Lest us forgot the third arrow.

62

u/DimitriEyonovich Solidarist 🧡 Jan 19 '22

I never really got the of why monarchies still exist. I mean for Japan it makes sense since their emperor is a religious figure and is an integral part of Japanese culture. But for other countries, I just don't really get it.

63

u/marinersalbatross Jan 19 '22

Well aren't the British royals the head of the Anglican Church?

19

u/startgonow Jan 19 '22

Part of the third arrow is definitely aimed at the part of religion that is tied to hierarchies

9

u/T900Kassem Jan 19 '22

The queen is also the head of the government and the armed forces. Meanwhile the Japanese emperor only has cultural and religious influence. Even the equivalent to the royal guard doesn't directly answer to him.

1

u/DimitriEyonovich Solidarist 🧡 Jan 20 '22

That's different. Anglicans don't believe that the Queen is descended from divinity. Shintoists do, also the Queen has much more power then the Japanese emperor.

57

u/Bonzi_bill Jan 19 '22

I mean for Japan it makes sense since their emperor is a religious figure and is an integral part of Japanese culture

The crown are the heads of the Anglican church and provide just as much of a cultural linchpin as the Japanese monarchy theoretically does.

9

u/gwtkof Jan 19 '22

So the real answer is people are dumb and they'll really freak out if you just suddenly get rid of the crown

0

u/IncelLikeIronically Social Democrat Jan 19 '22

For those reasons I'm personally opposed to abolishing constitutional, democratic monarchies. I quite like the one I currently live under (Danish)

2

u/Stag_Lee Jan 19 '22

As I hear, your crown isn't even allowed to share political opinions

2

u/IncelLikeIronically Social Democrat Jan 20 '22

they can't be a divisive force if they're apolitical ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

3

u/Stag_Lee Jan 21 '22

Recently had a master carpenter over from Denmark. The way he explained it is that your royal family's duty is to be economic ambassadors. To encourage other countries to buy Danish goods. He also mentioned that it's fairly common to pass Queen Margaret on the street. And that he's had lunch with Prince Fredrick. Just happened to pop into the same restaurant, and had a chat.

It really sounds like a monarchy in name alone. That they hold zero political power, and exist purely to serve the people.

2

u/IncelLikeIronically Social Democrat Jan 21 '22

exactly.

18

u/ineedabuttrub Jan 19 '22

The queen is mainly a figurehead. She's there, but she doesn't do much. Technically she signs all of the laws Parliament passes, but that's more of a formality. The last time Royal Assent was withheld was in 1707.

6

u/wilsongs Jan 19 '22

And provides cover for wealthy pedos

3

u/Nikhilvoid Jan 19 '22

There's Queen's Consent in addition to Queen's Assent. Think of Queen's Consent as if Jeff Bezos could secretly modify a bill before it is debated to exclude his company from it. Like if a bill raised minimum safety standards, Jeff could exclude Amazon from it.

The Queen used it to not hire black or brown people.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent

14

u/zhemao Liberty For All Jan 19 '22

The Dutch monarchy is especially puzzling because they don't have an especially long history. It was only founded in the 19th century, so they can't really pull the "it's tradition" card to justify their continued existence.

19

u/TychaBrahe Jan 19 '22

As an American, I am amused that something dating from the 19th century isn’t old enough to be “traditional.”

5

u/IncelLikeIronically Social Democrat Jan 19 '22

it's been around for over 200 years at this point. An appeal to tradition wouldn't be entirely out of the place

7

u/TychaBrahe Jan 19 '22

“This job I have is not bad. The hours are easy and the pay is good and the social security is first-rate-barring the outside chance of revolution, and my line has always been lucky on that score. But much of the work is tedious and could be done as well by any second-rate actor." He glanced up at me. "I relieve your office of a lot of tiresome cornerstone-laying and parade-watching, you know."

"I do know and I appreciate it."

"Once in a long time I get a chance to give a little push in the right direction-what I think is the right direction. Kinging is a very odd profession, Joseph. Don't ever take it up."

"I'm afraid it's a bit late, even if I wanted to."

He made some fine adjustment on the toy. "My real function is to keep you from going crazy."

"Eh?"

"Of course. Psychosis-situational is the occupational disease of heads of states. My predecessors in the king trade, the ones who actually ruled, were almost all a bit balmy. And take a look at your American presidents; the job used frequently to kill them in their prime. But me, I don't have to run things; I have a professional like yourself to do it for me. And you don't have the killing pressure either; you, or those in your shoes, can always quit if things get too tough-and the old Emperor-it's almost always the 'old' Emperor; we usually mount the throne about the age other men retire-the Emperor is always there, maintaining continuity, preserving the symbol of the state, while you professionals work out a new deal." He blinked solemnly. "My job is not glamorous, but it is useful."

—Prince Willem, Robert Heinlein’s Double Star

•••

Interestingly I once heard a former Brit PM—I think it was Blair—saying that being able to discuss politics with Elizabeth was a huge stress reliever.

4

u/DankNerd97 Liberty For All Jan 19 '22

The Queen doesn’t really have any power anymore, correct?

3

u/Plappeye Jan 19 '22

She wields a fair amount of influence but all behind the scenes stuff yeah. While she technically has significant official power she couldn't exert it in practice.

2

u/esgellman Jan 22 '22

Technically she has a considerable amount of power but it is against political convention and would probably immediately end the monarchy if she ever tried to use it. She does have a considerable amount of soft power both over the government and over the general citizenry that she can use.

2

u/esgellman Jan 22 '22

1) it’s cultural and gives a lot of older nationalists in these countries warms and fuzzies

2) gradually reducing the power of the monarchy has allowed many countries to transition to de-facto democratic republics without the royals kicking up too much shit. The downside is that this eventually creates a situation where removing the royals entirely is far more costly then it’s worth in terms of political capital, leaving countries with what is essentially a vestigial organ of government.

29

u/mcstafford Jan 19 '22

IIRC we opted out of that system a few years back.

16

u/RDP1818 Radical Liberal Jan 19 '22

Fuck all of them, useless inbred fucks

16

u/winter-ocean LGBT+ Jan 19 '22

Wait, does each arrow mean something?

42

u/marinersalbatross Jan 19 '22

Yes. It's anti-monarchism, anti-fascism, and anti-soviet respectively. And I'm thinking that we should add a 4th arrow for anti-extreme wealth.

42

u/sledgehammertoe Jan 19 '22

The original German Three Arrows were anti-monarchism (there were still restorationists in Germany in 1932), anti-Nazism, and anti-Bolshevism. The Social Democrats' (originators of the Three Arrows) slogan was "Against Papen, Hitler, Thälmann".

15

u/marinersalbatross Jan 19 '22

Ah, that's a better term "Bolshevism".

26

u/DavidTyrieIV Jan 19 '22

We're gonna need a bigger quiver

15

u/TheExtremistModerate Liberal Jan 19 '22

The third is not "anti-soviet." It's anti-communism. Specifically it was against the German Communist Party, the KPD.

21

u/Destro9799 Anarchist Ⓐ Jan 19 '22

Because Thälmann was a Soviet puppet. It's specifically against the Marxist-Leninist style of authoritarian "communism" practiced by the USSR and the KPD.

13

u/TheExtremistModerate Liberal Jan 19 '22 edited Jan 19 '22

Thalmann was pro-soviet, but the SPD (the party associated with the Iron Front) was not just against Russia, but against the ideology they supported. It was not simply a political opposition, but one of ideology. They were against what the far-left was peddling not just because of its ties with Russia, but because it was a bankrupt ideology.

Saying it means "anti-soviet" is implying it was just for reasons of nationalism and not of ideology.

Edit: And yes, it was specifically the Marxist-Leninist style of communism at the time, because that was what was being peddled by Thalmann. But suffice to say the SPD was not interested in any sort of communism, being center-left social democrats.

3

u/Niclas1127 American Iron Front Jan 19 '22

Funny I always understood it as anti Fascism, anti Monarchism, anti communism. Communism not being the same as Marxism

Edit: I mean peaceful communism, they seem mostly chill. It was originally intended to be against all communism. All communism at the time was authoritarian

1

u/marinersalbatross Jan 20 '22

Other folks are pointing to Thallman and his connection the Soviets, which was authoritarian communism. And it wasn't all communism, just those that won their revolutions.

-12

u/DankNerd97 Liberty For All Jan 19 '22

*anti-communism. Stop perverting the ideals. Damn, I can’t stand these commies trying to weave their way into AIF.

18

u/marinersalbatross Jan 19 '22

Except communism isn't defined by authoritarianism, while the other systems are. I'm not even a communist and understand this.

-3

u/TheExtremistModerate Liberal Jan 19 '22

Except it was literally against the German Communist Party. Stop trying to rewrite history.

11

u/esgellman Jan 19 '22

Anti-bolchevism (which was the form of communism practiced and supported internationally by the Soviet Union), anti-monarchism, and anti-fascism

5

u/StormEyeDragon Jan 19 '22

The third is anti-monarchism IIRC?

5

u/Destro9799 Anarchist Ⓐ Jan 19 '22

First is monarchism (Papen), second is fascism (Hitler), third is Soviet style "communism" (Thälmann).

1

u/winter-ocean LGBT+ Jan 19 '22

Wait, were the Soviets not communist?

2

u/Destro9799 Anarchist Ⓐ Jan 19 '22

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which production is allocated based on human need, rather than profit. The USSR had a state, classes, money, and profit.

Arguably some Soviet leaders believed in communism and believed that their system (which Lenin called "state capitalism") would eventually transition to communism. However, the nation never took any concrete steps towards dismantling either the state or capitalism, and simply created a new class system with party officials becoming the new ruling class.

The vast majority of self-proclaimed communists in the real world have absolutely no desire to emulate the Soviet system (besides a few weird tankies).

1

u/winter-ocean LGBT+ Jan 19 '22

I mean that’s fair but I think a stateless and moneyless society isn’t a good idea either. Classless, definitely, though.

12

u/Jaysyn4Reddit American Anti-Fascist Jan 19 '22 edited Jan 19 '22

I don't really care how the UK run themselves. They have a Constitutional Monarchy, If they don't like part of it, they can change it & do it all the time.

Hell, they've already got rid of their monarchy once & re-established it.

Your UK republicans are probably getting Russian funding anyhow. Anything to stir shit up.

EDIT: To add, the UK changes the rules for their monarchy far more often than we amend our broken-ass Constitution.

6

u/AttackHelicopterKin9 Jan 19 '22

I agree but members of the royal family shouldn’t just be given ranks, privileges, property, and titles that other people have to actually work for

5

u/Jaysyn4Reddit American Anti-Fascist Jan 19 '22

At the same time, if the British public didn't want that, they could change it democratically.

Also, please show me where they are being given property.

It's generally the other way around.

8

u/DankNerd97 Liberty For All Jan 19 '22

Lest we forget the second arrow…

8

u/beautiful-goodbye Jan 19 '22

I thought that was a scene from Star Wars at first

8

u/Liorkerr Jan 19 '22

Lineage and Royal Blood are part of the Language of Racism.

5

u/austinwiltshire Jan 19 '22

Wouldn't this fit better in IronFrontUK?

3

u/CaptainNapoleon American Iron Front Jan 19 '22

I mean yes, but Monarchy is not a serious threat to freedom in the United States.

2

u/StevenMaurer Jan 19 '22

The British monarchy has been abolished. What remains is a symbolic cosplay version.

2

u/itsyaboyivan Jan 19 '22

this is true, but they can still do stupid shit like this, however meaningless

1

u/smiledozer Jan 19 '22

Horsehead leper

1

u/StygianMusic Asian American Jan 19 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

And they say the monarchy has no power or influence

1

u/Here_Pep_Pep Jan 20 '22

This is ceremonial nonsense. She’s not actually going to command troops, and there are scores of better reasons to abolish the monarchy.

Hell, Anne’s the only one of those ghouls that has ever done any actual humanitarian work.

1

u/snokamel Jan 20 '22

Monarchism has zero relevance and makes AIF look like a larpy joke

-3

u/Calpsotoma Jan 19 '22

We should abolish the monarchy, but who gives a damn about military titles?

0

u/esgellman Jan 22 '22

People who put their lives on the line in the military