Thread: How is Hereditary Monarchy Fair Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026999
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Fair to whom?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not fair to anyone. I think a better questions is how beneficial it might be.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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.
Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on
:
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?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
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....
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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".
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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 ....
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
They may have been immune in the 1950s (when the alleged activities would have occurred) but they're certainly not immune now.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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 ....
A better question would be why anyone else isn't immune. The concept of a "private life" should apply to everyone.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They may have been immune in the 1950s (when the alleged activities would have occurred) but they're certainly not immune now.
Why aren't they reported then? They occur.
Just look at how long it took to get Charles' valet Fawcett to admit to fencing gifts stuff that in normal jobs would've brought a P11D claim from HMRC? Resigned but still works for Charles as a consultant.
Why was it that the Queen was able to halt a high court trial by suddenly remembering something about Diana and Paul Burrell? Why didn't it get to press earlier?
Witness the demise of the Cambridge University magazine in the 1980's just as it was going to run a story on Edward and ahem, activities .....
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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 ....
A better question would be why anyone else isn't immune. The concept of a "private life" should apply to everyone.
Not if you expect to be funded by others and claim to be whiter than white. Its hypocrisy of the worst order: do what I say or claim, not what I do.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They may have been immune in the 1950s (when the alleged activities would have occurred) but they're certainly not immune now.
Why aren't they reported then? They occur.
Did you miss (off the top of my head):
-Charles' telephone conversations with Camilla ("I want to be reincarnated as your tampon", etc.);
-The Duchess of York having her toes sucked by a man who wasn't the Duke of York;
-Princess Diana's liaisons with Will Carling, Hasnat Khan, Dodi Fayed (and others);
-The Duchess of York's financial arrangements;
-The Countess of Wessex asserting that 'My Edward Is Not Gay' to the Sun;
-The Duke of York's financial affairs (and his less than scrupulous friends);
-The rumours of the Princess Royal's extra-marital affairs;
-The Princess Royal's criminal record;
-The financial arrangements of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent; and
-The tax affairs of the Queen?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
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.
So people should just accept what they're given and not strive to change their own countries for the better. Really? You think I should just put up and shut up with a system which is inherently unfair, just because you think it's better? I don't give a fuck that the Queen is good at her job, one individually good monarch does not make monarchy a just and fair system. There's a guy called Jesus you may have heard of who didn't have a great opinion of unfair systems of government. It boggles the mind that Christians are so happy with injustice and unfairness.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Out of interest, Jade, do you get this angry about the existence of Herman van Rompuy?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
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...
Yes, because how dare the royals decide for themselves what they want to do in life, and how dare I want all roles in government to be open to the best person regardless of background or family.
Also, the comparison to the X Factor really insults your intelligence. If you can't work out why fairness in the structure of the country's government is rather more important than fairness in a TV show, I'm not sure this thread can really progress.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, Jade, do you get this angry about the existence of Herman van Rompuy?
Yes, of course. If we vote for European Parliamentary representatives, we should be able to vote for the President of that organisation. The difference being that I don't have to see celebrations covered in shitty twee bunting and horrible cakes marking the jubilee of Herman van Rompuy, telling me what a great person he is without ever commenting on the implications of his role and the fact that nice people can hold unfair and unjust roles.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So people should just accept what they're given and not strive to change their own countries for the better. Really?
Way to miss the point. Know yourself and know your limitations. We're not exactly living under the rule of a despot where people get sent to the Tower every other week for some minor infringement of some arcane, bizarre rule like not showing reverence every time you pass a picture of the ruler.
Also, I don't think it would change anything for the better. You already have an elected system of government. You don't need two. What would be the point of electing a monarch?
A lot of times what all this is really about is, "I wasn't born as privileged as these people and didn't get their advantages, therefore I resent them a lot."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
However, one at least has a decent person to represent The Nation.
You seem to think that repeating an assertion over and over again is the same as constructing an argument. How does having an hereditary monarchy guarantee that the monarch is "a decent person"? A quick review of the history of hereditary monarchs would seem to indicate the contrary. You seem to be extrapolating to an unjustifiable degree, going from "I think the current British monarch is a decent person" to "therefore all (or at least most) hereditary monarchs are decent people by virtue of their position".
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable (emphasis supplied):
[W]ithout ever commenting on the implications of his role and the fact that nice people can hold unfair and unjust roles.
No-one is stopping you commenting on the implications of the role of monarch. In fact, this sort of thing rumbles on all the time (as any occasional look into the comment pages of the Guardian will tell you).
It so happens that such a discussion will always be a minority sport as the vast majority of people don't think the role is 'unfair' and 'unjust', but that's a different matter...
[ 06. March 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So people should just accept what they're given and not strive to change their own countries for the better. Really?
Way to miss the point. Know yourself and know your limitations. We're not exactly living under the rule of a despot where people get sent to the Tower every other week for some minor infringement of some arcane, bizarre rule like not showing reverence every time you pass a picture of the ruler.
Also, I don't think it would change anything for the better. You already have an elected system of government. You don't need two. What would be the point of electing a monarch?
A lot of times what all this is really about is, "I wasn't born as privileged as these people and didn't get their advantages, therefore I resent them a lot."
It would be better because it would be more democratic. You know, democracy, that thing we try and export overseas whilst eschewing at home?
And please stop with the bullshit that I somehow resent the royals for having more stuff than me or whatever bollocks you're imagining. I don't give a shit about the royals' wealth or if they had no wealth. I care that their position is inherently unjust and undemocratic. WHY is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does having an hereditary monarchy guarantee that the monarch is "a decent person"?
Well, it guarantees that the monarch won't be a politician. That's a good start...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable (emphasis supplied):
[W]ithout ever commenting on the implications of his role and the fact that nice people can hold unfair and unjust roles.
No-one is stopping you commenting on the implications of the role of monarch. In fact, this sort of thing rumbles on all the time (as any occasional look into the comment pages of the Guardian will tell you).
It so happens that such a discussion will always be a minority sport as the vast majority of people don't think the role is 'unfair' and 'unjust', but that's a different matter...
Unfortunately the Guardian can't take over the news every time a royal event happens, because even the BBC is full of royal arse-kissing nowadays.
And the people who don't think it's unfair and unjust really need to go back to school, because getting a special role just because of who your parents are is the textbook definition of unfair and unjust. Why is nepotism derided elsewhere but not when it comes to the royal family?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I agree with EM that the media silence over the Duke of Edinburgh's alleged extra-marital flings in the 1950s is rather puzzling.
I've only ever seen these dealt with on a TV documentary once - and that in passing. Apparently the Duke had a particular 'starlet' who was well known at the time, delivered to his quarters for liaisons - it was well known across the Armed Forces at that time.
He seems to have got away with things that Fergie and the lesser royalty haven't.
I'm sticking to the term 'royalty' by the way, rather than 'royals'.
I find this whole discussion rather bizarre, though, because no-one has ever claimed that there is anything 'fair' about the notion of a hereditary monarchy.
That's rather the point of it ...
I seem to remember the Almighty not being entirely happy about Israel's request for a King ... if we take our OT's at face value ...
That said, I still feel the UK would be the poorer, heritage wise, if we didn't have the Monarchy.
Throwing it open and making it available to everyone seems rather to mess the point.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile, Steve Langton's rather predictable point about the role of the Monarch as the Head of 'this Church of England by law established ...'
Well - that's all rather ceremonial these days too. Her Majesty is an active Anglican and clearly has a faith - she was once the only person to mention Christ on a whole day's BBC TV output one Christmas.
I'd be in favour of Disestablishment. But the Queen's role - whatever that involves - as the 'Head' of the national Church doesn't keep me awake at night. There are a lot more important issues.
My suspicion would be that this aspect will drop away over time ... to be replaced by a more nebulous nod in the direction of faith ... a bit like Prince Charles and his 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of The Faith.'
Of course, one might wonder how Charles would or could defend Faith and also snigger at the irony of the term originally being given to Henry VIII by the Pope in acknowledgement of a tract against Luther.
All that said, I still find myself shrugging at the somewhat puritanical mewlings of the sectaries in this regard ... that kind of po-faced holier-than-thou pietism that is the downside of separatist forms of Christianity. It's so, so boring ...
And predictable ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does having an hereditary monarchy guarantee that the monarch is "a decent person"?
Well, it guarantees that the monarch won't be a politician. That's a good start...
Does it? I'm not sure that there's anything about the hereditary transmission of power that guarantees the monarch won't have an interest in politics. And if indifference to national affairs is considered to be the critical benefit a monarch can supply, can't the same benefit be generated by not having a monarch at all? A non-existent monarch is even more likely to be indifferent to governance than a human one.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I seem to remember the Almighty not being entirely happy about Israel's request for a King ... if we take our OT's at face value ...
Well, the prophet Samuel was pretty pissed by the request. I'm not sure if that's the same thing as "the Almighty", unless we consider that, as a prophet, Samuel was speaking on God's behalf.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Perhaps the next time a sermon is preached on the Sunday closest to Victoria, the theme could be the wickedness of those nations upon whom the Lord has imposed the punishment of a king. Perhaps a reference to Her Majesty as the rod of correction could take up a few minutes.
In terms of unfairness or fairness, one selects the head of state through the genetic lottery, or one electoral process or another-- one gets a prince(ss) and the other a politician. If fairness is the determining factor, then you would be hard-pressed to find either system a guarantee. Those who feel that an election will inevitably produce a result marked by fairness have perhaps not been involved in many elections.
Much of this thread seems focussed on the personalities of members of the House of Windsor-- I don't know if this has any relevance to the OP.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that there's anything about the hereditary transmission of power that guarantees the monarch won't have an interest in politics.
I said "not be a politician", not "have no interest in politics".
Not being a politician means the monarch can actually seek what's best for the nation rather than what's best for the Party. And having the job for life means they can take a long-term view rather than just worrying about the next election.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
As far as I am aware the Monarch reigns with the consent of Parliament and Church.
We don't have elections to the position but the coronation is the affirmation of acceptance that can, theoretically, be witheld.
The abdication crisis came about because the PM was not going to allow Edward to be crowned if he married 'that woman'. He abdicated because he could not have both. The government in effect took the crown from him because he potentially did not match the requirements.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as I am aware the Monarch reigns with the consent of Parliament and Church.
It's not obvious that the consent of the Church is actually involved here (and the discussion is likely to get a bit circular), but it has explicitly been the case since 1688 that the Monarch reigns with the consent of Parliament.
In reply to the question posed in the OP, it is obvious that a hereditary monarchy isn't fair - either to the people who don't get to be the monarch, or the people who don't get to not be the monarch. It's not obvious to me that strict fairness here is all that important, though.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The dollar coin in Canada has the queen on one side and a loon on the other. Just sayin'
Re OP. A hereditary monarchy is actually a symbol of ultimate unfairness. I think that may be the point.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, the comparison to the X Factor really insults your intelligence. If you can't work out why fairness in the structure of the country's government is rather more important than fairness in a TV show, I'm not sure this thread can really progress.
Well yes and no. Some of the best places to live in the world and the most free countries also happen to be monarchies (Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan etc.). So the gripe that one's rights are somehow limited by the loss of chance to be head of state doesn't really wash with me. I put it in the same category as shouting at Simon Cowell for not being picked.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am an anti--monarchist but I had pause for thought when watching the memorial service for Nelson Mandela last Monday. Westminister Abbey 'let its hair down' with a gospel choir.
It ended with Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika followed by God save the queen. Prince Harry stood in for the queen (bad hair day>) and joined in. I was pleased that he had done his homework and had learned Xhosa. Cameron, Pickles, Milliband et al stood there stum.
I also feel reassured that Harry has done some daft thinks like posing naked. We've all done daft thinbs.
As for 'fair', I think it might feel like one has been born with a straighjacket.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok ...
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[/qb]
It's not obvious that the consent of the Church is actually involved here (and the discussion is likely to get a bit circular), but it has explicitly been the case since 1688 that the Monarch reigns with the consent of Parliament.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Sure - at the risk of a circular argument, though, the whole reason that Edward VIII of that name was causing controversy by wanting to marry 'that woman' was because of Church policy on divorce and remarriage.
This is where the Monarch as titular head comes in - as it would be a bit awkward for someone bearing that role/title (or whatever it is, more a title than a role in practice, of course) to hold that 'office' if they were flagrantly flouting that same Church's teachings.
Mind you, the same could be said of plenty of his predecessors ...
Of course, it does highlight the trickiness of the position and its one of the reasons why I'd be in favour of Disestablishment.
It's still not an issue I get highly exercised over, though. Perhaps I should.
In terms of unfairness, though, I think there are bigger and broader issues than the issue of an hereditary Monarchy - bankers' bonuses and much else besides.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Some of the best places to live in the world and the most free countries also happen to be monarchies (Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan etc.).
And some of the worst places to live in the world and least free countries happen to be monarchies as well (Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) You could even add Syria and North Korea to this list since they're functionally hereditary monarchies (the current head of state is in power by virtue of being the son of the previous head of state), regardless of how their government is structured on paper. It could be argued that the countries you list as "monarchies" are, in reality, democratically governed nations that maintain a highly restricted monarchy out of a sense of nostalgia.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Here's a character in Fortune of War, by Patrick O'Brian commenting in 1812.
quote:
Man is a deeply illogical being, and must be ruled illogically. Whatever that frigid prig Bentham may say, there are innumerable motives that have nothing to do with utility. In good utilitarian logic a man does not sell all his goods to go crusading, nor does he build cathedrals; still less does he write verse. There are countless pieties without a name that find their focus in a crown. It is as well, I grant you, that the family should have worn it beyond the memory of man; for your recent creations do not answer – they are nothing in comparison of your priest-king, whose merit is irrelevant, whose place cannot be disputed, nor made the subject of a recurring vote. (Stephen Maturin)
Thus: is there something to monarchy, God, church, symbolism and specifically not appealing to the popularity contest of election and an uneducated rabble of stupid people who prioritise only their annual tax amount? We need antidemocratic anti-rabble institutions. Or at least anti-democratic institutions that don't pretend to be democratic.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The dollar coin in Canada has the queen on one side and a loon on the other. Just sayin'
Re OP. A hereditary monarchy is actually a symbol of ultimate unfairness. I think that may be the point.
And the $2 coin has a bear. A colleague whose name I have mercifully forgotten used to remark that we should call it a moonie, as it has the Queen with a bear behind.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Some of the best places to live in the world and the most free countries also happen to be monarchies (Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan etc.).
And some of the worst places to live in the world and least free countries happen to be monarchies as well (Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) You could even add Syria and North Korea to this list since they're functionally hereditary monarchies (the current head of state is in power by virtue of being the son of the previous head of state), regardless of how their government is structured on paper. It could be argued that the countries you list as "monarchies" are, in reality, democratically governed nations that maintain a highly restricted monarchy out of a sense of nostalgia.
Clearly there is a distinction to be made between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy. Theoretically, I prefer a democratic republic to a constitutional monarchy, and both to the absolute version thereof, but given a choice between the UK's path to modernity and that of the Federal Republic of Germany I prefer, all things considered, that of the UK.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And some of the worst places to live in the world and least free countries happen to be monarchies as well (Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) You could even add Syria and North Korea to this list since they're functionally hereditary monarchies (the current head of state is in power by virtue of being the son of the previous head of state), regardless of how their government is structured on paper. It could be argued that the countries you list as "monarchies" are, in reality, democratically governed nations that maintain a highly restricted monarchy out of a sense of nostalgia.
Clearly there is a distinction to be made between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy.
There's also a distinction to be made between ceremonial monarchy and executive monarchy, which are both sub-types of constitutional monarchy. For instance, the UAE has an executive monarchy (the monarch is directly involved in affairs of state) despite having certain constitutional restrictions on his authority. In contrast, the Cambodian (and British) monarch's position is largely ceremonial.
Of course, in a lot of cases the reality often defies easy categorization. For instance, the King of Cambodia is elected (by the Royal Council of the Throne, not the people at large) but also hereditary (the RCotT must choose the new monarch from members of the royal family at least 30 years old).
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And please stop with the bullshit that I somehow resent the royals for having more stuff than me or whatever bollocks you're imagining. I don't give a shit about the royals' wealth or if they had no wealth. I care that their position is inherently unjust and undemocratic. WHY is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Because you're not arguing it in a convincing way.
Would you like to answer my earlier question? What would be the point of an elected monarchy, if you already have an elected government? The whole point of a king or queen is that they aren't elected: otherwise they'd be president.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
You're alluding to what was called The Thursday Club: a group of friends of the DofE who used to have lunch on a Thursday.
Not a 'club' as such, regular attendees included the journalist Miles Kington, John Betjeman and Cecil Beaton; others people would drift in and out, including Rex Harrison.
It is probably because of Rex Harrison's sporadic presence that the rumour started about the DofE and Kay Kendall - an actress he had squired about London on some of his leaves during the war. She was married to Rex Harrison up to the time of her death in, I think, 1960.
The activities are likely to have been fairly innocent given that a journalist (Kington) and one of society's greatest gossips (Betjeman) were stalwarts...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It would be better because it would be more democratic.
This argument takes you down the American route of having elected judges. And elected a whole heap of other things that I wouldn't agree it's better to have elected.
If you want to see what happens when you turn absolutely everything into a voting contest, and therefore a vacuous popularity contest, just take a look at 'reality' television.
[ 06. March 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That might explain why it hasn't been splashed all over the tabloids, L'Organist.
Some will still suspect a conspiracy of silence ...
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Some of the best places to live in the world and the most free countries also happen to be monarchies (Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan etc.).
And some of the worst places to live in the world and least free countries happen to be monarchies as well (Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) You could even add Syria and North Korea to this list since they're functionally hereditary monarchies (the current head of state is in power by virtue of being the son of the previous head of state), regardless of how their government is structured on paper. It could be argued that the countries you list as "monarchies" are, in reality, democratically governed nations that maintain a highly restricted monarchy out of a sense of nostalgia.
I accept that. My point, though, was to illustrate that monarchies are countries where rights and freedoms can flourish, whereas Jade seemed to be arguing the opposite.
quote:
You could even add Syria and North Korea to this list since they're functionally hereditary monarchies (the current head of state is in power by virtue of being the son of the previous head of state)
Careful now, on that definition you might say the United States is a monarchy!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I might be a raving liberal pomo pacifist pinko nowadays, but God save the Queen. There are limits.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Ok, as the OP I'll reiterate what I proposed earlier, with some tweaking.
1. Have an adoptive monarchy. The line of succession is determined by the eldest adopted child rather than the biological child of the current monarch. The adoption can be decided using a lottery of all babies put up for adoption in a country in a given year. If the lottery chooses a child with a severe enough disability that the child cannot carry out the functions of monarch than the child is adopted anyway but another sibling is also adopted and becomes the heir.
2. As I said before, disestablish the monarchy. The royal family still carries out almost all its ceremonial functions but there is no longer any legal reality behind them. The monarch becomes equal to everyone else under the law and has no special powers. So the monarch's signature is not needed for anything to happen, but it can be provided as traditional decoration on a document. The actual approval of a law (who could sign before the monarch next to where s/he will can be done by the actual "head of state", who could be a rotating member of the cabinet, changing every month and only operating in a bureaucratic way, so that no one really thinks of anyone as being anything like a president. If any "head of state" withholds assent on anything they are promptly deposed and the next head of state approves the law. Diplomats can also be officially received by the head of state, who can invite the monarch to attend such receptions and do any formalities.
I'm not suggesting this for any country ruled by the Windsors but as an alternative to hereditary monarchy for anywhere that has one.
I don't think his discussion has anything to so with privilege that is merely a matter of wealth. I am talking about systems that legally limit privilege to the biological descendants of the previous holder of that privilege. I find this indefensible because it makes official arbitrary privilege and authority - even if only symbolic. The ability of strongmen in Germanic tribes to secure power for themselves and their descendants should have no bearing on the distribution of legal authority and privilege today. Of course it will influence economic and social privilege. But making it legal is just rubbing it in.
code:
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
My point is that while elections, lotteries, appointments by an elected body, and any other way of choosing a head of state may all produce unfair results in practice, they are not inherently unfair (because anyone is legally eligible to become head of state). Hereditary monarchy is inherently unfair. My propositions above are attempts at compromise with people who value hereditary monarchy in spite of its inherent unfairness. They do not switch to a system that lacks inherent unfairness but they at least try to lessen this inherent unfairness. (There are of course many other ways a system of government can be inherently unfair and this is only one.) A right to legally "rule" (even if only symbolically) just because of what womb you popped out of is pretty unfair in and of itself, regardless of the outcome. Can't the monarchists here acknowledge that there is something different about the unfairness of hereditary monarchy and the unfairness that can exist (but does not have to) in methods of choosing a head of state that are open to all?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Would you like to answer my earlier question? What would be the point of an elected monarchy, if you already have an elected government? The whole point of a king or queen is that they aren't elected: otherwise they'd be president.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't use this proposed "you can only use democracy once" standard in any other situation. You could just as well ask:
quote:
What would be the point of an elected [national government], if you already have an elected [local] government?
I'm pretty sure that being able to elect your legislator/mayor doesn't mean it's a bad idea to elect your mayor/legislator too.
[ 06. March 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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?
Because it encourages cronyism rather than meritocracy, it suppresses valid criticism from those within the gong-chasing classes and it stifles effective change. Add to that the inherent inequity (the OP - How is Hereditary Monarchy Fair) in permitting a group of people to avoid the penalties for bad behaviour that others don't have the connections to evade. Then add the immense insult of the queen's husband and her heir appearing in dazzling multi-row be-ribboned Savile Row uniforms at an event allegedly intended to honour real heroes - most dead, many of the survivors in wheelchairs (and placed where the faux dignitaries - many in Gilbert and Sullivanesque costumes - blocked their view of the proceedings) and with four/max. five bits of polished tin adorning their chests.
It was institutional disrespect - I was there.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The activities are likely to have been fairly innocent given that a journalist (Kington) and one of society's greatest gossips (Betjeman) were stalwarts...
You have no way of knowing what went on behind closed doors. You can't say that it was innocent nor can I claim that it was all riotous behaviour that has been suppressed.
Presumably that group of friends kept Beaton's admitted (and allegedly Betjeman's) homosexuality to themselves at a time when it was a criminal offence? What we can say is that as far as we know, none of the group commented adversely on behaviour which was then abhorrent to most of British Society.
You seem to be overlooking the very different world that Britain was in the 1950's and 60's. It was the era of the Cambridge Spies and Profumo to name but two incidents. In the first case it took years for the truth to come out - Anthony Blunt was publicly unmasked in 1979 although he confessed to MI5 in 1964 and they knew years earlier. Given a choice between betraying friends or country, Blunt chose not to betray friends. If it was a common attitude then you can see why a lot of things wouldn't come out.
If Blair can dissemble now on WMD, then the same kind of people could do it far easier in a more deferential age: the release of cabinet papers under the 30 year rule proves it annually.
[ 07. March 2014, 05:41: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This argument takes you down the American route of having elected judges. And elected a whole heap of other things that I wouldn't agree it's better to have elected.
If you want to see what happens when you turn absolutely everything into a voting contest, and therefore a vacuous popularity contest, just take a look at 'reality' television.
Which is why Madame and I strongly support a minimalist republic here, a president simply replacing the GG with a list of specified powers and with no reserve ones, and with the president elected by some sort of college of those already elected and requiring a very substantial majority - at least two thirds. The college could consist of all Federal parliamentarians, perhaps with an added group of some from the state parliaments. The German one would be worth a good look. But a directly elected one would not work properly in a parliamentary democracy.
[ 07. March 2014, 06:47: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't use this proposed "you can only use democracy once" standard in any other situation. You could just as well ask:
quote:
What would be the point of an elected [national government], if you already have an elected [local] government?
Well, no, because they perform different functions. I admit the monarch these days has a largely ceremonial function, but the purpose of a monarch is essentially to rule the country. As is the purpose of a government. So by electing the monarch, the way I see it, you are essentially duplicating the function of rulership. You would, in effect, have two presidents, the "elected monarch" and whoever was currently elected to lead the government.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Is the current function of the monarch to 'rule'? Or is it just to reign? - ie to participate in the ceremonial dimension of public life (open things, name things, award things etc), plus a few constitutional long stops. Loads of countries get by with electing someone for those functions.
As for the that 'Better someone born and bred to the role than some superannuated political hack' argument - there is no reason why persons of genuine distinction - a writer, scientist, artist or national treasure could not be elected or nominated to the role. You could even have one who makes a good tea cosy.
The Windsors are an ordinary, not specially agreeable family : their 'aura' is the product of projection and sycophancy. Set up the office of a President, deck it with a bit of bling, put a good woman or man in it, and in a few years, I doubt not, it would attract the same unthinking deference.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[Monarchy is injurious to the majority] Because it encourages cronyism rather than meritocracy, it suppresses valid criticism from those within the gong-chasing classes and it stifles effective change. Add to that the inherent inequity (the OP - How is Hereditary Monarchy Fair) in permitting a group of people to avoid the penalties for bad behaviour that others don't have the connections to evade. Then add the immense insult of the queen's husband and her heir appearing in dazzling multi-row be-ribboned Savile Row uniforms at an event allegedly intended to honour real heroes - most dead, many of the survivors in wheelchairs (and placed where the faux dignitaries - many in Gilbert and Sullivanesque costumes - blocked their view of the proceedings) and with four/max. five bits of polished tin adorning their chests.
All these things happen in republics as well. As such, I don't see how you can argue that they are specifically and directly caused by a monarchial system.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
The problem with public, Firenze, is that they'd pick some idiot like Stephen Fry to fill the role ('Oh, he's so clever! Oh, he's such a national treasure he'd be perfect for the role!') and this country would quickly be reduced to a laughing stock.
Either that or someone like Michael Heseltine. All rather unattractive.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The problem with public, Firenze, is that they'd pick some idiot like Stephen Fry to fill the role
That's one of the better possibilities. We could just as easily end up with a President Beckham, President Cowell, or President WhoeverthefuckwonBigBrotherthisyear.
This is the country where a bloke in a monkey suit can get elected to public office. That alone is an argument for keeping the selection of at least one of the people at the top as far away from the public as possible.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Which is why Madame and I strongly support a minimalist republic here, a president simply replacing the GG with a list of specified powers and with no reserve ones, and with the president elected by some sort of college of those already elected and requiring a very substantial majority - at least two thirds. The college could consist of all Federal parliamentarians, perhaps with an added group of some from the state parliaments. The German one would be worth a good look. But a directly elected one would not work properly in a parliamentary democracy.
Gee D what you're describing has no credibility at all. There would be no reason why anyone should respect a person chosen that way. Anybody who is voted for gets their legitimacy from where they are voted from. That dog's breakfast would give them even less legitimacy than the Church of England's General Synod.
Nor is it correct to say "a directly elected one would not work properly in a parliamentary democracy". The Irish Republic has a president who is a directly elected constitutional equivalent of HMQ. Personally, I prefer HMQ, but I can see why history has made her an unacceptable option in Dublin. Some of the recent Irish Presidents have been good. Some of the earlier ones are people of whom you tend to ask 'who's he when he's at home?"
Going back to Stonespring's original question 'How is hereditary monarchy fair?', he/she and several other people posting seem to assume what matters is 'is it fair that only the person born first to the right parents can become king/queen? The other 60,000,000 or in his or her case 320,000,000 don't get a chance.'
Is that the right question. Is it even interesting or remotely relevant? Stonespring has no meaningful chance of becoming US president. I, as a non-American, have no chance at all. So what?
A more relevant question is 'what seems to produce a better, stabler, fairer society for everyone?'. On that score, the modern sort of hereditary constitutional monarchy isn't a bad way of doing it. My country isn't perfect. But it's a sight better than a lot of countries. The constitutional monarchies of Scandinavia regularly top every league table on democracy, fairness etc.
The government financing crisis last year is not a very good advertisement for the elected executive president model. Parliamentary democracy has its flaws, but I'd prefer that to the elective executive presidential model on every count.
I lived for four years in a country which was an absolute dictatorship. The president was president for life. So even asking what might happen when the president dies, was construed as treason. There was a parliament, but it met for a week twice a year to pass laws, and all its members were elected unopposed. There was one afternoon of question time, which was at District Council level, and the rest of the time the members one after another made speeches extolling how wonderful the president was. From my house, at night, you could see the perimeter lights of a political prison, into which from time to time, work colleagues disappeared.
In the past a hereditary monarch could behave like that. Henry VIII did. But of the last two that tried it, one got executed, and the other ended up scurrying down the Thames in a rowing boat. Words cannot describe by how much I prefer Elizabeth II to the idea of king David, Nick or Ed.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is the country where a bloke in a monkey suit can get elected to public office.
Not just elected, but re-elected too. (More than once, I think.)
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The problem with public, Firenze, is that they'd pick some idiot like Stephen Fry to fill the role
That's one of the better possibilities. We could just as easily end up with a President Beckham, President Cowell, or President WhoeverthefuckwonBigBrotherthisyear.
This is the country where a bloke in a monkey suit can get elected to public office. That alone is an argument for keeping the selection of at least one of the people at the top as far away from the public as possible.
I think the Tony Benn solution was to give the prerogatives of the Monarch to the Speaker of the House of Commons. I was quite keen on this idea when Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd were in situ. Less so subsequently.
Of course, it was sheer dumb luck that meant that we didn't enter World War II with a pro-Nazi monarch and we did enter WWII with an appeaser on the throne and had Lord Halifax been a plebeian that might have influenced the choice of the replacement for Neville Chamberlain for the worse. So it's not a given that the hereditary principle gives us better leadership than the demos. The thing is that for the last sixty odd years we have had good Queen Bess Mark II on the throne which has reconciled us to hereditary monarchy. If she had fallen under a bus in the 1980s and the Boy Chuck ("My name is...") had scooped the pot then the Republican movement would be in clover. Given a choice between Liz Windsor and President Fry... actually that is silly, do you want the hereditary posh Queen or the democratic one. OK, given a choice between President Cowell and HM the Queen then, yes, I would go for HM the Queen. Given a choice between Chuck III and, say, President Peter Ackroyd or President Alastair Darling or, indeed, President Kenneth Clark (All Hail!) then I am not sure that the hereditary principle is quite working out for me at the moment.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Adjective selection can be so telling. What's "posh" got to do with anything?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to Stonespring's original question 'How is hereditary monarchy fair?', he/she and several other people posting seem to assume what matters is 'is it fair that only the person born first to the right parents can become king/queen? The other 60,000,000 or in his or her case 320,000,000 don't get a chance.'
Is that the right question. Is it even interesting or remotely relevant? Stonespring has no meaningful chance of becoming US president. I, as a non-American, have no chance at all. So what?
The current US president had much less of a chance of becoming president than I when he was born.
The symbolic fairness of a system of government matters to many just like the symbolic stability and continuity matters to many who support hereditary monarchy. I understand why people want to retain hereditary monarchy in what is otherwise a democracy, but I don't understand how people can be completely unperturbed by laws that codify the legal privilege of one family over others. You can go on about how being monarch is so hard and undesirable and is all about selfless service and involves sacrificing the right to vote among other things. It's still an incredible privilege and it's enshrined in the legal fabric of a country.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No Enoch, it's a system which would make sure that in our republic - and the sooner we get it the better - we did not end up with "king David, Nick or Ed". Nor the Aust equivalent of Beckham and his ilk. Indeed a popular vote some 30 years ago could have seen us with a President Bond, with a man who in a few brief years was to be convicted of large corporate fraud. We would end up with a person much like those presently appointed GG, but with no independent power base. That avoids the pop stars, and also the problems of the 5th Republic (and Ireland as well) the PM and the President as well can refer to popular support. It will also work well in a federal system.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The symbolic fairness of a system of government matters to many just like the symbolic stability and continuity matters to many who support hereditary monarchy.
I respect (while still disagreeing with) those who genuinely think removing the monarchy would improve the way the country is run in meaningful ways, but I have little patience for those who would happily tear down the whole thing for the sake of nothing more than a bit of cheap and functionally irrelevant symbolism.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Adjective selection can be so telling. What's "posh" got to do with anything?
Really, class has nothing to do with how we select our head of state? Her Majesty the Queen is not Posh? Blimey, one learns some interesting facts debating with monarchists.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Adjective selection can be so telling. What's "posh" got to do with anything?
Really, class has nothing to do with how we select our head of state? Her Majesty the Queen is not Posh? Blimey, one learns some interesting facts debating with monarchists.
No, poshness doesn't have anything to do with it. The royal family could become common as muck and they would still be the royal family. Whether they are or are not posh doesn't change anything.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
The trouble with: 'The popular vote would elect Appalling Person X' is that you could parallel it with a brief, unflattering, but factual, character description of any number of British monarchs (it would NOT be hard - George IV anyone?) and ask Do you want someone like this as Head of State?
At least, with election, the tenancy is temporary.
PS I would prefer Alan Bennett to Stephen Fry, but I'm easy.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I flirted with republican tendencies in my naive youth.
Then I realised what sort of people actually get elected to Head of State and decided that our royal family was way better than any of them.
Don't forget that Putin, Bush, Nixon, Hollande and many others were all elected.
Do you seriously think that we in Britain will do any better? What evidence is there that we can elect a head of state that will be better than the one we get by a hereditary royal family?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Do you seriously think that we in Britain will do any better? What evidence is there that we can elect a head of state that will be better than the one we get by a hereditary royal family?
It's pretty easy to see what sort of people we'll elect to such positions - just look at the Prime Ministers we've had.
If Britain were a Republic, our last five Heads of State would have been Cameron, Brown*, Blair, Major, Thatcher. Enough to give anyone pause, I'd say.
.
*= can be excluded if we only look at election winners, in which case Wilson would make up the five (Callaghan never won an election either).
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Don't forget that Putin, Bush, Nixon, Hollande and many others were all elected.
Those were all in executive positions - sought because they carry real power.
Whereas we are talking about the role of Figurehead, where it's all pomp and no substance.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The symbolic fairness of a system of government matters to many just like the symbolic stability and continuity matters to many who support hereditary monarchy.
I respect (while still disagreeing with) those who genuinely think removing the monarchy would improve the way the country is run in meaningful ways, but I have little patience for those who would happily tear down the whole thing for the sake of nothing more than a bit of cheap and functionally irrelevant symbolism.
If 'symbolic fairness' really matters to you, then for you, that's a factor. It isn't for me because in general 'symbolic' doesn't cut it much for me. It's a phrase like 'consciousness raising' which people use to justify wasting time and effort on initiatives that don't work or don't have any real effect. Something is 'fair', 'unfair' or 'irrelevant'. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
Given a choice between Chuck III and, say, President Peter Ackroyd or President Alastair Darling or, indeed, President Kenneth Clark (All Hail!) then I am not sure that the hereditary principle is quite working out for me at the moment.
I'd a lot rather have Charles III that any of those three names. Or Simon Cowell. Or Stephen Fry. Or David Beckham. Or John Bercow. Or even Victoria Beckham, who at least shares a name with a recent monarch.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So people should just accept what they're given and not strive to change their own countries for the better. Really? You think I should just put up and shut up with a system which is inherently unfair, just because you think it's better? I don't give a fuck that the Queen is good at her job, one individually good monarch does not make monarchy a just and fair system. There's a guy called Jesus you may have heard of who didn't have a great opinion of unfair systems of government. It boggles the mind that Christians are so happy with injustice and unfairness.
Your egalitarian ideas of injustice and unfairness are irrelevant to the question of the British monarchy. What matters is: is the system undemocratic? because the Queen reigns with the consent of parliament and the people, there's nothing undemocratic about it. Several years ago, the late Labour MP Tony Banks, an ardent republican, made a proposal which I, and ardent monarchist, could agee with. He wasn't in favour of deposing QE2 from the throne in her 80's, but suggested that, when she goes the way of all flesh, there should be a referendum on whether we, the British people, want to continue with this institution, or elect our own Head of State. This is pure democracy.
If the people of this country don't like the constitution we have, they have the option to vote against it and change it. The Queen is personally very popular in her old age, and it's unlikely that anything close to a majority would wnat rid of her. Perhaps Charles and William will be much less popular, and by the time George is old enough to want to be a plumber, the people will have had enough and will vote to change the constitution. If I were to live long enough to see a vote on the future of monarchy, I would certainly vote to retain it, but as a democrat, I would accept that the British people have the right to elect a president if they want it and vote for it.
The only problem with Tony Banks' idea at present, is that there's no call for it, either from parliament or the people. There are many journalists who express strongly republican views in the press. There are many individual MP's who have strongly republican sympathies, mostly Labour, but no doubt there are some from other parties, but there's no republican movement. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Ed Miliband is a closet repubican, but if he came out and announced it to the House, he'd be torn to shreds! So this has nothing to do with fairness or unfairness. Republicanism is a legitimate political objective, and those who want it need to get members elected to parliament who will campaign on that ticket. If they get enough votes, they will have the political power to call a referendum, and we'll see what the people want.
In that sense, this is similar to Scottish independence north of the border. Alex Salmond, a shrewd politician has spent 30 years building up his power base to the point where the UK government has had no choice but to concede a referendum on his lifelong ambition, and he'll get his answer in September. I don't care what idealogical egalitarians think of the idea of monarchy, but I do care what is the democratic will of the British people, and there's no evidence that any sizeable proportion of the electorate support Jade Constable's view. It's a non-issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
There is no need for a "head of state" at all. Its just an unnecessary hangover from hereditary monarchy.
Ken, perhaps you could tell us if you believe in elected governments. If you do, then someone must head it, which in the UK is the Prime Minister. If we didn't have our hereditary head of state, and didn't replace it with an elected head, then the Prime Minister would become de facto head of state. In France or the USA, where there is an executive president, the head of state has power, but incountries with a figurehead president, such as Ireland or Italy, the position is as purely cermonial as our own, notwithstanding Italy's very doubtful political practice at this time of appointing someone who hasn't been elected. As someone else pointed out, having Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron s head of state leaves me cold. I'd rather have the status quo.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't care what idealogical egalitarians think of the idea of monarchy, but I do care what is the democratic will of the British people, and there's no evidence that any sizeable proportion of the electorate support Jade Constable's view. It's a non-issue.
I agree. Anthony Wells, from polling company YouGov, often says on his political blog UK Polling Report that if you ask the public if they want a referendum on almost any subject the majority will say yes, with one notable exception. They consistently do not want a referendum on the monarchy.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't care what idealogical egalitarians think of the idea of monarchy, but I do care what is the democratic will of the British people, and there's no evidence that any sizeable proportion of the electorate support Jade Constable's view. It's a non-issue.
Wait a second. Isn't one of the purported strengths of an hereditary monarchy that it doesn't have to care about the democratic will of the people? I mean, haven't we just been treated to a long series of posts along the lines of "Look who the people elect when they get the chance. It's terrible!"
[ 07. March 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't care what idealogical egalitarians think of the idea of monarchy, but I do care what is the democratic will of the British people, and there's no evidence that any sizeable proportion of the electorate support Jade Constable's view. It's a non-issue.
Wait a second. Isn't one of the purported strengths of an hereditary monarchy that it doesn't have to care about the democratic will of the people? I mean, haven't we just been treated to a long series of posts along the lines of "Look who the people elect when they get the chance. It's terrible!"
Am I right in thinking that on the succession of a monarch to the British throne, there is some kind of process whereby Parliament (or the Privy Council) assents to the accession? I thought it wasn't a straight-forward case of 'you're your father's first-born son, job's yours'.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Am I right in thinking that on the succession of a monarch to the British throne, there is some kind of process whereby Parliament (or the Privy Council) assents to the accession? I thought it wasn't a straight-forward case of 'you're your father's first-born son, job's yours'.
There are a few well-known bars on the succession of an heir who is eligible on grounds of heredity alone. (Treason and Catholicism are two that come to mind most readily.) Someone obviously has to officially strike the candidate from the line of succession, but it was my impression that the process was done at the time the disqualification came to light, not the time of succession.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Yes, you're right. I was thinking of the Accession Council and getting myself slightly confused.
I think, though, that one can maintain the argument that a British monarch reigns with the consent of Parliament (and therefore the people).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I just love the way that Tony Benn is always trotted out when people are talking about meritocracy or the evils of an hereditary system.
The 2nd Viscount Stansgate did indeed give up his hereditary title - but, as a sketch in Beyond the Fringe pointed out, it is one thing to give up a title, quite another to give up the monetary inheritance that goes with it. This was widely taken to be a swipe at John Grigg (Lord Altrincham) and Tony Benn, both of whom inherited not just titles but pretty substantial monetary wealth ...
It will be interesting to see whether Hilary Benn does as Anthony Grigg and re-claims the title when his father dies...
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
I cannot become the President of the United States precisely because of who my parents are (Norwegians). Is that unfair?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It will be interesting to see whether Hilary Benn does as Anthony Grigg and re-claims the title when his father dies...
His older brother will have to die in mysterious circumstances first. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I cannot become the President of the United States precisely because of who my parents are (Norwegians). Is that unfair?
Not true. You can't become President of the United States because of who you are. Having Norwegian parents is not a bar to the Presidency. Being Norwegian yourself (i.e. not "a natural born Citizen" of the United States) is a bar, however. Andrew Jackson, to pick the most obvious historical example, was the child of two Irish immigrants, so having foreign parents is not a bar to the Presidency.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There's a guy called Jesus you may have heard of who didn't have a great opinion of unfair systems of government.
You mean that one who said “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”?
And how, exactly, is it unfair, in a way that would make baby Jesus cry?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesus:
Wait a second. Isn't one of the purported strengths of an hereditary monarchy that it doesn't have to care about the democratic will of the people?
Well I don't see it that way. For sure, one of its strengths is to be above politics, but since the Restoration, the monarch has reigned only by the will of parliament. Not that parliament was that democratic back then, but it's democratic enough now, that should the voters push for a republic, parlaiment would have to call a refrendum of the issue. But there's no evidence of any clamour for that.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I forgot to add. We live in our own times. QE2 is a venerable old lady who has served her country for 62 years as head of state, and her detractors are few. But it wasn't always thus. Queen Victoria was very unpopular during the middle years of her reign, and there was a stong republican movement at the time. By the time George is elligible to be king, which could be 60 years or more, the world will be a different place. Charles may not prove as popular as his mother. William and Kate have much good will at present, but they're young and beautiful. It may not last. Then the question may be asked again. Do we want to keep the monarchy? It's all about democracy.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My suspicion would be that this aspect will drop away over time ... to be replaced by a more nebulous nod in the direction of faith ... a bit like Prince Charles and his 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of The Faith.'
The good thing, of course, is that he won’t have to change his official title – Fidei defensor – as Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I cannot become the President of the United States precisely because of who my parents are (Norwegians). Is that unfair?
Not true. You can't become President of the United States because of who you are. Having Norwegian parents is not a bar to the Presidency. Being Norwegian yourself (i.e. not "a natural born Citizen" of the United States) is a bar, however. Andrew Jackson, to pick the most obvious historical example, was the child of two Irish immigrants, so having foreign parents is not a bar to the Presidency.
And I am who I am because of my parents. And the fact that they lived in Norway when I was born.
[ 07. March 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: k-mann ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
My take is simple.
Were I setting up a country from scratch there would be no hereditary monarchy.
I oppose the disestablishment of the current monarchy because it does a useful job and separates the ceremonial power from the legal power. This I find beneficial as long as the monarch reigns but doesn't rule. The costs of getting rid of this are higher than those of keeping it.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I cannot become the President of the United States precisely because of who my parents are (Norwegians). Is that unfair?
Not true. You can't become President of the United States because of who you are. Having Norwegian parents is not a bar to the Presidency. Being Norwegian yourself (i.e. not "a natural born Citizen" of the United States) is a bar, however. Andrew Jackson, to pick the most obvious historical example, was the child of two Irish immigrants, so having foreign parents is not a bar to the Presidency.
And I am who I am because of my parents. And the fact that they lived in Norway when I was born.
To clarify. If my parents were living in the US (i.e. actually living there, and not just being on vacation) when I was born, I could become the POTUS. But since they lived in Norway when I was born, I cannot become the POTUS. I have no choice because of choices made by my parents. I cannot move to the US, become a citizen and run for the presidency.
Is that unfair?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
K-mann, do you want to become president of the US? Over the years, quite a lot of them have got shot.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
To clarify. If my parents were living in the US (i.e. actually living there, and not just being on vacation) when I was born, I could become the POTUS.
Again not true. The Fourteenth Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., even if their parents were just there on vacation. The one exception to this (I think) is that children of ambassadors or embassy staff are not granted birthright citizenship. So yes, if your parents were in the U.S. on vacation when you were born you would be eligible for the U.S. Presidency. If your parents were in the U.S. because one of them was the Norwegian ambassador you would be ineligible.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But since they lived in Norway when I was born, I cannot become the POTUS. I have no choice because of choices made by my parents. I cannot move to the US, become a citizen and run for the presidency.
Is that unfair?
Depends on what you mean by "unfair". In the sense that you're penalized for something you have no control over, yes it's unfair. On the other hand it's an unfairness with a deliberate purpose. In this case the desire to exclude from the presidency anyone who may have an undue loyalty to his birth nation, or an undue antipathy to his birth nation's enemies. This is briefly touched on by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68.
On the other hand, it seems a bit elusive what purpose is served by insisting that a Head of State be the most direct descendant of a nation's most historically successful warlord.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I wouldn't care a tinkers if it was 'fair' or not: it's amusing; colourful; serves; living history; brightens up a dull world.
Britain only has the monarchy and fish-and-chips. Why get rid of one of them?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Monarchy is a useful constitutional device. Modern constitutional monarchies are inherently no more nor any less dysfunctional than republican forms of government (indeed, they are simply republics topped off by an hereditary head of state). I'm not sure that posing the question of which type of constitutional representative government to opt for - a modern monarchy or a non-monarchial republic - in terms of fairness is particularly helpful. No, not every little boy or girl can grow up to be king or queen, but precious few little boys and girls can grow up to be president or prime minister; or indeed have any real desire to do so. It's a pious fiction to think otherwise.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Britain only has the monarchy and fish-and-chips. Why get rid of one of them?
Get rid of both - they are both bad for the heart
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Your egalitarian ideas of injustice and unfairness are irrelevant to the question of the British monarchy.
On the contrary, they are highly relevant as part of the democratic process.
quote:
If the people of this country don't like the constitution we have, they have the option to vote against it and change it.
I'm interested in when exactly we have the option to vote against it and change it. On the talk of opinion polls - polls also show the public are in favour of Lords reform that is a lot more radical than anything the politicians seem to be happy to push.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm interested in when exactly we have the option to vote against it and change it.
May, 2015. You and your mates can stand for election on a republican platform. Nothing's stopping you.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Monarchy is a useful constitutional device. Modern constitutional monarchies are inherently no more nor any less dysfunctional than republican forms of government (indeed, they are simply republics topped off by an hereditary head of state). I'm not sure that posing the question of which type of constitutional representative government to opt for - a modern monarchy or a non-monarchial republic - in terms of fairness is particularly helpful.
Perhaps a better question would be, given the purported "uses" of having a monarch (which can vary depending on the monarchical system) is "closest descent from the nation's most successful historical warlord" the optimum system for finding the best candidate to do the job?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Adjective selection can be so telling. What's "posh" got to do with anything?
Really, class has nothing to do with how we select our head of state? Her Majesty the Queen is not Posh? Blimey, one learns some interesting facts debating with monarchists.
No, poshness doesn't have anything to do with it. The royal family could become common as muck and they would still be the royal family. Whether they are or are not posh doesn't change anything.
What, seriously, we could do another 1688 and drop Liz Windsor, her heirs and successors according to law for that nice young lady who was on the front cover of the Sun on Tuesday (All Hail!) and no one would bat an eyelid? I'm in! I haven't been to Brixham for years and the pubs are, I recall, rather good.
A clue. If someone bears the title 'Her Majesty The Queen' or 'His Majesty The King' it follows that they are a little bit posh. The Monarchy is the apex of the British class system. I know there are bits of the aristocracy who affect to believe that HM the Queen is a dull German bourgeois and not as posh as, say, the Duke of Devonshire but for most of us HM the Queen sits at the apex of a system whereby John Cleese looks down on Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett knows 'is place.
I hardly think this is controversial. I mean, we could argue the toss as to whether Beethoven, Bach or Mozart was the greatest composer of all time or whether Hurst's second goal actually cleared the goal line but I'm struggling to see how the claim that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is a bit posh is in any way contested. Even theoretical republicans like me love her to bits but I draw the line at claiming that she is an ordinary member of the public. If your own grandchildren have to bow to you when you enter the room you have probably conceded your 'hail fellow, well met' status.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I just love the way that Tony Benn is always trotted out when people are talking about meritocracy or the evils of an hereditary system.
The 2nd Viscount Stansgate did indeed give up his hereditary title - but, as a sketch in Beyond the Fringe pointed out, it is one thing to give up a title, quite another to give up the monetary inheritance that goes with it. This was widely taken to be a swipe at John Grigg (Lord Altrincham) and Tony Benn, both of whom inherited not just titles but pretty substantial monetary wealth ...
It will be interesting to see whether Hilary Benn does as Anthony Grigg and re-claims the title when his father dies...
Actually, I dragged him in because he made a perfectly sensible suggestion about the Royal Prerogative.
If I was going to work the whole Viscount Stansgate bit into the conversation I would probably echo Dennis Healey's jibe that the main constitutional effect of Tony Benn was to allow the Earl of Home to become Prime Minister with a rider to the effect that Healey ought to have been a bit nicer about the matter given that Rab Butler might well have won the 1964 General Election, possibly nixing Healey's ascent of the greasy pole.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If someone bears the title 'Her Majesty The Queen' or 'His Majesty The King' it follows that they are a little bit posh.
Or, at the very least, that they're "majestic".
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
Given a choice between Chuck III and, say, President Peter Ackroyd or President Alastair Darling or, indeed, President Kenneth Clark (All Hail!) then I am not sure that the hereditary principle is quite working out for me at the moment.
I'd a lot rather have Charles III that any of those three names. Or Simon Cowell. Or Stephen Fry. Or David Beckham. Or John Bercow. Or even Victoria Beckham, who at least shares a name with a recent monarch.
That is your prerogative. But the point is that it would be as possible to have a substantial figure as President rather than Cowell, Fry or Beckham. It's a lazy argument to say that the demos would elect someone crap with the engaging corollary that if the demos can't be trusted with the election of a ceremonial figurehead what the hell are we doing entrusting them with the executive?
I mean, really, only a hereditary monarchy can be trusted to open Parliament and make the annual Christmas broadcast to the nation because ordinary people are basically shite but the same ordinary people can entrust the leader of the opposition with custody of the Big Red Nuclear Button? How does that work?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm interested in when exactly we have the option to vote against it and change it.
May, 2015. You and your mates can stand for election on a republican platform. Nothing's stopping you.
Very droll. There is a whole raft of issues that constitute constitutional questions - PaulTH seemed to imply that some party somewhere has stood on at least one of these issues. I'm just pointing out that even on something the public are clearly in favour of - Lords Reform - no one actually has.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
But more importantly, people largely don't take notice of what a second, revising legislative chamber does or who's in it. But they would take much more notice about who their head of state is.
So even if people are in favour of 'reforming' the House of Lords, it's unlikely to be a pressing issue for them, whereas for those who want an elected head of state would probably consider it a much more important issue. But very few people do want that.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
But more importantly, people largely don't take notice of what a second, revising legislative chamber does or who's in it. But they would take much more notice about who their head of state is.
So even if people are in favour of 'reforming' the House of Lords, it's unlikely to be a pressing issue for them, whereas for those who want an elected head of state would probably consider it a much more important issue. But very few people do want that.
Well, you could try asking people if everyone, including the Queen, should be equal before the law. Saying yes would transform the monarchy into a form of presidency for life (they can still call her Queen if they want). The Queen could run and if she is elected remain in her current role, but as a citizen among citizens rather than as a sovereign among subjects. When, God forbid, she passes from this world Charles can run to be King but he won't reign unless he is elected. If you're so worried about the public voting the vote can happen in Parliament instead - at least it has some connection to the public will. If you're so confident that the people will keep choosing the monarchy then it will all be settled and people always love being asked their opinion so I doubt many but the most ardent of monarchists would be unhappy.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
You could do all that, but there's no public clamour for it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
Every poll shows that the public favour a largely elected House of Lords.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
Every poll shows that the public favour a largely elected House of Lords.
Do they? Crikey.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Anglican't. The LOL that keeps on lolling. You sod. Very good.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
You could do all that, but there's no public clamour for it.
So if there had been no public clamor for univeral suffrage and all kinds of other democratic reforms, they should not have happened? My OP was about government in general and I should not have referred to the UK specifically in my last post.
The question from my OP remains whether anyone should have a right to "reign" over others by virtue of what parents s/he is born to, irrespective of the specifics of a country, it's history, it's royal family, or even what its people want. There was not much public clamor for women's suffrage in the mid-1800s. That does not mean it should not have been in place. Obviously the solution in a democracy is to convince people and lawmakers to change the system. But this thread isn't about whether republicanism or as I call it "disestablished monarchy" (have your Queen and eat her too - ok that's talbot doesn't really work) should be introduced by some process or other. It is about whether giving legal privileges to one family and its biological descendants that no other family can have is moral. Morality is a better word than fairness. Willing to discuss that?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
Every poll shows that the public favour a largely elected House of Lords.
Do they? Crikey.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If someone bears the title 'Her Majesty The Queen' or 'His Majesty The King' it follows that they are a little bit posh.
Or, at the very least, that they're "majestic".
As in "... Wine Warehouse?"
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Of course, it was sheer dumb luck that meant that we didn't enter World War II with a pro-Nazi monarch
But we did: there's a wafer this line between the views of Albert and his brother David. David was an embarrassment to the family. not because of his views and behaviour but because those beliefs, held and actions held far more widely in the family, came into the public eye. Drawing attention to their own hypocrisy wasn't the done thing, don't you know.
The mark of a cad isn't the behaviour and attitude old buy, but the fact that it puts one's family into the public eye. Goodness people might hear all about it on the wireless with their hats on in pubs ...
Churchill and the Royal Family were jeered on several occasions when visiting bombed out parts of London.
[code]
[ 08. March 2014, 07:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
A clue. If someone bears the title 'Her Majesty The Queen' or 'His Majesty The King' it follows that they are a little bit posh.
So if you were somehow to become King tomorrow, would you instantly become posh?
quote:
I'm struggling to see how the claim that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is a bit posh is in any way contested.
I'm not contesting the claim. I'm contesting its relevance to the question of who should be the British Head of State.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
In a couple of months' time I shall be standing near Buckingham Palace and watching the pomp and ceremony of the Trooping of the Colour. Bands, uniformed soldiers, horses, etc.
There will be thousands of people there - and they won't all be Chinese tourists with their little Nikon cameras.
I can guarantee that if the Queen, the Royal Dukes and other members of the Royal family were not there, the crowds would also not be there.
The chattering classes might be all sniffy about a Monarchy but let me ask these questions: who is the President of Ireland? Who is the President of the Czech republic? Who is the President of Ecuador, Mozambique...?
Now astute observers of world politics - some of you here, of course - will know who these worthy (and temporary) people are. But everyone knows who The Queen of England (TM) is; everyone will know who King Charles (or whatever name he chooses) will be, they will know who King William and, after my lifetime, who King George is.
These people are the embodiment of the Crown. The crown is the unalterable form of Government in this country: we do have a form of absolute monarch is the sense that the Crown has ultimate authority to enact and enforce the laws that Parliament pass (sometimes against the wish of the electorate).
This is why the Monarch spends hours each day reading every piece of Government legislation and then signing it. She doesn't just plant trees and open hospitals and do Christmas Day speeches.
She is literally the human embodiment of the permanent Crown of the UK - the hereditary factor has nothing whatever to do with what palaces she lives in or what title and privilege she is granted; it has to do with symbolic permanence and continuity. The Crown cannot be passed to whomever wants it next, we sorted that out in various wars! Who wants a Monarch who gains the Crown by military or, nowadays, electoral battle?
Yes we have a democratically elected government, but we elect the Government that we feel will best use the powers of the Crown. The absolute Monarchy we saw in the days of Henry VIII still exists in the fact that the powers of the Crown, absolute, undefeatable and unassailable, are spread amongst the Queen's Ministers and their departments. We vote, not for the Crown (or the Monarch) but for the people we think best suited to wield the powers of absolute Monarchy.
The United Kingdom is still ruled by the Crown - and when the Monarch wears the literal crown she is the human embodiment of that Absolute and majestic authority; she is the human symbol of divine rule that is dispersed amongst her ministers who rule in her name.
An elected Monarch would destroy that; an hereditary Monarch maintains the untouchable integrity, continuity and permanence of the Crown.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
she is the human symbol of divine rule that is dispersed amongst her ministers who rule in her name.
Having been timed out, I need to clarify that statement before someone jumps on my head. I am not stating a belief in the Divine right of Kings here; the Queen as an individual person does not have the divine right to be Queen just because of who she is; it is the rule, the authority, the governance of the country, that is given by divine will. She (or whomever follows her in succession) is the symbol of that rule - given physical expression, of course, not by her own personal qualities or otherwise, but by the actual crown, sword, orb and sceptre that she held at the Coronation and when appearing in state .
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
A clue. If someone bears the title 'Her Majesty The Queen' or 'His Majesty The King' it follows that they are a little bit posh.
So if you were somehow to become King tomorrow, would you instantly become posh?
If rabbits were somehow to become the last surviving species of bird would they instantly grow feathers?
Point is: there is no realistic scenario (outwith collapse of our society as we know it) in which someone becomes King or Queen who isn't posh. Suggesting that someone who is not posh might become King or Queen kind of suggests that we aren't talking about a hereditary monarchy any more.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
In the context of a Royal Family that regards Princess Michael of Kent as being 'too grand for us,' can you actually define 'posh'?
And is this 'poshness' restricted to Royalty or can anyone have this attribute?
Is it indeed a stand-alone, definable and quantifiable attitude/state of being or is it relative? Can I be posher than my window-cleaner but less posh than the Bishop?
What happens if a non-Royal is posher than the Queen? Should HM be replaced by this more-qualified 'posho'?
What is it? Accent? Bank balance? Horse ownership?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Britain only has the monarchy and fish-and-chips. Why get rid of one of them?
Get rid of both - they are both bad for the heart
How very ill informed and old fashioned. One warms the very cockles; the other provides useful nutrients.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
You could do all that, but there's no public clamour for it.
So if there had been no public clamor for univeral suffrage and all kinds of other democratic reforms, they should not have happened? My OP was about government in general and I should not have referred to the UK specifically in my last post. ...
Stonespring, there's a fundamental inconsistency in what you've just said. Basic to 'democracy' is the notion that the public want government that represents them, and it's a way of expressing that. It's a bit difficult to see any valid arguments for insisting on imposing 'democracy' on people who aren't clamouring for it.
That's, 'You will vote, whether you want to or not because we tell you that's what you ought to want'. Whoever 'we' is, it means they are very conceited, and probably naive.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When you say 'clearly in favour of reform', "reforming" to what? Politicians can't agree on that.
Every poll shows that the public favour a largely elected House of Lords.
Do they? Crikey.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[fixed broken scroll lock and smiley]
[ 08. March 2014, 10:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by ExclamationMark quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Of course, it was sheer dumb luck that meant that we didn't enter World War II with a pro-Nazi monarch
But we did: there's a wafer this line between the views of Albert and his brother David. David was an embarrassment to the family. not because of his views and behaviour but because those beliefs, held and actions held far more widely in the family, came into the public eye. Drawing attention to their own hypocrisy wasn't the done thing, don't you know.
The mark of a cad isn't the behaviour and attitude old buy, but the fact that it puts one's family into the public eye. Goodness people might hear all about it on the wireless with their hats on in pubs ...
Churchill and the Royal Family were jeered on several occasions when visiting bombed out parts of London.
There is no evidence that George VI was pro-nazi and plenty that he was anti. In particular, he and his queen were inclined to view with deep suspicion anything that was supported or approved of by his brother, the sometime Edward VIII. This may have been fuelled by the fact that 'David' was inclined to ridicule his brother's stammar and his and Mrs Simpson's rudeness to the Duchess of York (which was well-known) didn't help.
The brother who was closest to Edward VIII was not Albert, later George VI but George, the Duke of Kent; the were especially close after the tour they made of South America in the early 1930s. The royal family blamed 'David' for George's what they saw as George's wildness and there were persistent rumours that it was through mingling with David's 'set' that George acquired a worrying cocaine habit.
As for worrying about people in hats listening to the wireless: the event was the wedding of the future George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923 and the person who was exercised by the thought was the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson.
As for the booing in the blitzed east end: they had booed them before the war - not because they thought George VI and his queen were nazis but because they hadn't wanted Edward VIII to abdicate.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Point is: there is no realistic scenario (outwith collapse of our society as we know it) in which someone becomes King or Queen who isn't posh.
So what?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Point is: there is no realistic scenario (outwith collapse of our society as we know it) in which someone becomes King or Queen who isn't posh.
So what?
I suppose it depends where one is coming from. Some might say that Katherine Middleton is not posh at all.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Britain only has the monarchy and fish-and-chips. Why get rid of one of them?
Get rid of both - they are both bad for the heart
How very ill informed and old fashioned. One warms the very cockles; the other provides useful nutrients.
Well, I haven't eaten a member of the Royal Family for some time but I'm for it!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the context of a Royal Family that regards Princess Michael of Kent as being 'too grand for us,' can you actually define 'posh'?
And is this 'poshness' restricted to Royalty or can anyone have this attribute?
Is it indeed a stand-alone, definable and quantifiable attitude/state of being or is it relative? Can I be posher than my window-cleaner but less posh than the Bishop?
What happens if a non-Royal is posher than the Queen? Should HM be replaced by this more-qualified 'posho'?
What is it? Accent? Bank balance? Horse ownership?
There's generally an inverse correlation between "poshness" and IQ. Does that help in the case of the Royals? (In the case of everyone else, it doesn't matter, of course).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Point is: there is no realistic scenario (outwith collapse of our society as we know it) in which someone becomes King or Queen who isn't posh.
So what?
I suppose it depends where one is coming from. Some might say that Katherine Middleton is not posh at all.
Depends how one defines "posh" (if you have the will to do so). The Middletons own a very large house, sent their children to public schools and of course, Katie went to St Andrews a sort of college for toffs.
They are working very hard ay making Katie just an ordinary girl but it doesn't really wash.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. There is no evidence that George VI was pro-nazi and plenty that he was anti.
2. The royal family blamed 'David' for George's what they saw as George's wildness and there were persistent rumours that it was through mingling with David's 'set' that George acquired a worrying cocaine habit.
3. As for worrying about people in hats listening to the wireless: the event was the wedding of the future George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923 and the person who was exercised by the thought was the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson.
4. As for the booing in the blitzed east end: they had booed them before the war - not because they thought George VI and his queen were nazis but because they hadn't wanted Edward VIII to abdicate.
1. There is no evidence he was anti Nazi. At best, he was in Halifax's camp - quite happy to do a deal with Mr Hitler. He was annoyed with his brother simply because he (Albert) felt dropped in it by the abdication. They shared the same right wing views that even by the standards of the times were extreme. For goodness sake, Moseley was welcome in landed aristocratic circles.
2. This would be the George whose drug addiction and bisexual escapes (with, among others Noel Coward), was kept out of the papers even though it was widely known by the same press?
3. It was reiterated at the death of George V and in the abdication crisis. There is a substantive rumour that Doctors "hastened" George V's death with morphine to ensure that it was timed for the morning or evening newspaper deadline, I forget which
4. Well, that's at least twice. They were booed in the East End in the Blitz because that idiot Churchill went on a walk about and said "We can take it. "Not too hard for him and the King to say from the safety of a deep bunker: not the same if you're under a table in a terraced house.
We have to accept that the British public haven't always been as deferential as we sometimes think. Time will tell what Brian will be like but the thought of a pensioner acceding to throne isn't perhaps the thing I'd want to see. At least, I suppose there's one thing: it won't be that ghastly Margaret woman.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Point is: there is no realistic scenario (outwith collapse of our society as we know it) in which someone becomes King or Queen who isn't posh.
So what?
I suppose it depends where one is coming from. Some might say that Katherine Middleton is not posh at all.
Depends how one defines "posh" (if you have the will to do so). The Middletons own a very large house, sent their children to public schools and of course, Katie went to St Andrews a sort of college for toffs.
They are working very hard ay making Katie just an ordinary girl but it doesn't really wash.
New money and daughter of an air stewardess, though.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QUOTE]New money and daughter of an air stewardess, though.
So? I expect they bought their own furniture as well.
Anyway money is never new - it's the old recycled.
By some definitions of posh (house size, money, education of children) they are posher than those of us with small homes, little money, state educated because we work in D, E class occupations.
[ 08. March 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Yeah, deffo bought their own furniture, I reckon.
As I say, it all depends on where one is coming from.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the context of a Royal Family that regards Princess Michael of Kent as being 'too grand for us,' can you actually define 'posh'?
It's a colloquialism for upper class. Do you seriously deny the existence of the class system in the United Kingdom?
quote:
And is this 'poshness' restricted to Royalty or can anyone have this attribute?
I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago.
quote:
Is it indeed a stand-alone, definable and quantifiable attitude/state of being or is it relative? Can I be posher than my window-cleaner but less posh than the Bishop?
It's relative. Among the members of the Bullingdon Club George Osborne was known as 'oik' but he is not, otherwise, generally regarded as a representative of the lower classes. It is impossible for a non-conformist to be posher than a bishop. Even if the Bishop is Pete173 Unless the non-conformist in question happens to be the Duke of Norfolk.
quote:
What happens if a non-Royal is posher than the Queen? Should HM be replaced by this more-qualified 'posho'?
There are sections of the aristocracy that consider themselves to be grander than the Royal Family whom they regard as the scion of a middle class German family but no-one seriously thinks that the laws of succession should be founded on the grandness of one's dynastic inheritance.
quote:
What is it? Accent? Bank balance? Horse ownership?
A combination thereof, tied in with a number of other factors. Sorry, how is any of this controversial? When the telly run the famous sketch from TWTWTW with Messrs Cleese, Barker and Corbett do you howl with rage and bombard the BBC switchboard with a complaint to the effect that since the revolution of 1979 El Maximo Leader Comrade Thatcher abolished all class distinctions and that all British people from Comrade Liz Windsor to Comrade White Dee are all a unified whole marching forward to the progressive future? Really?
As I have said before, I am a pragmatic supporter of the monarchy. Why mess with a working democratic constitution? But the arguments of those who support the monarchy in principle appear to be 1/ There is no class system in the UK 2/ The people cannot be trusted to chose their ceremonial head of state but can be trusted to devolve life and death powers to the wielder of the pointy end and 3/ There is no-one in public life in the UK who can represent the UK at ceremonial functions without being simply to ghastly for words, on this understanding the monarchy is the one thing that stands between Britain and the Dictatorship of the X Factor. Now all three of these arguments are, quite simply, garbage (Garbage - President Shirley Manson, All Hail!, sorry, forgot myself for a moment). The point is that there are lots of well run and functioning democracies that work perfectly well without a hereditary monarch, even if we can't name their presidents off the top of our heads. I'm not immediately minded to run off and join the republicans but once Comrade Windsor pops her clogs, you are going to have to do better than that if you want to defer the accession of Lord Protector Jedward, or whatever your post-monarchy apocalyptic fantasy of choice is.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Exclamation Mark quote:
For goodness sake, Moseley was welcome in landed aristocratic circles.
Sir Oswald Mosley didn't neeed a welcome, he was born into 'aristocratic circles': his father was a cousin of George VI's father-in-law; his first wife was the daughter of Lord Curzon, sometime Viceroy of India; his second wife was a Mitford (Diana Guinness).
However, 'aristocratic circles' weren't identical to royal circles: Mosley was not received because of his adulterous affair with Diana and she wasn't acceptable because the Mitford's were seen as louche and Bohemian. quote:
... George whose drug addiction and bisexual escapes (with, among others Noel Coward), was kept out of the papers even though it was widely known by the same press?
Seems a bit rich to condemn one brother - for the sins of another? In fact George VI (Bertie) and his wife were very supportive of the Duke of Kent in getting him off the drugs. quote:
There is a substantive rumour that Doctors "hastened" George V's death with morphine to ensure that it was timed for the morning or evening newspaper deadline, I forget which
I'm not sure how the drugs administered by the royal doctor to his father have anything to do with George VI's political sympathies? Two things about this: first, if anyone was consulted about this it was likely to have been either Queen Mary or Lord Stamfordham - certainly not the second son who wasn't the heir. Second, Lord Dawson's drug dosage only mirrored what goes on in hospitals, private homes and nursing homes today: there is a point where adequate pain relief is likely to stop the breathing you are striving to make less painful.
As for the remark about the wireless and be-hatted listeners: this wouldn't have applied during the abdication crisis and the broadcast made by Edward VIII afterwards was arranged so hurriedly that there were no comments before by the ABofC (Lang) and his speech after was far from sycophantic, being roundly condemned for the way that he condemned the Duke of Windsor's decision to go. Lang was very much in favour of the filming of the coronation of George VI.
One could accuse George VI of many things, but pro-nazi sympathies would be very wide of the mark.
BTW I assume by that "ghastly Margaret woman" you refer to Princess Margaret Rose?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
You could do all that, but there's no public clamour for it.
So if there had been no public clamor for univeral suffrage and all kinds of other democratic reforms, they should not have happened? My OP was about government in general and I should not have referred to the UK specifically in my last post. ...
Stonespring, there's a fundamental inconsistency in what you've just said. Basic to 'democracy' is the notion that the public want government that represents them, and it's a way of expressing that. It's a bit difficult to see any valid arguments for insisting on imposing 'democracy' on people who aren't clamouring for it.
That's, 'You will vote, whether you want to or not because we tell you that's what you ought to want'. Whoever 'we' is, it means they are very conceited, and probably naive.
The entirety of my post said that imposing democracy on anyone is bad. I just find it impossible to write online with clarity.
My OP, yet again, is not about whether or not any country with a hereditary monarchy should change or when or how. It is about the morality of hereditary monarchy - that is, the morality of giving a legal reign over others to someone merely because of the biological parents that person is born to. Why can't we talk about this morality or lack thereof with no reference to the UK, the Windsors, elections to have or not have a monarchy, Norway, the Maoris, etc? Is anyone born with any more right to legally reign over others than anyone else? Even if its immoral, it may be unwise to do anything about that in a particular place at a particular time. But it's the inherent morality of hereditary monarchy as a system that I'm interested in talking about.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Poshness and IQ? Charles II was pretty posh, and witty, amusing, lubidinous, great patron of the arts, a Restorer, fun, sensibly duplicitous, my ideal fantasy dinner guest...and intelligent. As was the Prince Regent. (Poshness incarnate)
The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother probably personified the real 'posh' attitude in that she had wonderful golden edged plates and faberge eggs on the table. But the food for luncheon was nearly always fish-and-chips or rissoles followed by Angel Delight. In the words of Educating Rita:
"Blimey! They are just like us. Except they say pass the fucking pheasant".
The snobs are usually the middle class "aspirers", the Mrs Buckets in whatever form or gender they appear.
It's a class that invites sympathy, as they are laughed at by the Upper Class and the traditional Working Class simultaneously.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I'm still not certain what the Windsors and their generally interesting personal lives has to do with the OP nor why, aside from the usual historical reasons, there is any relevance to class structures in the UK.
Whether or not morality enters the question of this particular state structure has more to do with one's ideological approach assessing constitutions. If you want a philosophically coherent structure for your state, then you need to figure out if you a want head of state and then figure out their function (e.g., executive vs. symbolic or some combination), then you need to figure out a selection procedure. If your philosophy feels that equality of opportunity ("fairness" is too subjective a phrase) is paramount, then design your structures accordingly and then it will be likely that you would want an elected or lottery-based head of state. If you privilege equality as a value, then maybe you don't want a head of state-- Lord Stansgate's speaker-as-certifying-authority would serve, or perhaps the Swiss plural executive.
If you're starting with a particular historical situation (and who isn't?) or a less-ideological state and/or constitutional structure, it's not impossible to see a hereditary monarch as fairer if it (for example) precludes or limits civil strife-- Belgium is a prime example, and you can argue that Spain or, in the past, the UK, would fit.
I just can't see it as a yes-or-no situation.
[ 08. March 2014, 13:29: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. Seems a bit rich to condemn one brother - for the sins of another? In fact George VI (Bertie) and his wife were very supportive of the Duke of Kent in getting him off the drugs.
2. I'm not sure how the drugs administered by the royal doctor to his father have anything to do with George VI's political sympathies? Two things about this: first, if anyone was consulted about this it was likely to have been either Queen Mary or Lord Stamfordham - certainly not the second son who wasn't the heir. Second, Lord Dawson's drug dosage only mirrored what goes on in hospitals, private homes and nursing homes today: there is a point where adequate pain relief is likely to stop the breathing you are striving to make less painful.
3. One could accuse George VI of many things, but pro-nazi sympathies would be very wide of the mark.
4. BTW I assume by that "ghastly Margaret woman" you refer to Princess Margaret Rose?
1. He didn't shake the addiction. I was using this an example of a press cover up where anyone else would have been quickly exposed
2. Again, an example of press manipulation. But FWIW pain control at the end of someone's life isn't always as you cite it. In any event the modern approach is just that: it would not be the common practice in the 1930's.
3. J'accuse - for the very reasons I've mentioned before. In addition, lack of condemnation as per his father in WWI.
4. Naturally. Awful. Was once in the same room as her and her language and behaviour was such that anyone else doing the same would've been instantly ejected, if not arrested. As it was her most people stood around fawning - I don't find f--- this and f--- that at all big or funny tbh, neither now nor then. As for the racism and the comments about working people .....
[ 08. March 2014, 17:50: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Press cover-ups weren't just limited to the royal family, though, were they? Winston Churchill managed to have a stroke while in office and no-one knew about it. I'm not sure why this can be used as a tool to bash the royals specifically. It was a problem peculiar to the establishment generally.
Since one can't libel the dead, can you elaborate on what Princess Margaret said so that we can judge for ourselves?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Exclamation Mark quote:
lack of condemnation as per his father in WWI.
Oh really - and the minute the poor chap HAD uttered condemnation he'd have been accused of being 'political'. In any case, once war had been declared I don't think it needed saying that the head of state was anti nazi.
(I'm not quite sure why you think his father should have been anti-nazi a good 2-6 years before it was formed?)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I can vouch that the late Princess Margaret could be something of a trial.
Don't believe all that guff about her being 'denied' the love of her life, Peter Townsend: she was fold she could marry him, but would have to give up her place in the succession and leave 'court' just for a bit. Bearing in mind that the Queen already had 2 children she was unlikely to succeed anyway.
But she chose to stay because she wanted to continue being called Ma'am and having the national anthem played on her birthday.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There is no evidence he was anti Nazi. At best, he was in Halifax's camp - quite happy to do a deal with Mr Hitler.
Hang on, being willing to 'do a deal with Hitler' doesn't make one 'pro-Nazi' does it? I'd say there are lots of degrees between the two positions.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Precisely : and in saying nothing right up to the declaration of war he was doing what a constitutional monarch should do - not doing or saying anything to undermine the position of the elected government.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since one can't libel the dead, can you elaborate on what Princess Margaret said so that we can judge for ourselves?
I prefer not to repeat extreme racism on here but I guarantee that the words were used - and were clearly meant.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Ok. But one man's 'extreme racism' isn't necessarily another's. Sometimes difficult to judge in the abstract.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I can vouch that the late Princess Margaret could be something of a trial.
But she was the most human and interesting of the royals.
I saw her often when she came to my church (her spioritual director retired into our parish after leaving Mirfield).
She mucked in with everyone else at the parish breakfast.
I'd stop being republican if more royals were like her.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... Is anyone born with any more right to legally reign over others than anyone else? Even if its immoral, it may be unwise to do anything about that in a particular place at a particular time. But it's the inherent morality of hereditary monarchy as a system that I'm interested in talking about.
I repeat though that even if we ignore all actual examples of hereditary monarchy, the Houses of Windsor, Orange etc and look at this from a totally theoretical and abstract point of view, why does this question matter? What has fairness got to do with it?
If we are looking at fairness, what matters is what is what is most likely to be fair to the citizens, not the head of state or people who would like to be head of state. What is fair is what produces the most stable and pleasant society to live in for the rest of us.
Having a head of state who is chosen automatically has quite a lot to be said for it. Despite what Ken says, somebody has to do the job. Having this done by descent stops people bickering for it. One could do it by lottery, but it's better to designate somebody from birth and train them up to it. Besides if they are chosen by accident of birth, neither they nor anybody else can believe that they are in some way particularly suitable and better than anybody else is.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Ok. But one man's 'extreme racism' isn't necessarily another's. Sometimes difficult to judge in the abstract.
Use of the N word and worse was actionable in that context and in those days
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[Monarchy is injurious to the majority] Because it encourages cronyism rather than meritocracy, it suppresses valid criticism from those within the gong-chasing classes and it stifles effective change. Add to that the inherent inequity (the OP - How is Hereditary Monarchy Fair) in permitting a group of people to avoid the penalties for bad behaviour that others don't have the connections to evade. Then add the immense insult of the queen's husband and her heir appearing in dazzling multi-row be-ribboned Savile Row uniforms at an event allegedly intended to honour real heroes - most dead, many of the survivors in wheelchairs (and placed where the faux dignitaries - many in Gilbert and Sullivanesque costumes - blocked their view of the proceedings) and with four/max. five bits of polished tin adorning their chests.
All these things happen in republics as well. As such, I don't see how you can argue that they are specifically and directly caused by a monarchial system.
Timescales are different. We could have a divisive monarch for sixty years with no way to remove him/her - or would you approve a coup led/encouraged by the military?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The chattering classes might be all sniffy about a Monarchy but let me ask these questions: who is the President of Ireland? Who is the President of the Czech republic? Who is the President of Ecuador, Mozambique...?
The British Monarchy is unique because of the Commonwealth and the not-too-distant memory of the global British Empire. Here in the US, not too many people know what the royalty of countries other than the UK look like, let alone their names. I would imagine the same is true in quite a few countries. Less true in Europe, but even there the average person on the street is likely to know about the members of the royal family of his/her own country (if that country is a monarchy) and the British royal family, and know much less if anything about who the members of the royal families of any other countries are.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... Is anyone born with any more right to legally reign over others than anyone else? Even if its immoral, it may be unwise to do anything about that in a particular place at a particular time. But it's the inherent morality of hereditary monarchy as a system that I'm interested in talking about.
I repeat though that even if we ignore all actual examples of hereditary monarchy, the Houses of Windsor, Orange etc and look at this from a totally theoretical and abstract point of view, why does this question matter? What has fairness got to do with it?
If we are looking at fairness, what matters is what is what is most likely to be fair to the citizens, not the head of state or people who would like to be head of state. What is fair is what produces the most stable and pleasant society to live in for the rest of us.
Having a head of state who is chosen automatically has quite a lot to be said for it. Despite what Ken says, somebody has to do the job. Having this done by descent stops people bickering for it. One could do it by lottery, but it's better to designate somebody from birth and train them up to it. Besides if they are chosen by accident of birth, neither they nor anybody else can believe that they are in some way particularly suitable and better than anybody else is.
I think it matters if heredity monarchy is moral or not - regardless of any country's particular situation. Ever since the invention of agriculture, at least, a certain group of people in every society has held political power and passed it down to their children. Hereditary monarchy, even with constitutions and the consent of those reigned over, is still a pretty pure embodiment of that principle of "some people took control thousands of years ago and all their kids ever since have benefitted from it." Since I'm not an advocate of the abolition of private property I won't contest people passing money and social/political/educational connections down to their kids. But codifying social hierarchies in law through systems like hereditary monarchy is legitimizing one of the ugliest parts of human history. I'm sure it works wonderfully and that anything it might be replaced with would be worse. That does not mean it is not immoral. Can't all you people who say "It doesn't matter if it's immoral or not if it works well" at least admit it's immoral?
I already mentioned having a lottery of infants up for adoption as being somewhat more fair, or at least keeping the current royal family for ceremonial affairs but removing any legal reality of their reign. No one has responded to this.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
By Exclamation Mark:
There is no evidence he was anti Nazi. At best, he was in Halifax's camp - quite happy to do a deal with Mr Hitler. He was annoyed with his brother simply because he (Albert) felt dropped in it by the abdication. They shared the same right wing views that even by the standards of the times were extreme. For goodness sake, Moseley was welcome in landed aristocratic circles.
The fact that you don't know of any evidence that George VI was anti-Nazi is scarcely evidence that he was pro-Nazi. And Halifax's appeasement mind is not evidence of pro-Nazi thoughts or activities either.
Gildas - not a middle class German family, but descendants of minor German royalty and from memory, mediatised at that.
Leo (and it's you this time, not Ken I mean) - an acquaintance of my father spent some time at a party on a couch with Psse Margaret - from his account, she was very human and interesting, but not in the context of getting morning teas after the morning's service. AIUI, she was strongly towards the catholic end of the Anglican spectrum as well.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Stonespring writes: quote:
ince I'm not an advocate of the abolition of private property I won't contest people passing money and social/political/educational connections down to their kids. But codifying social hierarchies in law through systems like hereditary monarchy is legitimizing one of the ugliest parts of human history. I'm sure it works wonderfully and that anything it might be replaced with would be worse. That does not mean it is not immoral.
I don't see for a minute how one is different from the other and, indeed, if we think of relative impact, inherited money might well have caused more damage than inherited authority (I'll not say power as that varies from monarchy to monarchy).
In any case, I thought that this thread was about fairness and as I've suggested above, fair can mean different things depending on what one is trying to do with one's state structure. Assuming, of course, that any state structure can be moral, given that they generally maintain themselves by force and violence, or the threat thereof.
[ 09. March 2014, 02:46: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo (and it's you this time, not Ken I mean) - an acquaintance of my father spent some time at a party on a couch with Psse Margaret - from his account, she was very human and interesting, but not in the context of getting morning teas after the morning's service. AIUI, she was strongly towards the catholic end of the Anglican spectrum as well.
Well on the occasion I came across Margaret it did look like she'd be enjoying some time on the couch later ....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo (and it's you this time, not Ken I mean) - an acquaintance of my father spent some time at a party on a couch with Psse Margaret - from his account, she was very human and interesting, but not in the context of getting morning teas after the morning's service. AIUI, she was strongly towards the catholic end of the Anglican spectrum as well.
Indeed - and we were at the very top end of the spectrum - birettas and benediction. And there was usually something much stronger than tea after our High Mass.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
This is one of those issues which polarise and about which people seem to have a position which is as much instinct as reason. Either "it ain't broke so don't fix it" or "it's all medieval and absurd." I confess my lifelong position has been the latter even when - and this was when I lived in Britain back in the 80s - to say such a thing could create a palpable sense of shock and even outrage.
What I find amusing is the notion that the monarch is "disinterested in politics." I think it was Peregrine Worsthorne who let the cat out of the bag and reported something the Queen Mother said to the effect of "We're all old fashioned Tories here." But of course they are, it is in their interests to be - however discretely. Now I am a New Zealander I won't rant on the absurdity of of an absentee non-citizen head of state.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
By some definitions of posh (house size, money, education of children) they are posher than those of us with small homes, little money, state educated because we work in D, E class occupations.
All very true. Even in Northern Ireland, where they're slightly less obsessed with class than the English, I was accused of being posh because I spoke with a country rather than a Belfast accent. I don't see myself being married into the Royal family any time soon however (shocking, eh?).
In the right circles, Onslow from 'Keeping up Appearances' could be considered the epitome of top drawer high class.
However, I doubt if the royal advisors have any intention at all of turning the Duchess of Cambridge into an 'ordinary girl'. It's doubtful there would be any long-term gain to the institution in doing that. More probable, they'll go for the much more logical and attainable aim of trying to present her - and William's - 'royal-ness' in such a way that is more relatable to ordinary people. The other European royal families have been following this process for decades, and Britain is finally finding its way there, too.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
PaulTH seemed to imply that some party somewhere has stood on at least one of these issues.
I didn't, and however droll you consider Anglican't's comment to be, I'm entirely with him on this. If you think you live in a country which has an unfair and undemocratic constitution, why not get out there and fight it democratically? We are fortunate that we don't live in North Korea, and you can do that here. I don't agree with the views of UKIP, but those who feel strongly enough about Britain's withdrawal from Europe have formed a party to fight on that platform. I hope they don't get anywhere, but they have the right, in a democracy, to campaign for an issue important to them.
So it should be for republicans. If you are ever going to change the constitution, then people who believe that Britain should be a republic are going to have to enter the political arena. The late Screaming Lord Sutch's Monster Raving Loony Party once campaigned for sharks in the Thames. Not an issue many of us would go with, but at least he was willing to put himself up for election. IMO there is nothing undemocratic or unfair about our hereditary monarchy, because a majority of the electorate support it. If you think there is, put it to the test in a democratic way!
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
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.
What evidence do we have that the Brits want a Scandinavian style monarchy? For many of us, admittedly not everyone, it's the pomp we love. In 2012, at the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, I tried to get onto the Millenium Bridge to see the flotilla coming down the Thames. I couldn't get anywhere near it! It would be a huge void in the way we British see ourselves to do away with all of this. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as long as enough people support it, it's quite compatible with our view of ourselves as a democratic people.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The more I think of it, what on Earth drove the question? Why do I keep hearing news items about the American justice system? They're always on about the Supreme Court. At least we don't have the bad taste to have a WRITTEN constitution.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I didn't,
Well, in that case, this is somewhat incomplete:
"If the people of this country don't like the constitution we have, they have the option to vote against it and change it."
quote:
So it should be for republicans. If you are ever going to change the constitution, then people who believe that Britain should be a republic are going to have to enter the political arena.
Sure, but if that's *all* you believe then the rest of your post is rather redundant. After all you didn't post to support the monarchy, but merely to express the view that the views of republicans are irrelevant.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And there was usually something much stronger than tea after our High Mass.
Now that definitely would've appealed to her
[code]
[ 09. March 2014, 19:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, in that case, this is somewhat incomplete:"If the people of this country don't like the constitution we have, they have the option to vote against it and change it."
OK I concede that it isn't possible, as we are now, to just vote against the monarchy. But that's because it has so much support, both positive and negative, that voting it out is a non-issue in British politics. This is why I say that republians need to get organised politically if they want change.
quote:
After all you didn't post to support the monarchy, but merely to express the view that the views of republicans are irrelevant.
I'm sorry if I don't always word things as well as I should. I do support the monarchy one hundred per cent. I don't think the views of republicans are irrelevant. As I've said previously, republicanism is a legitimate political objective. But you need to convince the British people that you have something better to offer than we have now, and I don't think you are anywhere close to that. I'm a supporter of constitutional monarchy. I wouldn't let them rule, just reign in the symbolic way in which they do. I think the overwhelming majority of the British people, if they think of it at all, would agree. So there is no evidence of a democratic will to change things. What part of that democracy do you object to?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
After all you didn't post to support the monarchy, but merely to express the view that the views of republicans are irrelevant.
I'm sorry if I don't always word things as well as I should. I do support the monarchy one hundred per cent. I don't think the views of republicans are irrelevant.
Yes - and similarly to go back a couple of pages, whether someone in the context of this thread thinks the monarchy is in-egalitarian isn't irrelevant either. Insofar as they are part of the demos, it's not completely irrelevant to the democratic process either.
So I wouldn't 'object' to democracy, but it is important to realise that it the art of the possible. Absent one of the main political parties taking up a position - the public either never get to take a stand on it, or even think they should take a stand - Lords Reform is a good example. Without this you either have to form a Reform Party which consists of most of the political positions of an existing party, or you form some new party with the hobby horses of a thousand people (no to EU integration, yes to dressing for dinner and Pullman coaches).
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
That does not mean it is not immoral. Can't all you people who say "It doesn't matter if it's immoral or not if it works well" at least admit it's immoral?
It's not immoral. It's not fair, in a particular narrow sense. To be fair in that particular narrow sense, you would have to make it a position assigned by lottery, so that everyone has exactly the same chance. But then there would be no guarantee that the office-holder had any particular competence, so you'd have to empty the job of all content and make it entirely honorary.
It's not fair, in the same particular narrow sense, that I can't be Miss World. Or the Pope. That particular fact doesn't make either institution immoral.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by aunt jane (# 10139) on
:
This is rather topical, with the recent death of Tony Benn, the British politician who fought long and hard because an accident of aristocratic birth and a quirk of the British constitution meant that despite being elected, he could not take up his seat in the Parliament.
It's time to stop this nonsense of a hereditary head of state.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aunt jane:
This is rather topical, with the recent death of Tony Benn, the British politician who fought long and hard because an accident of aristocratic birth and a quirk of the British constitution meant that despite being elected, he could not take up his seat in the Parliament.
It's time to stop this nonsense of a hereditary head of state.
Actually, Benn inherited a seat in Parliament and under the then rules he had no choice but to leave one House for the other.
Anytime the UK parliament wants to go republican, they can. Even if Elizabeth wanted to fight it out, I don't think that she could manage more than a battalion or two of cavaliers. Australia needs a referendum and Canada likely does as well, including assent of all ten provinces to abolition and design of the replacement. As one of my Albertan political science lecturer acquaintances says, we have a peculiar way of selecting the president of our republic but nobody seems settled on another.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aunt jane:
This is rather topical, with the recent death of Tony Benn, the British politician who fought long and hard because an accident of aristocratic birth and a quirk of the British constitution meant that despite being elected, he could not take up his seat in the Parliament.
It's time to stop this nonsense of a hereditary head of state.
If there was enough public pressure for it, I'm sure one or other of our political parties would make it part of their platform. At the moment, though, the convinced republicans who believe in the political or moral necessity need to do more to get their case across to the public at large.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Interesting tangent question:
If the UK became a republic, but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., remained monarchies, how would that work out? Where would the Queen live? What would her official title be? Where would she carry out most of her duties, including the ones that are currently carried out by governors-general in the countries that retained their monarchies?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Interesting tangent question:
If the UK became a republic, but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., remained monarchies, how would that work out? Where would the Queen live? What would her official title be? Where would she carry out most of her duties, including the ones that are currently carried out by governors-general in the countries that retained their monarchies?
Her official title here would remain what it is now : Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth* .
I would expect that Her other Realms and Territories have similar legislation.
*Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cwth).
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Interesting tangent question:
If the UK became a republic, but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., remained monarchies, how would that work out? Where would the Queen live? What would her official title be? Where would she carry out most of her duties, including the ones that are currently carried out by governors-general in the countries that retained their monarchies?
Why would her place of residence have any relevance to her constitutional position?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I believe that there was speculation about this. In Canada, the GG is a constitutional officer and would continue on although hypothetically she could appoint herself GG or Administrator of the Government of Canada and move into Rideau Hall and collect the $200k/annum. But she might want to establish residence in Barbados or somewhere more agreeable in temperature terms or even in her favourite horse-raising region of Kentucky, which she has privately visited many times; in which case things would just continue, albeit with Balmoral becoming a borstal and Buck House condos for bank executives.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The Australian Constitution provides:
61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
66. There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds* a year.
68. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
I think the conclusion to draw from all this is that here - and I would think in all the other Commonwealth monarchies - the Governor-General's powers are really this of the monarch from time to time, and that the G-G acts purely in a representative role. The practice is that as soon as HM sets foot in Australia, the G-G's exercise of power goes into abeyance, as does that of the Governor of the State in which HM happens to be. I assume that payment of salary continues though.
It would be surprising if the same did not happen in the other Realms. There may be some difference in Canada, where there are Lieutenant-Governors for the Provinces, and my recollection is that all the others are unitary states.
* Apart from now being expressed in decimal currency, the sum has increased substantially. The original sum, converted to $24,000, is probably a fair estimate of the value we receive from the present ministry.
[ 19. March 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Aunt Jane, I repeat the question I asked further up this thread. In what way is having a hereditary head of state unfair?
Yes, perhaps it is unfair to those who would like to seize power. But one would hope there are not very many of them. From the point of view of the rest of us, it is rather better that they haven't got the opportunity to seize it. A political system that the bars the office of head of state from those who would like to seize it, whether by force or election, has rather a lot going for it. For the rest of us, a system that keeps people like that out of power is fairer.
Besides, the thought of either King or President Dave, Nick or Ed is pretty horrible. So is the prospect of its either becoming a retirement job for ex politicians, King Tony or King Gordon, or a complimentary prize for people who never quite made it, King Ken (whether Clarke or Livingstone), Harriet or Shirley.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think the conclusion to draw from all this is that here - and I would think in all the other Commonwealth monarchies - the Governor-General's powers are really this of the monarch from time to time, and that the G-G acts purely in a representative role. The practice is that as soon as HM sets foot in Australia, the G-G's exercise of power goes into abeyance, as does that of the Governor of the State in which HM happens to be. I assume that payment of salary continues though.
It would be surprising if the same did not happen in the other Realms. There may be some difference in Canada, where there are Lieutenant-Governors for the Provinces, and my recollection is that all the others are unitary states.
Am I right in thinking that, during his time as Governor General of Canada, John Buchan refused to join King George VI for parts of his visit to Canada on the basis that his role was redundant when the King was present?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think the conclusion to draw from all this is that here - and I would think in all the other Commonwealth monarchies - the Governor-General's powers are really this of the monarch from time to time, and that the G-G acts purely in a representative role. The practice is that as soon as HM sets foot in Australia, the G-G's exercise of power goes into abeyance, as does that of the Governor of the State in which HM happens to be. I assume that payment of salary continues though.
It would be surprising if the same did not happen in the other Realms. There may be some difference in Canada, where there are Lieutenant-Governors for the Provinces, and my recollection is that all the others are unitary states.
Am I right in thinking that, during his time as Governor General of Canada, John Buchan refused to join King George VI for parts of his visit to Canada on the basis that his role was redundant when the King was present?
Yes. One of the constitutional reforms proposed by Pierre Trudeau in 1978, and succesfully opposed by socialist monarchist and Liberal senator Eugene Forsey (of "I'd rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors" fame), was to give the GG a distinct constitutional status so that their powers continued in the presence of the Sovereign.
Canada started out as a semi-unitary state with provinces but is now more a federal state. The Lt Governors are emanations of the Governor General but have in some places attained a more substantial role, especially in those provinces which were established by legislation (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) or whose laws address this (Québec)-- many happy hours in constitutional workshops on this. Fans of the Canadian constitution can carry on about this for hours, although I would only do so with access to a bottle of Lagavulin 16-year old.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
On her visits here, HM has always held at least 1 Council, and of course, the G-G is not present at that in any official capacity. She has not always done that with the State govts. It's very hard to see what powers could continue to be exercised by a G-G when the monarch is here in person, save by a temporary delegation.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I like the sound of Eugene Forsey. A socialist monarchist. That's me for now.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0