Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Which I didn’t say. 
What I said was, assuming that that system of informal patronage enjoyed by the upper echelons of the class system would crumble *just because* of the absence of the monarchy is naive, because it is. This isn’t Bridgerton, social life for toffs and aristos doesn’t revolve around, or depend upon, life at court.
---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------
The World Economic Forum disagrees with you.
6 of the top 10 countries in their global social mobility index are constitutional monarchies. The UK stands at 21 in the global rankings; the USA, which notably fought a war to remove itself from British Crown influence, is 27th.
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global...ity_Report.pdf
All of these countries, including the USA, have formal systems of patronage as well as a multitude of unseen, informal social networks through which the rich and powerful keep the wealth and the power amongst themselves and those they approve of.
Remove the monarchy and watch how it makes absolutely zero difference to any of that, in 5, 10 or 50 years. |
Just because these countries may have, like us, an historical legacy to contend with does not make it wrong to address it. You would also do well not to use the USA as any kind of benchmark to aspire to
The points you fail to address are ones of principle & fairness. These goals are ones we should strive for as well as wealth & success. The proposition at the core of monarchy is essentially immoral no matter how you dress it up in expediency, populism and inertia. The point about the replacement of titled privilege with wealth-based power is a good one. However, in a system where there is no feudal legacy to contend with, you have a much easier task to change the system to address the abuse of wealth.