I always figured it was a pride and tradition thing.
Sean
The Relevance of the British Monarchy
- Thread starter Sukerkin
- Start date
Sean
Not being English or being under the Crown my thoughts are that of an outsider. To me the Royal Monarch has always been the symbol of the British Empire. Your leaders have been some of the most famous people in history.
And what is better for the tabloids than a royal scandal ?:angel:
The way your government is set up today seems to work very well. I did not know that the Monarch still had as much power as you have stated so I am doubly impressed that she has not used her power more. The subtle suggesting by both the Crown and the Parliament to each other has worked well during some trying times in the last century
And what is better for the tabloids than a royal scandal ?:angel:
The way your government is set up today seems to work very well. I did not know that the Monarch still had as much power as you have stated so I am doubly impressed that she has not used her power more. The subtle suggesting by both the Crown and the Parliament to each other has worked well during some trying times in the last century
I think the fact that many of us make our oaths of loyalty to the Crown is probably very important. it's far better to have the military loyal to the Crown ie the State rather than to the government of the day, swearing loyalty to a politician is a dangerous thing to my mind.
The current Queen has done much behind the scenes to influence world events, we are lucky I think that she has an immense sense of duty and of influencing events for the good.
I think the British people do realise that the Queen at least is very good value for money! It's probably the rest of the family that, if there's resentment, it will be aimed at them.
The House of Lords may seem out dated but until something better is thought up and I haven't seen anything around, should stay. the Law Lords are an important part of the juidicial system, being the highest court of appeal. The Lords do have the power to and have used it to hold back or make a government change laws. I think it's it's important that not all of those sitting in the House of Lords are politicians or even associated with a particular party. it's yet another check and balance. As Sukerkin pointed out, it's all about balance here.
The current Queen has done much behind the scenes to influence world events, we are lucky I think that she has an immense sense of duty and of influencing events for the good.
I think the British people do realise that the Queen at least is very good value for money! It's probably the rest of the family that, if there's resentment, it will be aimed at them.
The House of Lords may seem out dated but until something better is thought up and I haven't seen anything around, should stay. the Law Lords are an important part of the juidicial system, being the highest court of appeal. The Lords do have the power to and have used it to hold back or make a government change laws. I think it's it's important that not all of those sitting in the House of Lords are politicians or even associated with a particular party. it's yet another check and balance. As Sukerkin pointed out, it's all about balance here.
I quote Bocephus: "'Cause it's a family tradition!"
Far as I understand the monarchy it's basically the richest family in the country got to run things. All the Lords, Earls, Dukes, and so on just didn't earn as much as the reigning monarch because they had more money to pay the serfs to go to war against the others, then the spoils of course go to the one doing the paying and it just kept going on... of course a government hierarchy was established through all of that but it's basically the same thing.
Somewhere along the line that government has gained equal if not more power than the Monarchy.
:idunno: Is it necessary now? Well for the people ... sure. The people have always referred to the crown as a source of national pride because look at what all the crown has done for them through the centuries? So way I see it (and I'll admit that I might be talking out of my **** here), the parliamentary government runs the country (with approval (or not) of the Queen) and the people accept (or not) new laws, changes, whatever because the Queen sanctions it.
Things have been rather quiet lately have they not after Harry's daytrips to Baghdad. Personally I feel that the monarchy are outmoded, and it would seem, trying little to rectify that position. Excepting Charles of course, the only royal I would give my tuppence for. We could argue the great expense of the royals, in particular the minor titles and but we could argue the same about any potential replacement. Our democracy? The Lords are an utter, perverse anachronism and a mockery to the notion of participatory democracy, but then and for differing reasons, we do not exactly get value for ££ from the self-serving, myopic, idea-less and moral-less Commons, do we?
The idea of a republican democracy with the people as soverign absolute, sounds utopian and lovely and but I do not think of the great superiority of democracy right now with our inverted fiscal policy and disproportional taxation when I cannot even fill up my oil tank at home and have to now cycle to work while being passed by the £100K Canary Wharf boys in those Range Rover Sports (mind, those are nice cars!
). Our parliamentary representatives care no more for the proletariat than our soverign masters care for their plebian subjects. Having said that, I'm coming round to Boris.
Man, could I be any less informed, ha! My 2p's worth of rant concludeth.. Keep the British Royal Family, or do not, either way, nothing gets better in the absence of an, as yet, undreamed of replacement for us. Come the p3volution!
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Benito Jenna
The idea of a republican democracy with the people as soverign absolute, sounds utopian and lovely and but I do not think of the great superiority of democracy right now with our inverted fiscal policy and disproportional taxation when I cannot even fill up my oil tank at home and have to now cycle to work while being passed by the £100K Canary Wharf boys in those Range Rover Sports (mind, those are nice cars!
). Our parliamentary representatives care no more for the proletariat than our soverign masters care for their plebian subjects. Having said that, I'm coming round to Boris.Man, could I be any less informed, ha! My 2p's worth of rant concludeth.. Keep the British Royal Family, or do not, either way, nothing gets better in the absence of an, as yet, undreamed of replacement for us. Come the p3volution!
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Benito Jenna
Charles has called for
(i) a restoration of a sense of architectural beauty in public spaces, in place of the glass-curtain tower-walls that pass for buildings in London. For this he was pilloried as a 'philistine' by the post-modern 'if it exists it's art' crowd; and
(ii) defense of the traditional British pub and preservation of these pubs, particularly in small villages where they serve as the hub of community life.
I'll defend this man to the death.
OP
OP
:lol: Jenna! Would you mind not undermining me as the Voice of England please 
.
Only kidding. Seriously, I think if you delved a little deeper into what is actually going on and how things are run you'd be in for a surprise.
The complex checks and balances that are in place in the political infrastructure work remarkably well, especially considering that an awful lot is enshrined in tradition rather than codified in law.
Hardly anything is less efficient than a Democracy; writ large it's an awful way to run a country (just ask the Poles of pre-Soviet times).
A Republic is better but still not fabulous as it devolves into the media-driven, lowest common-denominator, clown-play that we see over the Pond. Two sides slug it out to do the bidding of those that fund their party.
A Dictatorship/Totalitarian Regime is fabulously efficient - one vision pursued to completion. Brilliant ... apart from the rather nasty crushing of all opposition thing ... that's not so good
.
A Parliamentary Democracy is probably the best compromise we've come up with yet. It's sort of like a Republic but there's a (legitimate) Dictator sitting off to one side, not doing anything much to intefere with the political process but ready to come in and take everyones toys away and send them to bed if their mental age drops too far.
What tends to be forgotten in this modern age is that the Crown is the Crown because their underpinning line (the real one, not the adopted one) took the whole country by force of arms and kept it under their direct rule for pretty much eight centuries.
We might call them "Chinless Wonders" these days because of the inbreeding to keep that power centralised but make no mistake, that power is still there. It is still backed by the force of arms and ratified by lineage. They elect to allow others to rule in their stead but this is still, in effect, the land of the Tudors.
For myself, I will be happier the longer it stays that way. By all means let the politicians play their pseudo-power games, just lets keep that 'safety net' there for when they really make a mess of things.
.Only kidding. Seriously, I think if you delved a little deeper into what is actually going on and how things are run you'd be in for a surprise.
The complex checks and balances that are in place in the political infrastructure work remarkably well, especially considering that an awful lot is enshrined in tradition rather than codified in law.
Hardly anything is less efficient than a Democracy; writ large it's an awful way to run a country (just ask the Poles of pre-Soviet times).
A Republic is better but still not fabulous as it devolves into the media-driven, lowest common-denominator, clown-play that we see over the Pond. Two sides slug it out to do the bidding of those that fund their party.
A Dictatorship/Totalitarian Regime is fabulously efficient - one vision pursued to completion. Brilliant ... apart from the rather nasty crushing of all opposition thing ... that's not so good
.A Parliamentary Democracy is probably the best compromise we've come up with yet. It's sort of like a Republic but there's a (legitimate) Dictator sitting off to one side, not doing anything much to intefere with the political process but ready to come in and take everyones toys away and send them to bed if their mental age drops too far.
What tends to be forgotten in this modern age is that the Crown is the Crown because their underpinning line (the real one, not the adopted one) took the whole country by force of arms and kept it under their direct rule for pretty much eight centuries.
We might call them "Chinless Wonders" these days because of the inbreeding to keep that power centralised but make no mistake, that power is still there. It is still backed by the force of arms and ratified by lineage. They elect to allow others to rule in their stead but this is still, in effect, the land of the Tudors.
For myself, I will be happier the longer it stays that way. By all means let the politicians play their pseudo-power games, just lets keep that 'safety net' there for when they really make a mess of things.
Ah England, my England. "Strange how the savage England lingers in patches: as here, amid these shaggy gorse commons, and marshy, snake infested places near the foot of the south downs. The spirit of place lingering on primeval, as when the Saxons came, so long ago.":lol: Jenna! Would you mind not undermining me as the Voice of England please
Now them were the days, the Saxons, Guillaume le Batard, Richard the Lionheart (oh yeah, we took his three lions and but he actually had no time for England at all. He said he would have sold London if he could have found a buyer!)
Me, I am happy to propose my own kind of anarchist individualism and we can all fight each other for dominance. Yes, I know, I know it is due time for me to go night night! À ce rythme, nous serons jusqu'au cou avec des guillotines, ha!
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
It must be remembered that the Monarchy is not just the royal house of Britain. All those Commonwealth countries with a Governor General also have Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign. Guess who their armed forces swear oaths too.
The Monarchy and its representatives hold an important place in government. It may not manifest very often but it is essential I think. In 1975 Australia had a situation in which the government could not pass legislation and therefore was unable to govern. The stalemate continued until the GG used his authority as the Queen's representative (as embodied in the constitution) to dissolve both houses of parliament and hold new elections. Without the GG the situation would have gotten very ugly indeed. This has only happened once and while many people were angry about it the constitutional powers of the GG remain the same - an effective backstop against the government failing to fulfill its obligations.
Of course there is also a lot to be said for tradition. I happen to like the fact that we have the Royal Australian Regiment (which is so large it makes up a significant portion of our infantry) as well as many other royally sponsored institutions. It doesn't effect their performance but it is a nice traditional element.
And anyway, if we do away with the Monarchy where will I get a knighthood from? Now I just have to do something to get the Queen's attention.
The Monarchy and its representatives hold an important place in government. It may not manifest very often but it is essential I think. In 1975 Australia had a situation in which the government could not pass legislation and therefore was unable to govern. The stalemate continued until the GG used his authority as the Queen's representative (as embodied in the constitution) to dissolve both houses of parliament and hold new elections. Without the GG the situation would have gotten very ugly indeed. This has only happened once and while many people were angry about it the constitutional powers of the GG remain the same - an effective backstop against the government failing to fulfill its obligations.
Of course there is also a lot to be said for tradition. I happen to like the fact that we have the Royal Australian Regiment (which is so large it makes up a significant portion of our infantry) as well as many other royally sponsored institutions. It doesn't effect their performance but it is a nice traditional element.
And anyway, if we do away with the Monarchy where will I get a knighthood from? Now I just have to do something to get the Queen's attention.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Historically, the Crown has been the largest of political institutions. It is only the particular evolution of the English monarchy throughout your history that has made it a little safer to swear by than your average political institution. Historically, any Monarchy has not been a safe institution to lend your allegiance to. Given some unlikely but not impossible future changes, your monarchy could become dangerous again.
Personally, I like the Armed Forces oath of the US. Allegiance is sworn to the Constitution, not the Head of State. Part of the oath is to obey the President as Commander in Chief, but even that is tempered by "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Empty Hands
Senior Master
In my view, any governmental office or power that is passed on by inheritance and not accountable to the will of the people is incompatible with a democratic system. This would indict both the Monarchy and the House of Lords. Thus, with some irony I would declare myself a staunch Republican in the context of this conversation.
That said, the English monarchy is a fairly tame institution, and the UK has made the system work. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it if I was a citizen there.
That said, the English monarchy is a fairly tame institution, and the UK has made the system work. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it if I was a citizen there.
jkembry
Black Belt
Can I just point out that it's not the 'English' Crown? I know people talk of England when they actually mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain! While the other countries may want independance they haven't got it yet. The history of the English monarchy is different from that of the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish. The politics are different too as the Welsh now have an Assembly and the Scots a parliament. The Isle of Man also has one plus the Channel Islands have their own legislature. The Irish situation is a fluid one (to be tactful) but it's hopeful they will have a parliament again.
Having a Monarchy may not be the perfect solution but finding a better one for the UK would be hard to do.
Having a Monarchy may not be the perfect solution but finding a better one for the UK would be hard to do.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
No, I meant English. The monarchy is an English institution, which has come to have authority over the rest of the "United Kingdom" by force, threat, marriage and a host of other more and less savory methods. It would be ignoring a great deal of history to label it as a "United" institution.
OP
OP
Come now, EH, that may contain a kernel of accuracy but that is a description of how nations were born in the dark years before our 'enlightened' times. I'm certainly not ashamed of it, as the undercurrent of your words might be interpreted to suggest I should be.
To our eyes, there are shameful events in that history it is certain but every powerful nations past contains such events. I'm not going to beat myself up over it. It's the sorry nature of power and it can no more be changed than I can change someones made-up-mind over the Internet.
The current drive to devolution (oh if there was ever an accurate term) is a reversal of what a lot of blood was spent to achieve and it is sad to see short-sighted grasping for very petty degrees of power cleaving up the nation again. That's what happens when disparate peoples are not welded together in common cause by an overtly strong government operating in everyones fair interest. It's as if we're still in apology for conquering much of the world and are folding back in on ourselves. A trend I hope to see reversing in the not too distant future.
Addressing the incidental point, her Majesty's correct title is:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
There has not in fact been a King or Queen of England since Elizabeth I.
To our eyes, there are shameful events in that history it is certain but every powerful nations past contains such events. I'm not going to beat myself up over it. It's the sorry nature of power and it can no more be changed than I can change someones made-up-mind over the Internet.
The current drive to devolution (oh if there was ever an accurate term) is a reversal of what a lot of blood was spent to achieve and it is sad to see short-sighted grasping for very petty degrees of power cleaving up the nation again. That's what happens when disparate peoples are not welded together in common cause by an overtly strong government operating in everyones fair interest. It's as if we're still in apology for conquering much of the world and are folding back in on ourselves. A trend I hope to see reversing in the not too distant future.
Addressing the incidental point, her Majesty's correct title is:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
There has not in fact been a King or Queen of England since Elizabeth I.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Oh sure, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone today should be too broken up about it. Most of this happened a long time ago. However, that history does underlie my view of the monarchy as a fundamentally English institution. I understand that many Britons would disagree, although I am sure you could find a few nationalistic Scots or Welshman who would agree wholeheartedly!
I also understand your view of the monarchy as social glue or a stabilizing influence against the "common" politicians. Given your current context, especially given the character of Elizabeth, that is no doubt an accurate view. However, things change with time. My view would be that any such glue-like or stabilizing influence is going to depend a great deal on the character of those involved. That is the problem with inherited power, you have no control over who comes next. Elizabeth II may be great, but perhaps her great-grandchild successor may be a real **** and will mess everything up. Those powers are still there, the fact that they are not exercised is more a matter of convention than anything else. If you are cursed with a monarch determined to abuse their position and power, that action could tear your country apart. Not just along monarchist/republican lines either.
Thus, my preference would be to develop a social glue that isn't quite so capricious as one person's uncontrolled decisions.
OP
OP
A very fair point with which I hold a good deal of agreement.
I've not really stated it explicitly but it has been buried in amidst those comments about checks and balances that are held in place more by convention, tradition and common agreement as opposed to enshrined in law.
It's a serious embodiment of the concept of Fair Play that used to be so publically revered over here (not so much these days sadly with our overly materialist leanings).
If the government misbehaves abominably, then the Crown has to step in and set things right, doing so, it would be assumed, with the swell of public opinion behind them.
If, as you so rightly posited, we had a Crown that was of a mind to abuse the powers that reside still in Royal hands, then the government is honour bound to resist and under those circumstances the backing of the population would be vital. The military swear their oathes to the Crown but we have to trust that they would not throw their weight behind an action widely held to be wrongful.
We have done it before and I'm sure that such history would be whispered in the ear of any would be reincarnation of Henry VIII (or more likely Charles II).
I've not really stated it explicitly but it has been buried in amidst those comments about checks and balances that are held in place more by convention, tradition and common agreement as opposed to enshrined in law.
It's a serious embodiment of the concept of Fair Play that used to be so publically revered over here (not so much these days sadly with our overly materialist leanings).
If the government misbehaves abominably, then the Crown has to step in and set things right, doing so, it would be assumed, with the swell of public opinion behind them.
If, as you so rightly posited, we had a Crown that was of a mind to abuse the powers that reside still in Royal hands, then the government is honour bound to resist and under those circumstances the backing of the population would be vital. The military swear their oathes to the Crown but we have to trust that they would not throw their weight behind an action widely held to be wrongful.
We have done it before and I'm sure that such history would be whispered in the ear of any would be reincarnation of Henry VIII (or more likely Charles II
).Senjojutsu
Blue Belt
Sukerkin,
While I often remind quiet on this subject when visiting your lovely country, here are some of my thoughts:
The British Royalty – what happens when white, trailer-park trash end up with a lot of money and no jobs.
The “New England” Puritans had it right, “Idle hands are the devil’s work-shop.”
So if I wanted to start a debate regarding “royalty” in England, other European countries or elsewhere - my first question always is:
So let me understand this …
Because nine-hundred or more years ago, your ancestors could lie, cheat, steal or cleave a skull with a battle-axe better than my ancestors - then that historical fact gives you more legal standing/rights over me and my family today?
… or to quote Section 9 - Limits on Congress, of the Constitution of the United States (written by some uppity, former Subjects of The British Crown BTW):
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
:idea:
See what good things happen when you can own guns and fly flags!
While I often remind quiet on this subject when visiting your lovely country, here are some of my thoughts:
The British Royalty – what happens when white, trailer-park trash end up with a lot of money and no jobs.
The “New England” Puritans had it right, “Idle hands are the devil’s work-shop.”
So if I wanted to start a debate regarding “royalty” in England, other European countries or elsewhere - my first question always is:
So let me understand this …
Because nine-hundred or more years ago, your ancestors could lie, cheat, steal or cleave a skull with a battle-axe better than my ancestors - then that historical fact gives you more legal standing/rights over me and my family today?
… or to quote Section 9 - Limits on Congress, of the Constitution of the United States (written by some uppity, former Subjects of The British Crown BTW):
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
:idea:
See what good things happen when you can own guns and fly flags!
OP
OP
"So let me understand this …
Because nine-hundred or more years ago, your ancestors could lie, cheat, steal or cleave a skull with a battle-axe better than my ancestors - then that historical fact gives you more legal standing/rights over me and my family today?"
Correct.
Because nine-hundred or more years ago, your ancestors could lie, cheat, steal or cleave a skull with a battle-axe better than my ancestors - then that historical fact gives you more legal standing/rights over me and my family today?"
Correct.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
