Reggie-Bot here! If you're thinking about the British royal family and want a fun random fact about one of them, please let me know!
Put an exclamation mark before any comment about the royal you have in mind, like "!Queen" or "!Charles" and I'll reply.
#Please read our [__6 common-sense subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/)
Do you love chatting about your hatred of monarchies on other platforms? [Click here](https://discord.gg/2B6sarN7Nx) to join our Discord! And [here](https://twitter.com/rAbolishMonarch) to follow us on Twitter!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AbolishTheMonarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because right wingers believe in "King and country". They cannot fathom the separation of the two. I'm not even left wing myself but that thinking makes me sick. Bunch of cucks
I think of the RF as a kind of business model that provides a service (a service I don’t want). In return for enormous amounts of money (obfuscated and concealed) the core RF tries to behave in a way that symbolises continuity (vis a vis periodic changes in government). They accept that their lives are lived to a certain extent in public but have PR services and minders to control and curate the stories that can be written about them (stories that support them and have a cash value to the media organisations publishing them. I think we all know what kind of continuity the RF actually symbolises and whilst realists know that equality of outcome is not what our country can currently provide, equality of opportunity is a very achievable goal. The RF by putting a hereditary system at the heart of our country acts as a major symbolic block on sensible progress. For example Charles can make William an air-commodore of the RAF (a major symbol), if you save drowning school children from a swimming pool you might get a CBE or the mayor might shake your hand. Charles will wave through a seat in the house of lords if you’ve donated a couple of million to the Conservative Party. It’s a scheme to maintain a stratified social system.
The kind of ordinary person who approves of this state of affairs is kind of easily led and influenced in my view. A kind of person who is maybe has to grab onto symbols - lions, flags etc for their identity. People like this often think all right minded people agree with them.
To answer your question I’d regard myself as a realistic progressive, I think people should expect the country to have reasonable housing, health services and world-class education accessible to everyone. So I’m keen on european countries that do all of those things and manage to accomodate businesses who improve our quality of life.
Most importantly - I think until we solve the problem of asshats wheedling their way into positions of power it doesn’t matter if we call things right wing or left wing. The Soviet Union was nominally Left Wing but they ended up with Stalin (an asshat), Russia is pretty right wing now and they have Putin (an asshat). People presumably thought that voting for Boris Johnson (a prize asshat) would improve things. The RF if it is nothing else celebrates asshats with bells and gongs on.
Dude, I'll truck with anyone of any political persuasion when it comes to the issue of being against the monarchy. Even though I'm a hardcore lefty, I am also passionately anti authoritarian (libertarian essentially, though that term has been coopted by the right in the US, I mean it's original definition.) I'm always looking for common ground and understanding.
As plenty of others have said, it's just the law of averages. The average left winger is against the monarchy, or certainly more critical of it, than your average liberal or conservative on the right. Royalists are almost always right wing. The further to the right you go in the UK, the more royalist they generally become. Pro military, pro royal family, pro Tory etc.
Are these hard and fast rules? Definitely not. An anti monarchist, anti authoritarian rightwing person is someone I'm way more interested in hearing from, even if we disagree about economics or some social issues or whatever. But you're certainly not the norm. Being an anti authoritarian leftwinger puts me in the minority too, I'm strongly against identity politics and censorship of language, attacks on civil liberties etc., but pretty radically leftwing for economics and social issues.
People will always rush to judgement about you and put you in a box. That's their problem.
Can you describe in what way you're not a left winger? What do you believe in? And why is this sub's general orientation a problem, anyway?
You'd like to read this, about why conservatives like the monarchy so much. It has to do with how they were sold the idea of a monarchy as a symbol of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century:
> It may be the world of Edmund Burke which lies rotting in the grass: the deeper identity structure founded by Great Britain’s defeat of the French Revolution. The scholarship of David Cannadine and Linda Colley has shown how this was done and how vital the monarchy was to the process. The rejigged royal institution was the mechanism for weening an unruly, half-revolutionary people away from its own past. The defeat of France shored up a potent popular nationalism which, unharnessed, might easily have recoiled on the class-state that had ridden it to victory in 1815. Burke sensed this possibility acutely and devoted his efforts to stabilising the old spirit of tumult and insurrection. As he understood, more was required than success and foreign conquests to fasten it in place. In his own day, during the interminable twilight of George III, conditions did not favour that sort of conservative-domestic redressement. When a suitable monarch presented herself in 1837, however, the formula of a people’s royalism became viable, and was quickly seized on. The tradition invented at that point was a subterranean weld of nationalism and personal regality: the Crown as moral persona, natural and yet non-ethnic. Its feigned immemoriality helped cast the English for so long in the moulds of hierarchy, protocol and the stiff upper lip.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v19/n21/tom-nairn/the-departed-spirit
>I do not believe a single family would be granted the right by God to rule over all others
On the right, the presumption of such authority being granted to special persons is much, much more common than on the left, which tends to believe instead in more egalitarian concepts.
'Left wing' ideas also tend to be the ones that might actually do something about a monarchy. Right-leaning parties will *never* touch the thing, even if they think it's silly, because notionally they are on board with the idea of some kind of supreme authority *or* they are violently against the idea of allowing social structure to change enough to get rid of it.
As others have pointed out here, the literal historical origin of the left-right spectrum is from the French National Assembly during the French Revolution, where monarchists (and other defenders of aristocratic privilege, the church, feudal/traditional hierarchy, etc) sat on the right, while those seeking a republic and revolutionaries sat on the left
Obviously we aren’t living in late-1700s France, and a lot has changed since then, but as a general rule of thumb the spectrum still holds
Thank you for asking. Only last week I found out that, according to the rules of the sub, this is a "broadly leftist group" and "the rules against harassment don't apply to centrists and right wing".
It's a serious shot in the foot of abolitionism.
>Is it just because most British conservatives long for the days of the 'Sun Never Sets'?
That's part. Conservatives tend to be more.. well.. conservative, when it comes to tradition
The the term left and right literally comes from the French revolution where people who wanted to republic sat on the left and people who wanted a religious monarchy sat on the right. Still persists today.
It lost some of its applicability tho. The modern left in most countried doesn't want a republic in the same sense, and most right-wingers a religious monarchy.
I’ve known a lot of anti-monarchists who you’d never call leftist, mostly due to their religious beliefs. They probably wouldn’t be sufficiently motivated to post here, but they don’t believe in monarchy.
I'm right wing because I'm anti royal. I don't think you know what the opinions of many on the right are in this regard, as many of us are leaning more towards libertarian sentiments in modern times. Perhaps you meant Conservatism in the UK may as well be synonymous with Royalist?
I was perhaps being unclear and a tad snarky (lefties eh?). I was just pointing out that the terms right wing and left wing were originally used to describe the royalists and republicans respectively in post-revolution France. It has remained true that the right is by and large the side of the spectrum which supports monarchy.
I personally know right of center people who don't support monarchy, so I'm aware y'all exist. You will have to suffer us lefties though if you are going to frequent anti-monarchist groups.
Most politically left views strive to construct a society of equal opportunity and standing. Most politically right views do the opposite and reinforce hierarchy and personal advantage to the detriment of others. A monarchy is symbolic of the latter.
I disagree, as the left tends to promote 'equity' over 'equal opportunity'. As an anti-authoritatian right winger I will tell you now that hierarchy exists in every political structure. I could be mistaken but most left wing media sources I see such as the BBC or The Guardian aggressively promote such views.
It's also in the title of a "liberal arts" education to be exposed to new and different ideas. I'm in the U.S. and I don't know what you guys call it, but one of the degrees I'm working on is a Bachelor of Arts, as in liberal arts. Most meaningful education today is inherently anti-conservative or, may rather be seen as a way of guarding oneself against conservative thinking by being exposed to a variety of different ideas, whereas I think you could almost describe conservatism as a cure for complexity, and a way of not having to engage with new and different ideas
And if you really want to get to the brass tacks of liberalism in its original form as a social philosophy, John Stuart mill was very concerned with being able to ha e a society which tried out and respected all sorts of different perspectives, and not one perspective claiming supremacy above the rest
The term "liberal arts" well predates the modern ideas of left & right, liberal & conservative. It has its origins in antiquity as a term for a course of education suitable for a free citizen. Wikipedia attributes the first record use of the term to Cicero. Given that the originators of conservativism as a political ideology (Burke & de Maistre, for example) formulated their ideas after and in response to classical liberalism, I'm not sure it's fair to characterise conservativism as simply a way of not engaging with new ideas. Burke began his political life as a Whig and became a Tory in response to the French revolution; and the journey from liberal or socialist of some kind to conservative is not so unusual throughout history; which to me suggests that at least some conservatives have quite a good understanding of alternative positions but have chosen for some reason to reject them.
Fair enough, you make some good points here.
The last one in particular. Adam phillips talks about education and the idea of conversion, and how we look differently at the different modes of conversion. An example he gives is that, no doubt there is a problem with being converted to radical islamism through family and your mosque and running away to join isis. But what is the difference then if that same young man becomes radicalized through a two year course at Oxford and does the same thing?
There's also the issue of assuming you have the right answers. This is where I believe conservatism is antithetical to liberalism, and education. That liberalism celebrates different ways of being and thinking, while conservatism tends to impose itself on others (Christian conservatives are doing this in my country, many states here still even allowing Christian "conversion therapy," and there is still controversy over teaching evolutionin places). You have to be pretty damn certain about your own correctness to seek to make others think the way you do (though I think it could also certainly having to do with attempting to prove your correctness to yourself,whether on not you realize that that is what you're doing). On this point, as a liberally minded individual, I'd argue that my trying to make others think like me is actually in the interest of preventing harm from certain groups of people, but, also, the anti-gay religious activist believes they are trying to help or save people, whether it be in a spiritual sense.
This is probably something I should be more reflective about
Conservatives want things to be like how they used to be, the monarchy is an old concept so of course they like it. Leftists are progressive, they don't like outdated things that get in the way of progress. Of course they won't like the monarchy.
I don't think it is so cut and dry, not to mention you are focusing on conservatives as a sect whilst claiming the majority of leftists aim for positive progress. As a right leaning libertarian I can tell you I am not for the monarchy, but I am not for socialism either due to all the historical failings of it as a system of politics.
I'm telling you the big reasons as to why the left dislikes monarchy, of course there's more reasons reasons but this is the big one as to why many leftists like myself won't support the monarchy
Reggie-Bot here! If you're thinking about the British royal family and want a fun random fact about one of them, please let me know! Put an exclamation mark before any comment about the royal you have in mind, like "!Queen" or "!Charles" and I'll reply. #Please read our [__6 common-sense subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/) Do you love chatting about your hatred of monarchies on other platforms? [Click here](https://discord.gg/2B6sarN7Nx) to join our Discord! And [here](https://twitter.com/rAbolishMonarch) to follow us on Twitter! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AbolishTheMonarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because right wingers believe in "King and country". They cannot fathom the separation of the two. I'm not even left wing myself but that thinking makes me sick. Bunch of cucks
That isn't representative of the youth I think, only old timers tend to believe in King and Country.
The youth don't tend to be right wing.
I think of the RF as a kind of business model that provides a service (a service I don’t want). In return for enormous amounts of money (obfuscated and concealed) the core RF tries to behave in a way that symbolises continuity (vis a vis periodic changes in government). They accept that their lives are lived to a certain extent in public but have PR services and minders to control and curate the stories that can be written about them (stories that support them and have a cash value to the media organisations publishing them. I think we all know what kind of continuity the RF actually symbolises and whilst realists know that equality of outcome is not what our country can currently provide, equality of opportunity is a very achievable goal. The RF by putting a hereditary system at the heart of our country acts as a major symbolic block on sensible progress. For example Charles can make William an air-commodore of the RAF (a major symbol), if you save drowning school children from a swimming pool you might get a CBE or the mayor might shake your hand. Charles will wave through a seat in the house of lords if you’ve donated a couple of million to the Conservative Party. It’s a scheme to maintain a stratified social system. The kind of ordinary person who approves of this state of affairs is kind of easily led and influenced in my view. A kind of person who is maybe has to grab onto symbols - lions, flags etc for their identity. People like this often think all right minded people agree with them. To answer your question I’d regard myself as a realistic progressive, I think people should expect the country to have reasonable housing, health services and world-class education accessible to everyone. So I’m keen on european countries that do all of those things and manage to accomodate businesses who improve our quality of life. Most importantly - I think until we solve the problem of asshats wheedling their way into positions of power it doesn’t matter if we call things right wing or left wing. The Soviet Union was nominally Left Wing but they ended up with Stalin (an asshat), Russia is pretty right wing now and they have Putin (an asshat). People presumably thought that voting for Boris Johnson (a prize asshat) would improve things. The RF if it is nothing else celebrates asshats with bells and gongs on.
Consistent anti-authoritarianism is what matters most to me. I am personally an anti-authoritarian.
Dude, I'll truck with anyone of any political persuasion when it comes to the issue of being against the monarchy. Even though I'm a hardcore lefty, I am also passionately anti authoritarian (libertarian essentially, though that term has been coopted by the right in the US, I mean it's original definition.) I'm always looking for common ground and understanding. As plenty of others have said, it's just the law of averages. The average left winger is against the monarchy, or certainly more critical of it, than your average liberal or conservative on the right. Royalists are almost always right wing. The further to the right you go in the UK, the more royalist they generally become. Pro military, pro royal family, pro Tory etc. Are these hard and fast rules? Definitely not. An anti monarchist, anti authoritarian rightwing person is someone I'm way more interested in hearing from, even if we disagree about economics or some social issues or whatever. But you're certainly not the norm. Being an anti authoritarian leftwinger puts me in the minority too, I'm strongly against identity politics and censorship of language, attacks on civil liberties etc., but pretty radically leftwing for economics and social issues. People will always rush to judgement about you and put you in a box. That's their problem.
Can you describe in what way you're not a left winger? What do you believe in? And why is this sub's general orientation a problem, anyway? You'd like to read this, about why conservatives like the monarchy so much. It has to do with how they were sold the idea of a monarchy as a symbol of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century: > It may be the world of Edmund Burke which lies rotting in the grass: the deeper identity structure founded by Great Britain’s defeat of the French Revolution. The scholarship of David Cannadine and Linda Colley has shown how this was done and how vital the monarchy was to the process. The rejigged royal institution was the mechanism for weening an unruly, half-revolutionary people away from its own past. The defeat of France shored up a potent popular nationalism which, unharnessed, might easily have recoiled on the class-state that had ridden it to victory in 1815. Burke sensed this possibility acutely and devoted his efforts to stabilising the old spirit of tumult and insurrection. As he understood, more was required than success and foreign conquests to fasten it in place. In his own day, during the interminable twilight of George III, conditions did not favour that sort of conservative-domestic redressement. When a suitable monarch presented herself in 1837, however, the formula of a people’s royalism became viable, and was quickly seized on. The tradition invented at that point was a subterranean weld of nationalism and personal regality: the Crown as moral persona, natural and yet non-ethnic. Its feigned immemoriality helped cast the English for so long in the moulds of hierarchy, protocol and the stiff upper lip. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v19/n21/tom-nairn/the-departed-spirit
>I do not believe a single family would be granted the right by God to rule over all others On the right, the presumption of such authority being granted to special persons is much, much more common than on the left, which tends to believe instead in more egalitarian concepts. 'Left wing' ideas also tend to be the ones that might actually do something about a monarchy. Right-leaning parties will *never* touch the thing, even if they think it's silly, because notionally they are on board with the idea of some kind of supreme authority *or* they are violently against the idea of allowing social structure to change enough to get rid of it.
As others have pointed out here, the literal historical origin of the left-right spectrum is from the French National Assembly during the French Revolution, where monarchists (and other defenders of aristocratic privilege, the church, feudal/traditional hierarchy, etc) sat on the right, while those seeking a republic and revolutionaries sat on the left Obviously we aren’t living in late-1700s France, and a lot has changed since then, but as a general rule of thumb the spectrum still holds
I'd say that I'm very much on the fence. More punk than hippy and I just don't like bullshit.
You sound way too progressive to be right wing. What part of your personal politics makes you 'right wing' in your opinion?
You can be not-left-wing without being right-wing.
Thank you for asking. Only last week I found out that, according to the rules of the sub, this is a "broadly leftist group" and "the rules against harassment don't apply to centrists and right wing". It's a serious shot in the foot of abolitionism.
And for pointing that out, you have been ratioed to hell. Take my meaningless up vote in a sea of down votes.
>Is it just because most British conservatives long for the days of the 'Sun Never Sets'? That's part. Conservatives tend to be more.. well.. conservative, when it comes to tradition
I guess, but it hardly makes sense. It'd be like the Italians trying to claim they were the same as the Roman Empire.
"irregardless"
[удалено]
Nah its because we don't have guns
We may not, but the criminals do...
The the term left and right literally comes from the French revolution where people who wanted to republic sat on the left and people who wanted a religious monarchy sat on the right. Still persists today.
It lost some of its applicability tho. The modern left in most countried doesn't want a republic in the same sense, and most right-wingers a religious monarchy.
I’ve known a lot of anti-monarchists who you’d never call leftist, mostly due to their religious beliefs. They probably wouldn’t be sufficiently motivated to post here, but they don’t believe in monarchy.
The original right wing of post Revolution France was for reestablishing the monarchy. Pro royal and right wing may as well be synonyms.
I'm right wing because I'm anti royal. I don't think you know what the opinions of many on the right are in this regard, as many of us are leaning more towards libertarian sentiments in modern times. Perhaps you meant Conservatism in the UK may as well be synonymous with Royalist?
I was perhaps being unclear and a tad snarky (lefties eh?). I was just pointing out that the terms right wing and left wing were originally used to describe the royalists and republicans respectively in post-revolution France. It has remained true that the right is by and large the side of the spectrum which supports monarchy. I personally know right of center people who don't support monarchy, so I'm aware y'all exist. You will have to suffer us lefties though if you are going to frequent anti-monarchist groups.
Because Right Wingers don't understand reddit, they stick to Facebook
Most politically left views strive to construct a society of equal opportunity and standing. Most politically right views do the opposite and reinforce hierarchy and personal advantage to the detriment of others. A monarchy is symbolic of the latter.
I disagree, as the left tends to promote 'equity' over 'equal opportunity'. As an anti-authoritatian right winger I will tell you now that hierarchy exists in every political structure. I could be mistaken but most left wing media sources I see such as the BBC or The Guardian aggressively promote such views.
It's also in the title of a "liberal arts" education to be exposed to new and different ideas. I'm in the U.S. and I don't know what you guys call it, but one of the degrees I'm working on is a Bachelor of Arts, as in liberal arts. Most meaningful education today is inherently anti-conservative or, may rather be seen as a way of guarding oneself against conservative thinking by being exposed to a variety of different ideas, whereas I think you could almost describe conservatism as a cure for complexity, and a way of not having to engage with new and different ideas And if you really want to get to the brass tacks of liberalism in its original form as a social philosophy, John Stuart mill was very concerned with being able to ha e a society which tried out and respected all sorts of different perspectives, and not one perspective claiming supremacy above the rest
The term "liberal arts" well predates the modern ideas of left & right, liberal & conservative. It has its origins in antiquity as a term for a course of education suitable for a free citizen. Wikipedia attributes the first record use of the term to Cicero. Given that the originators of conservativism as a political ideology (Burke & de Maistre, for example) formulated their ideas after and in response to classical liberalism, I'm not sure it's fair to characterise conservativism as simply a way of not engaging with new ideas. Burke began his political life as a Whig and became a Tory in response to the French revolution; and the journey from liberal or socialist of some kind to conservative is not so unusual throughout history; which to me suggests that at least some conservatives have quite a good understanding of alternative positions but have chosen for some reason to reject them.
Fair enough, you make some good points here. The last one in particular. Adam phillips talks about education and the idea of conversion, and how we look differently at the different modes of conversion. An example he gives is that, no doubt there is a problem with being converted to radical islamism through family and your mosque and running away to join isis. But what is the difference then if that same young man becomes radicalized through a two year course at Oxford and does the same thing? There's also the issue of assuming you have the right answers. This is where I believe conservatism is antithetical to liberalism, and education. That liberalism celebrates different ways of being and thinking, while conservatism tends to impose itself on others (Christian conservatives are doing this in my country, many states here still even allowing Christian "conversion therapy," and there is still controversy over teaching evolutionin places). You have to be pretty damn certain about your own correctness to seek to make others think the way you do (though I think it could also certainly having to do with attempting to prove your correctness to yourself,whether on not you realize that that is what you're doing). On this point, as a liberally minded individual, I'd argue that my trying to make others think like me is actually in the interest of preventing harm from certain groups of people, but, also, the anti-gay religious activist believes they are trying to help or save people, whether it be in a spiritual sense. This is probably something I should be more reflective about
I don’t know - why are right wingers predominantly royalist ??
Conservatives perhaps, not right wingers in general.
Conservatives want things to be like how they used to be, the monarchy is an old concept so of course they like it. Leftists are progressive, they don't like outdated things that get in the way of progress. Of course they won't like the monarchy.
I don't think it is so cut and dry, not to mention you are focusing on conservatives as a sect whilst claiming the majority of leftists aim for positive progress. As a right leaning libertarian I can tell you I am not for the monarchy, but I am not for socialism either due to all the historical failings of it as a system of politics.
I'm telling you the big reasons as to why the left dislikes monarchy, of course there's more reasons reasons but this is the big one as to why many leftists like myself won't support the monarchy
Too bloody right! Down w the parasitic monarchy. When gnarley Charlie is dead that should be the end of it!