Saturday, 25 January 2014

The British Monarchy Explained (and why we need a republic)

You might already know that Queen Elizabeth was going to give more responsibilities (sic) to her son. I say responsibilities, yet in essence, the royals have none whatsoever, except some protocolary functions. It reminded me of why I am a republican. This bit of news is a good excuse as any to upload here a brilliant video I recently found on YouTube. It explains what is the British Monarchy and why it sucks to have it, and it debunks all the lazy arguments monarchists usually bring forward to justify the existence of this anachronistic and antidemocratic institution.


Mantan Calaveras said...

Nice, thanks for sharing! I always enjoy seeing Englanders oppose monarchy.

I do have to take issue with the video though. While it rightly criticizes the right of royals to rule by blood, it levies this criticism by implying that anyone should be able to aspire to rule. It assumes and reinforces a system of hierarchy!

This idea of the best and brightest being able to rise to the top is exemplified in my own country's system: democratic republicanism. And what an example it is.

Being an anarchist, I have to question why we would ever want a system of hierarchy at all!

But overall, this video does an excellent job of debunking the usual apologetics for monarchy. Kudos!

Debra She Who Seeks said...

Fun video! I suspect even the Royals themselves might prefer just to be private citizens too.

Guillaume said...

@Mantan-Thank you. I am skeptical about anarchy, but I don't like hierarchies either. A republic is not a perfect system, but it is a far more legitimate one than a monarchy and far less hierarchical than a monarchy. It is also more flexible: putting an end to hierarchies is more possible in a republic than in a monarchy.
@Debra-Unfortunately I don't think so, although there may be some who do think their power rely on nothing but hot air.