This starts out with a strong stance, asserting that this is a "myth".
But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great Britain. He has every swan in England, Wales, and Scotland except:
- those on the Orkney and Shetland islands
- those "marked" with leg bands as being owned by the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.
They're playing up that it's a myth to make you assume he doesn't own the swans at all, then assert that in reality, he doesn't own all the swans, so they're technically correct.
You could claim that he's really just licensing the swans to anyone with a swan mark, so it's really just the Shetland and Orkney swans he doesn't own.
The King does not personally own the swans, but rather the institution that is The Crown. The King, cannot for example, build and sell a private mansion on Crown land. Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Or at least that is my interpretation.
The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown.
> The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown
You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them.
It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
- The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis.
- The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam.
(note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis.
Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form.
In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party...
Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
Because the Prime Minister asked her to. So was it really the whim of one unelected person or the whim of the democratically elected leader in an undemocratic spirit? Her refusing would have caused it's own issues because precedent said to follow the PM advice.
The PM that no longer had the confidence of parliament a month after the election of his minority party.
It's reasonable for the PM to ask for such a self-serving thing, it's not for that ask to have been acquiesced to.
There were three options (that I can think of) for dealing with that situation:
1. Allow the coalition to form government.
2. Hold another election, a month after the previous one.
3. ...Suspend parliament for a few months, so that the coalition can't hold a vote to push the minority government out!
#2 is pretty nuts, but kind of justifiable, but #3 was absolutely nuts. (And had the bonus points of threatening that a non-confidence election half-a-year after the previous one is 'okay', despite Parliament being entirely non-functional for most of that intervening time.)
That there aren't clear rules about this, or that a minority PM can prevent a majority coalition from ousting him is the maddening part.
Populist take aside, this is somewhat true. In Italy there has been talk of electing the president directly, but I think that would be a terrible choice. Currently, he is elected by parliament, and this (surprisingly) has worked mostly well. The president ends up being an older well respected politician who takes a neutral role. If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
> If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
Ireland proves that isn’t true.
The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
> Unfortunately the British system is seen more of a rickety accretion rather than something to aim for.
If you are looking for a constitutional system to emulate, I think Germany would be a good choice - a federal parliamentary republic with a written constitution. I don’t think anyone should slavishly copy every minor detail of the German system, but at a big picture level I can’t think of anyone who does it better
The UK is not a good model - no written constitution; a unitary state (even if devolved) rather than federalism (national government has unlimited powers to interfere in regional governments, which takes away an important check on that national government’s powers). Constitutional monarchy may still work for some countries, but trying to introduce a monarchy into a country which doesn’t already have one is a non-starter in today’s world.
The US is a federal republic with a written constitution, so in those respects is a better model for emulation than the UK. But the presidential model is inferior to the parliamentary model-many political scientists believe it has been the cause of much of Latin America’s political instability. Centralising so much executive power in a single person encourages the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos), such as Peron or Trump. And while the US managed in the 20th century to avoid the instability which plagued Latin America, maybe that was just good luck, and maybe the events of the last few years (with caudillo Trump) are a sign that its luck is finally running out
> And while the US managed in the 20th century to avoid the instability which plagued Latin America, maybe that was just good luck
Ok, my degree is in political science and I, too, can go on and on about the significant impacts of political structure but I simply can’t imagine blaming Latin America’s 20th Century instability on local presidential systems and then topping it off by suggesting that maybe the US was just lucky it, with a presidential system, avoided the same fate.
At some point, you have to consider the international/geopolitical context and not assume everything is explained by domestic constitutional structure.
I never claimed it was a 100% explanation. Italy and Germany had a parliamentary system, and ended up with Mussolini and Hitler - so a parliamentary system is no foolproof guarantee of avoiding bad outcomes.
I would never claim that 100% of the problems faced by either the US or Latin America are due to a presidential system. My claim is merely that it hasn’t helped them, and that while a parliamentary system is no panacea, it likely would have avoided or lessened some of them
This is exactly why so many bots online are absolutely hammering the British monarchy. If we were to remove the King, it would totally destabilise the country. It would make Brexit look like a garden party.
It's useful for the russians to amplify any divide in a country, especially if they can poison the conversation about it. They will likely also amplify more rabidly pro-monarchy positions as well.
It is also useful for the establishment to be able to discredit anti-establishment viewpoints as Russian propaganda. The enemy who is trying to hurt you but doesn’t realise they are actually helping you instead
The Governor General can refuse Royal Assent without causing a crisis, as long as it's a decision taken "in council", which essentially means as advised by the Prime Minister.
Why would the PM advise the GG to withhold Royal Assent? It's rare, but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. It could also happen if a PM governing in minority faced a parliament passing legislation they strongly disagreed with.
> but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation.
At least in Australia (don’t know how they do things in Canada), it is standard practice nowadays to put a clause in all Acts saying the Act enters into force on a date to be proclaimed by the GG. So, in the event that an Act is found to be unworkable after passage by Parliament, it isn’t necessary for the GG to refuse/withhold/reserve assent. Instead, the GG assents to it, and it goes on the statute book. But the ministers never advise the GG to issue a proclamation setting an entry into force date, so it never enters into force - like if you commit code guarded by a feature flag, release that code to production, but then decide to never turn the feature flag on so it never actually runs. Parliament can then pass an amending Act fixing the flaws, and the GG can proclaim an entry into force date after assenting to the amending Act.
It has happened before that Parliament passes some controversial Act, GG assents to it, Cabinet decides to hold off entry into force pending some review, Cabinet decides to drop the whole idea, Parliament passes a repeal Act, GG assents to that, Act was enacted then repealed without ever entering into force-like merging a PR to remove code for a feature for which the feature flag was never enabled in production.
An entry-into-force proclamation isn’t quite like a feature flag though, in that you can choose when and if to turn it on, but once you turn it on there is no way to turn it back off. It can however be selective - you can make different sections of the Act enter into force at different times, and some sections may never be brought into force at all
The Federal bill I was most recently looking at didn't require a separate proclamation to enter into force - there were three commencement provisions, two based on the date of royal assent and one a fixed date: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
That’s a tax law-tax law is a bit different. In tax law, it is considered important to have clear start dates decided by Parliament - because both taxpayers and the tax office need certainty, and the budget depends on revenue projections which depend on a clear start date for each tax law change. So yes, tax law is an area in which the government is most likely to advise the GG to not assent if serious technical drafting errors are only discovered after passage by Parliament.
In other areas of law, where certainty on start dates is less crucial, setting a start date by proclamation is much more common
The same is true for the Dutch royal family. Technically the king appoints the ministers / secretaries of state and has to sign every law before it becomes official. Practically he signs the things the elected government wants him to sign.
If he starts to take a direct political stance on things they would remove his powers. The constitution can be changed by a 2/3rd majority in parliament, a king that starts to "use" his powers would be opposed by far more than 2/3rd of parliament regardless of their political affiliations.
If the king had an appetite for risk, he could replace the governor of the bank of England with someone he controls, print however much money it takes to bribe parliamentarians to pass whatever laws he wants. Thanks to big corporations and their political meddlings (lobbying), most politicians today aren't selected for their virtues. It's likely that they can be bought.
Having spent more time thinking about political systems than I should, I'd say that this arrangement probably isn't a unique to the Brits (or their past colonies), but rather a universal political fact.
In general, words aren't worth the paper they're written on, unless they conform with the political reality. There's no monarch in the world that could actually exercise their powers on paper unless they also have the political clout to back them up.
The uniqueness of the British system is how weak the monarchy has gotten over the years, and how acutely aware they are about the situation. England's monarchy comes from a really long line of succession, due to the relative ease of defending an island from invaders. Monarchs that rule by right of conquest are generally strong and authoritative, their heirs becoming less so for each succession. (Japan shares this trait and hence the political system is somewhat similar)
And then, the near-death experience during the 1600s made the British monarchy even weaker, and more conscious about the dangers of angering the common mob. And so they invented the idea of constitutional monarchy, that is somehow "just like" the other democratic republics, except without the regicide part :)
Before this democracy thing became popular, it used to be cool for monarchs to proclaim to have more power than they actually had in political reality. After revolutions and regicides became a thing in Europe, they started to do the opposite and claimed to have less power than they had on paper.
But what I'm trying to say is, many monarchs (whether British or not) historically had little real power anyways, and would have most likely would have triggered constitutional crises if they disagreed with their ministers (or the powerful elites).
I think the re-imaging of the British monarchy as mentioned above is truly ingenious, and while I took my sweet time deconstructing it, I still think it's an amazing narrative. I'd classify it as "anti-republicanism propaganda", but it's brilliant nonetheless.
Note: used to be a British subject before 1997. Hah.
> King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them.
If he had sufficient popular support from the armed forces and a enough of the general public he might manage it.
The likely outcome though would be a considerable loss of support.
In the 21st century, I don't think the monarch can "get away" with anything unless the Prime Minister is willing to let them "get away" with that thing. And some Prime Ministers (especially Tory ones) would be more than happy for the monarch to have a nice new mansion. But if there is a Prime Minister who says "no, don't do that!", the monarch has to do as told. In a public fight between the PM and the monarch over "should the monarch be allowed to build a new mansion", absolutely the PM is going to win. For British Republicans, such a fight would be a dream come true, since it would instantly move Republicanism from the political fringes to the mainstream.
That's true, but PMs are motivated not to "embarrass" the monarch if it can be at all avoided. It would be a very unpopular move, as it was when Boris Johnson "advised" the late Queen to prorogue Parliament during the Brexit period. The PM would almost certainly come out worse unless the monarch really was up to something quite bad, and building on Crown land mightn't be bad enough.
> Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision
and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.
That would run into the same problem Parliament ran into with the trial of Charles I: The root of all authority in the UK is the Crown. By challenging the authority of the Crown, the court is challenging its own authority to challenge anything.
Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.
Well, of course he can't — if you own something by definition, then if you sell it, you still own it; so you can't really sell it (without that being a con), can you? ;)
> […] but rather the institution that is The Crown.
Perhaps of some interest:
> The King's Two Bodies (subtitled, A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology) is a 1957 historical book by Ernst Kantorowicz. It concerns medieval political theology and the distinctions separating the "body natural" (a monarch's corporeal being) and the "body politic".[1]
The King is the state. There are restrictions on what he can do with Crown property, as you mention he is not allowed to dispose of it. These restrictions ultimately lead to the creation of a separate legal personhood for the King as an individual.
In other words, Crown property has always been the King’s, however, exceptionally he is allowed a second personhood so that he can buy, sell and (importantly) bequeath property like a normal person can.
The whole continuing existence of the British monarchy (as well as other Commonwealth countries where he is sovereign) highlights the extreme bizarreness of humans to me.
On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country, to the point that his subjects need to pledge allegiance to him on official documents, but on the other hand, he has no power. One might argue he has even less power than a commoner as he is forbidden from offering a political opinion. He is the titular owner of "Crown Lands", but he can't actually do anything with that ownership.
The whole thing is just so bonkers that if I were an alien and I landed on Earth and someone explained the situation to me I'd just say "Y'all are too f'n weird for me, I'm gonna peace out."
Monarchy is absurd but as Brit it's just not something most of us take seriously. As a recent American I am slightly horrified that school children are expected to swear allegiance to the flag at the start of every school day and local sports games start with the national anthem.
I wouldn't use Celtic is an example of "British Football" or British attitudes. They would likely be offended by that! They are the republican side of the Irish sectarian divide in Glasgow and will sing pro-IRA songs and such.
There is plenty of anti/disinterest in Britain about the Monarchy but probably not enough vitriol to get that chant elsewhere. There would probably need to be a specific catalyst e.g. if Prince Andrew turned up at a game then chants calling him a Paedo would be guaranteed. For most Brits, if you don't like the Monarchy, it's very easy to just ignore it. Celtic is on a different level.
They're a very well-supported club where anti-monarchist songs, chants or signs are completely commonplace and don't ruffle too many feathers generally. Celtic may not like being called "British" and their feelings on the monarchy probably aren't the same as the majority of football supporters in the UK (I'd argue that they are representative of your average Scot) but that wasn't the point.
That said the point was that it's unimaginable that supporters at a US sporting event chanting about how they hate their head of state. I disagree with that - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
This is unfounded speculation but perhaps the difference is that a lot of people in the US voluntarily migrated there, while we know how the English crown got to rule over Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland.....
> I disagree with that - someone is forgetting about the origin of "Let's go Brandon"
The US system is "fine" with 49% of the population hating the elected president. The president is not the monarch, nor representing the supreme political ideal. AFAICT the equivalent of anti-monarchy in the US is denouncing the US constitution.
I take very seriously the hypocrisy, that on the one hand they're only ceremonial but on the other can privately lobby the government, are exempt from multiple laws and taxes, are reportedly billionaires yet still expect taxpayer funding.
The equivalent you might be looking for is the clowns expect us to swear allegiance to them and their offspring on Saturday. I'll happily swear at them but it won't be my allegiance.
> voluntarily give most of the income to the government
Got a source? According to The Guardian they use no end of smoke and mirrors so the plebs can't find out how much they're worth. Not to mention them not being subject to inheritance tax.
The monarchy are bad but they are far from the biggest problem facing the UK. I think we should get rid of them too but suspect it will take another generation or so before it becomes politically Vivek to say so.
Doesn't the monarchy have to pay a lot of money for maintenance on the properties that they "own", which the government would have to pay instead if it was confiscated?
Sure, but they also take an extraordinary amount of money from taxpayers. Also, there are issues over whether they own everything they make money from (e.g., properties, and recently a large number of official state gifts). I'd say they're doing rather well off of us ;P
> Elizabeth II and Charles III have extracted cash payments worth more than £1.2bn from two hereditary estates that pay no tax, in addition to the millions they receive in public funding for their official duties. In 2022, they received £21m each from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively, despite a centuries-old debate over whether the two estates in fact belong to the British nation.
> On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country
The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office. I wonder if that contributes to Americans always having weird takes like this?
The purpose of the head of state is to act as a check on the legislature and the chief executive, that's typically the only real power they have, the rest is just ceremonial. And yet many Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US and has executive powers?
> The US is one of few countries where the head of state and the chief executive is combined into one office.
The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King. To make it worse, Hamilton argued to have a President for life and Adams argued to address the President as "His Majesty".
Those early years are fertile soil for any fiction writer interested in alternative realities.
> The Continental Congress thought about ending the anarchy of the early years of revolution by getting themselves a Prussian as their new King.
This is basically what happened in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. King James was unpopular due to being Catholic and a set of unpopular decisions, so the upper class wrote to the Dutch stadholder William of Orange and invited him to stage a coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_William . Which succeeded without resistance.
This (and subsequent incidents with the Georges) is an important part of how the English monarchy is effectively "leashed" by requiring a certain minimal amount of consent of the governed.
Isn't the argument always that it's okay to have an undemocratically appointed head of state because they have no power so the blatant undemocratic-ness is fine? Yet at the same time put forward the argument that they act as a check on the legislature and therefore wield actual power which would directly contradict why it's okay for them to be appointed the way they are?
I think a split premier/president system where they are democratically elected makes enough sense but having a hereditary monarch is bananas.
My country has been a kingdom for over a thousand years and has enjoyed unbroken sovereignty for five hundred. The current royal house has reigned for two hundred years, and they can trace back their ancestry to the ancient kings. There's value in that.
The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick? Like it or not, it's an excellent source for national pride. Yes, it's ridiculous blood magic, but the pomp and circumstance and ceremonies of any nation state can be just as ridiculous.
I'll take that over an elected populist divisive asshole any day.
> The purpose of a head of state is to act as a personification of the state, so what better symbol could you pick?
There's no universal answer to that question. It depends on what you think the state represents.
In your case you attach a lot of importance to your state's longevity, in which case your rationale for the monarchy is consistent. But the defining feature of republican states (US, Ireland, France, most of South America) is definitely not their longevity. It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people. In this case a monarchy is the wrong symbol, and the correct symbol is an elected head of state. (The head of state doesn't need to have power, e.g. Ireland's president.)
> It is the idea that the state is a creation of the people, and that all power - real, ceremonial, even trivial - derives from the power of the people.
And yet the first line of the constitution of this constitutional monarchy is that "all power derives from the people". These things are not mutually exclusive.
Rex dei gratia hasn't been a thing for centuries, it's rex populi gratia these days. If any royal family fucks up too much, they're out on their asses, and they know it.
What is the "value" in that? In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive.
And also, of all the parts of my comment to rebut, you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
It is incredibly valuable to a nation state to be able to project longevity and stability. Are you seriously questioning the value of a thousand years of unbroken tradition? Every country has a founding mythos, and to be able to connect the current head of state to its founding has immense symbolical value.
Imagine that the US were to elect a president who was a descendant of George Washington. As silly as it is, Americans would cream their pants en masse at the thought. ...while vehemently arguing that they absolutely don't do that royalty thing, of course.
> In the UK, even with their hereditary head of state, they still had Boris Johnson who was definitely populist and divisive.
Yes? What? Boris was the elected head of government, of course they'd get a populist asshole now and then. Are you saying it would be better if both the head of government and the head of state could be populist assholes?
> you pick the part that isn't the bulk of it?
Well, the answer to that bulk was simply no, there's no contradiction, because you're conflating different kinds of power. And again, if your country has always combined the two roles and their powers, it might be hard to understand the separation of and difference between them.
But is he actually a viable check on the legislature? If he stopped the legislature from doing something popular isn't there a good chance he'd lose the power to do that? And hasn't the Queen used her influence over the legislature corruptly? [1]
If he stopped the legislature doing something, there would be a “constitutional crisis” but whether or not he then lost the power to do that again would really depend on public opinion and how well judged his move was. I can imagine a scenario in which a corrupt and unpopular government is holding onto power by twisting the rules somehow, and the king says no. It would be chaos, but if the king had public opinion on his side it could work out well.
For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
> The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.
That relationship really is hard to define... As a Brit my defining memory of the now King was - as an 8 year old - learning of his desire to be a tampon in his then mistress and current Queen.
This actaully happened last year. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was in a spot of political bother and it looked like the then Queen was going to sack him, as she must (according to the conventions that comprise the UK's constitution) dismiss any prime minister who cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons.
Johnson didn't want to go, so he announced (via a leak to a tame newspaper, another part of our unwritten constitution) that he would advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, in order that new elections be held. He hoped to bring rebellious Tory MPs in line by threatening those in marginal seats with defeat, and those in secure seats with the prospect of a lengthy spell in opposition.
The Palace put paid to this plan by informing the PM that the Queen would be unavailable to meet with him, in the event of him perhaps wanting to to her in order to dissolve parliament.
The "check on the legislature" is only a reality in extremis. The discussion is usually about politics, but ultimately, if a legislature/executive were going off the rails and intervention by the armed forces was required, their allegiance is always to the monarch as the embodiment of the nation.
The rest of the time, the check on the legislature is only theoretical.
I've never heard anything like that. As your sibling comments mention the check in the legislature is the official role of the monarch. It's not about the possibility of a military coup.
It still counts as a coup if somebody in a legitimate position of authority uses the military to seize more power in a manner not permitted by law
Your argument makes absolutely no sense considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence that states that "on the other hand, he has no real power."
As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country. It literally says I must pledge allegiance to him on my citizenship certificate. Yes, of course I understand the whole thing is theater and he has no actual power, but that's why I think the whole charade is bizarre to begin with.
> considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in general.
Still though, using the words "supreme leader" about any constitutional monarch in a liberal democracy sounds so weird to me, that's a title for dictators, which is the complete opposite of what they are. They're heads of state, and they are completely dependent on popular support for their reigns.
> As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country.
I agree, I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
The case for the UK is that they've been doing the king thing for 1100 years now, it's an integral part of the land and the people and the history, and that gives it symbolic value that contributes to the power or cohesiveness of the nation state.
The royal rituals (that the common people are forced to participate in) definitely are consistent with the "supreme leader" thing. They're dictators on paper, and despite what you say, they're not dependent on popular support for their reigns. I'll give you that they're dependent on popular indifference for keeping the heads on their shoulders. If people hate them enough all those allegiance swearing would come to an end.
> I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that.
Me neither, but Canada was specifically formed by people who wanted to keep that. Otherwise they would have just joined the USA at the start...
I think it makes sense as a local minimal during a process of iterative compromise. They arrived at 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and shall stay there until changing conditions break this stability.
What you are saying, that Britain and other countries keep monarchies around because "if it ain't broke..." I understand, though I still think it's pretty weird.
The comment I was responding to, which makes no sense, made the non sequitur that "Americans seem to think that constitutional monarchs are like the president of the US" because he only read the first half of my sentence.
IIRC the last time the Brits tried to get rid of their monarch it didn't end well and the people decided the monarchy was better than that chaos.
QE II wasn't a bad monarch, and that was probably a big factor in the UK keeping its monarchy during the 20th century where democracy was the big trend.
Forbidden from offering my a political opinion. Charles regularly sends letter to MPs to lobby them, and I’ll bet you his letters get a lo more attention than the average citizens.
Personally i like it. One of the most dangerous things in government is making a cult of personality around the head of state. Having it be a powerless figurehead takes the bite out of that.
I think the political neutrality of the monarchy is underrated. Yes, we can argue about the pedantic details of whether the King is truly 100% "neutral" on every issue, and the continued existence of the monarchy of itself is a political question, but the fact is that the monarch stays out of politics: from Brexit to Scottish independence to inflation to the small boats crisis to the NHS, the King doesn't tell us his opinion and he keeps his nose out of things.
Which is great! There's enormous value in having a ceremonial national institution which isn't politicised and doesn't split opinion along the typical partisan lines. It's a part of our national identity, something that we all have in common, something that unites us - and in these polarised times we desperately need more things that unite us.
If we replace the monarch with an elected head of state, even a "powerless" and "ceremonial" one, there's no way it won't lead to more polarisation and division.
The other good argument I've heard for keeping the monarchy is that abolishing the monarchy means rewriting the British constitution from the ground up. You can be sure that whichever party is in power will take this opportunity to subtly tweak things to favour themselves. Do you trust them to do it fairly?
I don't have a stake in this, but just out of curiosity (and sake of argument), why don't you make a rock your King then?
It's possible (but admittedly difficult) to construct a mythology where you make a rock the national identity, and celebrate the rock on special occasions. It lasts for thousands of years, you don't run into problems of succession, and it never betrays anyone, much less express political opinions.
So, why don't you make a rock your King? It seems to fit all your arguments about why a human king is good, and the rock does the job better.
PS: apparently in the US the equivalent is a piece of paper called the constitution. The president, despite what monarchists think, is generally disposable and often just for lols.
Mussolini came to power as a totalitarian dictator and basically invented fascism (or at least the word) all during the reign of the King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III.
The fact that Mussolini was always on paper subservient to the King meant that, once it became obvious that the Axis powers were losing the war, it was possible for the King to remove him. It also enabled the existence of a royalist power base in the military and bureaucracy, beyond fascist control, which played an essential role in Mussolini's downfall.
After President von Hindenburg's death, there was no one left in Germany for Hitler to answer to, not even in theory. That meant there was no legal mechanism to remove him, he could only be removed by violence – and the plot to assassinate him failed. The world could easily have been a better place if Germany had remained a monarchy – even if Hitler still became Chancellor and started World War II and all the rest of his horrid crimes, it would have been far easier to remove and replace him with a new German leader. Germany's generals knew they had lost, and many of them wanted to focus on making sure they surrendered to the Western allies not the Soviets - but Hitler forced them to keep on fighting unwinnable battles instead. With Hitler imprisoned (or maybe even summarily executed to eliminate the risk that devout Nazis would try to free him), the generals could have done as they wanted. Possibly the division of Germany could have been avoided, and large swathes of Eastern Europe could have escaped communism. It also could have resulted in much better treatment of German civilians and POWs, for while the Western allies weren't perfect in that regard, they were significantly more humane than the Soviets were.
Seems like quite the stretch to assume a monarch in Germany would have made any difference, or the presence of a monarch in Italy changed the outcome in any significant way.
Japan also had a monarch, and it took 2 nuclear bombs to get him to surrender.
von Hindenburg being President or Wilhelm being Kaiser changes little assuming a death - in both cases there's a process to get someone to replace them (new elections for President, coronation of the heir apparent). Hitler's popularity and power allowed him to skip the whole process and just assume the position of Parliament too. I think that it would have been harder to do with the position of Kaiser (there were still plenty of monarchists even in Nazi Germany), but he still would have done so or at least done a Horthy, preventing the coronation and keeping himself as regent.
This is how a lot of parliamentary democracies work. The president has very little powers and even the ones they do have are mostly ceremonial that can be overridden by the actual government.
Though nothing is stopping the cult of personality from forming around the leader of the government (prime minister).
The UK spends more effort building a personality cult around the Monarch than republics do around their heads of states, though. It's necessary to ensure popular support, which cannot really be based on anything but a personality cult...
I'd reckon that the Palace of Versailles cost a helluva lot more than Mount Rushmore.
Edit: I haven't been able to turn up good numbers for the original cost of Versailles without spending more time than I have to spare at the moment, but on an ongoing basis the annual budget for Versailles is about €100 million, while the annual budget for Mount Rushmore is about $5 million.
Edit #2: Looks like the Brits spend around £50 million annually for the maintenance of royal palaces, and those are still in active use.
> One of the most dangerous things in government is making a cult of personality around the head of state. Having it be a powerless figurehead takes the bite out of that.
Not really. The cult gives its focus power regardless of the formal structure; that's the point. And in the case of England, the formal structure still supports the king! Forming a personality cult around the King of England is more likely to lead to the King of England reclaiming a lot of power people thought he had lost long ago than it is to defuse the cult when they learn the king isn't supposed to use his formal powers.
Is it only the British monarchy you have an issue with? How do you feel about the monarchies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the many others?
I presume you are from the US? It seems a substantial number of US citizens believe the British monarchy to be an outlier and the only one worthy of comment.
I don't think it's something to blame Americans for. The reason the English monarchy gets so much more attention is for two main reasons (I'm not sure which is more important):
1. English language and media being more widespread than e.g. Danish
2. The commonwealth - the English monarch is also the (figure)head of the commonwealth which is another ten or so countries spread across the globe.
There are other reasons too - perhaps tourism plays a big part. If you visit London then you'll almost certainly go to Buckingham palace to see the stupid palace guards and all that pomp. Millions of people do it every year and are told the Queen/King is living right there. Especially if you're a child that puts them into an important position in your imagination.
I don't think this amount of pompous touristy bullshit surrounds any other modern monarch.
And finally, a large swath of English people either love or hate the monarch, while a large swarth of Irish also hate them, both of which fuel attention. Most other European monarchs are just sort of... there, to my understanding.
What is the purpose of an army? To defend their nation. What is the essence of a monarchic nation? ... Armies in monarchies tend to have these type of honour guards and traditions, even if their typical audience is tourists. Armies in republics also love a bit of pomp and circumstance and will gladly show off their troops marching, their aerial acrobatics, their latest hardware, etc.
Lots of countries do this, not only France. Military parades are an easy way to remember and commemorate the fallen in battles, and to remind the civilian population of the magnificent army protecting them.
But to your other point, yep, the French Fifth Republic has a very strong President figure (not a monarch on a few important distinctions like succession, but still). And after the failures of the Third and Fourth Republics that showed that compromise is complicated to achieve and without a strong position somewhere there is just pure chaos and instability, it was the only way forward.
> Armies in republics also love a bit of pomp and circumstance
Also mostly stupid and hilariously anachronistic, in my opinion. The videos of Indian and Pakistani border guards showing off to each other comes particularly to mind.
Your two main reasons are actually the same reason: it's because Britain conquered the world, had the largest empire in history, and billions of people still live in countries that are or were ruled by the British* monarchy within living memory.
People pay attention to the King because he's part of their history, not just the UK's.
Other countries have constitutional monarchies. The UK still has an absolute monarchy, they just agree not to use any of the powers. They need a real constitution first to have a constitutional monarchy. (Instead they pretend a bunch of random historical documents are a constitution. At least one of them is a letter to the editor of a newspaper written under a pseudonym.)
Japan's monarchy was a Meiji invention; he had no power before that and has no power now. He's more like the opposite, a prisoner we specifically wrote into the constitution to have no human rights.
The UK and other Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies. You don't need a piece of paper called the "constitution" to be one or have a constitution. The UK essentially invented the modern constitutional monarchy where the monarch essentially is just a ceremonial figurehead. Prior to the end of WWII the Emperor of Japan had far more personal power under the Meiji constitution than the British monarch of the same time or today.
Towing and asserting the official line doesn't make it true.
The British monarch has all those powers on paper. They never agreed to relinquish them. Then, random commoners (with no authority) keep asserting that the monarch has no powers, or no intention to use/abuse those powers. Nobody seems to agree which ones are not supposed to be used ever, which ones are supposed to be used sparingly, and which ones are OK to use recreationally. Then, occasionally somebody discovers some secret privilege the monarch has, and the people have to decide on the spot whether that's OK or not.
Compared with the actual constitutional monarchy, where there are actual rules spelled out clearly. The Brits are masters of wordplay, but "unwritten constitution" is really unironically "trust us, we're making this up as we go along".
Hey, could you do us all a favour and update Wikipedia[0] to reflect your research on this matter? Sadly it still lists the government as a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
British people will also tell you they have good food, a working healthcare system, and that people care about their monarchy, but you don't have to listen to them about any of it. We're just humoring them.
To have a constitutional government, you should first have a constitution.
Sure they do. The constitution doesen't have to be a single document.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The American constitution has basically become immutable at this point while meaningful reform is still possible in Britain.
I'd say Canada has a better system; there's at least a parliamentary act passed saying what's in the constitution, and the people who wrote it are still around to explain themselves. (Australia loses points because they forgot to have a bill of rights.)
The US changes its constitution by just having the Supreme Court make things up. As you can see from the Lochner era, this has rarely worked well.
There are uncodefied parts of the Canadian constitution too. The codefied parts begin with a sentence that's essentially "copy/paste the UK constitution here". The Supreme Court of Canada has also said they can add unwritten parts of the constitution and the written parts aren't exhaustive.
Not to claim it's the same situation, but there's a difference between things that are officially true and things you should actually respect. You shouldn't respect most of the US judicial system either.
> but there's a difference between things that are officially true and things you should actually respect
Could you relate that back to your initial claim that "the UK still has an absolute monarchy", which appears to be both officially untrue and untrue in practice?
They don't even make the monarch get a driver's licence or pay taxes because laws don't apply to them. (Instead they voluntarily pay taxes and don't speed.)
Maybe they could try writing some of that down in a constitution.
Notably the article doesn't even know if the letter is still the law or not.
> Following passage of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, these principles are thought to have been revived.
A written constitution isn’t even worth the paper it’s written on unless the people and institutions of the country are in the habit of actually following it. Britain follows their unwritten constitution, established through centuries of tradition, better than many countries follow their written constitutions.
> Japan's monarchy was a Meiji invention; he had no power before that and has no power now. He's more like the opposite, a prisoner we specifically wrote into the constitution to have no human rights.
Japanese emperors have (had) lots of indirect power (akin to Charles lobbying). E.g. during WW2 Hirohito participated in some very high level decision making (and should have been hanged for it).
Yes, that's post-Meiji and before we rewrote their constitution. Before Meiji westernization it was on and off and he was a bit more like the chief priest than a ruler.
Well unlike in some other places the English monarchy hasn't generally been absolute since the high middle ages. The struggle between parliamentarism and the crown last for 400-500 years. So yeah there is no single all encompassing document because there was no single revolutionary event which would have necessitated it.
Britain always led the fight against absolutism in Europe (well more or less anyway..) so most of these constitutions that were designed to curtail the power of the monarch during the revolutions of the 1800s merely brought other countries inline with where Britain already was.
US is in a similar state.It was one of the first "democratic" states so its system if full of out of date anachronisms like the electoral college, the second amendment and near absolute freedom of speech (well yeah some are bad and some are good..).
It is true that there is a convention not to actually exercise many powers as a King, leaving them to the government. But it wouldn't be an absolute monarchy anyway, in fact it's one of the first examples where the monarch could not do as he wished, and had to call Parliament. So it's a parliamentary monarchy.
Did you miss the part where TFA is about the British sovereign specifically? That's why I commented on it, but yes, I think they're all bonkers, though I do think the British Royal family (and British media) play up the pomp around their royals more than in most other countries.
Also, isn't the British Monarchy the only one Americans have had cause to take up arms against, multiple times? (To the point where we still do annual re-enactments of some of the events?)
I think that it may be primarily in American media (or perhaps English-language media?) Other monarchies certainly get their news moments in English-language media and presumably are more discussed in other subsets of the media.
> On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country, to the point that his subjects need to pledge allegiance to him on official documents, but on the other hand, he has no power. One might argue he has even less power than a commoner as he is forbidden from offering a political opinion.
It doesn't even address the fact that the British monarch has a weekly, private meeting with the Prime Minister.
Why express political opinions in public like a pleb when you can directly express them to the Prime Minister (who is bound by oath to serve you)?
https://www.royal.uk/audiences : The King holds a weekly Audience with the Prime Minister to discuss Government matters. The Audience is entirely private. Though The King remains politically neutral on all matters, he is able to 'advise and warn' his ministers - including his Prime Minister - when necessary.
One of the difficulties with British constitutionalia is that it (mostly) works, and if we want to change it then we have to agree on what to replace it with.
Since there's little chance of that happening, we'll stick with inducting politicians into the Privy Council in order to allow them to receive intelligence briefings.
Not sure why you restrict this observation to UK and commonwealth countries. This is reality for many of us in Europe. Legal documents in Norway also refer to the king as the one deciding stuff. But that doesn’t literally mean the king. It is more of the institution of monarchy and the ceremony in which the king signs government actions presented to him by “his” government.
But this is of little practical consequence. What I find more bizarre is how conservative the US is around its constitution and political system. Norway may be a Monarchy but has gone through far more modernization in terms of how the political system works, elections and government than the US for instance.
I look at how voting and representation works in the US today and it is basically Norway in the 1880s or something. Back when we also had a two party system of liberals and conservatives. When there was a winner take all system. Censuses had to be done semi regularly as citizens were not fully and completely registered and kept up to date on a continuous fashion.
I would bet Britain in quite a number of ways is more modern in its constitution than the US. E.g. they don’t have å gerrymandering problem. That got reformed and fixed long ago.
It's a really shitty job. Americans think it's glamorous.
The Dutch king earns a few million euro per year. His clever brother prins Friso, with no royal duties, became a businessman in London and amassed a fortune without being stalked by a hundred reporters.
Mind you I prefer the monarchy because I shudder to think what absolute clown the people would elect as president. My faith in democracy has been shattered thanks to America.
There aren't any domestic KLM routes, the country is roughly the size of the New York area :-)
He used to fly KLM cityhopper which is KLM's "regional airline" in US terms, going across most of Europe. Then he transitioned to the 737 because the government bought a 737 BBJ as their new private jet. The government jet is operated by KLM, so the king can fly it as first officer together with a KLM captain.
Fun fact: There is an agreement with the pilots union that the first officer that got replaced by the king operating a flight gets paid as if they flew it.
> There aren't any domestic KLM routes, the country is roughly the size of the New York area
i don't know about now, but certainly in the 90s you could get a flight from Eindhoven to Schiphol.
i remember trying to get from Eindhoven to London on the phone and being told there were no seats - i'd have to fly to Schiphol (deep gloom on my part). Luckily, when i turned up at check-in, the lovely KLM girl on the desk said "No you don't need to do that - we'll fit you in on the Heathrow flight"
I must say that of all of the airlines i flew with, I probably liked KLM the best
Oops! It sounded entirely feasible, the "Cityhopper" designation and seeing the tiny jet threw me off.
I first read about this in an in-flight magazine; the other story was about the PM who arrived on bicycle and left it outside the palace while paying the King a visit after the election.
This is perhaps only tangentially related, but I used to live next to castle ruins in the UK. Although they were ruins, the grounds still belonged to the crown. There was a thriving rabbit population there, and it was forbidden to hunt on royal land without permission.
So my town had a royally approved rabbit hunter --- who was also a butcher. He was the best butcher in the town.
Unrelated, but we also had a separate fruiterer, who procured fruits. I have never seen someone called a fruiterer anywhere else.
Its worse than just the swans - the monarch owns almost all the land in the UK too. The legal concept of "Allodial title" [1] means that, even if you own the freehold of some land, it's actually a freehold in the estate of the crown [2] - and the monarch is actually the ultimate owner. The exceptions to this are a few areas of Scotland.
Actually, this doesn't apply to the whole of Scotland since "The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000", and it doesn't apply to NI either. The crown ownership only applies to England & Wales.
If I remember right, the current Princes of Liechtenstein basically bought the current country under a similar concept.
The original Liechtenstein was a castle in Austria. The family shopped around for some land that was held directly from the Holy Roman Emperor, rather than through some intermediate feudal lord, and bought it. That gave them statehood within the Holy Roman Empire, and raised the head of the house to the status of Prince.
They didn't even visit the current Liechtenstein for many years -- it was basically a flag of convenience.
You’re phrasing this like it actually has some bearing on how land is owned in the U.K. This is just a quirk of tradition - for all intents and purposes the freeholder is the ultimate owner of the land.
The Crown Estate is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with peers including the Church and the Ministry of Defence, but does not own the majority of the UK. Curiously, a lot of the coastal seabed in UK territorial waters is part of the Crown Estate, which has thus profited massively from offshore wind farms.
The Crown 'owns' the Crown estate as a corporation sole [0], a legal entity occupied by a single person, the Monarch. When the Queen died, the Crown persisted as a legal entity but the Monarch changed. King Charles owns several properties that are not part of the Crown estate, e.g. Balmoral and Sandringham. These were purchased by members of the Royal family from other members of the aristocracy in the 19th Century.
After the first two paragraphs, and especially at the point of Swan Moots, I thought “Someone got creative with ChatGPT prompts”.
I was, of course, wrong. But now I want to train a GPT3 model on ridiculous ancient laws so that I can have it generate an endless variety for my entertainment. The responses I get from vanilla ChatGPT aren’t bad, but not of the quality of British Swan Law
"Plans by the City of London to move its markets to a new location in Dagenham have run into a problem"
"The issue is Romford Market, which was created by the Royal Charter of the Liberty of Havering granted by King Henry III in 1247 — and that Charter includes a clause banning any other market from being set up within a day’s sheep drive."
Yes, lot's of it is simply "let's take a succession crisis from IRL, change the names & add magic."
Though I'll admit I find some of the ridiculous fantasy fiction entertaining. But I also find lots of real history entertaining too. Intricate power struggles & their intersection with daily life are interesting, at least from the distance of fiction or a few hundred years. Watching them play out in real time is usually horrific.
This exactly. On paragraph four, the first sentence is this:
> In order to fully understand the complexities of the scope of British Monarchy Swan Privileges, we need to go back to the Middle Ages, when swans were a luxury good. Valued as both . . .
I stopped reading there. I'm thinking: No, we absolutely don't need to go that far back to answer this question of who owns swans. For goodness sake, will it kill authors and video makers to tell us the answer in short-form and then help the reader decide to continue going down a long-winded explanation if they desire? This gives the same vibe as the overly-long YouTube videos that squeeze 10 minutes out of questions that can be answered in 30 seconds.
Concise and informational writing is dead, and LLMs are the final nail in the coffin.
I really don't think this article was intended to be informational: how many people actually need to know whether the King technically owns all the swans. The purpose of the article is entertainment, and just saying "he owns most swans in England and Wales with a few small exceptions" is not nearly as entertaining.
For this kind of historical minutia, of course we need to go back to the Middle Ages. That's when such things got established. Maybe if you're from a much younger country that's only been around the blink of an eye that makes sense, but that would put you in the minority.
The pound was divided into 240 pence, or 20 shillings. So, 10 shillings is half a pound. 4 pence is 1/60th of a pound. So it's more "rounded" than it might seem. Much like how 3, 6, 9 and 12 feet are potential rounded values measured in feet; traditional units are another semi-duodecimal system. (This system remained into use until 1971.)
These fines would have been paid in coins. 10 shillings is a specific coin: gold half-sovereign. At the time (I think) the fine could be paid, potentially, with just three coins: one half-sovereign, one sovereign, and one groat/fourpence. The inclusion of the relatively small amount fourpence amount, which is silver and not gold coinage, is perhaps symbolic of something but I don't know what.
> a fine of three pounds, six shillings, and eight pence
This is exactly 3 1/3 pounds.
> one pound, ten shillings, and four pence
Exactly 1 and 31/60 pounds, or 30 and 1/3 shillings.
> thirteen shillings and four pence
Exactly 13 and 1/3 shillings, or 160 pence, which is 2/3 of a pound.
I suppose they liked the number repetitions. And when you're dealing with such small divisions of a very valuable currency, "rounding up" to the nearest pound could be considered extremely punitive. It'd be like going from a fine of $51000 to $60000 just to make the number round.
> the swan mark would have to be purchased at the price of six shillings - swans not included. This was about the same amount as a year’s wages for a household servant.
One pound would be over three years wages for a household servant.
> You're asking why they didn't round to the nearest £722.74
No, the question is dumber than that. The proposed "rounded" fine is well over double the original fine; rounding to the nearest four pounds would result in a fine of zero.
I can seldom resist the opportunity to quote a footnote from Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman:
"NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated."
I have read that a ha'penny from the time of Queen Victoria is worth about 5p in today's currency, an argument for abolishing the annoyingly worthless 2p and 1p coins.
Well we’re dealing with a country where the king owns all the swans no matter where they are or how they came to be. There’s no logic here. So round up to a billion and it would make as much sense.
So, what happens if someone eats some of his majesty's swans [1],[2],[3],[4]? If that someone were to be an immigrant from Eastern Europe, could that lead to something like, I don't know ..., Brexit?
Whether he does or doesn't own all the swans, I'm sure he's very concerned about this issue against the backdrop of his largely unearned "$600 Million" net worth and "$28b of inherted assets".
Must be an awful situation for him. The people of the UK are equally distressed about the ownership of the swans during a cost of living crisis for many of them.
Swans were lucky, for several centuries they were protected by the Crown from indiscriminate and barbaric extermination.
But progressive communist China, for example, declared sparrows to be enemies of the people, and with the full support of the people, the sparrows were exterminated in an orderly and barbaric manner.
Not quite, not eating pork was codified into those religions because breeding pigs in hot dry climate is a very bad idea. Same in India, a cow is far more valuable as a farming tool, so it was codified into religion. The Swan thing is pure aristocratic elitism. The guests invited to certain functions reported being served swan, and said it tasted like turkey.
And besides, British royals are Germans not Brits.
> And besides, British royals are Germans not Brits.
One's father's ancestry doesn't determine one's nationality. The majority of King Charles III's ancestry does appear to be German (about a quarter British, and a good helping of Polish), but Prince William is majority British.
The concept of "owning" an animal always seemed a bit weird to me. Especially for wild animals. The animal in question doesn't know about this relationship.
It's a bit like saying the Sentinelese uncontacted tribe are Indians… When they don't know what India is. Or selling land rights to a distant planet.
They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system.
> The concept of "owning" an animal always seemed a bit weird to me. Especially for wild animals. The animal in question doesn't know about this relationship.
> ...They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system.
What's so weird about it? In 100% of ownership relationships that do not involve human slaves, the thing being owned doesn't know about the relationship.
My car dosn't know I own it.
The bag of flour doesn't know the grocer owns it.
The field doesn't know the farmer owns it.
The farmer's cow doesn't know the farmer owns it.
The trees in private forest don't know the forest's owner owns them.
> Today, the Crown retains the ownership of all unmarked swans in England and Wales
Don't understand. All unmarked swans belong to the crown, and all cygnets are unmarked until they are marked. But you can't mark a swan you don't own; so after just one generation, all swans are unmarked, and therefore belong to the crown.
(As a republican, I dislike capitalizing royal terminology and aristocratic titles)
Let's say for a second the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) owns your swans, but you'd rather he not own them. What'd be your recourse?
Presumably the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) once owned all the swans in Ireland too. Then one day didn't. Now those swans are free swans living in an actual, honest to God, Republic. Technically the ones in the North are still his but their ownership status is disputed. The swans that fly back and forth I'm not sure what to do about, post Brexit arrangements being shoddy at best.
All this talk of ownership seems to confuse power with right, right with tradition, tradition with law, law with power.
Don't be silly. The republic would inherit whatever the crown owned and either keep it for themselves or gift them to their cronies. Or do you think they'd just chop them up into a couple million pieces and serve them to everyone?
No, your recourse would be to just do whatever you want with the swans, and risk being sued by the crown in the form of a criminal prosecution.
Not a gun really. The person holding a gun is a soldier, who is serving the power. Power comes from fear/game theory/people desire to fit in and survive etc.
I think the correct solution is to first try a bloodless course if possible and resort to more violent means only if absolutely necessary. The monarch could decide to give royal assent (not necessarily because from the goodness of his heart but because the mere threat of repercussions would sway his judgement in favour of your cause)
> Plus God doesnt exist so yet again unelected people, namely religions have an undue influence and control over the laws of the land and science can prove this!
Their cover is that their power is vested from God.
Reality is that the power structure is the result of centuries of "biggest army diplomacy", ie. you get to conquer anything you want if you have the largest, most capable army. Even if you fail to see it, every country in the world grew and is operated based on their military prowess, and less that, their economic value to those with a large military (The US doesn't spend $2T a year on their military for nothing, even if a lot of it is funneled into US businesses).
Meaning that legal corruption or unfair application of the law probably exists within one's city or region. You don't have to look to international events. Seeing the corruption close by is more shocking than hearing about it far away.
I thought you perhaps were making assumptions about where I could be from and had some specific event from my supposed city / country in mind that I would have completely missed.
But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great Britain. He has every swan in England, Wales, and Scotland except: - those on the Orkney and Shetland islands - those "marked" with leg bands as being owned by the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.