J Tyran said:
I wasn't referring to the Monarchs position as head of the Church of England, I presume your family is Catholic though.
Actually, I was referring to the persecution of non-Anglicans in general, which continued until the 19th century. Half my family is Quaker though, so it's slightly more directly relevant in the sense that the Quakers, from very early on, held a religious principle that everyone was born equal and that there should thus be no kings.
And I don't see how "both sides aren't blameless" works. When Catholic monarchs established Catholicism, non-Catholics were persecuted. When Anglican monarchs established Anglicanism, non Anglicans were persecuted. The problem is the establishment itself, which is essentially the root of the monarchy. We raise these people up because they are supposedly chosen by God to rule, and that inevitably means their God, not necessarily yours.
That divine right is what a monarch is. That is all that makes a monarch a monarch. It is what was affirmed when Elizabeth II was anointed at her coronation, and it's the same thing that will be affirmed when Charles is anointed at his coronation.
The fact that we are willing to deny it in our everyday lives doesn't make it any less the basis for the monarchy.
Intresting to see how many are saying the British royal family is leeching of the people though. Watch this video.
I really should just make a proper counter to that video.
Huh. I had no idea. Ignorance, baby! Why don't they teach this stuff in school? Because they don't want us to know...
Or alternately, because it's not actually true, and you shouldn't believe everything you watch on youtube.
The monarch theoretically "owns" the crown estate, but they have no legal control over it any more. The monarch also theoretically "owns" the treasury, the revenue service, the prison system, in fact every part of the government, but again they have no control over it.
This is simply a consequence of being a constitutional monarchy, a state which is by nature contradictory. All our public institutions were at one point literal
property of the monarch. However, that ownership has now become theoretical because it does not entail any of the usual rights of ownership. The monarch could not take back the crown estate any more than she could demand all prisoners be released from the prison system or just take all the country's tax revenue and stuff it in a Swiss bank account somewhere.