Why the fuck are we being inundated with the ugliest, most ghoulish anti-monarchy posts tonight?

[Bicoastal]

Look, I get it. Democracy is a superior system; handing the reigns of power to someone due to their ancestory is truly un-American and, in this day and age, frankly nonsensical. I'm not an advocate of monarchy by any means.

BUT--I'm a student of the 20th century. And I can say, without hyperbole, that far, far more blood has been shed in the last 100 years by non-hereditary heads of state than the reigning monarchs during that period. Some, like Hitler, were democratically elected. Others, like Stalin, seized power. But in the final analysis, no form of government is without its inherent pitfalls and problems, but in this day and age, constitutional monarchies are in my opinion the LEAST of our worries.

At any rate, all but a handful of kings and queens who exist today are all but powerless--they are figureheads, in the way that the President of many contemporary countries is largely elected to be a popular national symbol while a Prime Minister actually runs the government. Don't like the way these governments function? Fine by me. But it seems extraordinarily strange that these half-serious clarion calls for "regime change" by non-natives of these countries are coming from people who probably blasted OUR "elected leader," George W. Bush, for the exact same mindset.

In other words, IT'S HOW THEY DO THINGS. BUTT THE FUCK OUT. Obama is in Europe precisely to change the image of the "Ugly American" represented by our last President, who had no respect whatsoever for other nations' culture and decorum. Talk like this is, at best, simply unbecoming to our side of the political spectrum; at worst, it's just stupid.

And for those of you posting pictures of guillotines and dead Romanovs and such--let's just ignore the fact for a second that young children, servants, and other innocents were almost always mercilessly put to death along with their families, as a kind of "republican cleansing." You should just be aware that the executioners in these scenarios, far from being feted and celebrated as heroes of Democracy, were often the very next people with their heads on the chopping block.

[New Dawn]

1. History has shown that there are three best ways to eliminate royals...

Guillotines, firing squads, and paparazzi induced car accidents.

[babylonsister]

2. Links? Thanks. And my neck is in tact. nt

[Bicoastal]

8. I don't think I can link to them, can I?

That would be "calling out."

[babylonsister]

10. No, you shouldn't, but thanks for spotlighting the stoopid. nt

[guruoo]

47. Not necessarily....

Depends on within what context you do it, I believe.
I believe you'll be OK as long as your initial criticism is/was
directed at the message, not the messenger.

on edit: added 'initial', changed is to is/was.

[Hanse]

3. Happens every time English royalty, and typically only English royalty comes up.

I guess it's sort of like every time the Civil War comes up, there's some dick who defends the South and rails against Sherman and explains there's nothing wrong with the Confederate flag.

Some people just haven't figured out the war's over.

[readmoreoften]

4. Every political system has a death count. The important question is usually "why?"

And theorizing about how "death is wrong" is particularly saccharine sitting in the nation with the most blood on its hands since the Roman Empire. I'll argue for the French Revolution over the Bush Era any day of the week thanks.

But I do agree that it's absurd to critique monarchy--considering that we live in a plutocracy. Six one half dozen.

[Mike Daniels]

42. Yes, cause the French Revolution was so "moderate" in its aftermath

Gotta admire Robespierre's sense of restraint. After all, 40,000 summary executions carried out without trial seems pretty unambitious (sarcasm).

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. It is the transfer of wealth.

Those without, despise what has transpired over the last 50 years. Those making do... are not far removed from the same sentiments.

[Smith_3]

6. No person should get any preferential treatment by birthright, ever.

The fact that the Royals don't reject their tax exemption is enough for me to justify "anti-monarchy" posts.

[Old School Liberal]

17. Inclined to agree

Ordinarily, I'd say if the majority of the people voted to maintain it, then it's fine. But the fact that in New York we're still struggling to get rich/middle class types out of inherited World War 2 era rent controlled apartments (with 1940s rates) speaks volumes as to how difficult getting rid of special privileges is.
On the other hand, it's only the equivalent cost of two pints of milk, per person, per annum to maintain the monarchy, and I do so love the distraction they occasionally provide from the squalor in which I live.

[Captain Hilts]

35. We have a different kind of inherited monarchy, but we've got it. nt

[MADem]

32. BINGO!!!

We fought a Revolution to get those assholes off our backs, so it's not appropriate to kiss their asses or, most importantly, bow down to them.

Nothing wrong with being civil, but "civil" doesn't involve subservience--and that's something that a lot of people here just don't get.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Liz pays taxes now. nt

[AndrewP]

36. Agreed. Fuck them.

[readmoreoften]

7. I guess the Royal's slaughtering of 30K peaceful Communards who banished the guillotine

after their victory over the monarchy and signed a treaty with them doesn't count since that was 1871. Mostly women and children. Just think. If the Paris Commune had executed the Royals who sold their country to the Prussians and oppressed the masses instead of letting the Royals live in Versailles, they wouldn't have been slaughtered and betrayed. Instead, they offered a peace treaty to the rich in the name of a new and better world, and they all they got in return is the blood of their wives and children.

Gosh, only 35 years before the Russian Revolution! I wonder why the Bolsheviks were so paranoid! (A little historical context goes a long way.)

[Bicoastal]

13. 1871? Good lord, why not bring up the atrocities directed at rebellious peasants in the Middle

Ages while you're at it?

You're perfectly within your rights to hold a eternal grudge against contemporary monarchies for these reason, although goodness knows the democratic or communist governments that replaced them have plenty of blood on their hands as well. It's simply bad diplomacy, and after the reign of OUR George II, we need all the help we can get.

[RoyGBiv]

9. I don't get it either ...

If they wielded any actual power I'd have more of a problem with it, but they don't. The British Monarch acts as head of state.

No less a mind than Bill Moyers examined the general benefits of such a system as the British have, back in the late 80s, as a part of a critique of Reagan and the modern Presidency. The truly evil monarchies are those like what exists in Saudi Arabia.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. Roy

How can you justify your statement? Do you categorize 'evil monarchies'? If so, what is the criteria?

[RoyGBiv]

41. What are you fishing for?

That is, what do you want to know, and what is the complaint? Is it the use of the term "evil"?

To give a brief answer, I have a problem with absolute monarchy, although I wouldn't distinguish much between an absolute monarch and, for example, a military dictator. Both are autocrats.

[babylonsister]

15. There seems to be quite a few people living in the distant past.

Very weird to me! Hi, and bye, RGB! :fistbump:

[tomreedtoon]

11. Probably because Bush ran a monarchy.

He was, after all, The Decider. "Le etat cest moi," or something like that.

Only thing was, he ran the monarchy badly and with not even a pretension to style or taste. Something like that can really sour you on anybody who wears a crown.

[Caliman73]

14. I agree with you about monarchy bashing, but...

Stating that the last 100 years death toll is attributed to "democratically elected" governments and and is larger than that under monarchs, is false. World War I which created a large death toll was started by monarchs. World War II was a response to aggressive actions by 2 fascist dictators and an emporer. You cannot argue that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, leaders of many African nations in the last 100 years as well as Latin American nations have been "democratically elected". As the astute poster above stated, every form of government has blood on its hands. The better energy is spent on finding out "Why" than on pointing out the system of government as the cause.

[Bicoastal]

16. OK, you're right--I modified the second paragraph for historical accuracy.

You could make the case that even though Italy and Japan were ruled by monarchs, neither really had much power during their fascist periods. I'm not at all sure you could Fascist Italy a monarchy at all after a certain juncture.

In the last 50 years, though? Where did the royal tyrants disappear to? Can you really say than any hereditary monarch caused as much death and suffering as those who were elected or seized power? Post-World War II, at least, monarchies have been the least of the world's worries.

[Hardrada]

19. The Shah of Iran, The Light of the Aryans

He caused quite a lot of worry consequent to his inept tyranny.

[Caliman73]

21. That is why I agree with you that it is stupid to bash a system of government

Italy was not a monarchy after Mousolini came to power. He was a dictator hence the 2 fascist regimes and 1 Emperor. Japan was not a true monarchy but I would argue that it was by no means a democratically elected government. Also I would say that even when the leader is democratically elected, if that leader seizes power without a democratic mandate, they cease to be a democracy.

Post WWII full monarchies have been relegated to relatively insignificant countries such as Monaco and Morocco, etc... I could say that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy with significance in the world because of the oil, but they lack the wherewithal to create destruction that other countries can.

Once again I say that the system of government is less important than other factors in discussing death toll. I would argue that the desire for power and resources have been the largest causes of destruction no matter which system of government has been in place.

[Fumesucker]

23. Saudi Arabia had a considerable amount to do with 9/11

The Saudi monarchy bears a considerable amount of responsibility for fanning the flames of Muslim extremism. It was Muslim extremists, the majority of them Saudis, that perpetrated 9/11 and precipitated the war on terror.

We are responsible for our reaction to 9/11, but the Saudi monarchy is responsible for encouraging Muslim extremism, mostly in order to deflect domestic criticism away from their own abjectly awful rule.

[Bicoastal]

25. Saudi Arabia is one of the few Absolute Monarchies still in power.

They're like Louis XIV; their word is law, and they can do whatever the hell they want. BIG difference between them and Elizabeth II.

I DO fear this kind of monarch. And of the countries that still have a ruler like this (Oman, Brunei, Qatar, and Swaziland), Saudi Arabia is really the only one powerful and dangerous enough to affect the US. I would not mind Obama showing some public contempt towards the House of Saud, but that's because he has good reason to. Spiting Elizabeth II for purely ideological reasons, on the other hand, is just dumb.

[Fumesucker]

27. My parents were British, emigrated shortly after WWII..

I have to say that the way the Royals treated Diana has soured me greatly on them. Charles turned out to be a real jerk, IMO and I'm not impressed with most of the rest of them either.

Other than for tourism purposes I think the UK would be better off without them.

[anonymous171]

18. The founders were definitely "ugly americans" then. nt

[Bicoastal]

20. Well, our founders were rebellious Englishmen until they actually WON the war...

But the war is long over. We don't have a king or queen anymore, so why should we care who else has one?

If I was invited to visit the Queen, like Barack Obama was, I would go. Would you invoke the "Spirit of 1776" and refuse to even acknowledge her presence? 'Cause yes, that's something only an "Ugly American" would do.

[Irreverend IX]

22. Monarchy embodies a poisonous idea.

"Benign" or not, modern-day monarchs embody the idea that some people are divinely ordained to rule over others for no other reason than their lineage. In the case of the UK, the monarch has the power to disband Parliament and overrule any law, and even if this power is never used, its existence is anathema to freedom, equality and pretty much anything that could be called a progressive value.

It's like how Bush made all those convenient little "exceptions" to the Constitution and set up the shadow government. Even if those executive powers were never used to their full extent (wholesale imprisonment and execution of political opponents), the existence of those powers was a threat to freedom, and will continue to be until the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and all the rest are completely abolished.

[Bicoastal]

24. As I think I said, It's not the idea that bothers me, it's the tone of these rants...

...because some are really, truly angered and offended that Obama would even THINK of meeting the Queen of England or the Monarch of any other foreign country. And the "kill 'em all" stuff really took me by surprise.

We're liberals--we're supposed to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, and that goes for the power structures of foreign nations. Can we really say, as Americans, that all monarchies are really tyrannies, waiting to cast of the yoke of their royal oppressors? In all but a few cases, the royals are just THERE now--they're not oppressing anyone. Some are even beloved by their citizens. So why should our President be disrespectful? And why should the nauseating allusions to regicide--the Romanov one is REALLY ignorant--be permitted here?

[Irreverend IX]

26. Tolerating the power structures of foreign nations?

Like the power structures represented by the Taliban, the Saud family, the Chinese Communist Party and any number of other tyrants? That's taking cultural relativism a bit far.

Obama certainly should be respectful, but he could have picked something to say other than that Americans admire what the Queen stands for. It's asinine to say he shouldn't meet with monarchs, but he shouldn't offer fawning praise of monarchy. The royals may be "just there" now, but as long as they're there it signifies that "the divine right of kings" has not completely disappeared from human consciousness.

[Bicoastal]

29. Tolerating is different than advocating. US Presidents have "tolerated" the CCP

...since Nixon met with Mao. As far as the Taliban goes, some HERE will defend the Taliban's right to exist 'til the cows come home. They don't compliment them, sure, but they'll jump on anyone who labels them as "our enemy" and play Devil's Advocate for hours. Who are we Westerners to judge, they say? But most would agree that the English Royal Family are a far cry from the Taliban OR the Chinese Communist Party...

But as for Obama's words--sheesh, this is what diplomacy is all about. You compliment and praise your allies to the utmost, even if it borders on hyperbole. If you didn't notice, the Brits definitely returned the favor. And I think it's ridiculous to claim that Obama's words could be interpreted as an endorsement of monarchy in general--he's simply complimenting Britain's current monarch. Which is exactly the right move--the Brits can be surprisingly sensitive about it. An ex-pat friend of mine once told me that that his countrymen often rag on the Queen to their hearts' content, but the second a foreigner calls the Queen a dirty name, he risks a beating.

[AngryAmish]

39. We just don't like supine royal ass-lickers

We are a free people govern by ourselves for good or ill. God did not tell us who our natural betters are and we are offended by that idea.

[bird gerhl]

28. I just find fawning over foreign royalty to be a little vulgar...

[Political Heretic]

30. Americans looking down their noses at other countries systems

That's fucking rich.

[eridani]

31. I don't get it either. If you ain't British, it's nunnayu beeswax n/t

[Captain Hilts]

33. The British monarchs were all that tried to protect working class from mercantilist parliament for

centuries.

[RB TexLa]

37. Good for you, you feel you know your place in regard to royalty.

Declaring someone to be human scum which these people are is not the same as advocating military force to remove them from breathing.

[BoneDaddy]

38. Well said

AS a person of Irish heritage, I can barely stomach what the crown did, historically, to Ireland. That said, the monarchy is the equivalent of Larry Flint's penis, impotent and useless. The crown just becomes a symbol for people to regurgitate their hate and anger on some thing.

[SidDithers]

40. K&R...

There's a bunch of rubes here who can't seem to understand the difference between civility and obedience. The fact that the Obamas met the British Queen, and were nice to her, is not equal to the notion of an American President being forced by the "Powers That Be" (whoever the fuck that is!) to bow and scrape at the feet of royalty.

Good post.

Sid

[Orsino]

43. Because monarchs are antithetical to everything we believe in.

Constitutional monarchs who are mere figureheads ought to catch a break, though.

[JohnnyLib2]

44. Makes me wonder, was some of DU anti-France in the early years?

"American fries" and all that?

[Lyric]

45. Hitler? "Democratically elected?"

If you honestly believe that, then you're no "student of the 20th century." There was nothing democratic about Hitler's "election" and subsequent usurpation of totalitarian power. Election under threats, thuggery, and falsehoods is NOT "democratic."

I hope you were just being flippant.

[LanternWaste]

46. I see it simply as another piece of the "elitist" puzzle-board.

The monarchy is a very traditional idea; and I imagine many people are on the trendy, anti-traditional-anything bandwagon (got the t-shirt too-- with a few stains of a 1986 Chateau Mondotte intentionally placed where everyone can see them), reveling in a 250 years old postpartum celebration that allowed our own, slave-owning leaders to break from the "other" slave-owning leaders who just happened to be members of a monarchy.

I imagine many people believe that America is righteous, pure and without sin-- a model of decorum and civility that the rest of the world should emulate in both government and sugar-free snack drinks. And to those countries which don't copy our model precisely are either vilified or ridiculed to a degree usually reserved for actual evil deeds and actions, as it's dramatic and self-serving.

I see it simply as another piece of the "elitist" puzzle-board.

[Prophet 451]

48. It's a little like Irish-American Nationalists

Something I've noticed about Irish-Americans is that many of them act like the last 90 years of Anglo-Irish relations never happened. The amount who turned up on the BBC to bash the English after an attack on a British military base in Ireland a few weeks back was sickening.

Some people don't want to let go. They think the fact that the US fought a war against Britain (a war that had far more to do with Whitehall than George III) means they have to despise the monarchy for ever and ever. Much like the Irish descendents mentioned above (who tend to hate the English far more than the modern Irish do), they seem to hate the idea of monarchy far more than those of us actually living under it.

There is also the simple fact that Americans are taught, cradle to grave, to regard their own culture as superior to all others (the US is the only country in the western world which tells the rest of the world, on a daily basis, that it's the best nation on earth) and therefore, any culture which is noticeably dissimilar is regarded as inferior and history shows us that when something is regarded as inferior, it is often hated.