|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How is Hereditary Monarchy Fair
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I know electing a head of state has many flaws, and that some constitutional monarchies are more democratic and more respectful of human rights than some presidential republics. That said, how is it fair to have a system of government that gives the position of head of state (and a whole lot else) to someone just because of what family s/he is born into and what order s/he is born among his/her siblings?
You can defend it as a tradition, or by saying that it keeps the position of head of state (which is different from being head of government) above politics by having it not be elected, but is hereditary monarchy really the only alternative to electing a head of state? Do the flaws of elections or any other way of choosing a head of state outweigh the gross unfairness of making someone head of state just because s/he is the eldest child of the previous head of state?
By the way, I am only talking about constitutional monarchy with a popularly elected legislature and a government of elected officials (or appointed by elected officials). Absolute monarchy isn't even worth trying to defend in my opinion.
I am only talking about constitutional monarchy
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Fair to whom?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not fair to anyone. I think a better questions is how beneficial it might be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Step back for a moment and take a deep breath, Thank you.
Now: a country needs two differing jobs done at the top. One is the executive function: doing the politics to keep the whole thing running: e.g.in the UK, the Prime Minister and his cabinet
But there is also a need for a recognition of the continuity of the country, which should not be tied up in the person of a politician who may mismanage or outright do wrong in his/her actions.
Look at Margaret Thatcher, for instance: yes, she ran the country in a particular way, but went beyond her duty to polarise the nation into groups who basically no longer talk to each other.
Similarly, Reagan in the US was used as a stalking horse for the Cons and the neo-Cons to polarise the country in ways that are still poisonous, made worse by the little Bush.
The Queen, by her simple existence and presence, can express an attitude about the "all of us" that helps keep some of that under control. We saw that with King George VI in WW2, a man who came under great stress to give people an image of fortitude and strength, aided nobly by his wife.
The present Queen, while unfashionably religious (to some) does represent stability and hope. Receiving a medal from her is not just a photo-op for a politician, but an expression about the country recognising something more than mere money.
Would you rather have D. Cameron presenting medals with N. Clegg as his A-d-C?
I realise that the Queen of England is a bit richer than most of her subjects, because of the accidents of her line, but the pomp that goes with that is also requested by many of her subjects, and is desperately wanted by the tourist operators. Are you going to say that the speculators who have tried to impoverish the rest of us should be the kind of people who lead parades to St. Paul's for commemorative services?
The Scandinavians and the Dutch do some of the royal stuff in a more muted way, while still have actual royal families. Are they not democratic enough for you?
Can you think of anyone else who in "better-qualified" to do the job than is QE2? Charles has had a bad press (which is believed by some) because he actually has a mind and speaks it on occasion, but I would still prefer him over any politician or money-man.
And William shows signs of learning the job well.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Now: a country needs two differing jobs done at the top. One is the executive function: doing the politics to keep the whole thing running: e.g.in the UK, the Prime Minister and his cabinet
But there is also a need for a recognition of the continuity of the country, which should not be tied up in the person of a politician who may mismanage or outright do wrong in his/her actions.
<snip>
The Queen, by her simple existence and presence, can express an attitude about the "all of us" that helps keep some of that under control.
Doesn't this argument assume that the monarch is incapable of "do[ing] wrong", an assumption that even a brief survey of historical monarchs would render dubious?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Step back for a moment and take a deep breath, Thank you.
Now: a country needs two differing jobs done at the top. One is the executive function: doing the politics to keep the whole thing running: e.g.in the UK, the Prime Minister and his cabinet
But there is also a need for a recognition of the continuity of the country, which should not be tied up in the person of a politician who may mismanage or outright do wrong in his/her actions.
Look at Margaret Thatcher, for instance: yes, she ran the country in a particular way, but went beyond her duty to polarise the nation into groups who basically no longer talk to each other.
Similarly, Reagan in the US was used as a stalking horse for the Cons and the neo-Cons to polarise the country in ways that are still poisonous, made worse by the little Bush.
The Queen, by her simple existence and presence, can express an attitude about the "all of us" that helps keep some of that under control. We saw that with King George VI in WW2, a man who came under great stress to give people an image of fortitude and strength, aided nobly by his wife.
The present Queen, while unfashionably religious (to some) does represent stability and hope. Receiving a medal from her is not just a photo-op for a politician, but an expression about the country recognising something more than mere money.
Would you rather have D. Cameron presenting medals with N. Clegg as his A-d-C?
I realise that the Queen of England is a bit richer than most of her subjects, because of the accidents of her line, but the pomp that goes with that is also requested by many of her subjects, and is desperately wanted by the tourist operators. Are you going to say that the speculators who have tried to impoverish the rest of us should be the kind of people who lead parades to St. Paul's for commemorative services?
The Scandinavians and the Dutch do some of the royal stuff in a more muted way, while still have actual royal families. Are they not democratic enough for you?
Can you think of anyone else who in "better-qualified" to do the job than is QE2? Charles has had a bad press (which is believed by some) because he actually has a mind and speaks it on occasion, but I would still prefer him over any politician or money-man.
And William shows signs of learning the job well.
Just because being born into monarchy means that you are ideally trained to do the job well does not mean that it is fair to give so much LEGAL prestige (and a job for life) to a person just because of his/her family of birth.
Lots of people are born wealthy. Other people are born into prominent historical families and therefore are watched for their every move to see if they are "representing their heritage" well (think the Kennedys, even those that are not involved in politics). This is hugely different from having a legal system that gives the throne to the eldest child of one family.
If having a monarch as a national symbol above politics is what you want, I see two more fair options:
1. Pick the monarch by some system other than heredity, such as a lottery or as a reward from the previous monarch or some national council for merit/bravery, etc.
2. Another option is to "disestablish" the monarchy. Make the royal family equal to all other families under the law and give them no special powers, but invite them to wave hands, make speeches, and sit on thrones as they are needed. This is still unfair because it grants great prestige just because of someone's family, but at least it is just a tradition in this case and is not based on any legal reality of the heir to the royal family actually being head of state. Some head of state functions, such as receiving diplomats, etc, could be carried out by someone like the Governor-General of a Commonwealth Realm who has a real legal position.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
No, it doesn't imply that the monarch can't do wrong - the monarch is human.
But by having a someone at the top who is just there - without belonging to any faction or party, it means that the nation can be represented - embodied, even - by a person who to some degree represents all of us.
I know there will be many who jeer and talk about wealth, etc. But how many of us would be prepared to take on a job not only of mind-numbing bordeom but with no possibility of retirement?
Looking at the Duke of Edinburgh recently, I was struck by how well he was doing for his age (nearly 93) and also thought that perhaps the Queen would prefer it if she and her husband could actualy spend their days not climbing into formal clothes and 'on parade' but just pottering about.
How many couples aged 92 and 87 can you think of who are both working? Personally I think its pretty unfair ...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The G-G derives his ceremonial position from the existence of the Queen, BTW
And they both have one serious duty which would be difficult to replace: in the event of the fall of a government, the royal person has to act as referee, so must be seen as working in the interest of the country, not of any one party. This caused some kerfuffle a few years ago in Canada, when the Conservatives questioned the ability of a specific G-G to deal "fairly (IOW, in their favour) during a spell of minority gov't. The Tories knew they were held in questionable favour by many, so they had to tarnish the reputation of an officer of the country, despite their claim to be "Conservative"
Why is hereditary so much worse than any other method? Experience in doing things should count for something, rather than some random person being dumped into the job.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't pretend to know a great deal about the US political system (which doesn't stop me pontificating on it at times) but my understanding is that it's impossible to run for high office without having substantial personal wealth or the support of wealthy backers ...
How is that fair ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not big on the Monarchy but admire the Queen and other individuals within the Royal Family and, overall, think they do a good job ...
I wouldn't want to do away with them. They're part of our culture and so on.
But I think stonespring's question is a bit of an odd one, because it's not as if anyone over here is thinking, 'Heh, there's one thing about the Monarchy though, it's a fair system ...'
I don't think anyone is putting the UK system forward as being 'fairer' or less fair than anyone else's ... it's just different.
I'd certainly back the Royal Family over certain politicians ...
But that doesn't mean that I think the Monarchy is or ever has been squeaky clean.
As for Absolute Monarchies. Do any of those actually still exist? Our last one, arguably, ended in 1649.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, it doesn't imply that the monarch can't do wrong - the monarch is human.
Then I'm not following HB's argument. He claims a head of government is unsuitable as head of state because they may mismanage or do wrong. The implication is that if an hereditary monarch is suitable, that therefore they can't commit any kind of wrongdoing (e.g. setting up a personal police-state colony independent of your monarchical duties that uses human hands as a form of currency).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What I think is daft about the hereditary system, though, is that there have been some pretty odd vagaries down the years - through coups, rebellions and so on ...
There are quite a number of families out there who'd have a legitimate claim to the throne if things had worked out differently ...
Equally, take the Prince Regent, later George IV - his first and clandestine marriage was declared illegal because his wife was a Catholic - then he had a shockingly bad marriage for dynastic convenience.
I think I'm right in saying, too, that William IV, his brother, fathered at least 10 children illegitimately but had no surviving issue - hence the succession passing to his neice, Victoria.
If we added up all the Royal by-blows over the centuries then I reckon we'd have several hundred individuals at least. Henry VIII had them, Charles II had them ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Step back for a moment and take a deep breath, Thank you.
Now: a country needs two differing jobs done at the top. One is the executive function: doing the politics to keep the whole thing running: e.g.in the UK, the Prime Minister and his cabinet
But there is also a need for a recognition of the continuity of the country, which should not be tied up in the person of a politician who may mismanage or outright do wrong in his/her actions.
Look at Margaret Thatcher, for instance: yes, she ran the country in a particular way, but went beyond her duty to polarise the nation into groups who basically no longer talk to each other.
Similarly, Reagan in the US was used as a stalking horse for the Cons and the neo-Cons to polarise the country in ways that are still poisonous, made worse by the little Bush.
The Queen, by her simple existence and presence, can express an attitude about the "all of us" that helps keep some of that under control. We saw that with King George VI in WW2, a man who came under great stress to give people an image of fortitude and strength, aided nobly by his wife.
The present Queen, while unfashionably religious (to some) does represent stability and hope. Receiving a medal from her is not just a photo-op for a politician, but an expression about the country recognising something more than mere money.
Would you rather have D. Cameron presenting medals with N. Clegg as his A-d-C?
I realise that the Queen of England is a bit richer than most of her subjects, because of the accidents of her line, but the pomp that goes with that is also requested by many of her subjects, and is desperately wanted by the tourist operators. Are you going to say that the speculators who have tried to impoverish the rest of us should be the kind of people who lead parades to St. Paul's for commemorative services?
The Scandinavians and the Dutch do some of the royal stuff in a more muted way, while still have actual royal families. Are they not democratic enough for you?
Can you think of anyone else who in "better-qualified" to do the job than is QE2? Charles has had a bad press (which is believed by some) because he actually has a mind and speaks it on occasion, but I would still prefer him over any politician or money-man.
And William shows signs of learning the job well.
I would have no issue with QE2 having her role were she fairly elected to it. It is simply an inherently unfair position though, both to 'commoners' (who could do an equally good job but could not have a chance just because of who their parents are) and also those in the line of succession since they cannot remove themselves from it (only abdicate once monarch, now that they can marry RCs - though not sure if they would be prevented if they converted). What if Prince George just wanted a normal life? What if he wanted to go to vocational college and become a plumber? Why should he be prevented from his choice of life just because of who his parents and grandparents are?
QE2 is undoubtedly good at her job, and her job is a valuable one, but why on Earth is it being restricted to one family out of all the families in Britain a good thing?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
QE2 is undoubtedly good at her job, and her job is a valuable one, but why on Earth is it being restricted to one family out of all the families in Britain a good thing?
It at least saves us all an endless round of jockeying for the position and speculation as to who will be next. Well, apart from the occasional bout of speculation whether Charles should allow himself to be passed over in favour of William.
Of course, when the position mattered a great deal more, people literally fought over it. Now they bicker and squabble over getting to be Prime Minister instead.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
quote:
What if Prince George just wanted a normal life? What if he wanted to go to vocational college and become a plumber? Why should he be prevented from his choice of life just because of who his parents and grandparents are?
QE2 is undoubtedly good at her job, and her job is a valuable one, but why on Earth is it being restricted to one family out of all the families in Britain a good thing?
It's hardly an answer, though, to say, "Well, she has it, and I want it, so if I can't have it, no-one should have it". That is envy. The injustices in our society and, indeed, in globalized society run much deeper than monarchies, and although they may draw fire because of their prominence, otherness and the aura of anachronism that surrounds them, I'm rather more concerned by other hereditary injustices: the legions of women in the economic South who will not learn to read; the horrors of being an untouchable in a caste system; the tyranny of dynasties of bankers, speculators, accountants and lawyers who run for public offices and abuse public finances.
Monarchy has become a curious anachronism that should not be immune to scrutiny and criticism, but generally, the criticisms are bound up with important issues whose scope spreads far, far beyond the Crown.
orfeo wrote:
quote:
Of course, when the position mattered a great deal more, people literally fought over it. Now they bicker and squabble over getting to be Prime Minister instead.
*applause*
[code]
[ 05. March 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
quote:
What if Prince George just wanted a normal life? What if he wanted to go to vocational college and become a plumber? Why should he be prevented from his choice of life just because of who his parents and grandparents are?
QE2 is undoubtedly good at her job, and her job is a valuable one, but why on Earth is it being restricted to one family out of all the families in Britain a good thing?
It's hardly an answer, though, to say, "Well, she has it, and I want it, so if I can't have it, no-one should have it". That is envy. The injustices in our society and, indeed, in globalized society run much deeper than monarchies, and although they may draw fire because of their prominence, otherness and the aura of anachronism that surrounds them, I'm rather more concerned by other hereditary injustices: the legions of women in the economic South who will not learn to read; the horrors of being an untouchable in a caste system; the tyranny of dynasties of bankers, speculators, accountants and lawyers who run for public offices and abuse public finances.
Monarchy has become a curious anachronism that should not be immune to scrutiny and criticism, but generally, the criticisms are bound up with important issues whose scope spreads far, far beyond the Crown.
It's not envy at all - I wouldn't want to be monarch. It's a simple question of fairness. Of course there are injustices worse than having a monarchy, but that doesn't make the monarchy inherently just.
My point still stands - monarchy is bad for subjects and bad for the royals, since it removes personal liberty and freedom. It is one thing to choose to lose those things, but they should not be forcibly taken away and certainly not on the grounds of who your parents are.
[code]
[ 05. March 2014, 21:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
Ugh. I cannot use HTML. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
[Jade Constable] Well, envy takes more forms than "I want it", but I see your point. Nevertheless, I don't see how stripping a person of his or her inheritance rights any wrongs, really. Consider, for example, someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo saying, "I don't see why all these Britons live in such luxury and safety. It's not fair just because they happened to be born into that family. Maybe we should take it from them so that they are more in line with the vast majority of people."
I'm not sure that this is fair, although I can see why someone might think it.
[ 05. March 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: Mr Beamish ]
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Mr Beamish, you can practice UBB code here to your heart's content!
/hosting
[I obviously need to...]
[ 05. March 2014, 21:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point still stands - monarchy is bad for subjects and bad for the royals, since it removes personal liberty and freedom. It is one thing to choose to lose those things, but they should not be forcibly taken away and certainly not on the grounds of who your parents are.
The loss of the right to be chosen for a post that carries little power seems to me pretty small beer. To say the existence of monarchy 'removes personal liberty and freedom' suggests that there are some fundamental rights at play here.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
I also, (sorry for the double post) don't necessarily agree with the idea that royals are robbed of all free choice. Abdication is permitted, after all. Perhaps in a day of media frenzy it may be rather difficult to be royal, but that's a case for dealing with media rather than abolishing the monarchy?
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Ugh. I cannot use HTML.
[Jade Constable] Well, envy takes more forms than "I want it", but I see your point. Nevertheless, I don't see how stripping a person of his or her inheritance rights any wrongs, really. Consider, for example, someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo saying, "I don't see why all these Britons live in such luxury and safety. It's not fair just because they happened to be born into that family. Maybe we should take it from them so that they are more in line with the vast majority of people."
I'm not sure that this is fair, although I can see why someone might think it.
I don't think those situations are similar. As I said, it is not about not wanting the royals to lose their standard of living - goodness knows they are far from the richest people in the country. Wanting to change the government in one's own country is also quite different from wanting to enforce change in a different country! It's about equality of opportunity for ALL, not just most except for this one family and those who marry them. That includes the opportunity to be less wealthy and to have less influence.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point still stands - monarchy is bad for subjects and bad for the royals, since it removes personal liberty and freedom. It is one thing to choose to lose those things, but they should not be forcibly taken away and certainly not on the grounds of who your parents are.
The loss of the right to be chosen for a post that carries little power seems to me pretty small beer. To say the existence of monarchy 'removes personal liberty and freedom' suggests that there are some fundamental rights at play here.
The problem is not that a monarch and a royal family brings about loss of liberty, but that a monarchy can give an unscrupulous government scope to impose restrictions using "royal prerogative" and similar outdated privileges, most of which have been taken by the government from the monarchy.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point still stands - monarchy is bad for subjects and bad for the royals, since it removes personal liberty and freedom. It is one thing to choose to lose those things, but they should not be forcibly taken away and certainly not on the grounds of who your parents are.
The loss of the right to be chosen for a post that carries little power seems to me pretty small beer. To say the existence of monarchy 'removes personal liberty and freedom' suggests that there are some fundamental rights at play here.
There are some fundamental rights at play here - most importantly the right to self-determination.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
If it's unfair to inherit the position of monarch is it not also unfair that children should similarly inherit the property of their parents?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I guess I stand somewhat corrected. If you have a relatively recent royal family, Norway (1905) for example or The Maori (1858) the position is up for election - at least once in Norway, and every generation in the Maori case.
Quoting from Why New Zealand's Maori King refuses to Meet the British Royals
quote:
Yes, the Maori royal family is a sort of modern monarchy that elects its leaders, but people prefer it if they come from the established ruling clan. A bit like India or the United States.
So it is alright to elect a King if you live in an upstart country, or if the succession has been interrupted, as in the case of Norway.
Not sure that the Kennedys would be a good choice, on the whole, given the patriarch's yearning for Hitler, but the Nehru/Gandhi clan seem to have got the hang of things
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If it's unfair to inherit the position of monarch is it not also unfair that children should similarly inherit the property of their parents?
This analogy works only if we assume that the state (and its subjects) is the "property" of the royal family. One of the premises of modern democratic governance is that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", not via inheritance. Or if you prefer it another way, "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses". The idea of the state being "owned" in the sense of property by a single family seems undemocratic (and a bit creepy).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I guess I stand somewhat corrected. If you have a relatively recent royal family, Norway (1905) for example or The Maori (1858) the position is up for election - at least once in Norway, and every generation in the Maori case.
The even more obvious example of an elected monarch (though not a popularly elected one) is the Pope, who is the absolute monarch of Vatican City. At any rate, the Papacy is a monarchical post that is not hereditary, the best efforts of the Borgias notwithstanding.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If your high horse is fed by the idea of fairness, you might want to question the fairness of the rapidly-rising inequality of society. The Royal Family at least gives something to all of us, despite their wealth, while the fat cats simply take all they can get and demand more.
And heredity does account for some of that. The Queen was groomed for the job once the abdication was over and has never really let go of that obligation, despite more than 60 years of doing it. And the next generations seem to be following suit. Try finding that among just about any other group in the whole society.
Given the number of hands shaken and tedious welcoming ceremonies and bland speeches, maybe it is unfair to the Royals to demand they continue.
But it is not unfair to the rest of us so long as you accept that the rich are rapidly getting richer at your expense and you haven't mentioned them at all. How fair is it that most of them have inherited their wealth, and will bequeath it to their kids?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If your high horse is fed by the idea of fairness, you might want to question the fairness of the rapidly-rising inequality of society. The Royal Family at least gives something to all of us, despite their wealth, while the fat cats simply take all they can get and demand more.
And heredity does account for some of that. The Queen was groomed for the job once the abdication was over and has never really let go of that obligation, despite more than 60 years of doing it. And the next generations seem to be following suit. Try finding that among just about any other group in the whole society.
Sorry, but are you really arguing that royalty are simply an inherently superior class of person who inherit (either genetically or via training) a far better sense of morality than everyone else? I'm having trouble squaring that assertion with the realities of the previously mentioned Congo Free State or the Saudi kingdom.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Horseman Bree, your original post on this thread assumes a need to separate the offices of Head of State and Head of Government. The UK, Canada, Aust, NZ and most European countries do. The US and many others do not. The French and Russian system are both hybrid.
Perhaps you could explain why you consider there should be this separation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point still stands - monarchy is bad for subjects and bad for the royals, since it removes personal liberty and freedom. It is one thing to choose to lose those things, but they should not be forcibly taken away and certainly not on the grounds of who your parents are.
The loss of the right to be chosen for a post that carries little power seems to me pretty small beer. To say the existence of monarchy 'removes personal liberty and freedom' suggests that there are some fundamental rights at play here.
The problem is not that a monarch and a royal family brings about loss of liberty, but that a monarchy can give an unscrupulous government scope to impose restrictions using "royal prerogative" and similar outdated privileges, most of which have been taken by the government from the monarchy.
not only this - but also it legitimises an environment of long-term, stable patronage and privilege (literally the state of being subject to private, rather then common, law) both of which IMO are injurious to the majority of current and future citizens.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is not that a monarch and a royal family brings about loss of liberty, but that a monarchy can give an unscrupulous government scope to impose restrictions using "royal prerogative" and similar outdated privileges, most of which have been taken by the government from the monarchy.
Then isn't your problem with the royal prerogative, rather than the monarchy? The scope of the royal prerogative can and has changed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are some fundamental rights at play here - most importantly the right to self-determination.
In what way? I'm afraid I really don't see how my life is significantly limited by the presence of a monarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
If we abolish ours, who hosts the other heads of state when they visit the UK?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. No, it doesn't imply that the monarch can't do wrong - the monarch is human.
But by having a someone at the top who is just there - without belonging to any faction or party, it means that the nation can be represented - embodied, even - by a person who to some degree represents all of us.
2. I know there will be many who jeer and talk about wealth, etc. But how many of us would be prepared to take on a job not only of mind-numbing bordeom but with no possibility of retirement?
1. Good. Glad someone is ready to accept that Monarch's aren't infallible.
They may not belong to any faction or party but that doesn't mean that they don't have opinions or beliefs of their own. Mostly these are kept hidden but occasionally they surface and one wonders how they manage to get away with saying and doing things that the rest of us would be pilloried for.
It's not a level playing field which does rather make it wrong or at least not right. Most people get arrested for being racist.
2. Most people, assuming the cash and prestige it brings to those who do it. You also get 6 weeks off at Christmas, 3 at Easter and 2 months in the summer at one of your country retreats: no brainer for most people really..
3. Nice to see them still working - well yes - but are they still there in a grim attempt to hold onto a system that is well past its sell by date?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Queen was groomed for the job once the abdication was over and has never really let go of that obligation, despite more than 60 years of doing it. And the next generations seem to be following suit. Try finding that among just about any other group in the whole society.
There are plenty of families where that's the case. It's not that unusual at all - plus on the personal/relationship side they haven't exactly set the ultimate moral example have they? One day the public will get to hear the full story of Philip's extra marital wanderings rather like his Uncle Dickie
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, I've seen some allusions to those in a Beeb history programme a while back, EM, but very little since. Once he (and she) slough off this mortal coil the media will be full of the Prince and the actress and so on ...
These things have been an open secret for a long time but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence whilst the old dears are still with us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is not that a monarch and a royal family brings about loss of liberty, but that a monarchy can give an unscrupulous government scope to impose restrictions using "royal prerogative" and similar outdated privileges, most of which have been taken by the government from the monarchy.
Unscrupulous governments will do that regardless of whether there's a monarchy or not. Getting rid of the monarchy merely removes the one check we have against governmental shenanigans that isn't controlled by self-serving scumbag political parties.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
not only this - but also it legitimises an environment of long-term, stable patronage and privilege (literally the state of being subject to private, rather then common, law) both of which IMO are injurious to the majority of current and future citizens.
Injurious in what way, exactly?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OK, let's just say that I, as one person, prefer the separation of the two roles, and don't take offence to one of those roles being performed by someone who has training for that role.
The other position is all too often held by someone who has no particular talent for his/her role except to do it in ways that are harmful to the country but that may or may not help The Party, which is not the same as The Country.
Unfortunately, the person with experience is not allowed to exert a helpful influence on the politician, because politics is always more important than rational thinking.
However, one at least has a decent person to represent The Nation.
Carping about a 93-y.o.man acting as if he was still An Officer and A Gentleman, left over from the days of The Empire, is irrelevant to this discussion - he is not The Queen, or even a queen.
Most of this discussion seems to be about some sense of inverted snobbery, wanting Onslow (from Keeping Up Appearances) for HoS, rather than someone who is actually good at the job. Why not do as the Dutch or the Scandinavians then and get rid of all the pomp?
But then, what would be left? A huge void in the way the Brits see themselves.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
AFAIK pretty well every country designates someone for a ceremonial role- the old USSR had the Chairman of the Presidium to receive ambassadors and the Swiss have a collective presidency (which really makes quite a bit of sense). There is a rationale for a figurehead of some sort and even one who has a referee role in complex political situations (Italy, Belgium, etc). As far as the OP goes, I don't think that anyone has ever brought fairness into the equation. In a class-based society, the head of state will normally represent the folks at the top (with some interesting exceptions, such as the current President of Ireland).
One of my political science acquaintances says that an hereditary monarchy is a practical way to choose the president in a parliamentary republic. He has written on the social composition of political élites and tells me that his inner Trotskyite delights in knowing that there is one job the great and good can't finagle their way in to.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
OK, let's just say that I, as one person, prefer the separation of the two roles, and don't take offence to one of those roles being performed by someone who has training for that role.
The other position is all too often held by someone who has no particular talent for his/her role except to do it in ways that are harmful to the country but that may or may not help The Party, which is not the same as The Country.
Unfortunately, the person with experience is not allowed to exert a helpful influence on the politician, because politics is always more important than rational thinking.
However, one at least has a decent person to represent The Nation.
Carping about a 93-y.o.man acting as if he was still An Officer and A Gentleman, left over from the days of The Empire, is irrelevant to this discussion - he is not The Queen, or even a queen.
Most of this discussion seems to be about some sense of inverted snobbery, wanting Onslow (from Keeping Up Appearances) for HoS, rather than someone who is actually good at the job. Why not do as the Dutch or the Scandinavians then and get rid of all the pomp?
But then, what would be left? A huge void in the way the Brits see themselves.
I want someone to be good at the job, I just want that job to be open to everyone. I don't think you're actually reading what people are saying.
And I don't care about the pomp or the lack of it - getting rid of the ceremonial side still leaves an inherently unfair system.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Nothing new here. seems we almost all think a neutral-ish head of state a good idea, and nobody seems to be offering an obviously better system than sticking with the family that was originally the absolute monarchy, if only because they're useful to tourism in a way that would be compromised by introducing a modern alternative.
I'm a bit surprised that no one has yet mentioned the other problem whereby the monarch is also very questionably head of the also rather questionable national church....
Oh, heck, I'm getting predictable....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is not that a monarch and a royal family brings about loss of liberty, but that a monarchy can give an unscrupulous government scope to impose restrictions using "royal prerogative" and similar outdated privileges, most of which have been taken by the government from the monarchy.
Then isn't your problem with the royal prerogative, rather than the monarchy? The scope of the royal prerogative can and has changed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are some fundamental rights at play here - most importantly the right to self-determination.
In what way? I'm afraid I really don't see how my life is significantly limited by the presence of a monarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
If we abolish ours, who hosts the other heads of state when they visit the UK?
I wasn't thinking of your personal life specifically, but being unable to have a particular job because of who your parents are/n't limits your right to self-determination. It also limits the right to self-determination of the royals, since they can't do just any job. I'm not sure why this requires so much spelling out.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Nothing new here. seems we almost all think a neutral-ish head of state a good idea, and nobody seems to be offering an obviously better system than sticking with the family that was originally the absolute monarchy, if only because they're useful to tourism in a way that would be compromised by introducing a modern alternative.
Even without the tourism benefits, I can't think of a single alternative that maintains political neutrality while also providing a reasonable guarantee that the person will actually be able to do the job.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...being unable to have a particular job because of who your parents are/n't limits your right to self-determination.
Given that it's a job few of us would ever have a realistic chance of getting under any system, that's a pretty meaningless "limit".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I want someone to be good at the job, I just want that job to be open to everyone. I don't think you're actually reading what people are saying.
You already have an elected goverment, for which the people voted. I hope you're happy with them, because they're in place by popular vote, i.e. they were decided by the majority to be the best people for the job at the time.
I suggest we stick with what we've got. I have no problem with the Queen being the monarch, she does a fantastic job, has a great sense of duty and is an impressive example. Anyone else would have retired years ago.
Life isn't fair. People aren't born equal, there are always going to be some who do things better than you, are more intelligent than you, or conversely, are less intelligent than you but somehow seem to rise to a position of glory or have a better start in life. Some will squander their opportunities, some won't. It's the way life is, and cries of "It isn't fair!" and stamping your foot isn't going to change that. Opening up the monarchy to an election isn't automatically going to produce The Perfect Monarch™; any more than electing a government is, either.
[ 06. March 2014, 12:32: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I wasn't thinking of your personal life specifically, but being unable to have a particular job because of who your parents are/n't limits your right to self-determination. It also limits the right to self-determination of the royals, since they can't do just any job. I'm not sure why this requires so much spelling out.
As Marvin says, I think that's a pretty small limit. It's like complaining about my chances of winning X Factor because of my looks and singing voice.
I'm afraid I find the argument that it harms the royals a tad disingenuous. Though I first heard this argument advanced by Ken Livingstone, which might explain why...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE]...they're in place by popular vote, i.e. they were decided by the majority to be the best people for the job at the time.
Wrong. I (and you) had no vote in agreeing to the coalition
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE] Anyone else would have retired years ago.
That's untrue - or at least, speculative. No one has had the opportunity and who's to say given the prestige, the cash and bowing and scraping that we would retire at 65? I doubt it: human nature suggests we'd keep on while we could esp if we were as bothered about those behind us as our "Queen" seemingly is.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, I've seen some allusions to those in a Beeb history programme a while back, EM, but very little since. Once he (and she) slough off this mortal coil the media will be full of the Prince and the actress and so on ...
These things have been an open secret for a long time but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence whilst the old dears are still with us.
It's the sort of behaviour in politicians that makes newspapers salivate with anticipated increases in circulation. So why are our friends from Windsor immune .... not quite as bad as the news lack out in the UK abdication, but only one small step on.
It does seem a rather slanted approach to me ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
They may have been immune in the 1950s (when the alleged activities would have occurred) but they're certainly not immune now.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
