Royalty, Republicanism and Constitutions.
” Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
Dennis from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”
Can’t think why Royalty is on my mind at the moment, they seem to be keeping an unusually low profile of late hardly bothering the newspapers or Television in the slightest…. Oh wait a minute 😉 !
Arthur King of the Britons
Now it seems a little churlish to be all scornflakes about the Royal Wedding in some respects. The sun is shining, two young people in love (seemingly for real) are getting married. And most importantly (at least as far as I am concerned) I am getting an extra day off work, for free! Sweet!
But churlish though it is, having the institution of our monarchy thrusted down out throats repeatedly over a long period of time during the Royal Wedding bulid up has, at least for this reporter, put the institution into the spotlight.
So where do I stand, well for me I am a bit two minded here, I have a theoretical position, and an “in practice” position. Theoretically speaking I am an ardent Republican. It is simply in principle wrong to have positions of authority (and constitutionally the Monarchy still does have authority even if it is never exercised) in a democracy in which the occupants are decided on the basis of an accident of birth.
Our Monarchy might not trace direct linage to Arthur Pendragon, but in reality the basis of their authority is no less farcical than King Arthur’s sword from the lady in the lake. It seems utterly amazing to me that in the twenty first century that anyone would need to actually make the case that the idea of inherited political positions is fundamentally and in principle wrong.
However in practice I am relatively OK with the status quo. People in the country are broadly supportive of the Monarchy and seem in little hurry to move away from a position of constitutional Monarchy and as things currently stand despite my principled position of Republicanism I’m happy to leave things mostly as they are.
For me the big and pressing issues constitutional issues are not around the Monarchy but rather around our legislature, how it works and how it is elected. Whatever the many criticism that people can (justifiably) throw at the House of Windsor and the idea of a Monarchy; Queen Elizabeth the II (in tribute to Private Eye henceforth to be referred to as “Brenda”) has reigned stably and sure footedly for decades. She has admirably grasped what the role of a Monarch in a constitutional Monarchy is, she has been mostly non partisan and non political rising above such things. So insofar as Brenda remains alive I am satisfied to live with the status quo even if it is not what I’d ideally like.
I think the problem with someone like Brenda having been in post for so long and doing a job that most are happy with is that it becomes hard to imagine things being any other way. The thing is however long lived the Windsors are, her maj is sooner or later going to die. And when that happens we are going to have a different Monarch.
And that Monarch will be Prince Charles. Now Chuck is a very different animal from Brenda. He has a politically interventionist streak, be advocating batshit mental voodoo in alternative medicine, or trying to force his own conservative view of architecture on the rest of the country. For me this kind of using your position (of birth not elected) to directly influence the public policy agenda followed by democratically elected bodies is outrageous from the Crown Prince.
But from the King, the head of state, it becomes a different matter entirely. This causes us a major constitutional problem. Now the more I think about it any satisfaction/acceptance I may have with the Monarchy is entirely down to the character and conduct of the present incumbent. When she goes it is a different equation.
So a huge part of the difficulty we have in a constitutional Monarchy is our lack of a proper written constitution. How we are governed, the apparatus of state, the relationship between the Monarchy, executive and legislature are a mish mash collection of statute laws, customs and unwritten agreements. This is kind of fine if everyone agrees to play ball, but what happens if (when?) someone doesn’t want to play ball?
If we are going to remain a constitutional monarchy then we have to sort out the constitutional part. If they are just going to be a figurehead to look pretty and get the tourists in then let’s say so, and do it in writing. Let’s drop this MPs swearing to serve the Queen when elected (serve us, the people like they bloody should 😉 !)
I guess I don’t really mind if the Monarchy is like a mascot at a football match, wearing a silly costume to represent who we are, what we stand for and giving something for Japanese tourists to photograph. My problem is at least on paper (metaphorically speaking!) they are also the Chief Executive and Manager rolled into one. And I worry about how a King Chuck might act in that role.
Oh well, hopefully Brenda will live for a while and put off any hard decisions, in the mean time where can I finagle a free Royal Wedding mug……
Like you I too am not a Royalist, I find the status and monetary gain they make out of the institution repugnant.
However at the same time I do not wish the couple ill will, I resent that I amongst others are paying over 20 million for a pagent whilst drastic cuts are being made to benefits jobs housing schools the NHS. But I dont bear them as a couple ill will , I hope they have a nice day.
I think that holding protest on the day is churlish and will detract from the issues at hand. Many royalist will see such protest as against their wishes and may turn away from a real debate on the government cuts that is surely needed, thats counter productive and dirty water is harder to see through, keep the issues seperate.
I look at the fact that the Royal Family make so much money as an awful sign of our indiference. Take Prince Charles Ownership of the seabed right around the UK. Hes keen on alternative energy wind farms on the seabed. I bet he is as the rent will fill his pockets! if you want windmills you gotta pay rent to HRH.
I agree the present Queen seems to be very much a civic minded person who works hard in her commonwealth role. As you say will Prince Charles be equally admired. He is tainted by the awful events surrounding his love life and many cant forgive him this fact. Hes also not a person to stay out of political issues as he has raised his opinions across many such matters in the past.
I know we like to think we live in a meritocricy, well if we do what is the point of Prince Andrew ? We would all like to think that the aristocracy have evaporated in the modern world. They have not they are still reaping rewards from heriditary privalige, and the Monachy is the ultimate in this out dated and unfair class.
If the happy couple wanted to show “We are all in it together then why not have a registry office wedding and a pint down the pub , cost less than 20 million and show they understand our feelings.
I wonder how those put out of work allready by this govenments savage cuts feel about that huge sum being spent on such an event rather than job creation for them. Our Austerity it seems is a red herring we have money for things that are deemed needed such as Irelands Bail out, Royal Weddings , Libiya, syria yemen etc…
We are a nation with a long history and I feel that the masses still love pomp and circumstance and will be glued to TV sets across the UK. I will be living in a cave with a candle, my guitar, a few cans of larger, and a book, let me know when its all over 🙂