@xris,
Raine;131480 wrote:I am completely opposed to our (or any) monarchy. I see it as a completely outdated institution that has no relevance to our modern society.
I don't think that monarchies are necessarily outdated. If anything, the past turmoil in coming to grips with an absolute ruler coexisting with a democratic society has produced very productive societies. Look what it has done for England. English constitutional history managed to pass some of the most prevalent reforms due in large part to the abuses and maintenance of a monarchy. In English history for example, even Oliver Cromwell admitted that an England without a King was inconceivable. Evidently, even for someone who above all cherished the will of the people and the (at the time) radical notion of a independent and sovereign parliament, he could not part with what he arguably hated the most.
Raine;131480 wrote:I find the arguments that people use to defend the monarchy repetitive and ridiculous ( i.e "tradition" "brings money to the country"), and find it difficult to understand why people would choose to support something that is a symbol of class oppression and inequality.
I would not think that "monarchy brings money to a country" is a particularly effective argument. Although I would imagine that at some point that actually did come in handy at one point or another. A monarchy is expensive, no one can really deny that, but I think the people get their fair use out of them. Can you really put a price on national identity?
As far as monarchy being a symbol of class oppression and inequality, that may be an outdated perception. Again using England as the example here, maybe in the time of Henry the 8th or something like that would you have legitimate claim to severe abuses of the crowns privileges. But again, after the bill of rights and the appointment of William and Mary, you get a monarchy that is more in line with the head of state rather than the absolute monarchy, more for the people than the classes. Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband/prince consort) comes to mind as a member of monarchy who did many
many things for the people of England, like housing reform, etc. He even went so far as to further remove partisanship from the royal household.
Raine;131480 wrote:I completely agree with a previous point in this thread that the monarchy is simply a form of institutionalised discrimination.
This may be an outdated perception (granted though it could be in response to an outdated system).
Raine;131480 wrote:Would you make a doctor's daughter a doctor also, simply because she happens to belong to that bloodline?
Raine;131480 wrote:For me, the monarchy represents everything I dislike about society.
I would think for me it would embody what is best about a people (supposing that the monarchy in question were honorable). And this is coming from a person whose history is incredibly biased against monarchies.