Thread replies: 26
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
George Orwell on constitutional monarchy 2017-01-21 01:58:09 Post No. 2253834
[Report] Image search: [Google]
George Orwell on constitutional monarchy 2017-01-21 01:58:09 Post No. 2253834
[Report] Image search: [Google]
>"A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breast-plates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the Royal Family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin. I do not defend the institution of monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect, and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy. I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family"
Thoughts?
>>
>>2253834
>the existence of a figurehead monarch prevents popular politicians from existing
I don't think so tim
>>
>>2253848
Who are you quoting?
>>
He's noting a causal relationship, but his conclusion is wrong. It's because the monarch ceded power long ago and the nation has strong democratic traditions that it resisted fascism, not because the monarch remained as a figurehead. How would his argument explain America, it can't.
>>
>>2253848
No, but parliament does.
>>
Make Trump God Emporer NOW
>>2253834
>>
>>2253916
What possible benefit would that give to you?
>>
>>2253834
His argument doesn't explain Greece or Italy.
>>
>>2255443
They were comparatively very young monarchies
>>
>>2253834
Real fascism has unironically never been tried. Orwell was an anti-statist faggot baby. Proofs that anti-state "socialists" are secretly reactionaries and counter-revolutionary bigots.
>>
>>2253834
Lets begin. UK is still absolute monarchy because monarch has right to decline any Parliament's act and stuff of Cabinet.
>>
>>2255443
In Greece some of the worst political catastrophies came out of this monarchies.
+They were a foreign body,not a house out of them.
>>
>>2255456
Legal right is not the same as constitutional right
>>
>>2255474
UK has not constitution at all. And this right is actual.
>>
>>2255488
>UK has not constitution at all
Yes it does
>>
>>2255488
>UK has not constitution at all
It does. It's just not codified in a single document. It has a bunch of written and unwritten sources. This means that Magna Carta is as much a part of the constitution as a convention that isn't even enshrined in statute.
>>
>>2255456
>monarch has right to decline any Parliament's act and stuff of Cabinet
Bullshit. If she started actually trying to exercise those powers, she'd be declared senile and her orders would never even become public.
>>
>>2255576
Google Queen's veto of war against Iraq in 1998. This is not a joke, one of most important decision of state was made by Her Majesty, not Parliament. So this monarchy is really absolute.
>>
>>2255508
t. Nigel
>>
>>2253932
A week of shitposting before he has to leave the basement.
>>
>>2255596
You don't understand what you're talking about. You need to read up substantially on British history and constitutional law because what you're spouting right now is simply wrong. We're not talking about different interpretations here - your understanding of the UK constitution is fundamentally flawed.
While the Royal Prerogative exists, the Queen cannot exercise her prerogative powers independently. Those prerogative powers are wielded entirely by the government these days.
The 'veto' you're referencing was a parliamentary debate about the way war is waged in the UK. The question was whether the government could make that decision using prerogative powers or if that decision had to gain parliamentary approval.
The government asked the queen not to consent to the bill posing that question. She could not have withheld her consent without the government explicitly asking her to do so.
The most important decision of state was therefore reserved for the elected government. The monarch cannot singlehandedly do such a thing.
>>
File: musolking.jpg (37KB, 300x400px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 300x400px
>>2253834
>monarchy preventing fascism
tell that Vittorio Emanuele, who was head of state during Mussolini's reign
>>
He's wrong for the specific reason that fascism simply is absolute monarchy.
The fact that a constitutional monarchy is simply a soft version of it, doesn't change the fact that the parade-worshipping jingoistic element in humans that is the problem in the first place.
>>
>>2255928
But you're missing the point he makes about power and glory. In fascism it lies in one person - in constitutional monarchy the government has the power and the monarch has the glory
>>
>>2253848
Didn't that happen in Italy?
>>
>>2255463
British monarchy is also foreign idiot
Thread posts: 26
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2