[googlryas]

That's not really what happened. The Shah was the ultimate authority in Iran, and he asked the Prime Minister to step down, which was his legal right. The Prime Minister said "No thanks, I'm the boss now", at which point the US/UK helped the Shah assert his actual legal right under their existing rule of law.

Can you tell me - if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

[teh_klev]

That's quite the re-writing of history there. The Shah removed Mosaddegh from power in 1952 but re-instated him almost immediately due to pressure from pro-democracy supporters. The Shah was then exiled after a failed coup attempt by one of his Imperial Guard colonels effectively leaving him powerless.

The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.

> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

Regardless of Johnson's behaviour and incompetence I'd hold my nose and throw my support behind the Prime Minister. Such autocratic behaviour should not be tolerated. I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.

[ballenf]

> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.

Curious why? Would you hold that position even if the monarch has present widespread support from the population?

Do you think something has changed to make that form of rule more objectionable than it was in the past? I.e., do you have an equally negative view of historic monarchies?

[ben0x539]

I wouldn't go around and label myself an anti-monarchist but I'm surprised that that's a contentious position? Yes, of course the people should strip all power from their monarchies/monarchs/aristocrats in a democracy, because democracy is about sovereign power originating from the people or whatever, not from divine right or right of conquest or tradition or something. And yes, of course historic monarchies are at least equally objectionable! As a rule I'm pretty sure they exploited people a lot worse than at least the present-day monarchies we tolerate for whatever reason!

If the monarch as a person has present widespread support from the population they can probably do the aristocratic equivalent of a gofundme to keep living in their pretty palace if that's what the population wants, and then get elected to normal political offices like a normal person. If the monarch as an office has present widespread support I'm going to quietly disagree with the population and in the case of the UK at least roll my eyes a little.

[googlryas]

As has been noted, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

[petre]

> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies

I guess Charles taking Bakr Bin Laden's (the half brother of Osama Bin Laden) money is not enough to outrage the English enough to strip him of his powers. But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.

[teh_klev]

> to strip him of his powers.

The thing is he has no powers. Even if/when he becomes king the "powers" of that role are purely ceremonial, even if enshrined in law and what paltry bits of a constitution we have in the UK. As another commenter here suggested, if the monarch were to use one of these powers (that they historically agreed not to use) then they'll endanger the privileges afforded to them for merely being the "royal family". They'll happily put up and shut up so they can roll around their estates in their Range Rovers and tweeds accompanied by their close protection unit.

> But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.

But they're all quite useless, and many of us already realise this.

[googlryas]

To label the protestors "pro-democracy supporters" is an interesting take. To me, it would be like labeling the Jan 6 protestors as pro-democracy supporters. The people protesting for him were the nationalists and the islamists, and some socialists. Not pro-democracy folk. Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

> The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.

Mossadegh was on the path to maintain his all-encompassing emergency powers for the rest of his life, if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos. I just can't understand what this has to do with democracy.

[teh_klev]

> Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Going to have to insist on a citation for that claim.

> Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

That's not how it works in the UK. In a general election it's traditionally the leader of the winning party who becomes prime minister, the electorate know this and it generally works out fine. The government of the day can still have their policies and legislation challenged in the houses of parliament (simplistically speaking).

Admittedly, what is anachronistic and anti-democratic are the current shenanigans going on to elect Johnson's replacement where the electorate have no say.

> if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos

What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

[googlryas]

My source would be Iran Between Two Revolutions, but that's just going from memory. Maybe I'm confusing some other party, but I am fairly sure it was the National Front.

> What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

No, the goal wasn't boneheaded, but the policies he implemented towards that goal were boneheaded. Nationalizing your #1 and basically only source of revenue which is propping up your society, when you don't actually have the ability to continue operating it by yourself, is boneheaded. Thinking that the British would stick around after you nationalized their assets(one mans nationalization is another mans theft) in order to help you figure it all out, is bone headed.

Likewise, rural people deserve freedom and to not be serfs to local lords, but at the same time, just setting them free and thinking they will be able to manage the land as well as the centralized administrator immediately is boneheaded

[gpderetta]

> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

If it really that were to happen, I suspect UK would become a republic in a few weeks. Parliament is sovereign in England and all the powers that the Queen has left are under the understanding that they are never to be used.

[leaflets2]

You're asking if GP would support a dictator (the queen in your theoretical example) or a democratically elected person.

I think that doesn't make sense to ask