Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries 730
Third Position writes "Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there's a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution. Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy."
no thank you (Score:3, Informative)
We kicked out King George a long time ago...we don't want him back.
Two highly relevant Churchill quotes (Score:5, Informative)
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
But "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You jest (Score:4, Informative)
The differences are a lot more serious than that. In theological terms they are very different. Most importantly the protestants place great value on the personal relationship between each believer and Christ, while the Catholic church place themselves as the divinely appointed intermediary. This also means they claim for themselves the exclusive power to interpret or decree God's teachings. The two major branches of Christianity are on good terms right now, but remember that past centuries were characterized by the two taking turns to persecute and torture each other in the struggle for influence.
Re:hrm (Score:5, Informative)
She serves as an important 'symbolic' head of state. This is a part of why we don't make a super-celebrity out of our prime minister, the way the US does with their president. When we need someone to patriotically rally around, we don't need to wrap a politician up in a flag and recognize him as the embodiment of our national values and virtues. We have a monarch for that.
In terms of actual powers? Lots, but by general convention these days she doesn't actually use them. In theory she appoints the prime minister (in practice, she simply formalises the election result), opens parliament (via representative, as she is personally barred from setting foot in the Commons), can close it again at any time, could (but won't) veto and law passed by refusing to sign it, is the ultimate head of the Church of England with the power to alter doctrine on a whim, grants titles and honors (rubber-stamps committee decisions) and is the legal owner of every swan on a stretch of the Thames.
In the event that she actually tried to exercise an of these powers, you can be confident parliament would quickly find a way to bypass and take them away. It's a simple deal: She gets to keep her vast country-ruling powers, on condition she never uses them.
Re:hrm (Score:4, Informative)
While it is theoretically possible for the Sovereign to veto a bill by refusing Royal Assent, the incidents since 1689 are pretty rare. Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill,. In the 1930s the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta used the Sovereign's right to delay assent over a series of bills designed to limit press freedoms.