Live data from Hacker News

British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

theguardian.com

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#41

How to abolish it? Just quit talking about it or caring about it. It's public attention that makes it anything at all. Imaginary specialness invested in such a group of supercilious incompetents is baffling. Magical thinking.

Erm no. The way to abolish it is to pick a new head of state (elections, draws, pulling a sword out of a stone, etc)

Erm, the regent has the right to be told, and the right to hear. I think I have covered all of them. A 'head of state' only because * people pretend they are *

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#42
post #27

its 2023 why are there still kings and queens, who are quite literally above the law [enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning he can't be prosecuted under a civil or criminal investigation.]?

Compare with the US president. It's an elected office, but they are treated "like royalty". "The president is just a citizen" is an ideal for a republic, but it's pretty far from the case.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#44
post #7
post #5

Constitutional monarchs are a valid form of non political heads of state, and there’s a value in such heads of state. However, they should be citizens and residents of the country they “lead” - not residing over the seas. And they should dial the ostentation back to 4-5, in line with the other countries in Europe. Let Disney handle the Magic Princesses.

Why should they dial the ostentation back?

Some members of the ruling class prefer to present themselves as 'normal' people who are 'just like you'. For example, by not wearing a tie and by inviting you to use a chummy nickname for them, they hope you'll overlook the fact they're the grandson of a baronet and went to Eton.

Presumably jleyank thinks the same might boost the popularity of the royals.

Personally I'm not so sure - the level of ostentation surrounding the royals is so ridiculously over-the-top that you can't possibly take it seriously. Scale it back carelessly and it might start looking sincere, and that's the last thing we want.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#45
post #5

Constitutional monarchs are a valid form of non political heads of state, and there’s a value in such heads of state. However, they should be citizens and residents of the country they “lead” - not residing over the seas. And they should dial the ostentation back to 4-5, in line with the other countries in Europe. Let Disney handle the Magic Princesses.

> Constitutional monarchs are a valid form of non political heads of state

IMO, such a role should not be inherited. Locking a family in such a golden cage is cruel, and should be forbidden.

(I’ll ignore the possibility of an elected monarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy))

> And they should dial the ostentation back to 4-5, in line with the other countries in Europe

Further back than that, IMO. Even non-royal heads of state can have too much grandeur (example: presidents of France). The real role model are presidents such as those of Germany and Austria.

If you ask somebody “Who’s the president of Germany?” I think it’s likelier to get the response “Does Germany _have_ a president?” than to get the right answer (currently Frank-Walter Steinmeier)

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#46

"A total of 45% of respondents said either it should be abolished, was not at all important or not very important." Not categories I would have combined in an analytical report.

People who say they are indifferent do not support the Monarchy and just live with it. So there is a reasonable argument for combining those categories of your aim is to sample support.

Ask Americans or the French what they think of their republic and I doubt 45% will be against or indifferent.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#47
The British public liked, in broad terms, not the monarchy, but The Queen. Now we have a King who's said his job is to prepare things for the King-in-waiting and few have strong feelings towards William either--and neither of them seem to have done anything of diplomatic note.

The monarchy does provide a great diplomatic and PR service to the UK. They're essentially soft power. The fact this is even a discussion point on this website is a great example. And The Queen was loved globally, far more than she was in the UK, yet Charles and William leave me cold frankly.

I'm happy the crown is being criticised and held to account but low support for the crown is hardly news and I doubt any major shift of opinion has happened regardless of how underwhelming the new King seems compared to his mother.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#48

It's been said, quite correctly, that the UK is a republic with a hereditary president, while the US is a monarchy with an elected king. I see plenty of misconceptions about the UK royal family in the comments, from them depending on taxes (they don't) to the importance of the monarch in the government. I don't really care whether the UK has a king of a president (except that the name change would be annoying) - but…

> I don't really care whether the UK has a king of a president (except that the name change would be annoying) - but the country currently has much bigger issues, including the fact that it's slowly moving towards a single-party authoritarianism.

While there is currently a Tory government, Labour remain the favourites to win the next general election. That doesn't sound like a recipe for "single-party authoritarianism" to me.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#49
post #20
post #13

Yet I somehow think constitutional monarchies work. There is a reason (I don't know what) that the european ones are in the western richer + generally strong and high functioning democratic countries (Spain, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg).

The reason is actually well known. It even has a name: imperialism.

The Netherlands were practically bankrupt after the second world war, as was most of Europe. This, together with the fact that much of Asia was in a similar situation, has led to the exceptional wealth America quickly attained in a short period of time, as they were the only major industrial power left.

The colonies were no longer making much profit for the few years after WW2 either, to the point where Suriname got ejected more than it got liberated from imperial rule. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg never even had colonies of note to get rich off (unless you count European wars as colonies).

Oil and natural gas together with heavy investment from the USA were more important to the western countries' current wealth than anything else. The USSR messing up the once powerful economies of eastern Europe also helped drive down competition, as did the unrest in most of Asia. Having some infrastructure and political designs from the height of imperial power sure helped, but imperialism is hardly the reason these countries are as rich as they are today. In fact, Spain and Portugal were much stronger and richer countries during the height of colonial rule yet they are comparatively poor to both north-west-European and the Scandinavian states today.

Re: British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

#50
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm no. The way to abolish it is to pick a new head of state (elections, draws, pulling a sword out of a stone, etc)

I quite like the idea of replacing the royals with a family of lions, and keeping all the laws otherwise the same.

>”replacing the royals with a family of lions”

Ah yes, the National Pride!

Post reply on HN