerial acrobatics, their latest hardware, etc.
Also mostly stupid and hilariously anachronistic, in my opinion. The videos of Indian and Pakistani border guards showing off to each other comes particularly to mind.
France does. But then it is often said we elect a monarch, not a president.
But to your other point, yep, the French Fifth Republic has a very strong President figure (not a monarch on a few important distinctions like succession, but still). And after the failures of the Third and Fourth Republics that showed that compromise is complicated to achieve and without a strong position somewhere there is just pure chaos and instability, it was the only way forward.
People pay attention to the King because he's part of their history, not just the UK's.
*Not just "English"
Japan's monarchy was a Meiji invention; he had no power before that and has no power now. He's more like the opposite, a prisoner we specifically wrote into the constitution to have no human rights.
This is true to the extent that North Korea is a republic.
Hey, could you do us all a favour and update Wikipedia[0] to reflect your research on this matter? Sadly it still lists the government as a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
To have a constitutional government, you should first have a constitution.
Sure they do. The constitution doesen't have to be a single document.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The American constitution has basically become immutable at this point while meaningful reform is still possible in Britain.
The US changes its constitution by just having the Supreme Court make things up. As you can see from the Lochner era, this has rarely worked well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
Notably the article doesn't even know if the letter is still the law or not.
> Following passage of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, these principles are thought to have been revived.
Here’s another page that could probably use the fruits of your research:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People's_R...
Not to claim it's the same situation, but there's a difference between things that are officially true and things you should actually respect. You shouldn't respect most of the US judicial system either.
Could you relate that back to your initial claim that "the UK still has an absolute monarchy", which appears to be both officially untrue and untrue in practice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
Especially
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/01/26/tom-adams-royal-c... + https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
They don't even make the monarch get a driver's licence or pay taxes because laws don't apply to them. (Instead they voluntarily pay taxes and don't speed.)
Maybe they could try writing some of that down in a constitution.
If you've ever eaten Indian curry (of the tikka masala variety in particular), chances are, its recipe was British in origin.
While traditional British food might not appear particularly appealing to the discerning palate, Great Britain is home to many a culinary innovation.
Britain always led the fight against absolutism in Europe (well more or less anyway..) so most of these constitutions that were designed to curtail the power of the monarch during the revolutions of the 1800s merely brought other countries inline with where Britain already was.
US is in a similar state.It was one of the first "democratic" states so its system if full of out of date anachronisms like the electoral college, the second amendment and near absolute freedom of speech (well yeah some are bad and some are good..).
Japanese emperors have (had) lots of indirect power (akin to Charles lobbying). E.g. during WW2 Hirohito participated in some very high level decision making (and should have been hanged for it).
The British monarch has all those powers on paper. They never agreed to relinquish them. Then, random commoners (with no authority) keep asserting that the monarch has no powers, or no intention to use/abuse those powers. Nobody seems to agree which ones are not supposed to be used ever, which ones are supposed to be used sparingly, and which ones are OK to use recreationally. Then, occasionally somebody discovers some secret privilege the monarch has, and the people have to decide on the spot whether that's OK or not.
Compared with the actual constitutional monarchy, where there are actual rules spelled out clearly. The Brits are masters of wordplay, but "unwritten constitution" is really unironically "trust us, we're making this up as we go along".
After President von Hindenburg's death, there was no one left in Germany for Hitler to answer to, not even in theory. That meant there was no legal mechanism to remove him, he could only be removed by violence – and the plot to assassinate him failed. The world could easily have been a better place if Germany had remained a monarchy – even if Hitler still became Chancellor and started World War II and all the rest of his horrid crimes, it would have been far easier to remove and replace him with a new German leader. Germany's generals knew they had lost, and many of them wanted to focus on making sure they surrendered to the Western allies not the Soviets - but Hitler forced them to keep on fighting unwinnable battles instead. With Hitler imprisoned (or maybe even summarily executed to eliminate the risk that devout Nazis would try to free him), the generals could have done as they wanted. Possibly the division of Germany could have been avoided, and large swathes of Eastern Europe could have escaped communism. It also could have resulted in much better treatment of German civilians and POWs, for while the Western allies weren't perfect in that regard, they were significantly more humane than the Soviets were.
von Hindenburg being President or Wilhelm being Kaiser changes little assuming a death - in both cases there's a process to get someone to replace them (new elections for President, coronation of the heir apparent). Hitler's popularity and power allowed him to skip the whole process and just assume the position of Parliament too. I think that it would have been harder to do with the position of Kaiser (there were still plenty of monarchists even in Nazi Germany), but he still would have done so or at least done a Horthy, preventing the coronation and keeping himself as regent.
There were actually numerous plots to assassinate him; the July 20th plot is just the most famous (probably because it came the closest to success).
This guy came very close just a few months after WWII started: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser
Japan also had a monarch, and it took 2 nuclear bombs to get him to surrender.
Though nothing is stopping the cult of personality from forming around the leader of the government (prime minister).
Not really. The cult gives its focus power regardless of the formal structure; that's the point. And in the case of England, the formal structure still supports the king! Forming a personality cult around the King of England is more likely to lead to the King of England reclaiming a lot of power people thought he had lost long ago than it is to defuse the cult when they learn the king isn't supposed to use his formal powers.
I assure you there's nothing even CLOSE to that insanity in European monarchies.
Edit: I haven't been able to turn up good numbers for the original cost of Versailles without spending more time than I have to spare at the moment, but on an ongoing basis the annual budget for Versailles is about €100 million, while the annual budget for Mount Rushmore is about $5 million.
Edit #2: Looks like the Brits spend around £50 million annually for the maintenance of royal palaces, and those are still in active use.
Which is great! There's enormous value in having a ceremonial national institution which isn't politicised and doesn't split opinion along the typical partisan lines. It's a part of our national identity, something that we all have in common, something that unites us - and in these polarised times we desperately need more things that unite us.
If we replace the monarch with an elected head of state, even a "powerless" and "ceremonial" one, there's no way it won't lead to more polarisation and division.
The other good argument I've heard for keeping the monarchy is that abolishing the monarchy means rewriting the British constitution from the ground up. You can be sure that whichever party is in power will take this opportunity to subtly tweak things to favour themselves. Do you trust them to do it fairly?
Better the devil you know.
It's possible (but admittedly difficult) to construct a mythology where you make a rock the national identity, and celebrate the rock on special occasions. It lasts for thousands of years, you don't run into problems of succession, and it never betrays anyone, much less express political opinions.
So, why don't you make a rock your King? It seems to fit all your arguments about why a human king is good, and the rock does the job better.
PS: apparently in the US the equivalent is a piece of paper called the constitution. The president, despite what monarchists think, is generally disposable and often just for lols.
This is a loose tradition, and is often broken. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
Why express political opinions in public like a pleb when you can directly express them to the Prime Minister (who is bound by oath to serve you)?
https://www.royal.uk/audiences : The King holds a weekly Audience with the Prime Minister to discuss Government matters. The Audience is entirely private. Though The King remains politically neutral on all matters, he is able to 'advise and warn' his ministers - including his Prime Minister - when necessary.
I'd salute a King before I'd meditate under a macdonalds.
The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office. I wonder if that contributes to Americans always having weird takes like this?
The purpose of the head of state is to act as a check on the legislature and the chief executive, that's typically the only real power they have, the rest is just ceremonial. And yet many Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US and has executive powers?
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
Johnson didn't want to go, so he announced (via a leak to a tame newspaper, another part of our unwritten constitution) that he would advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, in order that new elections be held. He hoped to bring rebellious Tory MPs in line by threatening those in marginal seats with defeat, and those in secure seats with the prospect of a lengthy spell in opposition.
The Palace put paid to this plan by informing the PM that the Queen would be unavailable to meet with him, in the event of him perhaps wanting to to her in order to dissolve parliament.
And the rest is history!
That relationship really is hard to define... As a Brit my defining memory of the now King was - as an 8 year old - learning of his desire to be a tampon in his then mistress and current Queen.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a41913184/tamp...
Monarchy is absurd but it has been particlarly difficult to take him seriously since.
I mostly just feel sorry for him. No-one should have to live their life in the public eye like that.
Nationalise their considerable private wealth (which only exists due to their role) and let them live their lives in peace.
Ireland and Germany both show that we can enjoy the benefits of a ceremonial head of state without having to put up with the nonsense of monarchy.
The rest of the time, the check on the legislature is only theoretical.
It still counts as a coup if somebody in a legitimate position of authority uses the military to seize more power in a manner not permitted by law
I think a split premier/president system where they are democratically elected makes enough sense but having a hereditary monarch is bananas.
My country has been a kingdom for over a thousand years and has enjoyed unbroken sovereignty for five hundred. The current royal house has reigned for two hundred years, and they can trace back their ancestry to the ancient kings. There's value in that.
The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? Like it or not, it's an excellent source for national pride. Yes, it's ridiculous blood magic, but the pomp and circumstance and ceremonies of any nation state can be just as ridiculous.
I'll take that over an elected populist divisive asshole any day.
And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
It is incredibly valuable to a nation state to be able to project longevity and stability. Are you seriously questioning the value of a thousand years of unbroken tradition? Every country has a founding mythos, and to be able to connect the current head of state to its founding has immense symbolical value.
Imagine that the US were to elect a president who was a descendant of George Washington. As silly as it is, Americans would cream their pants en masse at the thought. ...while vehemently arguing that they absolutely don't do that royalty thing, of course.
> In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive.
Yes? What? Boris was the elected head of government, of course they'd get a populist asshole now and then. Are you saying it would be better if both the head of government and the head of state could be populist assholes?
> you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
Well, the answer to that bulk was simply no, there's no contradiction, because you're conflating different kinds of power. And again, if your country has always combined the two roles and their powers, it might be hard to understand the separation of and difference between them.
There's no universal answer to that question. It depends on what you think the state represents.
In your case you attach a lot of importance to your state's longevity, in which case your rationale for the monarchy is consistent. But the defining feature of republican states (US, Ireland, France, most of South America) is definitely not their longevity. It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. In this case a monarchy is the wrong symbol, and the correct symbol is an elected head of state. (The head of state doesn't need to have power, e.g. Ireland's president.)
And yet the first line of the constitution of this constitutional monarchy is that "all power derives from the people". These things are not mutually exclusive.
Rex dei gratia hasn't been a thing for centuries, it's rex populi gratia these days. If any royal family fucks up too much, they're out on their asses, and they know it.
The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King. To make it worse, Hamilton argued to have a President for life and Adams argued to address the President as "His Majesty".
Those early years are fertile soil for any fiction writer interested in alternative realities.
This is basically what happened in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. King James was unpopular due to being Catholic and a set of unpopular decisions, so the upper class wrote to the Dutch stadholder William of Orange and invited him to stage a coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_William . Which succeeded without resistance.
This (and subsequent incidents with the Georges) is an important part of how the English monarchy is effectively "leashed" by requiring a certain minimal amount of consent of the governed.
As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country. It literally says I must pledge allegiance to him on my citizenship certificate. Yes, of course I understand the whole thing is theater and he has no actual power, but that's why I think the whole charade is bizarre to begin with.
The comment I was responding to, which makes no sense, made the non sequitur that "Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US" because he only read the first half of my sentence.
QE II wasn't a bad monarch, and that was probably a big factor in the UK keeping its monarchy during the 20th century where democracy was the big trend.
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in general.
Still though, using the words "supreme leader" about any constitutional monarch in a liberal democracy sounds so weird to me, that's a title for dictators, which is the complete opposite of what they are. They're heads of state, and they are completely dependent on popular support for their reigns.
> As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country.
I agree, I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
The case for the UK is that they've been doing the king thing for 1100 years now, it's an integral part of the land and the people and the history, and that gives it symbolic value that contributes to the power or cohesiveness of the nation state.
> I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
Me neither, but Canada was specifically formed by people who wanted to keep that. Otherwise they would have just joined the USA at the start...
The Dutch king earns a few million euro per year. His clever brother prins Friso, with no royal duties, became a businessman in London and amassed a fortune without being stalked by a hundred reporters.
Mind you I prefer the monarchy because I shudder to think what absolute clown the people would elect as president. My faith in democracy has been shattered thanks to America.
He used to fly KLM cityhopper which is KLM's "regional airline" in US terms, going across most of Europe. Then he transitioned to the 737 because the government bought a 737 BBJ as their new private jet. The government jet is operated by KLM, so the king can fly it as first officer together with a KLM captain.
Fun fact: There is an agreement with the pilots union that the first officer that got replaced by the king operating a flight gets paid as if they flew it.
i don't know about now, but certainly in the 90s you could get a flight from Eindhoven to Schiphol.
i remember trying to get from Eindhoven to London on the phone and being told there were no seats - i'd have to fly to Schiphol (deep gloom on my part). Luckily, when i turned up at check-in, the lovely KLM girl on the desk said "No you don't need to do that - we'll fit you in on the Heathrow flight"
I must say that of all of the airlines i flew with, I probably liked KLM the best
I first read about this in an in-flight magazine; the other story was about the PM who arrived on bicycle and left it outside the palace while paying the King a visit after the election.
My god, I weep for him. A pathetic millionaire instead of glorious billionaire. How torturing.
Hard to imagine the US equivalent to the British football stadium crowds chanting "stick the coronation up my arse": https://twitter.com/herecelts/status/1652687767942443009
I wouldn't use Celtic is an example of "British Football" or British attitudes. They would likely be offended by that! They are the republican side of the Irish sectarian divide in Glasgow and will sing pro-IRA songs and such.
There is plenty of anti/disinterest in Britain about the Monarchy but probably not enough vitriol to get that chant elsewhere. There would probably need to be a specific catalyst e.g. if Prince Andrew turned up at a game then chants calling him a Paedo would be guaranteed. For most Brits, if you don't like the Monarchy, it's very easy to just ignore it. Celtic is on a different level.
That said the point was that it's unimaginable that supporters at a US sporting event chanting about how they hate their head of state. I disagree with that - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
> I disagree with that - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
The US system is "fine" with 49% of the population hating the elected president. The president is not the monarch, nor representing the supreme political ideal. AFAICT the equivalent of anti-monarchy in the US is denouncing the US constitution.
That's true for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the original union of the crowns had the Scottish king becoming the king of both England and Scotland.
But yeah the US equivalent might be insulting the constitution or even the flag.
The equivalent you might be looking for is the clowns expect us to swear allegiance to them and their offspring on Saturday. I'll happily swear at them but it won't be my allegiance.
Time to end this scam.
If you wanted to frame it as a tax rate it'd be high than a normal citizen's.
I'm not ideologically royalist, but I'd rather have the current system than an elected president.
Got a source? According to The Guardian they use no end of smoke and mirrors so the plebs can't find out how much they're worth. Not to mention them not being subject to inheritance tax.
So their tax rate is 75% - 85%.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/...
The Gruanidad has been running a series on this (especially nice to see in the run up to the coronation) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/cost-of-the-crown
In particular, from here, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/07/british-roya...
> Elizabeth II and Charles III have extracted cash payments worth more than £1.2bn from two hereditary estates that pay no tax, in addition to the millions they receive in public funding for their official duties. In 2022, they received £21m each from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively, despite a centuries-old debate over whether the two estates in fact belong to the British nation.
Case in point, "The Black Spider Memos":
And John Lydon getting knifed and nearly lynched by a mob for writing God Save the Queen is still somewhat fresh in the British psyche.
Since there's little chance of that happening, we'll stick with inducting politicians into the Privy Council in order to allow them to receive intelligence briefings.
But this is of little practical consequence. What I find more bizarre is how conservative the US is around its constitution and political system. Norway may be a Monarchy but has gone through far more modernization in terms of how the political system works, elections and government than the US for instance.
I look at how voting and representation works in the US today and it is basically Norway in the 1880s or something. Back when we also had a two party system of liberals and conservatives. When there was a winner take all system. Censuses had to be done semi regularly as citizens were not fully and completely registered and kept up to date on a continuous fashion.
I would bet Britain in quite a number of ways is more modern in its constitution than the US. E.g. they don’t have å gerrymandering problem. That got reformed and fixed long ago.
So my town had a royally approved rabbit hunter --- who was also a butcher. He was the best butcher in the town.
Unrelated, but we also had a separate fruiterer, who procured fruits. I have never seen someone called a fruiterer anywhere else.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
[2] from memory - the actual phrase might be slightly different
The titles are held in the monarchs name, so if the monarch should fall then the title becomes null and void.
Basically in law: the crown is Britain, and the deed given is stated “so long as Britain shall exist”.
The original Liechtenstein was a castle in Austria. The family shopped around for some land that was held directly from the Holy Roman Emperor, rather than through some intermediate feudal lord, and bought it. That gave them statehood within the Holy Roman Empire, and raised the head of the house to the status of Prince.
They didn't even visit the current Liechtenstein for many years -- it was basically a flag of convenience.
The Crown 'owns' the Crown estate as a corporation sole [0], a legal entity occupied by a single person, the Monarch. When the Queen died, the Crown persisted as a legal entity but the Monarch changed. King Charles owns several properties that are not part of the Crown estate, e.g. Balmoral and Sandringham. These were purchased by members of the Royal family from other members of the aristocracy in the 19th Century.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole#The_Crown
Police: "your majesty please...the king doesn't-"
King Charles: "such majestic creatures."
I was, of course, wrong. But now I want to train a GPT3 model on ridiculous ancient laws so that I can have it generate an endless variety for my entertainment. The responses I get from vanilla ChatGPT aren’t bad, but not of the quality of British Swan Law
> In order to fully understand the complexities of the scope of British Monarchy Swan Privileges, we need to go back to the Middle Ages, when swans were a luxury good. Valued as both . . .
I stopped reading there. I'm thinking: No, we absolutely don't need to go that far back to answer this question of who owns swans. For goodness sake, will it kill authors and video makers to tell us the answer in short-form and then help the reader decide to continue going down a long-winded explanation if they desire? This gives the same vibe as the overly-long YouTube videos that squeeze 10 minutes out of questions that can be answered in 30 seconds.
Concise and informational writing is dead, and LLMs are the final nail in the coffin.
I don't know what LLMs have to do with this.
"Plans by the City of London to move its markets to a new location in Dagenham have run into a problem"
"The issue is Romford Market, which was created by the Royal Charter of the Liberty of Havering granted by King Henry III in 1247 — and that Charter includes a clause banning any other market from being set up within a day’s sheep drive."
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-city-of-londons-mar...
Though I'll admit I find some of the ridiculous fantasy fiction entertaining. But I also find lots of real history entertaining too. Intricate power struggles & their intersection with daily life are interesting, at least from the distance of fiction or a few hundred years. Watching them play out in real time is usually horrific.
Why those weird numbers and not just round it to "four pounds"?
See: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/in...
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/#curr...
> the swan mark would have to be purchased at the price of six shillings - swans not included. This was about the same amount as a year’s wages for a household servant.
One pound would be over three years wages for a household servant.
The National Archives gives one pound in 1480 as the 33 days' wages for a skilled tradesman's labour, so I can see why they'd want to join a guild.
No, the question is dumber than that. The proposed "rounded" fine is well over double the original fine; rounding to the nearest four pounds would result in a fine of zero.
This is exactly 3 1/3 pounds.
> one pound, ten shillings, and four pence
Exactly 1 and 31/60 pounds, or 30 and 1/3 shillings.
> thirteen shillings and four pence
Exactly 13 and 1/3 shillings, or 160 pence, which is 2/3 of a pound.
I suppose they liked the number repetitions. And when you're dealing with such small divisions of a very valuable currency, "rounding up" to the nearest pound could be considered extremely punitive. It'd be like going from a fine of $51000 to $60000 just to make the number round.
These fines would have been paid in coins. 10 shillings is a specific coin: gold half-sovereign. At the time (I think) the fine could be paid, potentially, with just three coins: one half-sovereign, one sovereign, and one groat/fourpence. The inclusion of the relatively small amount fourpence amount, which is silver and not gold coinage, is perhaps symbolic of something but I don't know what.
"NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated."
I have read that a ha'penny from the time of Queen Victoria is worth about 5p in today's currency, an argument for abolishing the annoyingly worthless 2p and 1p coins.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/10/sun.pressandpu...
[2] https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/immigrant-was-cooking-sw...
[3]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261044/Slaughter-s...
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/europe/england-quee...
Must be an awful situation for him. The people of the UK are equally distressed about the ownership of the swans during a cost of living crisis for many of them.
But progressive communist China, for example, declared sparrows to be enemies of the people, and with the full support of the people, the sparrows were exterminated in an orderly and barbaric manner.
This world is far from linearity.
And besides, British royals are Germans not Brits.
One's father's ancestry doesn't determine one's nationality. The majority of King Charles III's ancestry does appear to be German (about a quarter British, and a good helping of Polish), but Prince William is majority British.
Personally I don't even think where you were born has to matter, just where and how you spend your life.
It's a bit like saying the Sentinelese uncontacted tribe are Indians… When they don't know what India is. Or selling land rights to a distant planet.
They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system.
> ...They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system.
What's so weird about it? In 100% of ownership relationships that do not involve human slaves, the thing being owned doesn't know about the relationship.
My car dosn't know I own it.
The bag of flour doesn't know the grocer owns it.
The field doesn't know the farmer owns it.
The farmer's cow doesn't know the farmer owns it.
The trees in private forest don't know the forest's owner owns them.
etc.
Don't understand. All unmarked swans belong to the crown, and all cygnets are unmarked until they are marked. But you can't mark a swan you don't own; so after just one generation, all swans are unmarked, and therefore belong to the crown.
(As a republican, I dislike capitalizing royal terminology and aristocratic titles)
Presumably the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) once owned all the swans in Ireland too. Then one day didn't. Now those swans are free swans living in an actual, honest to God, Republic. Technically the ones in the North are still his but their ownership status is disputed. The swans that fly back and forth I'm not sure what to do about, post Brexit arrangements being shoddy at best.
All this talk of ownership seems to confuse power with right, right with tradition, tradition with law, law with power.
And power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Vote in a Parliament who'd pass a law to stop him owning them
I think the parent suggested the correct solution: revolution.
No, your recourse would be to just do whatever you want with the swans, and risk being sued by the crown in the form of a criminal prosecution.