A thought for both republicans and monarchists...

The comment about "stupid, weird things" refers to monarchies, jings, or the concept of monarchy as a method of law-making, and it expresses the view of the speaker in the podcast.

I understand what he meant (first clue as to the who) and agree with him rationally (as anno noticed) but, as he points out, empirically, the countries that are the most open and where people have the most freedom, have monarchies.

terribull is onto the sort of countries he was talking about. He included the UK.

Here's the link. Speaker is talking to Dave Rubin and the theme of the 'interview' is clear thinking. It's not a very long listen and it is interesting even if you don't like the speaker. Some gransnetters have said they don't. As usual I'm more concerned about what is being said rather than who is saying it.

#WhatNotWho

Oh. Stephen Fry.

You can't refer to kings and queens as being 'ideas'. A monarchy is an idea. Not the individuals concerned.

And he calls that clear thinking? Man's a buffoon and he doesn't realise it. Probably due to an over-endowment of pomposity.

And the fact that some crazies in America believe in angels, is down to the separation of Church and state? I don't think so!

I think he was talking about the idea of kings and queens being the same as the idea of monarchy. He was certainly not talking about individual kings or queens.

This article in a speccie is though, specifically Charles. Wheatcroft seems to think we could lose our monarchy (which Fry doesn't seem to want, and neither do I after hearing that podcast) if Charles becomes king. I don't think Wheatcroft is the only one to think that way either.

Although it is acknowledged that countries with monarchies are generally more stable than republics, I don't think there is any evidence to support the suggestion that there is a direct causal link between monarchy and increased stability.

Most of the countries that still retain monarchies are relatively wealthy (e.g. Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Portugal, Jordan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Monaca, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, UK, etc.), and so are likely to be more stable anyway. Even in "developed" countries - monarchies or republics - it is fairly evident that political stability is threatened when economic difficulties arise.

Some monarchies have been the source of great instability, having failed to adapt to changing opinions and demands, and have collapsed or been overthrown. It is only those countries who have retained their monarchies - by making it legally impossible to question their legitimacy (such as in Saudi Arabia or Thailand) or by successfully managing any rumblings of discontent from their own populations - where monarchies survive.

I would also suggest that several monarchical countries, such as the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, etc, have in the past colonised and exploited the poorer parts of the world and continue to exert their power over smaller nations. I believe it is not the lack of a monarch that has led to their instability but the lack of control over their own resources and the exploitation of those resources by more powerful countries. Those countries with monarchies that have not colonised or exploited other parts of the world but that have instead relied on exploiting their own people, often rule by fear.

He did say that he was not claiming that countries without monarchies are all unstable, but that in general those with monarchies are stable socially.

Only three clauses of the Magna Carta still stand, and one of those is to do with the freedom of the city of London.
One of the others is to do with us having to be tried by our peers. However, even that has been done away with in some circumstances.
So there is not much left of the Magna Carta.

Oh that is interesting. Do you know about Napoleonic Law?

No. I only know about the Magna Carta because there was an exhibiton about it in Durham Cathedral Green last year.
I took my grandson, and he saw one of the copies of the original one. They had to be copied by hand, and were sent to various city cathedrals so ordinary people could see them.
They couldn't read them, of course, and did not understand them.
The king, Henry 111 by then, did not take much notice if it, and it was altered by Simon de Montfort in 1265. The good thing about the de Montfort one is that it was written in English, instead of Latin and French.

The English Bill of Rights was just as important for ordinary people and MPs. That was in 1689, and allowed MPs to speak freely in parliament without fear of punishment.
It also prevented royalty from meddling in elections to make sure their favourite courtiers got in.
That happens in reverse now, with MPs' favourites being made Lords.
It also restated that laws and taxes require the consent of the English people through their representatives in parliament.

So this is what Cameron and cohort want us to go back to.