King Charles 'won't stand in way' if Australia chooses to axe monarchy and become republic

Posted by Majano57@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 354 comments

[-]

wet_suit_one@reddit

Erm...

What could he actually do to oppose this?

Austrailia is sovereign. They get to control themselves. The monarch in a country like Australia is essentially a figurehead. There may be some minute reserved powers, but all the real power resides in Australia.

Help a guy out would ya?

Charles saying "please don't do this" is about all I can see him having the power to do. And then he's promptly ignored and Australia goes on its merry way.

Is there more to this than that?

[-]

PTMorte@reddit

They are not just a figurehead. The Australian Governer General is appointed by the Monarch and acts on their orders. And is basically our version of a US President. They appoint ministerial powers, approve bills before they can pass through parliament, are commander in chief of the military, and they have the power to dissolve the Australian government if they so decide (famously used in 1975 to remove Gough Whitlam's Labor government).

[-]

wet_suit_one@reddit

Also, in Canada, the GG acts on the advice of the government, not the King. I assume it's the same in Australia. Am I wrong?

I note that nothing in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis mentions any involvement of the monarch. Got a citation that says differently?

[-]

wet_suit_one@reddit

On whose advice?

Does the monarch just pick whoever they want as GG? That's not how it is in Canada. Canada picks the GG and King rubber stamps the choice.

I assume Australia's parliamentary system operates essentially the same as Canada's where the King has essentially zero power.

If I'm wrong, kindly advise how. I'd love to know.

Cheers!

[-]

didsomebodysaymyname@reddit

It's not like he can seriously do anything to stop them, and even if he wants them to stay nothing would empower anti-monarchists more than "no, you can't leave."

[-]

ug61dec@reddit

The monarchy media machine is extremely powerful. Hence why people don't want to get rid of them.

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

If they got rid of the monarchy the UK would have literally nothing left

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Except for self respect, a sense of humour, public transport, culture (you'll understand when you're older) and scones.

Anyway... The way the US worships Donald you're making it pretty even. You even ignore sexual abuse allegations because he's famous.

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

UK monarchy pays for itself through tourism. Without the monarchy the UK is just a tiny island with bad weather and people who still think they’re relevant.

[-]

ug61dec@reddit

That is one of those myths that's doesn't hold true. The cost of the monarchy far out weighs any benefit. If we removed the monarchy and opened up their land, house and art etc to tourism we'd generate far more. People tend to avoid royal gatherings too, it literally drives away more tourists that it attracts. Facts hurt I guess.

[-]

SquidZillaYT@reddit

thanks for summing up 60 million people as being only valuable because of one family

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

Truth hurts

[-]

SquidZillaYT@reddit

bros country is trying to elect a rapist and is actively hunting aid workers but the british people are bad?

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

For centuries Britain colonized and raped the lower hemisphere just becoming a failed state so yeah pretty bad. Pretty sure the UK is the one with the nonce problem too.

[-]

SquidZillaYT@reddit

ignoring the colonies the u.s. has/had, your ex president is on a certain unfavorable list of nonces

[-]

rattleandhum@reddit

UK monarchy pays for itself through tourism. Without the monarchy the UK is just a tiny island with bad weather and people.

I hate this argument, because it's stupid as all fuck.

The French beheaded their monarch, and people still visit Versailles. Tourists will never see the Monarchs, and it doesn't matter whether they live on those estates or not.

I have yet to have anyone who claims the Monarchy benefits the treasury come up with any supporting evidence.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Yeah it does generate a lot of tourism.

You're country goes nuts for that shit. It's not even your Monarchy lol.

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

Ok?

[-]

StayGoldMcCoy@reddit

Australia is really weird when it comes to the US. Very obsessed.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

And they have a better national anthem.

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

lol I bet you hear the US anthem all the time considering that your entire country is just a US army base designed to soak up all the damage of a US China war 🇺🇸🦅

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Oh yeah that's the one with the whistle and the I'm loving it isn't it? Very popular here big fan of your work.

You know you do have one permanent naval base here. We named it after Harold Holt.

Don't read into that.

[-]

Ornery-Feedback-7855@reddit

Don’t need to probably just killed a bunch of aboriginals anyways. Hope you’re ready to fight China for the US!

[-]

Nemesysbr@reddit

It's not like the palaces and grounds themselves wouldn't generate tourism, or that the controversy over its dismantling wouldn't also create interest.

It's unquantifiable what getting rid of them would do for tourism. It's just a weird argument people use, as if that makes it ok to literally still have nobility lol

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Shh I'm fucking an American.

[-]

Command0Dude@reddit

culture (you'll understand when you're older)

Sure that's why most of the movies you guys are produced in...checks notes America.

And no, the US does not worship Trump. He's extremely unpopular except with only a narrow subset and he's going to lose quite badly in a few weeks.

[-]

paddyo@reddit

Tbh you’ll be surprised how many American movies are actually made in the U.K. in the British film system, from Star Wars to Mission Impossible to Indiana Jones.

[-]

2012Jesusdies@reddit

And no, the US does not worship Trump. He's extremely unpopular except with only a narrow subset and he's going to lose quite badly in a few weeks.

I mean, 47-49% of the people voting are poised to vote for him.

[-]

Command0Dude@reddit

A full 30% of the country isn't going to vote period, meaning he will get X% of the remaining 60-70% that do vote.

And I happen to think it's going to be a landslide loss among those who do vote personally.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Oh no, you'll worship him long after the election, you're entire culture is cooked.

But you have Marvel so that's cool.

[-]

Command0Dude@reddit

Even his own base is getting tired of him lol, he can't fill a single venue and people leave early in large numbers. He's going to have no longetivity after losing. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people pretend they never supported him out of embarrassment.

[-]

wq1119@reddit

Also, as far as I recall, the British monarchs are the monarchs of the Commonwealth nations independently of their status in the UK.

So for example, should the monarchy in the UK be completely abolished and Britain become a Republic, the many other states where Charles is the king of would have to undergo their very own processes to abolish their monarchy if they wished.

I heard a Canadian guy say that it is more likely and easier for Britain to abolish the monarchy than Canada is, apparently, Canada abolishing the monarchy would cost way too much bureaucracy, time, and resources that could be focused on more important matters and the countless issues currently affecting Canada, instead of doing it for the sake of Populist rhetoric.

[-]

didsomebodysaymyname@reddit

Yes, I don't mean to say he has no power, but if they do vote to leave it's not like he can effectively veto it or something. I'm sure they have and will make propaganda to keep Australia in the fold.

[-]

labelsonshampoo@reddit

They royal family didn't say anything when a lettuce decided to fuck his own country. He's not gonna say anything if a country decides to legitimately go there own way

[-]

qjxj@reddit

"Send in the Redcoats"

[-]

Forsaken-Bobcat-491@reddit

I mean the Australian military swears there oaths to the king not the parliament.

[-]

Bosde@reddit

I mean, have you seen our parliament's question time?

[-]

Commercial_Sentence2@reddit

This isn't big news, Australia holds a referendum every decade and still hasn't separated.

He also doesn't really act as a monarch to Australia, with his GG holding powers of delegation and pretty much acting on his own behest if he sees fit.

I'd cast a vote and say no one in Australia cares either way.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

The Republic movement in Australia has been gaining traction since the 90s and especially since the death of the queen. A lot of people care. lol

[-]

Forsaken-Bobcat-491@reddit

Maybe amongst the terminally online but I haven't seen a lot of desire for change.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

TIL The Greens party is terminally online.

[-]

Forsaken-Bobcat-491@reddit

Yes

[-]

mgrande465@reddit

I think the polling that’s just come out shows it’s actually going backwards. We just hate referendums I think.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

Well, that's depressing.

[-]

Wolfensniper@reddit

Well getting rid of the king and have an Australian Trump would be worse so im indifference to it.

And also to think of President Morrison...

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

There are plenty of Republics without a Trump, but ok. Our voting system wouldn't change? lmao

[-]

Wolfensniper@reddit

How would mandatory anonymous voting system change just because Australian becomes a Republic?

There are plenty of Republics without a Trump

Well maybe, but for a English-speaking, immigration-based country that independent from Britain, the first and foremost example would be this certain nation who always claiming herself to be the example of Republican democracy.

For non-English speaking, non-British heritage republics, we of course have Netanyahu, Meloni, Orban, Milei, Yun Seok-yeol, Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un... For candidates we have Le Pan, Wiedel, Kickl... So yeah, not looking good for these ones.

For Monarchy Western countries tho? Well we have Japan, Sweden, Norway, Danmark, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium... Definitely worse than the democratic republics above /s

Im not saying something like Monarchy good Republic bad here, im just saying that changing the status quo is just meaningless and having a greater risk of devolving into places like America. So no, if Americans are dumb enough to elect Trump, i dont think Aussies would be more clever to not elect someone like Morrison.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

Ah, sorry, what I meant was America's president is selected by popular vote, Australia has preferential voting. Which would stay the same even if we were a Republic instead of a Constitutional Monarchy. There is a lot to be said for the structure of America's "democratic" system and how it enables popularism in general. For example, Ronald Reagan compared to our similar Neoliberal era of John Howard.

On the other hand, the UK had Thatcher so... who knows.

I see what you're saying thougb that changing might make things worse, not better. I'm just not sure that there is any causation between independence and tyranny? Better the devil, you know, I suppose.

[-]

Wolfensniper@reddit

No worries, I might misunderstood as well. I agree that preferential would be kept. For causation tho i dont really know as well. I may have more research to be sure.

[-]

NetworkLlama@reddit

Recent polls suggest about a third of Australia in favor of breaking from the monarchy and 45% against.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

I thought this was an increase from polls in previous years? Maybe I'm mistaken. Or it's gone up and then dowm again since I last read about it ig is also a possibility.

[-]

EternalAngst23@reddit

There has been. The poll they’re referring to was published by the daily telegraph, so not exactly an accurate snapshot of public opinion.

[-]

EternalAngst23@reddit

Wrong. I’m Australian, and based on all the polls I’ve seen, support for a republic lingers around ~50%, with 35-40% against and the rest undecided. The poll you’ve read is a definite outlier.

[-]

Commercial_Sentence2@reddit

I don't think so mate.

Changes brought on by separation are skin deep, constitutional, legal, trade. None of it will cause a significant shift in our foreign, or national policies. If it's voted for in a referendum It will be primarily focused on national identity.

If you're an Aussie, generally your national identity stems from one's self rather than from the system or the government. I think the majority of Australians would be agnostic towards the decision and not be perturbed which way the vote fell.

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

Seems like you care a lot about not becoming a republic? lol

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

I do, the current leading plan is terrible. Having states nominate people from whom you can elect? You'd be hyper politicising a role that functions so well now for exactly the fact that it's not.

[-]

IReplyWithLebowski@reddit

I think the main thing is there’s never been a coherent plan for what system to use to replace him, and we don’t trust the politicians to start mucking around with the constitution.

[-]

just_some_Fred@reddit

Can't you just say, "fuck off, we'll find someone else to put on the money." Like, what would need to change, other than just officially ignoring the king, rather than the casual ignoring you do now?

[-]

IReplyWithLebowski@reddit

The Govenor General (appointed by the Prime Minister but nominally the King’s representative) has various constitutional powers (again, mostly ceremonial), but they’d all need to be re-written in the constitution.

Thats assuming we do a straight switch from GG to President.

And I’m not sure what other implications there are for becoming an actual Republic.

Basically, there are a lot of unknowns, and there’s not enough people with strong feelings about what system we should change to.

[-]

Independent_Moth@reddit

Oh God I do not trust our politicians to do that.

They've barely figured out how to stamp out poverty in the richest natural resource per capita countries in the world.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Even the plans around now are complete ass. Looking at you Australian republic movement.

[-]

Wolfensniper@reddit

Which is exactly the organization that sent this letter lol

[-]

DavidBrooker@reddit

What is the constitutional context in Australia? I know the Australia Act was modelled on the Canada Act, but I don't know to what extent. In the Canada Act, changes regarding the nature of the monarchy and/or crown is one of the only constitutional amendments requiring full unanimous consent from all provinces, which makes it a practical impossibility. (For context, Quebec has never consented to the current constitution, despite two major efforts to earn it).

Other major amendments require seven of ten provinces to ratify, which likewise has never been achieved. The only successful amendments of the Canada Act to date have been things that either the federal government or a province can do unilaterally (for instance, when Newfoundland and Labrador was renamed from "Newfoundland", no other government was required to ratify the change).

[-]

Snarwib@reddit

Referendums required to change the Australian Constitution and they need a double majority - they need majority yes vote nationally, and a yes majority in four of the six states.

Unlike with Canadian provinces, the states as state governments do not get a say directly, so the mechanism for change has far fewer steps than Canada needing unanimous consent.

[-]

fredleung412612@reddit

The irony is before the Canada Act, changing the constitution was quite easy. As the British government and if it was sensible they'd have it done within a year. Since then not a single amendment that affects the whole country has passed.

[-]

EternalAngst23@reddit

Australia holds a referendum on every decade

What are you on about? The last referendum on a republic was in 1999. How about you stop spreading false information on the internet.

[-]

Commercial_Sentence2@reddit

No, you're right. my poor use of words, which you then incorrectly copied. I should've stated discusses a referendum every decade" which between Howard, rudd, Gillard, Turnbull and now Albanese is true. The crux being post 1999 the desire to reignite the issue hasn't been strong enough from the public, because ultimately I don't think the general public really cares.

[-]

ufoninja@reddit

No we don’t.

[-]

bannedin420@reddit

I mean say what you want about the monarchy but King Charles seems like a pretty down to earth dude. He was going off about climate change way before a lot of other people were.

[-]

WiseBelt8935@reddit

i know a few people who have met him and they only have nice things to say

[-]

muteen@reddit

I know a few people who say the opposite

[-]

Yautja93@reddit

I can say the same for any living person.

But fuck the English monarchy, especially the previous queen, protecting evil people, they are all horrible.

[-]

dummypod@reddit

If Charles truly cared he should send his brother for questioning by the FBI

[-]

WiseBelt8935@reddit

and joe won't send Anne Sacoolas to stand trial in the uk, you need give and take.

[-]

enbytaro@reddit

joe and trump truly are the same dude on every foreign policy issue except russia lol

[-]

Big_Muffin42@reddit

He doesn’t have that power.

His power is entirely ceremonial.

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

People are flawed, and family is family you know?

[-]

LifesPinata@reddit

True, but you can't really expect people to call you a good person after you defend a pedophile

[-]

Yautja93@reddit

Yup, I agree. And his mother used public money to defend him, which is even worse.

[-]

Winged_One_97@reddit

Sure buddy.

[-]

Ansoker@reddit

Anyone of those folks happened to be named Lelouch by any chance?

[-]

nomamesgueyz@reddit

I've heard he's extremely knowledgeable in so many topics, makes sense as he's meet thousands of high achievers

[-]

soldforaspaceship@reddit

I met him when I was young and volunteering for the Samaritans. He is a himuge advocate for farmers and they have the highest suicide rates so he stopped by to thank us.

I found him to be perfectly pleasant and appreciated he took the time to advocate for something he feels strongly about.

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

I bear no specific ill will to him. But I'd like to shed the dressing of royalty and nobility one day, too.

Though, and I know we won't get this, I'd always hoped that when we(meaning Canada, Aus, UK, NZ et al collectively) do shed the monarchy, we'd replace it with some other formal connecting tie that keeps CANZUK somewhat affiliated still. I feel Canada shedding the monarchy and ties to the other sad anglo countries with it, I worry we'd be on the path to just becoming completely indistinct from the US. So you know, something to keep the family in touch.

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

So weird that Québécois MPs have to swear loyalty to the king

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

I think Canada by and large couldn't give two shits about the crown, even in the anglo parts.

For me, though, this changes under one specific circumstance: when I'm talking to Americans. As confounding the breakaway American colonies for laughs is the duty of every Canadian, I pretend to take it all very seriously. Especially if they question the whole thing.

Regular life though, like yea it's kind of vestigial.

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

Lmao, aa a French, royals are only useful for one thing..

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

Guillotine lubricant?

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

Oui.

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

Solidarité

I'm a big fan of the french attitude in this area.

I'd like to add some people to the guillotine queue

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

I really like Canadian politics! Wven if I follow Québécois ones more.

How are you feeling about the upcoming elections? I know the liberals are practically doomed but is there a chance for the Ndp to become the official opposition?

What's up with Poilievre?

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

I'm a BCer, so I'm pretty focused on our ongoing provincial election, where it looks troublingly close. It's been wild out here with the disbanding of the BC libs and sudden relevance of the BC Cons.

I'm a big BCNDP guy so I'm anxious.

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

Ooooh yea! NDP are making a big play for BC. Why were the BClibs disbanded?

NDP is a pretty cool party

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

When the BCLibs lost grip on power, they still kept putting up party leaders who were prominent figures in their previous governments, people we voted out and started to rightly blame for many of BC's troubles. Wondering why their stay-the-course mentality was polling poorly, they figured the best way to handle the situation was to rebrand as BC United Party. Then it was a shitshow of infighting, members moving to the previously-fringe-status Conservative party, putting the BCCons into some degree of relevance for the first time ever. Then I dunno, maybe the popularity of the federal tories at the moment helped the BC tories in polls, but it was looking grim for the now-dividided right wing.

Then, like a week before the campaigning started, Kevin Falcon, BC United's leader, just held a conference and said he was disbanding the party. Now I'm not sure what happened behind the scenes there, what kind of deal he got to finally bury his political career. Also there was some light mania around the fact that he didn't really consult the party, hold a vote or anything. Just went out, said "we're not a party anymore, vote for the cons so we can stop the NDP".

BC cons, well they're interesting in their own right. While they now have a tonne of new members, BCU refugees, they were absolutely a fringe, irrelevant party before all this. Which means, what few established figures were in that party, including the leader, are a brand of right wing that didn't used to have a voice in BC politics. You know, your bible types, your convoy dudes, your anti-vax lot. It seems to be giving the die-hard BCLib supporters, you business manager, truck-driving suburbanites, at least a little bit of the ick in the process of having to back a new party and learning more about what the leader there is about.

I'm sure the rapid intake of BCU members into the Cons would have lead to a new leader had they done it earlier in the year, but this all happened a week before the writ dropped.

Funny enough, the BC Libs became a thing after the same bloc of politicians fled the previous Social Credit Party to take over the Liberals. It's kind of a running tradition out here now, the right wing changing form to shed the bad rep they got in their old form.

[-]

unorthodoxEconomist5@reddit

Very cool to have an indepth read inside the cracks of BC politics.

It seems like Quebec and the rest of Canada are on a pendulum swing. CAQ (which i find similar to the trucker Cons?) are freefalling, whilst the more progressive PQ is rising.

If Poilievre fucks up royally as PM, is there a chance that Quebec votes in favor of sovereignty?

Where do you stand on that issue?

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

I don't know, honestly. On one hand, yay unity, all that nice stuff. But also, if I were Quebecois I'd probably wanna run out of this burning building too.

Selfishly, I kinda count on Quebec to inevitably the last hold out when we start shuttering our public services like healthcare across Canada on behalf of American capital interests. Like, I worry without Quebec's political influence the rest of us just completely give up on the whole being-a-real-country thing and just end up more and more American.

Kind of an unfair burden to place on Quebec, I know.

Anyways, fuck I don't know. You?

[-]

Cheebzsta@reddit

Unfortunately we Canadians, realistically, simply will never be free of the British monarchy.

Ditching the monarchy requires a significantly larger political majority amending the Canadian constitution itself. It's as hard-coded into government as is possible under Canadian law.

[-]

justdidapoo@reddit

Yeah i do think there is value to keeping a 1000 year old system rather than change all national flavour to being a generic USA/france ripoff like 60% of the world go for

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

At the very least, I'd want our head of state as a republic to still be basically ceremonial. Like Germany, where their PM-equivalent is still head of government despite having a separate president head of state. Putting all that focus on a singular elected leader will destroy whatever political influence "third" parties have in Canada by necessarily forming a two-option vote for a chief executive. Having government stem from parliament, and having to appeal to other parties in minority governments has done a lot of good here. I'd hate to lose it by copying the default republic format from the states.

[-]

MC_chrome@reddit

Though, and I know we won't get this, I'd always hoped that when we(meaning Canada, Aus, UK, NZ et al collectively) do shed the monarchy, we'd replace it with some other formal connecting tie that keeps CANZUK somewhat affiliated still

Isn't that kind of the point of the Commonwealth?

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

I feel Canada shedding the monarchy and ties to the other sad anglo countries with it, I worry we'd be on the path to just becoming completely indistinct from the US.

So you believe the only difference between your country and the US is having a king?

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

Literally how we were founded.

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

But would ceasing to be a monarchy now cause Canada to merge with the US?

I ask this because Central and South America have dozens of neighbouring former spanish colonies, and they are still dozens of countries instead of a single huge one.

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

No, but I do regularly belittle Canada's standing in the world in casual conversation, so I will say something like that even if I don't at all think that'll be the one thing that does it.

I still would like a formal tie to AUS and NZ in some way, if only because it'd do us well to have some non-US influence still. But, I don't see it happening, and I'm not too hung up on the idea.

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

Fear not! You’ll always have a first world healthcare system to set you apart!

[-]

Johnny-Dogshit@reddit

...no that seems to be on the way out. It's not going great up here.

[-]

StartingAdulthood@reddit

His mother is a selfish bitch who cares about her "lack of reputation", Hence why she forced him to marry Diana instead of Camilla. Let that one sink in first.

[-]

Big_Muffin42@reddit

He’s literally attended and given speeches ceremonies where the monarchy was removed as head of state.

He seems to at least acknowledge the world is changing.

[-]

Jdogghomie@reddit

Yah he is just a weirdo. I think there is a quote of him hoping to be reincarnated as Camilla’s underwear….

[-]

ResolverOshawott@reddit

I love how that statement can be cringe, creepy, romantic, or hilarious depending on the tone and context used to say it.

[-]

Psudopod@reddit

Charles “Oh, God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!”

Camilla “What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.”

Charles “Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! My luck to be chucked down a lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.”

[-]

bannedin420@reddit

Damn he’s a man of culture I had no idea

[-]

barrygateaux@reddit

When he was 29 he started trying to date 16 year old Diana, the younger sister of the person he was going out with at the time.

The whole time he was married to Diana he was sleeping with Camilla, who also persuaded him to marry Diana, as she was seen as thick and would be a docile trophy wife.

He was personal friends with one of the most notorious paedophiles in modern British history.

He grew up with a servant who held his trousers and shirt so he could step into them to get dressed.

Just your average down to earth dude..

[-]

ResolverOshawott@reddit

The whole time he was married to Diana he was sleeping with Camilla, who also persuaded him to marry Diana, as she was seen as thick and would be a docile trophy wife.

Basically, the average monarchial practice having mistresses

[-]

northyj0e@reddit

Not tooñ disagree with your general point but he was already in love with Camilla when he met Diana and it wasn't his idea to be with Diana, he wasn't allowed to be with Camilla because she wasn't aristocratic enough.

[-]

eggface13@reddit

He's mostly harmless, but he has someone squeeze out toothpaste for him. That's not "down to earth" in my book

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a38743898/prince-charles-doesnt-squeeze-out-his-own-toothpaste/

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

And he shrieked at the sight of cling wrap, as an adult, because he had never seen it before

He also believes in a lot of pseudoscientific nonsense and just straight-up quackery. He shops at GOOP for sure.

[-]

chaoticgrand@reddit

Thank you, I was absolutely about to bring up the cling film!!

[-]

CaveRanger@reddit

And he gets really upset when his pen servant doesn't coordinate with his paper-bringing servant.

[-]

BrokenDownMiata@reddit

Imagine your mother has just died, and aside from maybe a few hours of peace, you’re immediately thrust into the public spotlight. There’s advisors and aides all over pushing you into the next step, this now, that after, for days. Your mother has just died, you’re now King, your family is looking up to you, and so is a swathe of the country, and now you’re being shown decoration options and walked through the next proceedings, and you can’t tell anyone to fuck off for a moment so you can breathe.

So yes, when the pen doesn’t work, it is a little thing, but it shows you just how much control you’ve lost. Your days, the people you meet, what you do, where you go, what you wear, none of it is your choice, you just have to do it. And now you’re trying to get through these traditional events for the new monarch and the fucking pen decides not to work.

Yeah, I’d be a bit fucking pissed, too.

[-]

wamj@reddit

If you’re talking about the incident after he became king, it kinda makes sense.

Your mother has just died, all eyes are on you, all the responsibility is on you, and you have no time to mourn. That amount of stress and pressure would break anyone, but he didn’t lash out at any person, he directed his frustration towards the pen not working properly.

[-]

FlowerBoyScumFuck@reddit

I don't blame him, that shit gets annoying as fuck. Can't tell you the amount of times I've told them both to fuck off and just called for my stenographer servant instead. Writings for peasants anyways.

[-]

I-Make-Maps91@reddit

He's RFK Jr with the kind of job RFK Jr wants.

[-]

k_Brick@reddit

I bet he uses the jade egg to strengthen his pelvic floor too.

[-]

jantoxdetox@reddit

Nobody says he is down to the last drop

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Given the article starts by being shocked they don't do baby showers I'd say it's not only the royals that come out of that looking like twats.

Wait til you tell them what you when telling people if it's a boy or girl.

[-]

eggface13@reddit

I know right, pretty trashy article, it seems to be admiring him for his good taste in wanting his toothpaste tidy

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Monarchs are the very opposite of what you would describe as “down to earth” lol

[-]

bannedin420@reddit

You can be a king and still a chill dude man

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

If he renounces his stipend and the land holdings given just by blood right then yeah, he could be. But he isn’t.

[-]

bannedin420@reddit

I’m not sure why you are thinking that all these things you have mean you can’t be a good person. He’s founded 18 charities and probably does more good in the world than you or me combined.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Because he isn’t a good person lol. His position is inherently exploitative of regular people and has a history of crimes that he gladly denies ever happened. You are in love with an idea of him that doesn’t actually exist.

[-]

bannedin420@reddit

We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose. Hope you have a lovely day

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

It has more to do with you being willfully ignorant instead of a simple disagreement, but sure.

[-]

TehAzazel@reddit

Maybe you’re the ignorant one, you seem to be pretty locked in to the stance that all monarchs are evil by nature

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Again, it’s an inherently exploitative position. He is given a status by blood right to steal millions from the government just to maintain said status. This is like arguing ye’ old executioner would not hurt a fly when his position necessitated cutting someone’s head off.

[-]

AltTooWell13@reddit

Actually the crowns holdings generate money for the UK. Why are you making things up to be angry about? 🤡

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Surely their holdings wouldn’t generate more to the state without this parasitic family as a middle man

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

The holdings are only valuable BECAUSE there is an actual monarch. It loses its magic without it.

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Like Versailles or the forbidden city lost its magic?

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

Well, I think those two places would get even more tourist with a monarch/emperor around.

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

Their holdings are owned by the royals. Remove the family and the state loses those assets all together. Sure, they might generate more revenue, but the state won’t be getting it. Unless you’re advocating for state to steal the personal assets off of someone? Yeah I’m not sure that’s something anyone is particularly keen on advocating for.

Also, you may claim the state will still make revenue through tax. However, this is effectively what they do as is anyway. Except, the royals are effectively paying the highest tax rate out of anyone (effectively since the money goes to the state first). So they still lose out.

The deal works for the state because they actually get more revenue from this arrangement. It’s works for the royals because that ensures the state maintains their titles. That’s the main benefits for each party. The added benefits for the state are having popular and influential figureheads not just domestically, but internationally. They also attract tourists by essentially being the biggest celebrities in the world. By having their estate public as well, it also guarantees access to these historical assets for citizens and tourists which is a big plus as well for revenue and cultural reasons. These things are fairly minor compared to the revenue they generate though.

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Ok you make good points

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

And how exactly are they stealing millions every year from regular people?

If you’re referring to the tax revenue, then you’re severely misinformed. The state manages their assets, that tax revenue they get is actually just the revenue generated from their estate which includes things such as ticket revenue to tour one of their palaces. It’s not based on the total tax revenue either, us paying more or less income tax doesn’t mean the royals get paid any more or less either. The tax revenue they receive is purely based on what their estate generates.

Note as well, they only get a % of that, the state keeps some which is effectively the same as taxing them. The kicker? They receive a smaller proportion of their income than regular people. They are effectively the highest taxed (as a %) people in Britain. Compare that to what you have in the US with your billionaires not paying any tax. If you’re going to criticise rich people for stealing from regular people you need to have a better look at your own backyard, you’ll find a lot more examples over there and they’re far more egregious then what you’ll see here.

But hey, what do you expect from a yanky? Of course they’re going to be highly opinionated and self important about a topic they not only know nothing about, but are massively misinformed on. Go fix your own country before worrying about others mate. There’s a reason why nobody outside of the US cares about American opinions. They’re often terrible, hypocritical, and irrelevant.

[-]

aneurism75@reddit

don't worry if Trump wins, you too can have a tyrant king lol

[-]

DivinationByCheese@reddit

One is arguing that the fact that such a position exists, is bad. The character of the person in that position doesn’t matter

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

The fact you had to explain this at all... Reddit is such an interesting place.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Except that's off topic, given the stupid argument is "is he down to earth or not?" not, "is the Monarchy inherently bad"?

You may well be a dick to other users, but you've become what you hate. lol

[-]

greendayshoes@reddit

How can someone who is born into unimaginable wealth be down to earth. Sorry, but even the most "down to earth" member of royalty is going to be very out of touch.

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Yeah, they're also talking about him starting 18 charities, not sure if you've noticed by Jack and Tim down the road haven't done that either.

Jfc on the topic of "Reddit is an interesting place", what stops you from reading what people are actually trying to say and responding to that?

Like catnip for idiots.

[-]

OkBubbyBaka@reddit

But you’re wrong so have a good one

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

I never realized until today that so many people actually enjoy being exploited

[-]

TehAzazel@reddit

We’re just dumb europeans that love being exploited, you surely have it way better in the US

[-]

dirtyploy@reddit

We can both be exploited at the same time. A whataboutism to defend monarchy is fucking wild.

[-]

TehAzazel@reddit

I just find it funny how the american is taking such a hard stance on the british monarchy. Not everything is black and white, the stance that monarchs are all evil people is wild. Then again, I’m more familiar with nordic morachs than ones in the UK, so things might be different there.

[-]

QJustCallMeQ@reddit

It sounds like there's a lot you haven't realized.

[-]

blockybookbook@reddit

“Exploitative of regular people” and it’s just you feeling envious

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

That doesn’t even make sense.

[-]

blockybookbook@reddit

What benefits come from removing the monarchy short of briefly feeling good about oneself

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

It saves millions of dollars every year that could go into actually useful public services and ends promotion of archaic ideas such as blood right to rule and elitism.

[-]

blockybookbook@reddit

The UK for example rakes in nearly 2 Billion from the Royals annually from their monarchy as a consequence of the tourism it brings, doesn’t really sound practical to toss that out

The average citizen of Constitutional Monarchies are perfectly fine with their monarchs and see them as mere symbols or a representation of their histories, the attitude to money going to them is treated the same way as if it were going to a museum or the maintenance of local statues

If they were truly dissatisfied, they would’ve been gone already

Projecting your republican ideas as if they were the absolute ideal of what a country should be is a little bit ridiculous

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

There is nothing to suggest they are responsible for a tourism boost. These tourists are not arriving in London to shake hands with the King. The historical landmarks, artifacts, and other attractions that they actually see will still be there without a stipend that only benefits a blood right family.

I agree, many of their subjects are agreeable with being exploited. They are in love with the cult of personalities surrounding the royal family and sense of uniqueness they allegedly bring to their country, rather than what they truly do for them. It does not change what they really are.

[-]

merc08@reddit

The historical landmarks, artifacts, and other attractions that they actually see will still be there without a stipend that only benefits a blood right family.

Would they though? Those properties and artifacts are owned by the royal family. Take away their Sovereign Grant and they'll stop sending the tourism revenue to the State. They could also just shut everything down and kill that aspect of the tourism industry, which would also harm hotels, airlines, restaurants, etc.

Look, I'm no fan of the Crown, but what you're suggesting doesn't make practical sense to implement.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Did people stop touring Versailles when the French monarchs got axed?

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

People could keep going to Versailles because the state then owned it. People won’t be able to go to Buckingham because the Windsors would still own it and it becomes private property.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

How do you criticize me in another comment about being uninformed about the Royal family when you don’t even know who owns Buckingham Palace lol?

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

Buckingham Palace is owned by a trust managed by the Crown Estate, which is a company set up to manage their assets. That company is owned by The Crown (which is the monarchy) but administrated by the state. If you remove the position of the monarchy, ownership of the Crown Estate falls to the Windsor family since that family is the successor to the monarchy.

Just because it’s not part of their private estate, doesn’t mean they don’t own it. Sure, the government could try to claim it, but it’d be considered theft by nearly everyone.

Again, ironic to say you’re not misinformed but then claim something completely false.

[-]

merc08@reddit

Are you suggesting dragging the current members of the royal family down to the guillotine? Because that's a substantially different proposition than merely nullifying the settlement agreement that established the sovereign grant stipend.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Don’t deliberately act dumb, you know that’s not remotely what I’m suggesting

[-]

merc08@reddit

We started at "just take away their stipend" and I showed how that wouldn't necessarily work immediately. Then you pivoted to "just do what the French did" ... which was guillotines.

So what are you suggesting?

[-]

Alucard_1208@reddit

amd the millions they bring in every year from tourism stops.

Also how about all those 100s of billions your govt wastes on the military industrial comolex just to keep tbeir friends and lobbyists rich?

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Ah yes the old « there is always worse so why try to improve things » argument

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

The landmarks and artifacts bring the tourism. Nobody is actually going to London to shake hands with the King. Those will still exist even without a meaningless figurehead. Why are you deflecting to another issue?

[-]

Alucard_1208@reddit

thoae landmarks and palaces belong to that family if we get rid of the crown they take those with them ao yes people are coming to see them.

I aint deflecting im just stating your own country pisses away 100 x more money than our crown takes but thats ok cos murica am i right?

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Please stay on topic, thank you. Their palaces and other buildings belong to a trust. Their finances come from the government. It is not their private property. The King only actually owns two properties without public funding from the government: Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House.

[-]

LordJesterTheFree@reddit

Why is it "inherently" doing so?

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

That’s how the position still exists in the first place. How else are they going to maintain their elite status while doing nothing of benefit? They need to exploit regular people for the funds and land holdings.

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

As compared to the exploitation of the people by the billionaires? What’s the difference really?

[-]

for_the_shiggles@reddit

Billionaire ain’t ethical, but they do have feel good headlines every once in a while.

[-]

Radaysho@reddit

probably does more good in the world than you or me combined.

oh please shut up. Next thing you tell me is that Jeff Bezos does even more or what? But Bezos was at least somewhat selfmade, our King here was just born into the right family.

Stop giving people credit for beeing decent. That's expected. It's also really easy when you have enourmus amounts of wealth since birth.

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

What do you think “founding charities” entails for him exactly? Do you think he does any like actual work? Or do you think he cuts a check, slaps his name on it, and hires some other posh ~~inbred~~ nepo baby to do the rest?

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

Does it matter what the intentions are when he is doing good with his actions?

[-]

IlluminatedPickle@reddit

Bro I just started 40 charities. They all immediately folded due to poor funding but my intentions were good!

[-]

Lihuman@reddit

Did all of his charities/donations perform poorly or are you just making shit up?

[-]

IlluminatedPickle@reddit

Does it matter what the financial outcomes are when you're intending to do good?

Just testing your own dipshit logic here.

Rich people starting charities is a worse use for their money than just paying taxes. Guess who doesn't pay tax?

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

You do know the British royal family has an effective tax rate of 75%? They’re the last people that should be criticised for not paying tax. They don’t pay income tax on top of that, they pay that 75% instead. They’re then sending money to charity on top of that. I don’t think it’s fair to criticise them for doing that as well.

I fully agree that paying taxes is better than donating to charity though. I just don’t think it’s a relevant criticism in this scenario since they’re the only ones not getting tax benefits from their donations.

[-]

Rapidpeels@reddit

I bet the intention is about whitewashing the monarchy's past just by not killing or enslaving anymore and with some silly performative tokenism.

Otherwise UK wouldn't be an official kingdom today after all that if it wasn't putting up an act! Hell, they don't even teach their kids the actual history.

[-]

big_cock_lach@reddit

Do you think he does any like actual work?

Yes. He does seem to genuinely care about a lot of things and his charities do centre around those things. He seems to also be generally knowledgeable about them as well. He’ll probably do some research to become informed about where to put his money where he thinks it’s best placed. He probably then pays people to then make these changes. I also don’t see why that’s a bad thing either, they’ll do a better job at these specific tasks since it’s their expertise, it employs people giving them work and pay which is a good thing, and it then allows him to continue to do similar things elsewhere allowing for the process to repeat itself.

You can dislike royals and what they stand for, but it’s unreasonable to try to denounce their actual achievements which do help everyone. He’s done some good things, there’s no point acting as if they’re meaningless. If you have issues with them, actually target their misdoings rather than the good they’ve done.

[-]

Lcbrito1@reddit

Huh, so you personally have not enjoyed anything given by your parents, right?

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Are my parents’ lands paid for by the government every year?

Why is it so difficult for you all just to be honest about this topic?

[-]

Lcbrito1@reddit

Do your parent's lands generate income for the government?

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

Have you ever heard of property taxes? Or inheritance taxes?

[-]

Denbt_Nationale@reddit

most of the crown estate is effectively public like beaches

[-]

Mostafa12890@reddit

The monarchy has been a net profit for Britain in terms of tax revenue for centuries.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

This hasn’t been true for a very long time. Regardless, it is impossible to say they are the actual cause of it. Tourists aren’t actually there to see the King. They are there for the historical landmarks and artifacts, all of which would still be there without a fake figurehead.

[-]

Maximum_Impressive@reddit

Fuckin reddit man you get some special gems like this

[-]

MrTrinket@reddit

Thank you!

[-]

Rob_Rockley@reddit

They literally consider themselves God's representative on earth. They can't even be accused of crimes like regular earth-dwellers.

[-]

arcehole@reddit

Did everyone just forget Diana?

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

To a point. He's still a total fruitcake who talks to his plants

[-]

Embarrassed_Jerk@reddit

I....umm....i talk to my plants

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

I do too. I have two plants (one is a pencil cactus I called John and the other is a Christmas Cactus called Carrie). However, I am not Prince Charles

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Cloudsareinmyhead's still a total fruitcake who talks to his plants

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

Madness recognises madness. Never said there's anything wrong with it

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Are you saying that because your plants are listening? Emoji twice if you need help.

[-]

Embarrassed_Jerk@reddit

Fun fact, studies indicate that plants might like certain types of music and grow up to 20% more in its presence. So yeah... They do listen

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

who talks to his plants

This part doesn't mean much, actually. Unless they talk back.

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

I am now reminded of a Frankie Boyle joke. "Chaaarles, it's the plants. You've failed us again... We're going to kill your new wife too."

[-]

Professional-Break19@reddit

I know a couple 300 pound football players that talk to their plants and they definitely weren't fruit cakes 🤷

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

Fair, but they aren't Prince Charles. The guy is nuttier than squirrel shit but he's alright as monarchs go (he says having only been alive under the reign of lizzie the immortal until recently)

[-]

Kid_that_u_fear@reddit

I am 100% for saving the planet. I just find it weird when people like Charles who polute the same as 10,000 people tell me to cut down on my shower time or ride a bike.

[-]

Leirnis@reddit

That way you're just sweeping under the carpet all the saudi jewels, unreported gifts, grifts et al. I'm not from Commonwealth so these are probably just some minor infractions from top of my head.

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

Also the pedo protecting Lizzie did.

[-]

snrub742@reddit

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/24/prince-charless-letter-to-john-kerr-reportedly-endorsing-sacking-of-whitlam-condemned

Nah, old sausage fingers can get fucked

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

I think he pioneered organic farming too with high Grove or something

[-]

anarchomeow@reddit

Is this a joke

[-]

Sir_Of_Meep@reddit

He takes helicopter rides over short distances along with jet rides. Talks the talk as far from walking the walk. He's worse than the average person. Not yo mention he continues to perform non-culling hunting

[-]

ale_93113@reddit

That spain has a spanish king, belgium a belgian king, the Uk a british king (dont argue about royal blood lineages, they were born in this country they are of X country already), is one thing

That a country on the other side of the planet shares the same monarchy with another country is even harder to justify, the british royal family is associated with the UK, and if it has any benefits for tourism or culture or soft power, they apply to the UK, not australia or Canada

[-]

CaveRanger@reddit

Australia should have an Australian king who wears a crown with corks on strings and is legally required to speak in Mad Max quotes.

[-]

AnotherGreedyChemist@reddit

Can the official greeting for the governor be Oi!?

As in, Oi! Guvner!

[-]

Norse_By_North_West@reddit

Many of us in Canada care so little about it, that it rarely comes up. It'd be a massive pain in the ass for our first Nations treaties, and the only real difference would be we'd elect the governer general instead of them getting appointed.

[-]

MiG_Pilot_87@reddit

I once got into an argument with a well educated Canadian on whether Canada was a monarchy or not. She didn’t seem to think Queen Elizabeth II was the Queen of Canada.

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

And if we're going to become a republic, we'd have to get all the provinces to agree without special provisions. While Alberta and Quebec exist that will be impossible

[-]

Serious_Resource8191@reddit

Wait, why Alberta?

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

Alberta is Canadian Texas, there's always been a separatist sentiment especially in the last decade,. It's a mix of anti-Eastern Canada and the belief that oil and gas powers the Canadian economy instead of the Albertan economy. Trust me, it's basically English speaking Quebec

[-]

Future-Muscle-2214@reddit

Quebec basically are the most openly anti conservative/religious province and have the most progressive government programs, they also have the lowest criminality/poverty rate and the highest life expectancy. Hell, half of the abortion clinics in Canada are in Quebec.

How is it in any way similar to Texas?

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

Alberta is Canadian Texas,

[-]

Future-Muscle-2214@reddit

Oh okay that I agree but you were calling Alberta english speaking Quebec.

[-]

Norse_By_North_West@reddit

Good point. If we did vote to out the royal family it'd likely take decades to get it done. Just too big a pain in the ass to bother.

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

Literally imagine the struggle, non govern general, so who calls the elections, no prime minister, so what is the executive branch now? Not to mention the court system changes. There's more important things that the government should be focusing on such as the housing crisis rather than something that most Canadians don't care about

[-]

qjxj@reddit

The government of Canada has never allowed a referendum on the monarchy, because they know that if they do, it is almost assured it will pass.

[-]

fredleung412612@reddit

It would probably pass, but that's not how constitutional amendments work in Canada. You need it to pass the House, Senate and all 10 provincial legislatures. Getting unanimity is impossible, especially since one province (Québec) containing over a fifth of the population is in the constitution against its will.

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

It'd be a massive pain in the ass for our first Nations treaties

Why would those be affected?

[-]

Norse_By_North_West@reddit

Many are deals with the royal family, not Canada. Plenty of them predate Canada itself. A lot of them will have to be renegotiated

[-]

PapaStoner@reddit

Not if we take the air bud route. The deals are with the crown, who or what wears said crown is irrelevant. Change the succession law, grand the crown to a randomn dog cat or moose and his succession.

[-]

texxmix@reddit

As it stands now that’s pretty much how the governor general is treated. More tradition than anything just cause changing it would be such a pain in the ass. Same with most of the commonwealth. The British royal family knows this so they’ve rarely ever got involved in most of modern history and why you get articles like OP.

So honestly might as well go Airbud 🤣

[-]

tawishma@reddit

If I understand correctly most of Canada is considered “crown land” basically like federal land in the US and the treaties with First Nations revolve around the crown granting the land to them. Leaving the monarchy “could” invalidate some of the provisions and would take a lot of government resources to properly ensure the treaties are upheld. Basically for most people involved it would be too much work for a deal they all like as is

[-]

DavidBrooker@reddit

That a country on the other side of the planet shares the same monarchy with another country is even harder to justify

This might be a distinction without a difference depending on your perspective, but they share a monarch, not a monarchy. The Kings of Australia, Canada and the UK are distinct legal personalities that do not need to agree, and may even be in direct conflict without contradiction. That these legal personalities are embodied by the same physical human is, at least from the constitutional perspective, irrelevant.

[-]

BrokenDownMiata@reddit

Yup. Even if the UK abolished the monarchy, Charles would remain King.

[-]

ThosePeoplePlaces@reddit

Australia wants the King to order them to become a republic, after all he is the King of Australia and Supreme Leader. The Aussies are looking for true leadership on this issue and who better to step up than the top Aussie bloke

[-]

wq1119@reddit

dont argue about royal blood lineages, they were born in this country they are of X country already

For the sake of historical trivia, I will, the kings of the UK and Belgium are of German origin, and the kings of Spain are of French origin (as far as I remember), he monarchy of Sweden is of French origin as well.

[-]

Wolfensniper@reddit

I mean look at America i guess electing a president is not always a very good thing although we already have PM

[-]

ANGLVD3TH@reddit

Well, Sweden has a French king, so there is at least one other example.

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

Andorra has two co-Princes: one who is French and elected by French citizens and one who is (usually) Spanish and appointed by the Pope.

[-]

yaboi_gamasennin@reddit

I’m pretty sure no Swedish monarch (of the latest incarnation at least) has even a drop of Swedish ancestry

[-]

ANGLVD3TH@reddit

The line ended with no quality prospective heirs. So they wrote to one of Napoleon's generals and asked him to come be king, and he was like... OK I guess. So yeah, the current line is completely unrelated to any other Swedish lines. Though I assume they have married into Swedish blood by now.

[-]

kyleninperth@reddit

The thing is that it also just isn’t harming us, so why bother spending millions on millions of dollars to get rid of a king that no one cares about? The representative of the King is the Governor General who is Australian if that is so important

[-]

Command0Dude@reddit

Spain is ruled by a French king and the UK is ruled by a German king. Also I'm pretty sure the Belgian king is German descended as well.

[-]

ocularfever@reddit

Country of birth > Country of ancestry

Just to point out how unhelpful that stance is, all American presidents have not been American by that standard

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

Long Live the King 🇨🇦

I way prefer having an apolitical, non politician as head of state. Someone the armed forces, judiciary, and other such apolitical organizations can follow.

If Australia wants to have just another politician run things, so be it, but it comes at a cost of heritage, tradition, history, and good governance.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

How are there unironically pro-monarchs in the 21st century lmao

[-]

TriLink710@reddit

I mean they are a figurehead mostly. Not like they actively partake in politics.

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

Then they won't mind the state expropriating all their royal possessions and living on a salary.

wait a sec

that's called a president

[-]

circleribbey@reddit

That’s pretty much been the situation in the U.K. since 1760. “The crown estates” are not the personal property of the monarchy but are a “statutory corporation”. All profits from the crown estates go to the government. The government then gives a portion of that profit (about 15%) back to the monarchy each year (“the sovereign grant”)

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

15% is not zero

[-]

circleribbey@reddit

A salary isn’t zero either. Unless you’re moving the goalposts.

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

A salary isn’t tied to assets gotten about by being born into a dynasty.

Obfuscate all you want, that’s what it is.

[-]

circleribbey@reddit

They aren’t owned by the crown though. They’re in a corporation whose profits go to the government.

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

That's a legal fiction if the Royal family collects from them all the same.

Having a landlord as your head of state is not some knockdown argument you think it is, they're parasites.

[-]

circleribbey@reddit

Ok. You seem really keen to have an argument about something I’m not talking about. I’m just explaining to you how the finances of the royal family and crown estates work.

Good luck finding someone to argue with on reddit though!

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

Legalese nonsense from the British is about as worthwhile as this conversation. Who cares what legal fiction exists? At the end of the day they have a hereditary head of state and royal family who collect a rent. That is barbarism and indefensible.

[-]

circleribbey@reddit

Yeah. I’m still the same guy. Good luck finding someone to argue with!

[-]

the_snook@reddit

Is the manner of choosing the president that is at issue. With monarchs, you don't get to choose. Some people consider that a problem, others a benefit.

[-]

British_Commie@reddit

The Royals literally get to vet draft legislation before it even enters Parliament if it affects their interests

[-]

TriLink710@reddit

I'm talking about Australia and other commonwealth nations not the UK.

However UK politics has larger problems than the monarchy

[-]

Alex09464367@reddit

They have way more power than just a figurehead. They have private meetings with the prime minister every week. And they can't arrested or charged with any crime.

They have this

Queen's consent investigations

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

This too

Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

[-]

SophiaofPrussia@reddit

That’s what they want you to think but it’s not true.

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

All I have to do is look at how things are going down south. Yall cannot be the ones to talk about politics when you have maybe the worst system on the planet.

[-]

plastic_fortress@reddit

US is the way it is because of corporate capture of legislature and mass media, and a massive, entrenched military industrial complex. Among other things.

I don't think the presence of an inert, ceremonial figurehead would have changed any of that.

[-]

UltimateInferno@reddit

Yeah. I feel the need to point out that the Murdoch Family (owners of Fox News and The Sun) hail from the Commonwealth Realm.

[-]

Britstuckinamerica@reddit

William Randolph Hearst was American; what's your point?

[-]

UltimateInferno@reddit

You can't attribute American bullshit (business mogules) to lack of a monarch. Some of the most inflammatory political influences in the US and UK are ultimately from the same source.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Maybe so, but, again, how can there be anyone in the 21st century who is unironically pro-monarchists? Their only means of legitimacy is blood right. They use their status to exploit regular people and leach off the government. They get to benefit off land holdings, again just by blood right, while providing you with literally nothing but being a symbol or, more aptly, a fantasy of what you think they are.

[-]

Denbt_Nationale@reddit

They get to benefit off land holdings worth millions, again just by blood right

good thing that never happens in america

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Land ownership is obviously a problem everywhere, but considering the crown gets 25% of all estate profits without contributing nothing it’s kind of a big deal here

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

It provides a true apolitical head of state to the nation. It adds stability, protects the constitution, acts as a unifier (ie serves everyone, not just their voters or who appointed them) need I go on?

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Why does this so-called head of state need to exploit regular people and make millions every year for really doing nothing? How are they protecting the constitution? Who are they unifying? They have no relatability to the average person lol.

[-]

bureX@reddit

Well, with the word “loyalist” in your username, I doubt anyone’s going to change your mind here.

[-]

Britstuckinamerica@reddit

"BritishCommie" is arguing the opposite opinion somewhere above so it's nice to have things balanced

[-]

Rengiil@reddit

They're not really equivocated

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

Just wanted to add a different opinion than what the rest of Reddit would make you believe is the majority opinion. Clearly not taken lightly on this sub, but that comes with the risk of imaginary online points.

[-]

ya_bleedin_gickna@reddit

The USA is a flawed democracy. I wouldn't be your opinion of a democratic state in them.

[-]

Rippy50500@reddit

You are literally American, of course you dislike monarchies but for some people who actually live in monarchies we see it as a cultural figure. And during hard times monarchs can help the nation, such as George VI during WW2.

Don’t mock the people who wish to preserve our cultural institutions.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Institutions have been improved, removed, and replaced throughout history. Slavery was a “cultural institution”. Colonies were a “cultural institution”. Blood right rule is archaic and arguably the ultimate form of elitism. They exploit regular people all to do nothing. If you enjoy that and wish to preserve such a fulfilling “cultural institution”, more power to you.

[-]

Rippy50500@reddit

Blood right of rule has been a system in place for nearly the entirety of human history. We have kept blood right but we have changed it, the institution of monarchy has evolved into a more so into a constitutional system. I find it hilarious you denounce “elitism” when democracy has the same form of elitism with a different mask, the plantation class dominated American politics and elite families. Ridding the monarchy simply means a different “elite” takes his place, but now that elite is far more sinister in his intentions because he sought power and was not born into it.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

If you are arguing a democratically-elected leader is far more sinister than someone born into it, you must be assuming the common people are sinister for voting for them and totally ignoring the precedent of history. Monarchs fought each other and essentially the rest of the world for centuries. They oppressed their own peoples until revolutions forced reformations. Europe hardly ever knew peace. I have no idea why you are using American institutions as a retort against me when I can easily condemn those too. We live in the 21st century. You aren’t a serf, so you have little reason to be advocating for an institution that inherently exploits you and considers you inferior by nature. Have some self-respect.

[-]

Rippy50500@reddit

You do realize “peace” in Europe is not because of democracies it’s because of nuclear weapons. It’s very funny because the rise of Adolf Hitler would’ve been avoided if the German had a monarchy to counter balance the rise of nazism. More funny that Hitler was elected by the German people and then went on to start the most bloody war in human history.

[-]

vader5000@reddit

Because monarchs have lost much of their power, and now they're seen as nice figureheads to rally around.

Not always true considering the history and theoretical power of the monarchy, but I get the idea. Sometimes I wonder if China might have been better off reformed into a constituiotnal monarchy.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Figureheads that are worth millions just because of a status granted to them by blood right lol

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

Politicians can be paid millions as well. It all depends on the nation. Spain for example pays its king around 250 grand. POTUS makes 400. It all depends on the country.

[-]

2stepsfromglory@reddit

Politicians are chosen by the people by democratic means and their positions are limited in time. Meanwhile no one voted the Spanish monarchy, it became a thing again because a fascist dictator wanted it that way.

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

They're worth hundreds of millions to our tourism industry (which given the economic fuck up that was Brexit might as well become our primary income as a country the way things are going)

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

I wasn't aware Versailles and the Forbidden Palace suddenly ceased to exist when France and China became republics.

All those Holy Roman Empire castles and artifacts? They actually don't exist anymore, because Austria and Germany are republics.

[-]

TheGracefulSlick@reddit

Tourists go to see the guards and the historical buildings. They aren’t shaking hands with the king. It still would not be worth the stipend the government has to bestow upon them every year just to maintain their elite status.

[-]

vader5000@reddit

You could probably redesign the monarchy to have less wealth. People said representative republics couldn't be done without demagoguery either, and look at us in the states.

[-]

ComradeHenryBR@reddit

This only tells me you know nothing about Chinese history

[-]

vader5000@reddit

I mean, granted, we haven't had a good dynasty, like ever, especially given how badly the Qing fared in modernization. But Japan pulled off the Meiji restoration, and I do wonder if things might have been different if the reformers had their way during the Qing dynasty.

Admittedly, this could be colored by the fact that the warlord era, the Nationalist government, and the communist era were genuinely awful, but it's less "I think a monarchy is better", and more "I wish things turned out differently"

You're right about me not knowing Chinese history though, I only grew up there and spend the last twenty years of my life reading about it.

[-]

SwampHagShenanigans@reddit

Don't worry, God ordained an inbred family to be rulers and leaders for all of time. It's totally okay.

[-]

the_snook@reddit

The thing is, for the last few hundred years, it has been "totally okay" for the vast majority of people. The UK has not had a monarch who was truly a menace to ordinary folk for a very long time.

Of course that's not to say one won't pop up at any time, and the protocols for deposing one are ... messy, but recency bias is strong.

[-]

Frometon@reddit

They have free money, their seat is guaranteed and have limited power without the respinsabilities. Only a fool would try and make waves in this position

[-]

runsongas@reddit

Have you seen some of the world leaders we have had recently? The bar is crazy low to be more likable than Trump, Merkel, Biden, etc. At least with King Charlie, I can be sure he would take a dram of Laphroaig.

[-]

sputnikmonolith@reddit

The majority of the UK are cool with it.

(For the record, I'm not)

[-]

ParagonRenegade@reddit

America and France's greatest contribution to mankind was modern republicanism tbh

[-]

AsterKando@reddit

I kind of understand why the Brits would stick with monarchism, but there’s something exceptionally bitch about Aussie, Canadian, and Kiwi monarchists. You’re on the other side of the planet and closer to being America’s 51st state than having anything to do with the UK’s medieval tax-sucking LARPers

[-]

Snarwib@reddit

It's especially crazy to say about Australia where the monarchy outright sacked a government in 1975. Apolitical my ass.

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

Canadians don't like change, bud. Besides, if we became a republic, our provinces would intrafight

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

I’d prefer to stick to my stable constitutional monarchy from Britain than giving into a crumbling republican system of governance to the south thank you very much.

[-]

Natsu111@reddit

There is a good argument there, that changing the status quo would just give politicians the chance to worsen the situation than improve it. But that's just being rational about the thing, the idea of actually being loyal to a king is strange.

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

I prefer to serve HM over some politician I disagree with. It started with that, and then slowly I grew more towards monarchy when looking at the stats and engaging in further research.

[-]

Natsu111@reddit

You miss my point. I fiind it strange that you wish to "serve" any "majesty". You wouldn't be serving a PM or President directly, you'd be serving the country led by the PM/President. Why is he a "majesty" anyway?

[-]

Frometon@reddit

Some people just have weird kinks

[-]

Rob_Rockley@reddit

Canada is a vassal state. All laws must have royal assent. All public servant swear an oath to the monarch. The head of some other country's king is on the money. How is this a source of pride?

[-]

Loyalist_15@reddit

Canada is an independent Dominion. He is the King of Canada. The King of Canada is on Canadian money. Public servants swear an oath of allegiance to their king. What exactly is bad about any of this? It IS a source of pride. It makes Canada a distinct nation in the americas, and preserves Canadas heritage and historical relevance. Canadas only reason for existence is loyalty to the crown, and maintaining that, it what keeps Canada a country.

[-]

Shirochan404@reddit

He's a libertarian bud, he's also from Vancouver Canada so he knows this. Best not to argue with these types of people

[-]

Rob_Rockley@reddit

I didn't vote for him.

[-]

BackInATracksuit@reddit

Good for you. Possibly less so for the countless victims of colonialism who suffered under Charles' forbears for generations.

The new "friendly" version of the British crown is extremely recent and is a result of their increased irrelevance more than anything else.

[-]

hellogoodbyegoodbye@reddit

A monarchy is inherently political

[-]

Partytor@reddit

How's the taste of boot?

No thank you to unelected representatives.

[-]

notsuspendedlxqt@reddit

I understand not wanting to give politicians too much power. However, within Anglo cultural institutions, what you perceive as tradition and heritage, 99% of the time are edicts and desires of long dead politicians.

[-]

ya_bleedin_gickna@reddit

Also fuck all monarchs and royalty. Add nothing to society.

[-]

570rmy@reddit

Would this kick them out of Eurovision since they'd no longer be politically attached to Europe?

I bet the answer to this could sway a number of voters.

[-]

rhodium75677@reddit

no, actually. we participate because the SBS, which is a government media company somewhat catered to different languages within Australia, think southern Europe and everywhere the fuck else, is an associate member of the European Broadcasting Union, so it can televise greek/turkish/ect news and such. Being apart of that allows entry into eurovision.

I think.

[-]

YesAmAThrowaway@reddit

Bla bla comment length filter. Pleased now with my top quality comment that is over 150 characters?

Anyway, to get back to what I was saying: Why is this news? It's clear to absolutely everybody and always has been for decades.

[-]

anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit

Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 3: Comments must be at least 150 characters long. Do not pad comments.

[-]

j0shman@reddit

Every 5-10 years ago us Aussies always have a general topic of discussion about being a republic.

Not that I can speak for all of us, but generally most of us we wouldn't have an issue being a republic. However with the costs of living rn and myriad other issues, there are far more important issues to tackle.

[-]

Ratsbanehastey@reddit

People don't realise how much funding and support we get from the Commonwealth. We leave, that's gone. Fuck that.

[-]

Coincedence@reddit

That's my argument. What TF do we gain by not having Charlie as king? Different coins? We can now say we're independent? Whoopdy do. Nothing changes.

Know what we lose? Easy access to immigration across countries Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent literally anywhere else. Sorry Timmy we couldn't build a new hospital near you so you're gonna die before the helicopter gets here, but hey look on the bright side. At least we don't have to see ol' Charles on our coins no more.

As a dual citizen, I am biased towards things staying the same, but as you've said, becoming a Republic is so low on the lost of priorities right now, the vast majority of voters aren't interested in it.

[-]

Ysilla@reddit

In NZ pretty much everyone agrees that yep one day we should switch to a republic and drop all that crown stuff behind... but that it would also be a lot of work for close to no benefit. It's not like they get in the way or anything.

[-]

Lukepop@reddit

That's my position on it and will be for the foreseeable future. Would I like us to be a republic? Kinda, yeah. But I don't think it will ever be worth the political airtime compared to other issues.

[-]

silly_flying_dolphin@reddit

Ffs he's constitutionally obliged not to, nor to express any other political opinion.

If he can't, he deserves to be dethroned, and executed if he refuses. Fuck the king and the monarchy. This pointless British institution-cum-tourist-attraction's only purpose is to sustain class hierarchy, to remind you and your family youre worth nothing if you didnt descend from certain people that you ought to show 'deference' to other people who did.

Abolition is the least that it deserves...

[-]

Tailzze@reddit

You must be pro-monarchy cause the only reason someone would write what you did is either they have a mental illness or are trying to make the ARM people look like they have a mental illness.

[-]

Trip4Life@reddit

Someone’s an edge lord over here.

[-]

silly_flying_dolphin@reddit

Is that an american defending the monarchy?

[-]

Trip4Life@reddit

When did I defend it? You just sound super immature. I couldn’t care less about what the British and its monarchy do. Fun to make fun of though. Will you respect my privacy now?

[-]

silly_flying_dolphin@reddit

So what do you think should happen if an unelected head of state steps outside the bounds of their consitutional duty and usurps power? Just say 'oh it's a nice guy' and forget about it?

[-]

zapporian@reddit

Uh the british monarchy is in absolutely no position to do that. And hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Hell if Edward VIII hadn't stepped down the UK today would be a republic lol.

The only thing even keeping the monarchy intact is the PR legacy of elizabeth and her dad during WWII. And general conservatism / inertia.

Ofc, this is all fine and good for an american to say lol.

If you actually live under the commonwealth (and nevermind ireland, india, pakistan et al) you are certainly more than entitled to hate on it.

From a US perspective though it's just a 'quaint' institution. And I don't think many of us are going to hate on it too much (or european + japanese legacy constitutional on-paper monarchies / modern heavily reformed and thoroughly democratic parliamentary systems), given the pretty clear and self-evident flaws in our own govt.

On that note it's worth noting that there is no reason modern democratic countries should even have a separate elected head of state (and/or "executive", ie elected semi-autocratic king) at all.

That entire concept itself is a holdover from autocratic monarchies.

And is an outdated and problematic way to conceive of state-to-state interactions and diplomacy. Germany technically has one, but I don't think anyone outside of Germany is aware of who this idiot is or WTF he does. The country would be better off just scrapping that position (and all of the hilariously overcomplicated typically-german bureacratic overhead) and just have the chancellor / head of parliament and their cabinet run everything instead. As they quite literally already do already.

Anyways absolutely no modern constitutional monarchies have the monarch (or german president lol) making actual state / foreign policy decisions. That is entirely the job and role of prime ministers and their cabinet, with at best meeting with the monarch out of respect and tradition.

Having a US-style strong semi-independent executive however is enormously problematic, unsafe, and potentially at-worst autocratic + anti-democratic, with direct and very typical erosure of the elected legislature and the roles and duties they are expected to perform.

The UK if anything is far better in that respect (as are nearly all other modern parliamentary govts)

And the UK "head of state" isn't much of an actual head of state, as their actual duties and powers very much begin and end with being able to invite actual political leaders and/or actual de jure / de facto heads of state over for tea. (and a handful of religious ceremonies et al). And hell the modern japanese monarch can barely even do that lol

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

I think it'd be way less exciting than you think it would be.

[-]

ralts13@reddit

I mean we all know its pointless PR. But executions? Kinda whack

[-]

silly_flying_dolphin@reddit

Capital punishment for unlawful usurping power as the unelected head of state. Capital punishment is metered out in plenty of places for much less than that.

[-]

Britstuckinamerica@reddit

Somehow everything you write looks like you learned some grown-up words and do your best to shoehorn them into an angry opinion

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Sir! Sir! I have devised a grand plan using only the best sweeping one liners I heard in politics!

[-]

Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit

I should remind you we abolished the death penalty in 1998. Not going to happen no matter how much some people want it to

[-]

Electronic_Charity76@reddit

We had a civil war over it, and it's why we're a constitutional monarchy and not an absolute one.

King overreaches, politicians step in. Politicians fuck around, the King steps in. It's a good system that has ensured Britain is politically speaking one of the most stable countries on Earth.

[-]

Xononanamol@reddit

Psyyyyychooo

[-]

Mike_Kermin@reddit

Not it. Play the ball.

[-]

oofersIII@reddit

This is kind of a clichéd line, but please touch grass. I live in a monarchy and the only time I think of our guy is when he shows up on TV for some random event or the occasional speech.

[-]

HuntSafe2316@reddit

You're cutting my hand here from your computer in the basement.

[-]

tupe12@reddit

Are you ok bud?

[-]

baeb66@reddit

What's the joke? Something like there's a different country celebrating independence from the UK every week of the year.

Welcome to the club, Aussies.

[-]

reddit4ne@reddit

I mean was there any real chance that he was gonna send over the Royal British Navy?

But to be serious. what could Britian really do, and more importantly, why? Australia is too powerful economically, both sides benefit from their ties and even rely on them.

[-]

f1manoz@reddit

Given how multicultural Australia is nowadays, I reckon if they held another referendum that there would be a solid chance that we would become a republic.

It would probably depend on the role of a President or whatever they would call the replacement of the Governor-General. It would mostly be a ceremonial position, but I reckon a lot of people would rather vote for the President rather than them just being appointed.

[-]

Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit

I could see it losing purely because the option would focus on tradition and more importantly the waste of money etc. Australians really don’t like change as well.

[-]

empleadoEstatalBot@reddit

King Charles 'won't stand in way' if Australia chooses to axe monarchy and become republic

12 October 2024, 00:40

Charles told anti-monarchists he will not intervene if a vote is held Charles told anti-monarchists he will not intervene if a vote is held. Picture: Getty By Emma Soteriou

King Charles will not stand in the way if Australia chooses to become a republic.

The King told anti-monarchists he will not intervene if a vote is held to remove him as head of state.

It comes as he and Camilla are preparing for a royal visit to Australia next week.

The Australian Republic Movement (ARM) wrote to Buckingham Palace to request a meeting with him when he arrives.

In response, his assistant private secretary said the monarch had "deep love and affection" for Australia.

He commended the group's "thoughtfulness" at writing, adding that it was "warmly appreciated".

Read more: Meghan Markle 'spoke about being one of the most bullied people in the world' when meeting teens in California

Read more: King Charles 'to miss COP29 climate summit' as he continues cancer treatment

Charles and Camilla will visit Australia next week Charles and Camilla will visit Australia next week. Picture: Alamy "Please be assured that your views on this matter have been noted very carefully," Dr Nathan Ross went on to say, according to the Mail.

"His Majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his ministers and whether Australia becomes a republic is, therefore, a matter for the Australian public to decide."

The ARM has praised the "important contribution" of the royal family, saying they would want the two countries to remain "the closest of friends and allies".

But in their letter, they said it was time for their country to stand "on an equal footing with other nations".

The group said there was mounting support for the move.

It comes after Charles' representative in Australia, Governor General Sam Mostyn, recently said he had a "huge regard" for Australia.

"He wants to see modern Australia, engage with communities broadly though within a tight time frame, given his health," she said.

A referendum on the issue was last held in 1999 - with almost 55 per cent voting no to axing the monarchy.

In January, the Australian government said it had put any plans for a new vote on hold, claiming it is "not a priority".

Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

[-]

coverageanalysisbot@reddit

Hi empleadoEstatalBot,

We've found 34 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:

GB News (Right): "King Charles will 'stand aside' if Australia axes monarchy, despite 'deep love' for the country"
BBC News (Center): "King Charles says an Australian republic is up to the people"
Daily Mirror (Leans Left): "King Charles 'will not stand in way' of Australia replacing him as head of state"

Of all the sources reporting on this story, 25% are left-leaning, 63% are right-leaning, and 13% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 34+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.

I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.