Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
It does go back to my earlier point that if you create a vacuum, somebody will fill it, so be sure you’re ready with your replacement.
Monarchy and Royalty
- Thread starter Mullardman
- Start date
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
His whole reign.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
But there’s no need for a replacement. Removing the monarchy would not create a vacuum any more than removing an unsightly mole would
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But there will be one, because it’ll be in somebody’s interests to have one.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
You don't think abolition of the monarchy would lead to all sorts of power plays by various factions; debates in Parliament; decisions as to what will replace it? Nobody will suggest we don't need a replacement, because everybody will a) fancy their chances as the replacement and b) be looking for the angles to get well-in with the replacement.
That's what I mean when I say you'd create a vacuum. It might not need filling, but there's so much vested interest out there you can bet it would be.
Not really. Funny though.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Sorry, but while I share your antipathy towards vested interests, I don’t understand your defence of an institution that is based and built on centuries of vested interest, privilege and holding down everyone else. The monarchy is the epitome of institutionalised vested interest
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Then replace them with nothing, or at least something a lot cheaper
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
This is what I mean by being misunderstood. I’m not mounting a defence of royalty. I’m simply urging care in deciding what comes next.
I think I might give this thread a miss for a while.
Cav
pfm Member
As I said earlier, other countries have solved the Monarchy problem by specifying their role and funding without too many issues.
If there were the political will here, it would be quite simple. Our problem is the "country" love the Royals and any Government would fear losing votes.
The monarchy does not bring classes together into some sort of common ground, the very purpose on monarchy is to ensure compliance to an ordered society with an elite at the top and acceptance of vast and growing inequality.
Neither is monarchy a counterweight to the nutters in Parliament, the monarchy was silent on Johnson’s attempt to marginalise Parliament not so long ago, an attempt that was stopped in the end by Spider Woman, not Brenda
Nor has the monarchy provided democratic stability. Any good it might’ve done in for example the Great Reform Act has to be set aside the many examples of suppressing reform such as those only a decade earlier.
Finally, while it might be true that there has not been any royal communists, there have been fascist a plenty
The very purpose of the monarchy is to ensure compliance? I don't see the British as empty vassals who would willingly accept day-to-day subjugation by the Queen and her cohorts, unless you see bowing at a gallery opening as compliance. And I would think most people in this country prefer an ordered society, and indeed a fairer one, but that's for the government and the legal system to sort out. But even compliance infers a common togetherness albeit one not as willing as I had suggested, but willing togetherness there is - a royal wedding and birth, for example, are testimony to that. Even patriotic Red Wall voters and the Conservatives have found common ground via the monarchy (and the flag, let's not forget the flag).
The monarchy has been described as the dignified branch of government, and the cabinet and civil service as the efficient branch of government. The Queen acts as a symbol of the state - just watch The Crown - and the government runs the country (or tries to). When the government screws up, the monarchy often becomes a source of comfort and guidance for many, in essence acting as sort of people's counter-balance to the nutters.
My point about Fascists and Communists was not that the country has been free of either rather neither has taken the reigns of power. The monarchy is pro-capitalist (which helps when dealing with Communists, for example) and it has, as in other advanced European democracies endured despite numerous challenges (e.g. Fascism and Communism - and even Boris's crude attempt to circumvent parliament).
The majority of people in the UK today are pro-monarchy/royal; that will not change for the foreseeable future. Even the Aussie's haven't figured out a way to get rid of the Queen, probably because she acts as a focus for national unity.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Of course the monarchy’s purpose is compliance to a hierarchical society with privilege and vested interest at the very top. The compliance has be enforced with violence many times in the past and while the monarchy is no longer responsible for directing violence, compliance is how our hierarchical society with privilege, power and vested interest at its head is maintained.
A hierarchical society with institutionalised elitism and privilege established by birth is at odds with a meritocratic and democratic society and the devolution of power.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
I realize you mean the pitchforks as a joke, but if that’s the automatic reaction to any speculative discussion of alternatives to monarchy, what hope is there? There are alternatives to royalty, monarchy and aristocracy that don’t automatically involve mobs and the guillotine. These alternatives are well established: just look around Europe for starters. (Let’s assume the Head of State is called President.)
Option 1: figurehead President, as in Germany. No real powers, represents the country abroad, inaugurates stuff, asks election winner to form a government... At best acts as a benevolent conscience of the Nation, at worst does nothing much. Essentially what QE2 does.
Why bother?
- Would do it at a fraction of the cost and with few immobilized assets.
- Can be removed in case of trouble, ill health, senility, impropriety, scandal, etc.
- Clear separation of Church and State
- Elected rather than anointed; by the upper house, or by the lower house. In the case of the UK possibly by the HoL, assuming that’s tidied up in the meantime (removal of bishops, hereditary peers, etc.). Or could be designated by rotation among heads of regions (as in Switzerland) or constituent nations...
- Fringe benefit: tabloids would hate it
Option 2: President with limited foreign and/or domestic powers added to option 1. See Finland, Ireland or Italy for interesting examples. The Finnish President is the Commander in Chief and has a vestigial foreign policy role (from the Kekkonen days) although this is shrinking as successive PMs carve out increasing prerogatives, the way they all do. The Italian President has a key role in asking prime ministers to form a government, not a trivial matter in Italy.
Why bother?
- Limit the accumulation of power by PMs (such as the recent power grab vs. Parluament, Henry VIII powers and similar nonsense etc.)
- Guardian of the Constitution role as in IRL
- Can be directly elected by hoi polloi (as in Finland or Ireland) or by Parliament
Option 4: President with extensive executive powers, as in France. President steers policy in addition to being head of state. PM is designated by the President and serves at his mercy, essentially in an implementation role, and serves as a circuit breaker when the government becomes unpopular. Not a good option for the UK, assuming the country wants to maintain the preeminence of Parliament.
I’m sure it’s not difficult to come up with more.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Apart from anything else, a monarchy is antithetical to the concept that everyone is born equal before the eyes of God.
“When Adam delved and Eve span, where the was the gentleman?”
The speaker of those words, a man of God, paid for them with his life on the orders of a King.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, alternatives are plentiful, painless, viable, and a lot cheaper than what we worship now.
The problem appears to be that belief in the monarchy is bound up in the belief in a higher being, and letting go of the expression of divine power on earth, somehow weakens belief in the higher power above.
In the modern world, a monarch does not fulfil a strictly necessary purpose but does offer a symbol of belief in something beyond ourselves that is there to look over us.
Last edited:
wylton
Naim and Mana member
That pretty much sums it up for me; saves me from having to type up a long winded, meandering response to the question!
laughingboy
pfm Member
The problem with that description from The English Constitution (note the casual Imperialism) is that it is over 150 years old, and is buttressed by patently offensive comments such as this:
Furthermore, Bagehot is interesting when it comes to your dismissal of the idea of compliance, as he goes on explicitly to label the English as a 'deferential' society, in the sense that people allow their educated 'betters' (he cites the middle classes) to govern for them.
So Bagehot can be read as saying that the English are not compliant to the Queen, but at the same time that they are compliant to a fiction in which the Queen plays a central part:
Your broader point about the requirement for some kind of mytho-poetic figurehead for a nation may be true - certainly, I think that Churchill's personal project to place himself as central to the national story is one of the reasons why any criticism of him is so contentious. However, if we look at the US, we see no need for a monarchy to fulfil this role of national totem. Instead, we see that any inclusive figure will do. After all, all that is required is someone who embodies our values. Perhaps, we need to find our own Lincoln or MLK.