They have influence, not governing power. Sure you could argue they don't deserve the influence they have just for being in that position. The main point however is questioning the /hate/. I know you're not the poster who I was replying to, but I didn't want to distract the point of my post. Why should we hate the monarchy so much?

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

We shouldn't hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.

It's archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK's case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.

It's a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 3 points 7 months ago

That makes sense. I agree with that. Thank you.

I felt somewhat disheartened that the response of a guy announcing he has cancer is filled with such toxicity.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They have influence, not governing power

The old man that this post is about literally does have governing power, not only in the UK but also in 14 other countries including Australia and Canada. A common argument made by monarchists is that the monarch's actual influence is negligible, and their governing power should be ignored because it is only ceremonial.

As Wikipedia puts it:

Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government.

But... there is a catch:

screenshot of the top of wikipedia "royal assent" article showing "Not to be confused with King's Consent."

It turns out that there is also a less formal process (or a "parliamentary convention"; another part of the UK's heritage is having an "unwritten constitution", whatever that means) called King's Consent whereby the monarch, in secret, is consulted before parliament is allowed to debate anything which might affect their personal interests. And it turns out, a lot of things might affect their personal interests, so, this procedure has been and continues to be used to review, shape, and in some cases veto, numerous laws before they are allowed to be debated by parliament. You can read more here.

🤡

[–] noxfriend@beehaw.org 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They don't even need that sort of power for the argument to hold weight but yes, they do hold exactly that sort of power and use it for things like ensuring that Buckingham Palace isn't affected by racial equality in employment laws https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Then they hide it from us, too

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 13 points 7 months ago

That is quite a damnig article. Thanks I understand your view on that now.