I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyrannical dictator, but usually because it gives some of the population the warm fuzzies.
I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.
The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician.
And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.
Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is.
If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!
The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is:
I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law
After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office.
If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.
In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular...
Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.
Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish.
Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.
> If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.
Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position.
Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons.
The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649.
That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers.
You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.
The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.
Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy.
I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe.
The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.
It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
> The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.
Well that's a straw man.
> It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute
It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship.
What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians).
But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution.
If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic.
(Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)
Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me".
Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it.
So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country.
Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew…
Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.
I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.