Radio 4 debate - Do we need a monarchy?

[Aintshesweet]

Glad this is being debated

I was holiday once in a country that King Charles was visiting. As I was passing through the small crowd that was gathered, I overheard part of a discussion with someone saying “what is this stupid old man doing here …”.

In times past, in a country like the one I was visiting, crowds would have gathered with lots of genuflecting going on. There was none of that. Only curiosity as to what was the point of this elderly man’s visit.

No we dont need a RF. Im firmly on team 'scrap it'.

In this day an age the whole notion of "royalty" is an anachronistic embarrassment. Vast wealth, privilege, status conferred by virtue of birth. Sorry, why?!

Charles, Camilla, William, Harry, Elizabeth, Andrew... it doesn't matter if people like them or not. The royals could be devils or angels and it wouldn't matter a jot because we'd be stuck with them. Can't vote them out, they don't have to be skilled or intelligent or moral they just have to be born. And we have to pay for them and have them "over" us.

Vive là republic!

Since the queen died and Andrew and Harry misbehaving I don't think anyone cares now. It limp on. Slim lined like some of European ones would be good.

Well I like the Royal Family and so do millions who are not on woke MN. I see no advantage with replacing them, we could end up with someone like Biden

Imagine how hated by everyone Harry would be if it dissolved!

His family would likely hold him personally responsible for their entire world crumbling down... and Meghan would basically see her entire revenue stream collapse. They need the monarchy, yet their actions are putting their entire future into question!

Could you please explain what "woke" means?

Yes. They've done damage that is probably irreparable

Yes. What does “woke” mean?

How absolutely horrible to be pro social justice and the humane treatment of others. So very “woke”and not in keeping with the foundation of the Monarchy.

We should all be pro Monarchy and anti-woke (ie pro social injustice, dehumanising others, etc).

Well said.

I'm proud to be woke. And when it is used as an insult by anyone, I know that person has lost the argument without trying!

Woke is one of those words where meaning has changed over a short space of time because the original understanding - people being aware of racial and social injustice (A GOOD THING) has been used latterly to mean anything that will cause other people to be offended. It's been weaponised and utilised against hypersensitive types who see offence in everything, especially when they're not part of the group with the right to be offended - are offended on behalf of others. People who can't see the value in respecting a different opinion.

This quote sums it up pretty well......

''To be woke is a fashionable identity. Like most creations derived from Black culture, woke was commodified and diluted of its essence. Anyone or anything can be woke: a brand, company, person. In capitalism’s possession, woke is more about performative grandstanding than anything else. Social media, which encourages behavior that’s performative, amplifies this.”
Elijah Watson

I go by the Merriam Webster definition. Suits me.

Which one?

Exactly - I'm definitely inviting @TodayInahurry to offer their definition though

: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
But we will only succeed if we reject the growing pressure to retreat into cynicism and hopelessness. … We have a moral obligation to "stay woke," take a stand and be active; challenging injustices and racism in our communities and fighting hatred and discrimination wherever it rises.—
Barbara Lee

Thanks for clarifying - MW have several definitions:

'politically liberal (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme'

'often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action'

Enter the age of the performatively woke brand. Politics has become a kind of fashion accessory for corporate America these days, a way to profit from protest.—
Jon Gingerich

"Fake woke" behavior arises. We put the hashtags on our social media. #Sayhername, #icantbreathe, #blacklivesmatter. And repeat. The problem is that the level of concern we express online doesn’t match the everyday behavior we exhibit.—
Surayya Walters

To truly understand the meaning and where we are today, you should look at the original meaning as pertains to social justice and then consider how it has been hijacked and watered down to detract from the very fundamental issues that word truly represents.

Those who want to use it as an insult should not get to redefine the word for their nefarious purposes.

Did you read my post of 10.09am......?

Woke unfortunately now deserves all the derision and ridicule it gets. It's been hijacked and devalued by incorrect usage. Originally used to highlight social injustice and racism it was a relevant word. Now we have Nike showing a man demonstrating a woman's bra and sportswear, men advertising their need for female sanitary products, companies forcing employees to use neutral address terms and everyone tiptoeing around unsure of what will offend people. It's now less acceptable to call someone black it's now a POC which is almost back the now offensive term coloured person. We're being told Jewish people don't suffer racism even though they clearly do.

A male rapist expecting to be incarcerated in a female prison has only come about because of the con job that wokery now is

Wokeism is being used as a weapon against the general population and as a insult against people who perhaps have genuine concerns It needs ditching and the genuine concerns of people addressed individually instead of this blanket term

Woke is a term which came from the US, and is therefore relevant to a specific American context and history. I would argue that its tenets are not totally applicable across the board. British society has a different character and history. The presence of ethnic minorities in Britain has a different context to that of the US,, and that's not to minimise problems.

Whatever 'woke' means - it's bound to mean something different to practically everyone. I resent woke being defined as 'being aware of and caring about social injustice'. Most people on here would probably put themselves in that category, but not all want to be described as 'woke' - I certainly don't. I care very much about these things and become enraged when I hear about racist behaviour. But I hate the 'looking to be offended' and 'competetive taking offence', 'I'm more offended than you' school of thought which is what woke means to me, through encountering tiresome virtue-signalling people with half-baked ideas and a shaky grasp of history.

I've worked mainly in education and - oh boy, that world has always been at the mercy of modish ideas. I remember the completely manufactured fuss over hot-cross buns and nativity plays being 'offensive' to other ethnic groups . This wasn't coming from those communities - they were generally fine with these things. To me, that's what characterises woke - over-thinking all kinds of things almost to prove how clever you are at discerning what might be offensive to some groups.

I bet that, if I were to do a checklist of opinions with all the people here who call themselves woke, there'd be very little to differ on. It's just the conscious stance - 'I'm more socially-conscious, just-minded...altogether a better person than you!' And it's incredibly divisive and alienating.

@CoffeeCantata exactly. It's a meaningless term

I probably approach this debate differently to most of you as I was born in Ceausescu’s Romania, literally a North Korea style dictatorship. We’ve since had a revolution and a fledgling democracy.

What has been noted again and again is that despite democratic institutions being set up on paper, history, culture and stability are much more important predetermining factors for the strength of a democracy. The uk has an unusual system in that a lot of its institutions are not set up in ways that are intuitively democratic. The monarchy being a prime example. Low levels of separation of powers in the state another. It has, however, an impressive track record of democratic tradition, much of it developed over decades and centuries of tensions and balance between its institutions.

This system has made the uk incredibly successful - it’s comparatively one of the safest, most prosperous places to live in and that has been the case over a long period of time. Stability has played a key role in that. So I’m not a fan of radical changes because in my experience new institutions are more likely to be corrupt, ineffective and lead to instability than established ones with democratic traditions.

@IronCurtain That is such an interesting post - Thank you 💐

@IronCurtain

" So I’m not a fan of radical changes because in my experience new institutions are more likely to be corrupt, ineffective and lead to instability than established ones with democratic traditions."

That is quite the sweeping statement . Any links for that ?

Parliament is an established institution.
Where does it fit ?

And in what way is an unelected hereditary head of state democratic?

I assume you don't include the monarchy in your 'democratic institution' grouping ?