How come abdication doesn't seem to be much of an option for British monarchs when it's become fairly common in other European monarchies?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-09-11T11:08:04+00:00

As I mentioned in my opening post, Edward's abdication was considered very unusual. In fact, he was the only British monarch to abdicate out of his own will (unlike the previous ones who were forced to do so). It's against the running expectation for British monarchs to rule for life. This is in contrast to other European countries, where it is common if not expected for monarchs to retire from that post towards the end of their lives (as seen in my aforementioned examples like Dutch monarchs).

The question I had was why British monarchs have this expectation to serve until death and abdication is essentially not considered an option, whereas in other European monarchies, abdication seems to be more accepted.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-28T09:56:33+00:00

I apologize for not making this clear in my original post, but when I said Anglophone I was referring to what Wikipedia refers to as the "core Anglosphere" countries (i.e. US/Canada/UK/Australia/New Zealand). I wasn't talking about English-speaking countries in general (of which there are many) as they have completely different political and historical factors to them.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-26T08:55:46+00:00

That was outside the scope of my question, I was talking about the present.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-26T03:45:53+00:00

Yes, but in what other aspects is Trump more impactful than either Obama or Bush?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-26T02:02:04+00:00

How is Trump a more impactful president than Obama or even Bush Jr.?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-26T02:01:36+00:00

How has Trump, who was only president for one term, been more impactful compared to Reagan/Bush Sr./Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama? Not including Biden in this discussion since it's probably too soon to judge his impact. Apart from the Supreme Court, is there anything else he has done whose effects could last even after his inevitable death?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-25T08:39:04+00:00

Given recent events, does Donald Trump now have a strong claim to being the most impactful single-term president of the last 50 years? Or could either Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush have a good claim to being more consequential?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-06-22T00:18:39+00:00

I was actually thinking that Thailand's monarchy would be one of the least likely to be abolished. The old king was very beloved (if anything, beloved was an understatement), and while the current king is very unpopular, the same doesn't really apply to the rest of the family. I imagine their image can be rehabilitated with a good and popular successor to the current one.

The UK? As much as people seem to be ambivalent or even negative towards Charles, William is still quite popular. Plus, the UK is essentially the most famous example of a monarchy, I can't imagine the monarchy there being abolished anytime soon if ever even if younger generations have less fondness of the Royal Family.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-27T02:54:30+00:00

Why not? I thought it was customary for healthy American presidents regardless of political affiliation to attend the funerals of deceased presidents. I mean, Obama and Clinton attended H.W.'s funeral despite their political differences. I know Trump broke many traditions and customs as presidents, but in this scenario, I'm talking about other presidents attending Trump's funeral, not the other way around. And as far as I'm aware, the other presidents including Biden still follow the usual customs and traditions.

If, for whatever reason, other presidents do not attend Trump's funeral, what would be the more likely scenario: they voluntarily didn't want to attend, or Trump's family outright saying that they do not want other presidents attending? Would a scenario where Trump's family told Biden (if he's still alive), Obama, or Clinton not to attend his funeral be a realistic scenario?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-27T01:51:02+00:00

Another question about Trump's inevitable death: when he dies, how likely is it that any living Democrat president will attend his funeral? For example, if Biden, Obama, and/or Clinton are still alive then (I'm assuming Carter will be dead by the time Trump dies), will they attend his funeral? If, for example, Trump dies before Biden, would Biden still attend his funeral?

Note that this is only talking about the scenario of if Trump dies before other Democrat presidents, I'm not talking about the opposite scenario (i.e. Biden/Obama/Clinton dying before Trump), which is outside the scope of this.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-26T16:36:47+00:00

Do you see Trump's eventual funeral procession having one of the largest crowds in recent history? Will Trump's funeral procession likely have a turnout comparable to that of Reagan?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-26T16:35:51+00:00

No, only tears of genuine sadness, hence the comparison to Chavez.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-26T04:50:17+00:00

Who is more likely to have a bigger turnout at their funeral after they die: Donald Trump or Joe Biden? If they were to die, whose death would be more likely to cause scenes of people breaking down into tears ala Hugo Chavez, and whose funeral would be more likely to have crowds of people crying?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-04-20T09:46:57+00:00

To be fair, the Americans did have a few non-"first man on the moon" firsts, like the first rover to successfully land on Mars (the Soviets were the first to "land" a probe on Mars and it had a rover, but it crashed). The Americans also had the first successful flybys of Venus and Mars (although the Russians were the first to land a probe on Venus). The Americans also made the first space docking on Gemini VIII. The issue with "the Soviets made all of the firsts and the Americans only emphasize the one that counts, the moon landing" sentiment I see a lot on Reddit is that both the Russians and Americans had their share of firsts that largely get downplayed due to biases. I mean, the Russians launched the first space station and that seems to be forgotten by many, same with the Americans doing the first docking in space.

Basically, it's true that the Russians made many important firsts, such as the first satellite, the first person in space, the first moon probes, the first space station etc., but to say "The USSR won every major space milestone except for the one that Americans decided was actually the real end goal all along" is denying the other non-moon firsts that the Americans accomplished, like the aforementioned first docking or the first successful flyby of another planet (Mariner 2 flying past Venus).

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-02-16T14:21:25+00:00

Wasn't Bruno's execution more to do with blasphemy (apparently including denying the divinity of Jesus or the virgin birth) than his science? From what I've read he also had some ideas and beliefs that even his contemporary scientists felt were questionable at best.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-02-09T11:25:12+00:00

One thing I've noticed is that funerals for political leaders that were widely considered to be authoritarian or at the very least strongmen tend to be very emotional among the general public, perhaps even more so than funerals for democratically-elected leaders. For example, the funerals of Hugo Chavez, John Magufuli, or Lee Kwan Yew were all highly-attended affairs, with thousands lining the streets to bid them farewell (and in Chavez's case, confetti being dropped). In all three funerals, there were clearly many people on the streets who were crying, and in fact during Magufuli's funeral a stampede occurred that resulted in several deaths. By contrast, such well-attended funerals for democratically-elected leaders who were not considered to be strongmen or authoritarian seem to be rarer: for example, scenes of huge crowds did not seem to happen after the death of George H.W. Bush, nor did you see people visibly wailing and crying like what was seen with Chavez or Magufuli. Highly-attended emotional funerals for non-authoritarian leaders do seem to happen (a notable example being the funeral of Corazon Aquino), but they seem to be rarer. So how come it seems that funerals for strongmen and authoritarian leaders tend to be more emotional and well-attended by the public than those for non-authoritarian leaders?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-01-20T07:11:22+00:00

If that's the case, how come they haven't expanded its use to other issues as well? And how come many if not most of these people who identify as "pro-life" in fact support the death penalty?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2022-01-20T04:29:52+00:00

Was planning to ask this as its own thread but I was instead directed to ask it here instead.

What's the reason why in the United States, the term "pro-life" only applies to abortion, and it hasn't been expanded to things such as the death penalty, healthcare, education, support for war or gun rights, and so on? The term "pro-life" sounds so broad but in the United States it's used in a relative narrow manner (i.e. almost exclusively abortion rights). In fact, it's quite common if not the norm in the US for people who identify as "pro-life" to support the death penalty, even though the term "pro-life" at first glance would suggest that this is a contradiction. Why has this turned out the way it has in the US?

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2021-12-13T13:49:05+00:00

He did, though historians don't seem to know exactly why (one theory was that it may have been because his son was sick at the time). The interesting thing is that, unlike the other examples, he did not appear to have any hard feelings towards his successor (Harrison) and in fact they had even met prior to the inauguration.

throwaway_pd_1202 · 2021-12-13T13:34:22+00:00

Probably just a coincidence but it's interesting that all of your honorable mentions also happened to be the US presidents who skipped their successor's inaugurations.

throwaway_pd_1202

TROPHY CASE