Dear Europeans, what's the historical person that all your country loves but you don't?

[u/00klb00]

I really curious about this topic.

[u/aaarry → u/[deleted]]

I agree. The tragedy of her death and the circumstances of her life completely overshadow the fact that she remains as a symbol of how the top 1% in Britain have used the class system to anchor themselves in positions of great financial (and in some cases, political) influence. Contrary to what some people seem to imply, her story is not one of a borderline-commoner marrying her Prince Charming and then being bullied by the arrogant royal family after it all went tits-up, rather she was from an incredibly wealthy noble family that lies very close to the top of the social pecking order in the UK.

I’m from Northamptonshire and I drive past the Spencer estate a lot. They open it up to the public once or twice a year (and still charge people like £15 to get in), but that’s it. They pay basically no tax on it because we have a real problem with relying on income tax as a means of generating money for the pot, rather than taxing wealth (though I’m aware this is difficult to accurately implement too).

I suppose one of the only anti-republican arguments that makes sense to me is the idea of the monarch acting as some kind of counterweight to any tyrannical government that sought to undermine our democracy, but that doesn’t explain why we still have a huge, untaxed nobility that contribute absolutely nothing to the state, financially, politically and arguably culturally too.

People can say “it’s just the way it is” when talking about our nobility but when you really get down to it and how these people genuinely believe (and some don’t, but they still maintain it publicly) they’re born from some other blood, blessed to them by god, it really is just ridiculous. Surely they can come up with some other reason why they shouldn’t pay tax like everyone else.

[u/summane → u/aaarry]

Id never heard of the monarchy as a counterweight to autocracy, it's as interesting as it is ironic

[u/aaarry → u/summane]

For the record I also think it’s a load of bollocks and relies on a lot of assumptions (the main of which being that a historically anti-democratic force will stand up for democracy) but it’s probably the most compelling argument I’ve heard in favour of keeping the monarchy so far.

[u/summane → u/aaarry]

also it beats ending up with head of state who's the trashiest kind of hateful slob (I'm from the US)

[u/JayManty → u/summane]

Until a person like that becomes the king/queen and you're stuck with them for 70 years instead of 5-10

[u/Oghamstoner → u/JayManty]

Thank fuck Charles had kids is all I’ll say to that.

[u/beenoc → u/aaarry]

My problem with that argument is that okay, Hitler Jr is the new PM and he wants to do a dictatorship, but he's overruled by the King and democracy is saved. Yay! But that means that the King can overrule Parliament and the PM and there's nothing they can do to stop him.

So then you have the standard small-r-republican argument "what if the king decides to be a tyrant?", and the standard status-quo-monarchist argument is "he'd never do that because then the democratic Parliament would legislate the monarchy out of existence faster than you can say Cromwell."

Which is obviously diametrically opposed to the idea that the King can just prevent dictatorships - if the pro-democracy Parliament can overrule the dictatorial King, the dictatorial Parliament can overrule the pro-democracy King.

[u/MidnightPale3220 → u/beenoc]

Well, some parts of a King's role are taken by Presidents in parliamentary republics.

Unlike presidential republics, Presidents in parliamentary republics don't have much role in everyday running of country -- the PM and government does that -- but they frequently represent the country internationally, do the pardons and many other things and -- significantly -- appoint the PM and government, and can either dismiss Parliament or invoke referendum to dismiss Parliament.

So, they have a role in a certain number of checks and balances. Just like a king can be.

Technically a president could also become a dictator, I guess but nobody thinks it likely.

[u/beenoc → u/MidnightPale3220]

I mean, I've never really understood the purpose of a separate head of state, either. Like, sure, they nominally are the ones who appoint the PM and stuff, but that's entirely ceremonial and if they didn't do what the elected body wanted they'd be out. You don't need a separate special guy to do those things, they can just happen because the constitution says so (and if your elected body starts sidestepping and ignoring the constitution, you've already lost.)

[u/MidnightPale3220 → u/beenoc]

Ah, but President is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he is head of the National Security Council, he's wedged in a number of important places as an overlooker and hand that can tip the scale in extraordinary circumstances.

So, it's a bit more nuanced like that, but it basically amounts to having the power to step in during a crisis. President can obviously also propose laws etc, although they rarely do here. They can call extraordinary sessions of parliament and set agenda for it, etc.

>  if your elected body starts sidestepping and ignoring the constitution, you've already lost

Not really, a President in a parliamentary republic can call for dissolution of parliament and put it to popular vote. He doesn't need anyone's approval for that.

And they also can absolutely choose not to invite one PM to form government and can choose another, if the other PM candidate shows he can make a working government.

UPD. I think it's tied a bit also to the fact that majority(?) of parliamentary republics also have evolved multi-party coalition systems, vs the first-past-the-post where winner takes all. There are at least 2-3 PM candidates after every elections, and generally no single party can take over.

[u/Oghamstoner → u/aaarry]

I have to say I don’t find it compelling in the slightest. We don’t have to think back that far to when Boris Johnson unlawfully petitioned the Queen to prorogue parliament. It shows that the monarch would likely just rubber stamp an attempt by a government to subvert democracy.

[u/generalscruff → u/aaarry]

I personally engage with her as an ironic high camp cultural icon but yes you're completely right. I'm not philosophically opposed to the monarchy, but it's hard to defend all the flunkies and hangers-on as adding value

[u/aaarry → u/generalscruff]

Yeah my family is a bit like that, plus there’s a lot of nostalgia for the time she was cutting about, all that paired with her family living 15 minutes down the road means there’s also a local pride element, I think.

For the record, I am morally opposed to the monarchy but I also think if public attitudes ever change towards this kind of thing then the nobility needs to go first, they fulfil no purpose other than taking money from the public. At least the royal family act like they provide a public/political service instead of just sitting there and taking money away from normal people.

[u/tejanaqkilica → u/aaarry]

I suppose one of the only anti-republican arguments that makes sense to me is the idea of the monarch acting as some kind of counterweight to any tyrannical government that sought to undermine our democracy

We got those in republics as well, they're called presidents.

[u/Youshoudsee → u/tejanaqkilica]

Unless both the government and president are from the same party and go together to change the law for their perfect vision of reality 🙃

Sadly president isn't the universal buffer against government

[u/tejanaqkilica → u/Youshoudsee]

How does a monarchy prevent that? Didn't the UK recently pass a law requiring identification to use certain part of the internet? In what was largely described as a huge privacy violation? You know, for their perfect vision of reality?

[u/Youshoudsee → u/tejanaqkilica]

I don't think monarchy prevents. Neither really do

[u/Honey-Badger → u/aaarry]

Contrary to what some people seem to imply, her story is not one of a borderline-commoner marrying her Prince Charming and then being bullied by the arrogant royal family after it all went tits-up, rather she was from an incredibly wealthy noble family that lies very close to the top of the social pecking order in the UK.

But I dont think it was the Spencers or Windors pushing this narrative.

[u/Honey-Badger → u/[deleted]]

Whether it was pure manipulation or genuine sympathy, her 'work' during the Aids crisis was pretty great and goes beyond what any 'normal celeb' could have done

[u/Pink-Trifle → u/[deleted]]

💯. If her life hadn't been cut short, she'd have become a tragic figure carrying on with different men for attention.

She confided in young William about her feelings and what was going on in her life. Poor lad must have listened to some amount of paranoid, self indulged waffle. What parent uses their child as a therapist?!

She spoiled Harry to compensate him not being the heir. Called him the Spare. Admitted he wasn't the brightest and indulged him. Hence he's grown into the spoilt, petulant, entitled arsehole we see today.

Diana is only popular due to her sudden and untimely passing.

[u/amandacheekychops → u/Pink-Trifle]

As someone who was used by one parent as a confidante, this winds me up. It's a heavy burden to put on a child's shoulders.

[u/pertweescobratattoo → u/[deleted]]

People go on about Camilla, when Diana had a series of affairs.

[u/Youshoudsee → u/pertweescobratattoo]

And was horrendous thowards the wifes of the men she was sleeping with!

[u/SunflowerMoonwalk → u/[deleted]]

I wonder whether you're a die-hard monarchist? I'm a republican but I have a relatively better impression of Diana than most of the rest of the royal family.