Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation.

This is exactly my position too.

And if you force me to chose between a) democracy, free speech and right to protest OR b) a monarchy, then I will very quickly become an anti-monarchist.

The fact that the government felt that they had to rush in legislation in the last week which was - completely predictably - used to detain people unlawfully, to save possible embarrassment during the coronation, has done nothing to improve my view of our monarchy whatsoever.

I struggle to believe that this would have happened without some sort of implicit or explicit pressure from Buckingham Palace. They did afterall have veto rights on aspects of BBC coverage [0] so it seems highly unlikely to me that they weren't also working with the government to attempt to "contain" possible protests.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/revealed-roy...

As someone who is anti-monarch I have to admit that this seems like the logical extension of monarchy and exactly what democracy is meant to help with. Can I ask why someone wouldn't be anti-monarch in 2023?

Let's be clear here, the UK isn't a monarchy, we just have a monarch who has effectively zero power and simply serves as a hereditary head of state.

As for why I support this, I think it makes sense diplomatically to have an apolitical head of state and I also believe the British monarch functions similarly to second amendment in the US. If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak.

However, getting back on topic here, the fact the UK has a monarch in my opinion has zero relevance to the fact the UK is becoming a place increasingly hostile to protest. Instead, it seems to me to be far more to do with the fact our two major political parties both have authoritarian tendencies, which I suspect stems from the UK having cultural values which lend themselves to certain kinds of authoritarian social policies.

Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically. In most ways we're quite a liberal society, but there are certain ways that our conformist and overly polite nature seems to work its way into our politics via democracy – protest perhaps being the most clear example of something that people here seem to struggle with since freedom of expression requires an acceptance of impoliteness.

> Let's be clear here, the UK isn't a monarchy, we just have a monarch who has effectively zero power and simply serves as a hereditary head of state.

The article we're commenting on makes it very clear that the UK is a monarchy and that the monarch has the power to disrupt public life at great expense to the public and to have said public arrested for offending them.

> The article we're commenting on makes it very clear that the UK is a monarchy

It absolutely doesn't. The article doesn't even mention the word monarchy.

It was written before the recent arrests at the coronation.

We can talk about what influence the monarchy may try to exert on the government behind the scenes (and I believe there will be some - and there shouldn't be) but back channeling aside, our democratically elected government is the body which runs our country, not the monarchy, and therefore is correctly the target of this article.

This situation wouldn't happen if the country were not a monarchy. Further, there has never been a referendum on the matter of the monarchy.

I guess it depends which situation we’re talking about specifically.

You don’t need a monarch to have problems with police overreach and overly draconian/authoritarian laws being brought in.

I think we can safely say that this happens in all types of political/governing systems.

That’s the crux of the issue being talked about in the article.

The issue of the Royal Family is related (and particularly relevant given recent events) but the two issues should not be conflated fully.

It's as if you are completely unaware that the concept of "Back channelling" exists.

I literally mentioned back channelling

I'm sorry, I need to read more carefully.

I was up in arms, and shouldn't have even commented.

I get it. This topic understandably elicits strong emotions!

The monarch has a lot of power to vet many laws without the public even knowing it happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

Your statement is somewhat contradictory. The monarch has zero power but also controls the military and can violently oppose the government? He’s also powerful enough that people can be arrested for protesting his coronation. Democracy was created precisely because history shows people will be consistently oppressed when they don’t govern themselves.

> Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically.

Jimmy Saville was way worse than any porn, yet his main enabler just became king. The outrage about the “impolite” seems very unevenly distributed.

>The monarch has zero power but also controls the military and can violently oppose the government?

No. They dont.

>He’s also powerful enough that people can be arrested for protesting his coronation.

Also No. That was the government.

> No. They dont.

I'm responding to this post:

> If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak.

> exactly what democracy is meant to help with

The UK is a democracy.

> Can I ask why someone wouldn't be anti-monarch in 2023?

The sibling comment by kypro [0] answers this question much better than I could have. But at the same time, I'm not the British Royal Family's most diehard supporter by any means.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874388

> what democracy is meant to help with

The UK is a democracy, technically a more well functioning democracy than some supposedly first world nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#List_by_countr...

The legislation has been on the way for a while as a response to XR and others. It certainly aligns with royal interests, but I don't think you need to look any further than Braverman and the hang'em-and-flog'em electorate she appeals to for a source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com