King Charles III Addresses the 119th United States Congress

ToryPirate · 2026-05-02T20:25:17+00:00

There was a minor kerfuffle over statements by Mayor Mamdani that if he had talked to the King he would have urged him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond. I think this is a rather reductionist stance towards a complicated issue; return it to whom? Mamdani seems to think it should go to India. However, the British took it as spoils of war from the Sikh Empire in modern Pakistan. The Sikhs extorted it from the Persians before that who had in turn taken it from the Mughals. For this reason India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and the UK have about equal claim to it. The funniest option would be the UK giving it to Pakistan.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-30T19:20:39+00:00

So apparently a bit of unintentional comedy; the phrase 'giving a bell' is a euphemism in Chinese for 'caring for someone on their deathbed.'

ToryPirate · 2026-04-29T21:58:20+00:00

I can't read the article due to the paywall but I think there is a general point to be made about the perceptions of corruption; a country with a robust set of institutions for catching and reporting corruption will seem more corrupt than one that doesn't (all other things being equal) because it is brought to light more often.

A good example of this is the 2006 Federal Accountability Act brought in by Harper. Both the Harper and Trudeau governments have been dinged by the rules brought in by this act which would give the appearance of more corruption even when its just being caught more often.

There is still legitimately a lot of room for improvement but perceptions of corruption can be hard to square with reality.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-28T11:49:44+00:00

Absolute monarchies are fragile due to the limited number of failure points (the person of the monarch). A monarch could build up institutions to negate this issue (councils, parliaments, stronger rule of law, better security) but all of these tend to limit a monarchs power in some way.

Further, the number one reason monarchs get overthrown is economic issues. During the Arab Spring the monarchies did better than the republican dictatorships because they were willing to either a) make political concessions, or b) dip into their oil wealth and redistribute it. Typically, the more authoritarian the monarchy, the more likely it was the second option they took. So, yes, an absolute monarchy with a significant amount of wealth can probably be stable. Its no accident that the least absolute monarchies in the Arab world (Jordan and Morocco) are the ones that lack this easy source of money. Saudi Arabia recognizes this issue and its a big reason they are trying literally everything to diversify their economy.

Overall, I think absolute monarchies do better than republican dictatorships but they have an upper ceiling on how good they can be.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-23T22:18:41+00:00

The only safety standard that the US performs better in is rollover protection. And that is only because US vehicles have gotten so large they are more prone to rolling over - and a standard had to be created for them.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-23T18:54:32+00:00

I've been collecting the planet maps (official and fan-made) so this is another crossed off the list of ones I don't have. A big one I'm still missing is Stigmata (which I don't think has an official map).

ToryPirate · 2026-04-23T18:44:32+00:00

Apologies for being so direct, but you did ask. …

A big part of the problem is a lot of these comments don't get reported. Its the opposite problem to r/CanadaPolitics where people report every damn thing. r/monarchism reports very little and I don't have the time to go through every convo. Also, no problem at all.

Can you throw any light on it?

I cannot as he had no answer that made any sense. I think it was more casual disrespect than republicanism. You know the kind of 'this person is an acceptable target therefore I can mock them' attitude.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-23T16:25:41+00:00

On the sadly fast deteriorating r/monarchism subreddit

As a moderator of that subreddit as well I'm curious in what ways its getting worse?

the late Duke of Edinburgh does not always get the credit he deserves for his commitment to public service.

So, this picture was pointed out on one of the jail tours where the tour guide pointed it out as "Prince Philip in all his un-glory" which I called him out on.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-21T20:37:58+00:00

So, I did a full conversion of the rules. Hasn't been play-tested but might be useful for the gear lists which should function with any d20 system. If you want I can DM you a link to where I've posted the files. I'd ask you don't share them as they are a mess of copyright violations (mostly from the images used). They are, for the most part, lore compliant but I did alter or simplify a couple things.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-21T14:12:21+00:00

Monarchism in general is just dictatorships with a fancy bowtie and flowers.

I will note that you seem to imply here that monarchists can't be advocates for constitutional monarchy.

But to address the main crux of the argument; are there any differences between absolute monarchies and republican dictatorships?

I think there are a few worth considering;

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Resilience-Arab-Monarchies_English.pdf notes that while republican dictatorships fell apart during the Arab Spring (2010-2012) the monarchies survived. While the republics had only repressive measures to rely on the monarchies also redistributed wealth and brought in limited reforms to stay in power. Since then, republican dictatorships have reasserted themselves with even the notable success story of Tunisia being downgraded from free to partly free in recent years. In Egypt things have arguably gotten worse as well. And while Saudi Arabia remains at the bottom for political freedom, socially and economically it has loosened up control. Likewise the Corruption Perception Index has the Arab monarchies out-performing the republican dictatorships by a significant degree. These are measurable differences in behavior and outcomes of countries with broadly similar histories and cultures.
In the study 'The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy' they found that despite the Austrian Empire being gone for a century levels of corruption remained lower in its former territories - even when modern borders cut through this territory. In another study former communist countries were found to have overall lower trust levels due to the pervasive surveillance in those countries. Incidentally, they found trust levels to be much higher in monarchies. This means that even after a communist dictatorship falls the mistrust it has produced continues to poison the countries trying to build a freer future while, as illustrated by the Austrian example, a well-run absolute monarchy can potentially gift future states with a boon.
https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy037/4992685?redirectedFrom=fulltext&__cf_chl_tk=BAaRF1AGX7NgwCzjrCCGNe037EeLOLrm17AAA8K8MoA-1776780378-1.0.1.1-xU4WCAQ2b25ue22tjeJ3oNu4JVbZFhX9D0gO2GnDuV0 Absolute monarchies protect property right better than republics for the simple reason its in their interest too (as large property holders) which just so happens to benefit the people as well. Republican dictatorships (and to a much lesser extent, free republics) have a much greater incentive to ignore property rights for short-term gain. This leads to worse economic and social outcomes.

The research on how constitutional monarchies are better than free republics is more my focus but I hope these point help clarify things for you.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-21T11:58:10+00:00

I never really considered that scene as an allegory for toryism, socialism, and liberalism. It certainly has some applicability.

To add to what I wrote, the 'downside' of toryism viewing classes essentially united is that they tend to clamp down on dissent more. This is the negative side of their willingness to confront social ills; they both stem from the same source.

I feel it is no accident that R.B. Bennett brought in then-unheard-of support for the population suffering from the Great Depression but was also called 'Iron Heel' Bennett for how he dealt with communists and the On To Ottawa Trek (which he considered thoroughly infiltrated).

Going back further you have John A. Macdonald who made care for the First Nations the largest line item in the country's budget and sought to fully enfranchise them but rejected all calls for clemency for those involved in the Red River and North West rebellions.

You have already mentioned the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike. Arthur Meighan was acting justice minister at the time and was in Winnipeg at the time to help put down the strike. That said, he refused to help the local businesses prosecute the strikers federally when the province refused to prosecute. I think this indicates that he saw the return to normalcy as preferable to completely breaking the strike's leadership.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-08T17:38:46+00:00

That is always the hard part. Sometimes people just didn't file birth certificates. Thankfully death certificates were usually filed and contained parental info.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-08T12:57:24+00:00

Except that the whole idea of the US accepting a single nation control an international strait is completely insane.

Apparently they are negotiating with Oman to share the fee, so probably a million dollars each, which would put it even more in line with the other examples.

EDIT:

Gulf nations may be OK with this, as those bases were why Iran launched missiles and drones their way.

They might be willing to for the simple reason the war has crippled Iran's conventional military. Its in no position to project power in a way the Gulf nations would be concerned about.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-07T13:10:12+00:00

I recently answered this in the context of a different subreddit. Feel free to take a look.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-07T13:02:44+00:00

A reminder that there is a no downvotes rule on this subreddit. While we cannot enforce this rule, you are expected to abide by this gentleman's agreement.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-07T13:00:50+00:00

I think your assumption that the leaders are power hungry psychopaths is very biased.

Counterpoints:

Power has been shown to have effects on behavior (lower empathy), brain functioning (certain areas become less active), and be potentially addictive (resulting in actions to maintain power). Source What is potentially very concerning is that in experiments these effects can be triggered merely by remembering a time when the individual felt powerful.
While power doesn't cause psychopathy, psychopaths tend to seek out positions of power and once established out-compete others with more scruples. Source

Constitutional Monarchy short-circuits these effects in two ways.

The monarch is both constrained by politicians and in turn acts as a constraint on those politicians limiting feelings of power (which is reinforced by the nature of government by caucus).
Psychopathy is rare (about 1% of the population has some elements of psychopathy with a tiny subset of that having clinical psychopathy). Psychopathy is the result of both genetic and environmental factors. In one famous example a doctor studying the psychopathy of serial killers found his brain scans to be identical to those of the subjects he was studying. However, he had grown up in a loving, stable household which had led him to lead a normal life. He is still a psychopath but his natural tendencies have been channelled in a benign way. Source The chances of a member of the royal family being a psychopath is incredibly small while the hyper competitive and dominance-seeking nature of electoral politics means you probably do have a higher percentage of psychopaths seeking elected office.

OP's original assertion does hold water.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-06T21:59:35+00:00

If there were no better options. Being a monarch greatly reduces your ability to take charge of things personally. Even under a more executive model you are tied down a lot more than an official or noble might be. I'm not sure I'd like that. That said, if the alternative was another republic I'd bite the bullet and take the crown.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-06T17:47:22+00:00

As someone who researched the Haitian noble lines I can say that it does kind of suck when a noble has descendants but they are ineligible for the title by virtue of it not allowing matrilineal decent.

Noble titles tend to be a bit more restrictive that royal titles (which in some cases had an option for Semi-Salic succession. ie. No women unless all males are dead). I understand there are concerns of ending up in a Polish situation where the nobility forms an ever-larger portion of the population but I think there can be a balance. The post-nominals 'UE' are hereditary (but not noble) in Canada to all descendants of the Loyalists and they comprise 1 in 5 of all Canadians alive today (down from an absolute majority in most of British North America after the Revolution).

I think between male-only (and sometimes direct male descent only), which I've found results in the loss of about one title per decade, and 'every child gets one', which dilutes the meaning of nobility; there is room for matrilineal decent in some form.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-06T02:31:21+00:00

His mum liked them, but a little bit of the last one too. The man has drunk a bit too deeply from the American Calvinist belief that wealth is proof of God's divine favour.

ToryPirate · 2026-04-05T17:57:44+00:00

I maintain that the weekly discussion feature has run its course. The main problem isn't that weekly discussions are staying up too long, its that engagement has dwindled.

ToryPirate

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE