Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?

[BeatrixFan]

I think you'll find that it's fact that the Queen Mother was actually booed on her early walk abouts in the East End. There she was saying, "We've been bombed too" but unlike her subjects who had been V2ed, she had another 6 or 7 palaces to live in. It was seen as condescending, patronising and many Eastenders found it a bit tough to deal with. The King and Queen did nothing during the war other than look pretty. It was Churchill who did the majority of the work.

As to your comment about honours, title and the class system, the majority of British people are in no doubt that these things have to be phased out. Now, you can't get rid of a class system until you get rid of the monarchy and every peer and his or her heirs. Even then, you'll only end up with a celebrity upper class and a working man working class. Honours aren't rejected, the ones we have at the moment are. The Order of the British Empire? What Empire?! We had reports, commissions, investigations and along the way the British realised two things - 1) for years people have bought their way into the Lords and have paid a fortune for medals and 2) the honours system is archaic and needs reforming. Every country in the world has an honours system but ours is so silly and so political that it needs reforming. If it can't be brought upto modern standards then people want rid of it. Titles are rarely given these days if at all, the abolishment of hereditary peers put a stop to all that but I'd like to draw your attention to something. The Duchess of York was an embarrasment who had titles and tiaras coming out of her armpits but she still didn't make as great an impact on our world than Marie Curie who had no titles. Titles don't make someone great or worthy of adoration, titles simply make your name longer. Titles were glamorous and meant something in the past, they don't now and we no longer need them.

As for throwing the monarchy away based on political idealogy, what do you think got us the monarchy in the first place? It's a political idealogy, it's a way of government - every nation in the world has political idealogy, that's what shapes nations and what changes nations. It only stops when people stop thinking and thats a long way off.

 

[diamondBrg]

To accomplish the kind of radical and I am not using that term in a negative way but with it's actual meaning, the kind of radical change that you are proposing, do you think that groups of people will quietly gather and discuss things and then petition their government for a change?

The kind of overhaul you are suggesting will take nothing less than total all out bloody revolution and while it may sound romantic, it is nasty, ugly and violent. Lots of people die and the government envisioned rarely turns out to be the one instituted, a great example of that is the Russian revolution of 1917.

You are proposing changing the very fabric of your society, from the ground up, it will not be nice and tidy, to say the least.

 

[Al_bina]

Dear diamondBrg,
I do not mean to offend you, but you should be more careful and aviod throwing the revolution of 1917 in Russia in this context. The current situational context in the United Kingdom could hardly be compared to the Russia’s situation at that time. Additionally, the mentality of people is different.
Let us not forget about the French revolution that led to the public execution of King and Queen.

 

[diamondBrg]

Dear diamondBrg,
I do not mean to offend you, but you should be more careful and aviod throwing the revolution of 1917 in Russia in this context. The current situational context in the United Kingdom could hardly be compared to the Russia’s situation at that time. Additionally, the mentality of people is different.
Let us not forget about the French revolution that led to the public execution of King and Queen.

I have a minor in Soviet history, I feel very comfortable in my assertion and yes I agree the French Revolution would be another excellent example.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Yes, I am positive about that and scholarly vs popular, based on what criteria? The majority of historians most assuredly assert that it was the Monarchy that provided the moral support for the British public during WWII.

Yes, but I said that many scholars, including my current mentor, would state that the support was even (meaning between Winston Churchill and the King.)

This debate regarding who had the most support during the war has been discussed before. Scholars who have written about WWII, specifically, Winston Chruchill, and the King agree that the support was even between the two.

Furthermore, I trust them based on their years of study and reputation than someone who does not have their access to sources as well as vast knowledge on the subject.

No offense.

 

[BeatrixFan]

To accomplish the kind of radical and I am not using that term in a negative way but with it's actual meaning, the kind of radical change that you are proposing, do you think that groups of people will quietly gather and discuss things and then petition their government for a change?

The kind of overhaul you are suggesting will take nothing less than total all out bloody revolution and while it may sound romantic, it is nasty, ugly and violent. Lots of people die and the government envisioned rarely turns out to be the one instituted, a great example of that is the Russian revolution of 1917.

You are proposing changing the very fabric of your society, from the ground up, it will not be nice and tidy, to say the least.

Revolutions these days are not bloody. Look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine - radical reforms and not a drop of blood spilt. It wasn't nice and tidy but it changed things and brought new life to a country deeply divided. Britain needs that because we're in the natural pattern of a broken civilisation. This has happened with every Empire, it's great, it's mighty and then it falls leaving division and an inevitable form of revolution to bring in a new order. It doesn't have to be bloody, it doesn't have to be violent and people don't have to die. They did in 1917 in Russia, they did in France but as Al Bina rightly says, Britain cannot be compared to those countries as culturally, socially, historically and politically we are poles apart. I don't think radical reform will take place in polite committees but there's no reason why we shouldn't see a centrist reformist party take control and modernise Britain.

As for the monarchy being important because of history, history doesn't go away. It's always there whether you have a King or a President but the future is open to change and what worked in the past doesn't always work in the present. In this case, the monarchy worked in the past, it doesn't really make sense now and so why not have a republican future?

 

[COUNTESS]

With a President you wouldn't have history.

Sorry, but we have plenty of history and with presidents. Many far more noble and intelligent than the likes of Henry VIII, William IV, George IV, etc. Queen Anne was a dolt. I'll pit Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson and Roosevelt, both Teddy and Franklin against that lot any day. Americans have a long history, obviously not as long as English history. As far as Washington D.C., look around at the marvelous buildings, not the politicians, London has plenty of sleazy politcians, too. Our real history is in New England and Virginia and the like. Every nation has history, good and bad. The monachy as history goes has a checkered past. It is interesting and sometimes dazzling, but no better than ours.

 

[Elspeth]

And you live in a Republic so you get the best of both worlds.

I don't think living in a republic with an executive presidency is the best of anything, to be honest. Not that a monarchy would work in this country, but I think there's a lot to be said for separating the position of Head of State from party politics.

 

[Elspeth]

My original point was that the UK is not currently in a position to VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER one of it's cornerstones of it's civilization.

Sure it is, if it wants to. Much better to surrender it voluntarily than have it removed forcibly.

EVERYONE of Beatrixfan's concerns can be addressed through the political process and the Monarchy remain intact. During World War II it was NOT Winston Churchill that the British public ralied around, it was the King and upon his death Queen Elizabeth.

This is one of the advantages of a constitutional monarchy regardless of the strength of the economy of the country in question. You have a national focus that stands apart from party politics, so it can represent the whole nation, not just the bits of the nation that happened to vote for it. As long as the monarch truly is in touch with enough of the population to act as a genuine focus, a constitutional monarchy is a strong system. Once the monarch loses that connection, the monarchy ceases to have much meaning. The thing I found so damaging about Diana was that she was trying to insert herself between the Queen and the people with her "I want to be Queen in people's hearts" appeal. If the Queen isn't Queen in people's hearts, there's not much point in her being Queen at all.

 

[diamondBrg]

Revolutions these days are not bloody. Look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine - radical reforms and not a drop of blood spilt. It wasn't nice and tidy but it changed things and brought new life to a country deeply divided. Britain needs that because we're in the natural pattern of a broken civilisation. This has happened with every Empire, it's great, it's mighty and then it falls leaving division and an inevitable form of revolution to bring in a new order. It doesn't have to be bloody, it doesn't have to be violent and people don't have to die. They did in 1917 in Russia, they did in France but as Al Bina rightly says, Britain cannot be compared to those countries as culturally, socially, historically and politically we are poles apart. I don't think radical reform will take place in polite committees but there's no reason why we shouldn't see a centrist reformist party take control and modernise Britain.

As for the monarchy being important because of history, history doesn't go away. It's always there whether you have a King or a President but the future is open to change and what worked in the past doesn't always work in the present. In this case, the monarchy worked in the past, it doesn't really make sense now and so why not have a republican future?

And you think those that currently are in power, that currently have priviledge and position, that currently are economically and socially benefiting from the status quo are just going to smile and gallantly hand it over to you and yours because??

Edited to add: My ancestors here in the US shared the same aspirations as you, we preferred NOT to have a Monarchy and to be totally independent. There was this little thing called the American Revolution and it was bloody and nasty and sordid and it was the UK that was involved I believe?

 

[Skydragon]

It has a small military and most assuredly could not defend itself against a large scale attack by a major power. All these circumstances make it's economy very vulnerable to outside sources. The GBP is at an all time high rate of exchange because of inflation and the trend is expected to continue, if that proves to be the case there is no doubt the British economy and the overall standard of living will fall further.

Our military might be small in comparrison to the US, but our men and women tend to be highly trained, there are very few blue on blue incidents involving anyone but the US. Our troops also survive without the burger bars that US troops seem unable to deploy without! The US would, IMO, be struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan without our help and that of the commonwealth nations.
The GBP is up against the dollar because of it's poor performance, at the moment - Beware the falling dollar

As to how the US contributes to the UK, like most of the rest of the Western world, we have provided the actual military defense, let's get honest here, the UK did not allow Pershing II and Cruise Missiles during the 80s on it's territory out of the goodness of it's heart.

Provided it to who, it was widely seen by many in the UK as the US attempting to contain a nuclear war in Europe, rather than it's own soil! The US maintain bases here (for which they pay rent), not out of the kindness of it's heart or to benefit the UK, but because it puts them closer to possible theatres of war and allows refuelling of it's planes.

So as you should realise, all this is done for the US, not to benefit the UK.

If and when Britain decides to do away with the monarchy, I am sure they will manage to survive the changes and even welcome them. We can always send the Yorks and Wessex out to the US, to join Fergie, the Beckhams and Heather Mills!

 

[hofburg]

If and when Britain decides to do away with the monarchy, I am sure they will manage to survive the changes and even welcome them. We can always send the Yorks and Wessex out to the US, to join Fergie, the Beckhams and Heather Mills!

Brilliant, Skydragon. Thanks for making me laugh

 

[Warren]

We can always send the Yorks and Wessex out to the US, to join Fergie, the Beckhams and Heather Mills!

Lay off the Wessexes! We'll take David Beckham in Australia, but the US can keep Heather Mills.

 

[Bella]

Lay off the Wessexes! We'll take David Beckham in Australia, but the US can keep Heather Mills.

We don't want Heather Mills!!! And please take that Victoria Beckham too!!!!!

 

[ysbel]

As for the monarchy being important because of history, history doesn't go away. It's always there whether you have a King or a President but the future is open to change and what worked in the past doesn't always work in the present. In this case, the monarchy worked in the past, it doesn't really make sense now and so why not have a republican future?

So why doesn't the monarchy make sense now?

 

[ysbel]

Sorry, but we have plenty of history and with presidents. Many far more noble and intelligent than the likes of Henry VIII, William IV, George IV, etc. Queen Anne was a dolt. I'll pit Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson and Roosevelt, both Teddy and Franklin against that lot any day. Americans have a long history, obviously not as long as English history. As far as Washington D.C., look around at the marvelous buildings, not the politicians, London has plenty of sleazy politcians, too. Our real history is in New England and Virginia and the like. Every nation has history, good and bad. The monachy as history goes has a checkered past. It is interesting and sometimes dazzling, but no better than ours.

We have history but we don't have a living tie to history because our nation was built on the ability to re-invent ourselves. History gets in the way of being able to recreate your identity over and over again.

A nation's history is still your history regardless of whether individual rulers were dolts or saints, or sleazy politicians. A Thomas Jefferson compared to a Queen Anne may be favorable to Thomas Jefferson but a comparison between Henry VIII and Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover would hardly make Henry VIII look bad. I think all countries have had their share of sleazy politicians and idiots. Sometimes the rulers who were dolts were more important in determining the course of history than the saints. By all accounts, King John was a worthless King but his ineptitude encouraged the barons to force the Magna Carta on him which was the beginning of British common law as we know it (and this is what the US inherited from England).

I did not say that the British system is better than ours, nor do I believe that our system is better than the British. When George Washington was around, some people wanted to make him King but that was rather silly. We didn't have a family-based nobility on which a monarchial system rested and besides that, Washington had had mumps and couldn't father children. Its pretty hard to start a hereditary monarchy if the Father of Your Country can't produce children! As Elspeth said, a hereditary monarchy wouldn't work in our country because our history is different but it doesn't necessarily mean that because it doesn't work here that it doesn't work in England.

 

[Laura Elizabeth]

If and when Britain decides to do away with the monarchy, I am sure they will manage to survive the changes and even welcome them. We can always send the Yorks and Wessex out to the US, to join Fergie, the Beckhams and Heather Mills!

Now that's just mean Skydragon! Though the Wessex' aren't so bad, be nice or we'll ship the rest of that lot back to you!

 

[Marengo]

When George Washington was around, some people wanted to make him King but that was rather silly. We didn't have a family-based nobility on which a monarchial system rested and besides that, Washington had had mumps and couldn't father children. Its pretty hard to start a hereditary monarchy if the Father of Your Country can't produce children!

Well, he could do like the Romans and opted for adoption, preferably Pres. Martin van Buren . It worked for Augustus and Tiberius, so why not in the Pax Americanum? But you are right of course, the monarchy would not work nowadays if it isn't rooted in a country.

I don't think the US is alone in re-inventing its history, I think most countries do that, albeit maybe in a smaller scale. At the moment there is a reinvention thing going on in my own country as we seem to have lost our identity somewhere along the way...

 

[BeatrixFan]

So why doesn't the monarchy make sense now?

Someone ruling over us because they land the right side of the bed sheets when they're spawned? Deference given because of an accident of birth? Surely meritocracy is the way to go?

 

[COUNTESS]

Someone ruling over us because they land the right side of the bed sheets when they're spawned? Deference given because of an accident of birth? Surely meritocracy is the way to go?

You are, of course, again, right on the money.

By the way, in answer to another post, Washinton hated the idea of a monarchy for the same reson Beatrix Fan stated. His lack of progeny was not his concern. His distaste for monarchy was because he felt birth gave you no right to rule.

The real crux of the matter should be that all nations have aright to determine, by the mjaority of their subjects the style of government they wish.

 

[Elspeth]

Someone ruling over us because they land the right side of the bed sheets when they're spawned? Deference given because of an accident of birth? Surely meritocracy is the way to go?

So why wait till the end of Charles's reign? Why not do away with the monarchy right now? The same arguments that apply to William also apply to the Queen if it's just an "accident of birth" argument.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, because I find it a bit unfair that his life should have been wasted. He's trained to do a job that in reality he'll only do for a short time. I believe letting him have his turn is a perfect way to bring it all to an end thus saving training William for something he doesn't want.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, because I find it a bit unfair that his life should have been wasted. He's trained to do a job that in reality he'll only do for a short time.

But didn't you just get through saying the monarchy was simply a matter of an accident of birth? So what's all this stuff about training, then? Doesn't sound very accidental.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well of course those born into the firm are taught the ways of Royalty but Charles has been taught the whole red box thing. Essentially, he's been bred to reign and just as it'd be deeply unfair for a Doctor who trains for 10 years to never get the job he's trained for, it'd be unfair for Charles to miss out when it's only going to be a short reign anyway. Yes it's still archaic but it gives us a bit longer to get the hand over sorted, a new constitution prepared etc without Lizzie II grinning all over the place trying to convince people she's a sweet old lady.

It's an accident of birth that Charles is there but since he is, let him do the job and then end it. Why start the cycle all over again with William? I don't want a monarchy but I do accept that it's been good to us in the past and like any dead thing it deserves an honourable burial.

 

[COUNTESS]

But didn't you just get through saying the monarchy was simply a matter of an accident of birth? So what's all this stuff about training, then? Doesn't sound very accidental.

If a monkey is born in the right circumstances, it might be trained to do something other monkeys are not trained to do, because of where they were born. The training is on purpose, the person being trained is not there because of any partiuclar merit, that is where and to whom he happened to be born. Beatrix Fan, I believes, means just that. Although, I do not mean to put words in his mouth. There have been total dullards, who have been trained to do a job, that is not to say that they execute it well. Some have, some haven't.

 

[Elspeth]

It's an accident of birth that Charles is there but since he is, let him do the job and then end it. Why start the cycle all over again with William?

Because, as you say, it's worked in the past. No reason why it can't carry on working - we've had worse kings than William over the centuries, but the system has survived them. These days a bad president can do a lot more damage than a bad king - maybe it has something to do with the lack of training.

 

[Russophile]

I don't want a monarchy but I do accept that it's been good to us in the past and like any dead thing it deserves an honourable burial.

I have to ask, then, if you don't want a monarchy, why are you hanging out on a Forum that celebrates all things Royal?


(Playing a lot of devil's advocate today, no offense meant. )

 

[BeatrixFan]

But why do we need a King? What can a King do that a President can't and why should our elected officials be subservient to a non-elected chinless wonder who lives a life of luxury and does very little to justify his lifestyle. A purely ceremonial President can do no damage - indeed, most ceremonial Presidents have been amazingly impartial whilst steering things in the right direction. For example, Vaira Vike-Freiberga was completely non-political but she did speak out about discrimination regularly thus getting the best of both worlds. A bad King can't do much damage because he can't really do anything. I just don't see the point in having a monarch who does nothing. Let's be honest, the Queen does what the ministers tell her to do so why not cut out the middle crown?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I have to ask, then, if you don't want a monarchy, why are you hanging out on a Forum that celebrates all things Royal?


(Playing a lot of devil's advocate today, no offense meant. )

As a gay man I have a duty to keep an eye on Royal fashion. Whilst I've got 'em they may as well pass my criteria for looking good.

 

[Elspeth]

If a monkey is born in the right circumstances, it might be trained to do something other monkeys are not trained to do, because of where they were born. The training is on purpose, the person being trained is not there because of any partiuclar merit, that is where and to whom he happened to be born. Beatrix Fan, I believes, means just that.

BeatrixFan said the system has worked well in the past, which I think is true. I'm still not clear why things have changed to the point where all of a sudden the system won't work in the future, and I think in this particular case it has quite a bit to do with the fact that BeatrixFan doesn't think much of William as a person.

I think it's idealistic in the extreme to look at some of these small Baltic states as good role models for a presidency since those countries and Britain seem to have very different values. In Britain education isn't valued all that highly and you aren't going to find philosophers and intellectuals in the presidency, you're going to find far more the calibre of person you find in the USA - rich people who know how to play the party politics game. I'd far prefer to keep the system we have at the moment than risk introducing something like the US system, largely because some people aren't impressed by William at his current stage of development.