Keeping the monarchy, good or bad?

[sweetheart]

As long as the queen is the head of the church of england, there is
some question as to british committment to separation of church and
state. As well, this elevation of one human being to such status
makes committments to human equality under the law rather weak.

SOme say the tourism value of the queen is worth it, but the
argument omits the tremendous legal powers the royal family retains
today as the only long-term government representatives.

Others suggest that the royal family should be downgraded to having
nothing but tourism value, and no constitutional powers, as in some
other european nations.

Is it in the british people's long term interests to remain subjects
and not citizens? How do you see the monarchy?

[Bowline]

1. I think we in the U.S. made our position on the Monarchy clear in 1776.

However, they are a HUGE tourist draw for the UK.

[onebigbadwulf]

2. About 40% of NZers want to leave the crown

that number is up about 10% in the past few years.


Looks like the crown is loosing its appeal to the commonwealth.

[Guy_Montag]

6. That's probably about the same as Brits...

but there is a lot of swing (10%+) depending on what's happening in the world at any particular moment.

[wurzel]

3. Compared to having our President as monarch?

I used to be totally anti-monarchy. But there is a case to be made for a monarch figurehead. A monarch can represent the "patriotism" of people, while allowing people to criticize the President and not have their patriotism questioned.

[non sociopath skin]

7. My platitude tends to be that I've seen too many bad presidents ....

... to be totally anti-monarchy.

This, however, presupposes a "hereditary presidency" on the Dutch or Scandinavian models, which in our case we have not got. For my taste, the British monarchy retains a disproportionate influence on politics, an influence - secretive, arrogant and, despite Bonnie Prince Charlie's New Age romanticising, deeply and unapologetically comservative. And I am suspicious of an established religion with the Pontifex Maximus in the gift of Caesar!

I suspect that a diminution of the Windsors' political clout, the selling off of some of the real-estate and the acquisition of a job-lot of bicycles could yet make me a royalist. :)

BTW My American wife, a leftish Democrat, is fascinated by the Royals but finds my being a "subject" rather creepy and has no intention of giving up her US citizenship to join me on my knees.. :)

The Skin

[wurzel]

16. The British Royal family is an example of welfare degeneration.

This family is dysfunctional and has been on welfare for generations. I was thinking of something far more modest and purely ceremonial.

[LibLabUK]

20. Umm...

"BTW My American wife, a leftish Democrat, is fascinated by the Royals but finds my being a "subject" rather creepy and has no intention of giving up her US citizenship to join me on my knees."

You are no more a "subject" than she is. You are a British citizen.

Check out The British Nationality Act 1981

It's time the myth of the "subject" died... Subjects were citizens of colonies that weren't self-governing, but that status doesn't exist any more.

[non sociopath skin]

21. Now that's a genuine revelation, LibLab.

Do you have a link to a reference on this?

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Someone, somewhere is still a 'British subject'

but I'm not sure who. The vast majority of people born and/or living in Britain are 'British citizens'. a leaflet on how to become a citizen, if you are "a British overseas territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, British subject, a British protected person or a British National (Overseas)".

[LibLabUK]

23. Yup..

Here

Although I think I made a slight error. If you were considered a Subject under the 1948 legislation you remained a subject under the 1981 legislation if you were connected to the Republic of Ireland, India or Pakistan.

So technically there will still be people who are "subjects" but they can apply for full UK citizenship as pointed out in that leaflet Muriel linked to.

[yvr girl]

25. Have you seen the US Oath of Citizenship

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

[nickinSTL]

4. I'm in favor of keeping

the monarchy.

though I do think that the Monarch should not be head of the church.

But I think there's a lot to be said for having a head of state that isn't involved in politics. I'd sure as heck rather be represented by ANY member of the British Royal Family than by Dubya.

[non sociopath skin]

9. On the other hand, nick...

.. the good folks of the US get a chance to vote Dubya out in November.

And he'll certainly be gone in five years time. But the Royals will still be around ...

The Skin

[nickinSTL]

10. yes,

But, honestly, if people decide they don't want the monarchy, the monarchy will be abolished.

Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen by grace of God, but by the grace of the British people. If the British people decide they don't want her (or Prince Charles, when he succeeds) the monarchy will be abolished.

Also, yes, we can vote out Bush (I'd hope) but he has a LOT more direct influence than the Queen. He can decide that there won't be funding for embryonic stem cell research, that we should cut taxes, that we should invade Iraq. HM the Queen can do none of that.

[non sociopath skin]

11. Wish it was as easy as that, nick ...

... on the occasions when Republican feeling was strong in the country, the dissidents felt the full weight of the State against them. It would certainly be a lot harder than electing a new president!

And while I take your point about presidential power, I suspect that the Queen has a lot more influence on policy than you might think..
and all in the secrecy of the Palace and Privy Council where no press ever penetrates!

The Skin

[nickinSTL]

13. well, yes

It would be more difficult. That does prevent the monarch being dethroned as a result of negative feeling due to a transitory scandal.

The Queen does have the duty to 'advise', but I suspect she doesn't have a lot of effect on Blair's policies. The degree of influence would depend on the PM of the time, the monarch of the time, and their relationship.

[Guy_Montag]

5. I'm rather a monarchist,

mostly because I look at America & shudder, but I have other reasons.

1. Tourism, it is a big draw.
2. The military fight for "Queen & Country", & for many it's more than just words.
3. Consider the other European constitutional monarchies: Sweden; Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands are among the most socially responsible nations in the world. I know there's no logic there but...
4. If we had a "figurehead" president like Germany & Israel, think about the sort of people that would be elected.
5. Coming from bonny Scotland, there's far less link between the Church & State. I see no reason why that cannot be extended south. Indeed Chuck suggested as much.

I've been told I'm not a subject not a citizen? I don't know & I don't care. It effectively makes no difference to me. Would it be cheaper to pay for a President than the Royals? I doubt it, maybe for the first few years, to make the point but it would grow.

I do believe that there should be some reform, but how much I don't know.

[non sociopath skin]

8. I think there'd be those as would disagree with some of these, Guy.

Tourism? Well, the France do quite nicely tourism wise. You don't need actually functioning royalty to make palaces tourist attractions.

As for "Queen and Country," isn't it a rather hollow claim these days? Be honest, the guys aren't in Iraq to keep the Windsors proud and happy, are they?

The monarchies you've noted are, in your own words, "AMONG the most socially responsible nations." What about the others? Is there REALLY a correlation between monarchy and social justice?

And not everyone would share your low estimation of the electorate who, I suspect, would be no better or no worse at choosing a constitutional president than the citizens of any other democratic republic. Or perhaps you prefer the kind of democratic accountability practised in the House of Lords ... after all, the Queen and the PM always know best, don't they?

As for the "extension" of Disestablishmentism, I see no signs of the CofE giving up their special rights and privileges, nor do I see a groundswell movement to change things.

As I said above, faux de mieux, I'd probably go for a reformed monarchy but I can certainly see the merits of Republicanism. I'd rather be part of the process than a "subject" in the ultimate Nanny State.

The Skin

[Guy_Montag]

17. I think we may be irreconcilable on this one...

Tourism - do you think we'll get the palacies from the Royals if we remove them. Their private houses will remain private & El President will take over the official residences. Net result no greater access.

I'm not claiming that the guys in Iraq are there to keep the Windsors in happy, what I'm suggesting is that it gives more focus and pride, than fighting for the Govt. & President. Don't forget the Military is still one of the most fuedal organisations in the country.

Ok my list of the most socially responsible nations (in no particular order) is: Norway(M), Sweden(M), Denmark(M), Netherlands(M), Finland, Iceland and Germany (actually Germany is a bit debateable these days). I admitted there was no logic to it, if fact it probably has more to do with geographical locations & accidents of history.

It's not that I don't trust the electorate, although I will sound like a proto-fascist by suggesting that some could do with a little more education about who & what they are voting for. What I don't trust is the politcians & senior civil servants who would frame the legislation for the replacement of the monarchy & what their motives would be. Look at the farce of Lords reform.

Does the CofE effect your life in any way? The only effect they really have on legislation is the few Bishops in the Lords. I am far more concerned at the way people seem able to buy peerages.

And I ask you again as a British subject do you have any fewer rights than a French citizen?

And lets keep this light - we'd both be happy with a reformed monarchy.

[non sociopath skin]

18. Happy to agree to differ, Guy...

... BTW, I don't think you sound like a "proto-fascist" but I would encourage you to have a little more faith in democracy which, bottom line, is what this board is all about anyway.

The Skin :)

[Taxloss]

36. Interesting points ...

1: No it isn't. Do you think Versailles would get more visitors if it had a King in it? I doubt it. If the Monarchy is such a huge draw for tourists, relocate them to somewhere that might need the money, like Liverpool, Newcastle or the West Midlands. London will always get tourists.

2: I think our military would defend their country as long as it remains a democracy. Cromwell separated Armed Power and the State - the Army has not been involved in politics since (well, Wellington got close).

3: Would that we would be more like them. Look at their monarchies - modest, human, inexpensive, genuinely popular. Ours is not.

4: I've never followed that line of argument. Just look at the people we have in Buck House who haven't been elected. There's always a danger that you might not like who the electorate chooses, but a figurehead would not be a USA-style executive and it would, unlike the Queen, be an effective check.

5: Agreed. Total separation makes a lot of sense.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. It's not an issue for Canadians.

If it were on the radar, we'd be split 50/50.
I want them gone, asap.

[D-Notice]

14. Not sure...

In favour of the UK being more democratic, but we could end up with electing as el Presidentie someone like Shrub or Poodle... But if they were a figure-head with minimal powers - able to veto, but can be overridden, but they can't do anything else, then I'd be in favour.

If not, then we'd have to have the monarchy but it needs to be slimmed down a lot, with the Civil List abolished & all the Royal Perogative powers also abolished.

Unfortunately, if the Perogative was abolished it'd limit Bliar's powers, as he'd have to go to Parilmment in order to start wars, so it won't happen :-(

[non sociopath skin]

15. I guess we need to believe in ourselves ...

... and others as grown up enough to make decisions for ourselves.

I can't accept that we need a monarchy because, as a people, we're not up to making responsible democratic decisions.

As I suggested earlier, that really would be the ultimate nanny state.

The Skin

[rogerashton]

19. As a small-r republican

(in the US of A so it is none of my business anyway) I would say dump the Royal bums -- in the US bums are beggars, not rear ends -- but don't expect much good to come of it unless you also have a "land reform," confiscating and redistributing all landholdings in excess of, say, 200 hectares or 5 million pounds sterling market value.

The Windsors would probably still be rich as that other monarch, Croessus, but without land reform, they are still the feudal Lords of the Land.

[Vladimir]

24. One this issue, the French revolution was spot on n/t

[sweetheart]

26. My take on the monarchy

I'm not so sure that it engenders economic plurality, and this to
the demise of all of britain. By creating an artificial social "up", the cost of the disenfranchised is to drive ideas
and people abroad to sprout, like a tree's seed must grow elsewhere
or die in the shade of its parents.

Britain by its empire was able to satisfy this cultural diversity
As the empire broke up, this social complexity was reduced to the
metaculture that circulates between london, new york, berlin and
tokyo, as if the DJ's and dance clubbing rich kids of the earth
are the new empire. Outstaanding media coup... only for london.

Without india and the empire whole, and free emigration between
these states, including, ex-colony USA, the empire lost the complexity that gave it power. In social manifestation, the
grandeur of british humour. When the monarchy hits the mainland,
it chokes new grass by endemic social spitefulness, incorporated
in to the institutions of judgement. It has the ultimate marketing
to feign being the peoples keeper, when in fact crowding out the
very enterprise that will keep this islands people alive in the
next century. Britain needs social plurality, not localism as a
rejection of monarchy and empire. This complexity can only arise
with multiple radio/TV networks, a complex social maxima, including
the complex maxima of religions (none of them connected to the state.)

In rural areas, where people are complex and diverse, there needs
to be local economic maxima, economically this means deep capital
supply, non-class based relationship system, egelatarian values.
The monarchy concentrates these at an apex around itself, being the
spiritual "center of all things british".
Part of this comes by being christian and humble. Then indeed, it
might be unhumble to presume ones place as head of a church by
birthright.

In short, i think it crowds out human industry by creating a local
social maxima that cheats the plurality of the culture. This used
to exist in romantic britain due to its empire and trade, now as
that is at an end, it desperately needs to function as a massively
plural society, and not concentrated in the palace or at downing
street. As infinite complexity is factored down to human thought
and this thought was to conceive a heirarchy of humanity with a
born animal as its leader, i might call it the cult of the dog.

Britain would be much better to adopt the "dog" as its national
monarchy, and then there will be many kings and queens, empererors
and josephines, and the press can have a day, whilst the public
is not forced to concentrate economic value in london, and this
can spawn over time, a chain of cities the length of the aisles,
that all have a doggie queen, that is walked at special events.
Then it would be cheaper for the public, and make the nation the
most popular nation on earth.

The queen can become more like the one in holland, maybe... no
connection between the complexity of the meta-complexity-body of
state and a birthright animal. It slows it down.

[Guy_Montag]

27. Blimey

that was hard going. :crazy:

[anakie]

28. there is a bit of a joke down here in the colonies

that Britain will become a republic before Australia. When that happens little johnnie will surely invite our queen (or king) to reside and lord over us all.

In a referendum a few years ago the republic issue was defeated by about a 2 to 1 majority.

[D-Notice]

29. I thought it was a case of

The people didin't reject a republic, but they rejected the choice of republic they were offered - the politicians choose el Presidentie, not the people

[Djinn]

30. bang on

people didn't want the pres to be picked by a majority of the house - they wanted to directly elect one - god help us we'd end up with Eddie McGuire or Shane Warne.

The monarchy is a dinosaur and has absolutely no place in this day and age.

[non sociopath skin]

31. If you're gonna have a republic ...

... you gotta trust the people. No way round that one.

The Skin

[Djinn]

33. why

they don't currently elect the head of state, they don't even currently elect the PM - that's all been done in parliament for some time now and we havn't degenerated into a dictatorship yet.

[sweetheart]

32. Funnily this batman incident

This is a letter in the guardian about the father-4-justice who
scaled the palace in a batman costume....

A person in a silly costume
appears on the balcony of
Buckingham Palace and
waves to the crowd down
down below. Nothing new
there, then.

Michael Holmes
Liverpool


HA HA! :-)

[JohnLocke]

38. LOL! (nt)

[LSdemocrat]

34. Does it really make any substantive difference?

[sweetheart]

35. Yes, the difference is equality under the law

There is a repeating mantra in UK media about the need for more
risk takers and more entrepreneurs. Then there is a massive social
welfare state where the only long-term leaders are the royal
family. It sucks the life out of anything else, as the whole
nation magnetizes to this perceived social polarity. Monarchist
mothers want their kids to get OBE's and QC's and Knighthoods and
such.

Then there is disenfranchised britain, people who are NOT part of
that pecking order. They are disenfranchised, partly as they are
not orienting to the cult-like social polarity. It then creates a
subtle, but very effective repression of non-white, non-christian,
non-monarchist people. So whilst the queen appears to be the
figurehead for "all" of britain, in truth, she is the leader of a
cult and people who don't want to be in a cult are disenfranchised.

You can be a UK citizen and not be a cult member, yet the society
does not benefit from your rebel angst, as you'll have to go
elsewhere to get a rung in the already-full social ladder. Hence
the long history of british inventors who head to america to make
it big, from alexander grahm bell onwards....

Also, the substantive history, is that britain no longer has the
empire of past times, where you could just bugger off to india if
you got pissed at queen and the stifling cult on the home front.
Since that is history, i suggest, reducing the queen to PURE
ceremonial value, with no meetings with the prime minister, no
head of the church, and no constitutional role... as britain badly
needs to support diversity on the little island chain if it plans to
be a powerful and competetive state in 2100.

To frame the question for american thinking. "Does it really make
any substantive difference if Bush remains in power and creates a
family dynasty?" The value of not having a bush, is that there are
280,000,000 other people who could get on with life without a king.
Just the same in britain, except 65,000,000.

[Mizmoon]

37. The monarchy ties the British people to their history

in a special way that the government does not in my opinion as an outsider. I'm not sure how to quantify it exactly, but that's the way I feel it.