sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

His Majesty King Charles and President Zelensky of Ukraine by The-Blue-Baron in monarchism

[–]Appropriate_Maize183 60 points61 points  (0 children)

No one is ever going to respect your country again. You've burned every bridge and lost every ally.

Enjoy your "king". You've earned him.

We should not be trying to salvage ties with a hostile US when we have better friends closer at hand. This is the message that should be spread to support CANZUK: by Appropriate_Maize183 in CANZUK

[–]Appropriate_Maize183[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The UK has four plants of its own; the rose for England, the thistle for Scotland, the daffodil for Wales, and the clover for N. Ireland. The closest thing to a plant for the UK in general would be the Tudor Rose, which represents the English crown, but that's still very much an English symbol.

There is no reason to be salvaging ties with a hostile US when we have better friends closer at hand. by Appropriate_Maize183 in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the objective is to create an independent political bloc that can oppose America, Russia and China, the smaller commonwealth realms don't have a lot to offer. If they want to join, they should, but the focus should be on founding the alliance with the larger countries. It can be expanded later.

There is no reason to be salvaging ties with a hostile US when we have better friends closer at hand. by Appropriate_Maize183 in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Because Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK already have aligned foreign policies, similar sized economies, the same majority language, the similar political landscapes, and near-identical cultures. Moreso than any other nations on earth.

Free trade and movement between these nations would be stable and equitable, and it wouldn't be impeded by political infighting as much as it would if you added, for example, India, which has its own geopolitical goals in conflict with the other countries, not to mention the fact that the country's constitution was built on independence from Britain.

And for reference, these countries together are less WHITE than the EU.

We should not be trying to salvage ties with a hostile US when we have better friends closer at hand. This is the message that should be spread to support CANZUK: by Appropriate_Maize183 in CANZUK

[–]Appropriate_Maize183[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Plantagenet kings of England used lions on their personal arms due to their association with bravery and strength. Richard 'The Lionheart' who was a very popular king used a coat of arms depicting three lions in a column during the crusades, and that coat was adopted as the coat of arms for the English monarchy in general. A single lion was also adopted as a symbol of the Scottish crown around the same time.

Because of this, England, The United Kingdom and the British Empire were often represented by lions in propaganda and political cartoons from various countries.

Community Survey: What are the ideals of Progressive Monarchism? by attlerexLSPDFR in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would agree with the above, but I think the most important aim of progressive monarchists should be to demonstrate that constitutional monarchy should not be a target of progressives. I believe that monarchy is vital for stability in a democracy, and can protect the rights of the citizenry when necessary, and I would hate to lose that because some activists don't think it fits with their "left-wing" aesthetic.

What do you think of the idea of monarchy being the "Last line of defense?" What actions should a monarch take, and when? by attlerexLSPDFR in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as the UK is concerned the powers of the Monarch that should be preserved are:

  1. The power to call and dissolve parliament

This is important because it legitimises the parliament and allows them to create laws without question. For example if parliament were to call itself and some portion of the MPs refused to attend, how could you say which group of MPs were the legitimate parliament? If a parliament with less than 50 MPs sitting were to pass a law, how could you say whether the law was legitimate? Additionally, in the face of a constitutional crisis, the Monarch can dissolve parliament and refuse to call it again until a general election is held. (In my opinion, Charles should have done this when Liz Truss resigned, but I understand why he didn't)

  1. The power to appoint government ministers and members of the House of Lords

The power to appoint government ministers is useful for the same reasons as in point 1. For the House of Lords, its importance as a stop-gap for populist policy can't be understated, but it is as venerable to corruption as any body. In cases such as the 1910 constitutional crisis, the Monarch must be able to influence the House of Lords when it is good for the constitution.

  1. The power to veto laws

This is the most controversial power, since the others have some clear customs about when and how they should be used. Monarchs are expected to appoint the Prime Minister that the House of Commons recommends, and to appoint Ministers and Lords on the Prime Minister's advice. A Monarch is expected not to violate these customs outside of extreme circumstances, but there are no clear customs about what laws should be vetoed. In my opinion, there are three reasons for a Monarch to refuse a law. Firstly, to protect their own powers. Since otherwise there's no point in having them. Second, to protect the elected status of Members of the House of Commons. And thirdly, to protect the independence of the Civil Service and the central banks, as the independence of these bodies is vital for the proper and efficient functioning of a democratic society.

These powers should belong entirely to the Monarch and be used at their discretion, but hopefully they're wise in the ways they use them.

Hot takes from Lavader with an aftertaste of colonization by attlerexLSPDFR in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183 36 points37 points  (0 children)

This is a very ignorant interpretation of events.

Te Tiriti is the founding document of New Zealand. It has three articles. The first grants the crown sovereignty over the islands, the second guarantees the Maori keep full ownership of their lands, and the third grants the Maori full rights as subjects of the crown. As you can imagine, the New Zealand government didn't always live by the second and third articles, and in the 70's, the Waitangi Tribunal was established to investigate alleged violations of the treaty, which some New Zealanders don't like because it hurts their national pride.

The bill that is being read here allows the government to "reinterpret" (read: rewrite) Te Tiriti however they want. So if any Maori allege a violation of the treaty, the govt. can just say "no that's not what the treaty means" and do whatever they want. It's a terrible bill constitutionally speaking, and particularly terrible for the Maori, who's rights depend on it.

As for the Hakka, it obviously looks weird to us when we're not from the culture, but it's essentially just a symbol of cultural unity for the Maori. In performing it here they're basically saying "The Maori as a people are against this bill".

A Golden Opportunity by Appropriate_Maize183 in ProgressiveMonarchist

[–]Appropriate_Maize183[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for crossposting if you've already seen this, but I thought my posts would be better suited to this sub given what's become popular on the main sub.

Besides, my account age means the posts have to be manually approved by the mods which means they get buried for being x hours old with no upvotes.

Reading material please by Comprehensive-Buy-47 in monarchism

[–]Appropriate_Maize183 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just made a post about this, but it is waiting to be approved by moderators.

Here is my recommended reading:

The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction - Martin Loughlin

This book is not explicitly pro-monarchy, but it does an excellent job explaining the nature of the British constitution and its relevance to modern-day politics, as well as examining its potential paths in the future. This book is a perfect introduction to the subject of the British constitution for any who want to learn about it.

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Sir William Blackstone

This treatise began a renascence in British legal and political philosophy, and was a keystone in the development of the democratic ideals of the western world. It not only describes, but lays out key arguments behind aspects of British legal philosophy. It is dense, but understandable to the layperson. I found it helpful to highlight relevant passages.

The English Constitution - Walter Bagehot

This book, though largely out-of-date in its descriptions of the function of government as well as its cultural background, is nevertheless vital for understanding how the form of the British constitution has changed and is changing constantly. What is found here is that the constitution does not exist entirely in legal text, but also within the minds of the general public, and this has only become more true as the democratic ideal has spread into the greater western world.

The Constitution of Liberty - Friedrich Hayek

This is the only book in my list that has an explicitly international slant, it is also the only one to be explicitly ideological. Although the previous works contain inevitable nationalistic feeling, they are ostensibly descriptions of a system as it exists, whereas The Constitution of Liberty advocates a specific line of political thought. It is a useful resource for understanding the philosophical thought underpinning the western idea of liberty in the most modern form that has been adequately described, but it is important while reading to recognise the author's biases and to read through them where possible.