Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Even longer to reign over us
A poll commissioned by ITN has shown a clear majority in favour of Queen Elizabeth II remaining on the throne until her death, and just 13% support for a British republic. Support for the Prince of Wales becoming Monarch appears to be lower than that for his eldest son.
Michael Shilliday @ 01:27 PM
Monarchy is an anachronism, “worth by birth” a disgusting concept. I pity British “subjects”, and their self perpetuating slavery. I am free and bow before neither man nor god.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 01:40 PMAccident of birth is a very fair way of selecting the head of state: everyone has an exactly equal (very small) chance of being born to be king.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 01:46 PMAnd I’m sure similar percentages of populations in republics would reject a return to monarchy. It’s change and chaos that people fear above all.
Personally, I prefer Voltaire, the Rights of man, and the Declaration of Independence to the divine right of kings.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 01:58 PMThey should really call it quits after this queen. Make a clean break and join the modern world.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:08 PMWe never had a revolution to create the myth that nearly all republics have for their founding legitimacy. We never had a successful 1776, 1789 or 1916 to honour. I’m sure few on this board would want us to revere Cromwell as a kind of Washington.
Our national myth is, instead, the monarchy. It confirs legitimacy on the actions of the (democratically elected) government in the same way the Declaration of Independence did in the US or the Proclamation in your part of the world. Personally I would rather rever a person as the symbol of the state than a flag or a piece of paper - but that’s just personal. I think the Queen has done a good job but, admittedly, we have been lucky in that.
Anyway, I never see similar criticisms about the Dutch, Danish, Spanish, Swedish or Norwegain Monarchies from our near neighbours. It’s history rather than any real problem with the principle of constitutional monarchy that raises heckles the other side of the Irish sea.
In fact the western democracies I admire most - the Netherlands, the Scandanavians and Canada - are all constitutional monarchies. Democracy has been far more successful in Spain since Juan Carlos II than it was under the Second Spanish Republic in the 30s whose legitimacy was hugely compromised. A consitutional monarchy can, therefore, be a useful tool to keep the forces of reaction on board for social progressives to make the required changes without provoking them.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:25 PMI guess I’m one of the 13%.
Though it has to be said that the single greatest argument in favour of the British monarchy is that it works.
I’d like to a British republic on principle, but I don’t lie awake at night worrying about it.but I do see trouble ahead, because Charlie is such a self important tosser that he doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut.If he ever becomes king,and starts telling people how things ought to be run, expect to see the numbers in favour of a republic to rise pretty sharpish.Our day will come......
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:33 PMI am one of the 13% too.
I guess we are saddled with Liz for another 20 years then?
Actually, I admire Cromwell as well.
Not for Drogheda, needless to say, but the guy had something I like..oh yes, he beheaded a King.
Something a little less dramatic to rid us of the adulterers and fornicators and install an ELECTED HEAD OF STATE - following, preferably, the Irish example of keeping men from that office for a century :)
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:38 PMWell said Martin, however, with a monarch you roll the dice. You really don’t know what you’ll get. This beauty, however, stays the same...just as inspiring as the day they wrote her:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
It also speaks to the power of the mind rather than the accident of birth.Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:41 PM“We never had a revolution to create the myth that nearly all republics have for their founding legitimacy. We never had a successful 1776, 1789 or 1916 to honour. I’m sure few on this board would want us to revere Cromwell as a kind of Washington. “
We have 1688 which is all about the power of parliament over absolute monarchy.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:44 PM1688-90 secured what Cromwell wanted
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:50 PM“We have 1688 which is all about the power of parliament over absolute monarchy.”
1688 was a particularly English revolution/invasion by RSVP ("Hey William, mate, this James is a t***er like his Dad - fancy coming over for an invasion next Tuesday? We’ll leave the key under the matt while we put together this here Bill of Rights.") - hardly the sort of thing that inspires a national consciousness like Lexington, the GPO or the Bastille.
Anyway 1688 kind of proves my point, the monarchy can’t live without Parliament, and Parliament can’t live without the monarchy.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:51 PM“1688 was a particularly English revolution/invasion by RSVP ("Hey William, mate, this James is a t***er like his Dad - fancy coming over for an invasion next Tuesday? We’ll leave the key under the matt while we put together this here Bill of Rights.") - hardly the sort of thing that inspires a national consciousness like Lexington, the GPO or the Bastille.”
I think that peaceful power transition from top down to bottom up was why it is sometimes called the Glorious Revolution.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:55 PMSee if you guys had a republic there’d be nothing to stop you electing one of the two grandsons of the Queen as President… and Martin FYI, I have a problem with any monarchy, anywhere, I mentioned the british subjects because that’s what this thread was about, if it was a survey of Dutch people saying the same thing, then I’d be saying the same thing about them.
If you want to bow down and kneel in front of someone because of the family they come from then I think that’s pretty sad, you must have terrible self esteem. Everyone is a worthwhile person, and no-one is born better, and I genuinely feel sorry for people who believe otherwise.
If you want to invest the persona of the Nation in a physical person, why not do it in a President of your choosing. Instead you admit you are some form of underperson, not quite good enough because of your parents, and their family name. Stand up and be counted, be a man, cherish yourself and have some bloody respect for your abilities.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 02:56 PMA nation’s persona shouldn’t rest in a person though, ideals are the way to go. I don’t want to base the notion of my country on that complete f@#kB@g moron that half of my jack@@s country voted for on their way home from a lobotomy.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:02 PM“Stand up and be counted, be a man”
...ahem, post 7, your Holiness. :)
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:03 PMI don’t want to base the notion of my country on that complete f@#kB@g moron that half of my jack@@s country voted for on their way home from a lobotomy.
Yeah, especially not when you could have Charles instead....
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:07 PMYep Taf so the innocent among us are in the same boat I suppose.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:09 PMPeople like a certain mythos in their history. Over the last few days and weeks there have been endless debates on the boards here about the meaning of 1916 as people have alternatively tried to celebrate/debunk that mythos. Britain and Ireland both have bicameral legislatures with an largely appointed upper house, an elected lower house and a ceremonial head of state, are both in the EU and both have Common Law legal systems. So what’s all the fuss? On a purely practical level, the nuts and bolts of administrative polity, it is arguable that 1916 doesn’t matter. But obviously, simply from reading these posts, it does.
As far as I can tell the fuss is about what the nation as a whole means. PopeBuckfast tries to tell me that I feel inferior to the Queen as a human being. I don’t. Read the Magna Carta. His is a misrepresentation and based on the superficial understanding of the outsider - much as my posts on the Rising probably betrayed the same ignorance.
The monarch, as an indivdual human, is beneath the law as are we all, it is the monarch as the symbol of the traditions of our forefathers that we generally respect. It is a piece of potent symbolism nothing more, much in the same way as the Rebels of 1916 and the Tricolour (which are, after all, either dead or a symbol) are for Irish Republicans. Elizabeth Windsor as a person I can take or leave and have no real interest in meeting but Elizabeth II is invested with the respect of my people and I would ask that outsiders give the same respect - however silly it may seem to you and not suggest that we have “no self refspect” which surely is a wind up.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:13 PMOh, and I’m not a British Subject, I’m a British Citizen. It says so on my passport. And I can’t type. So there ;-)
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:16 PMMartin,
Fair enough, that’s your call, I stand over what I said.
Regards Post 15, I was talking directly to Martin, so the use of the word “man” was entirely appropriate your joliness…
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:20 PMThe difference between a british Citizen and Subject is an interesting one. As far as I know a Subject is a citizen of a Crown dependancy like the Faulklands and has nno right of residence in the UK. But I’m not sure.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:26 PMNew poll
Please post votes belowShould Charles Battenberg-Mountbatten-Windsor:
a.) be King of Britain;
b.) be re-named Cathal;
c.) be dethroned and a British socialist republic declared;
d.) get a life, and tell the kids to stop dressing up as Nazis.Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:32 PMWhenever I hear the idea being floated of a Republic I just look across to the USA and see what a hash they’ve made of it. Long live the Queen!
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:36 PMNot too many Unionists arent monarchists I believe?
I am not sure that Sam McAughtry is too fond of the Queen meself? Anyone else come to mind?
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:38 PM“Anyway, I never see similar criticisms about the Dutch, Danish, Spanish, Swedish or Norwegain Monarchies from our near neighbours. “
Please, allow me. I find the idea of monarchy abhorrent wherever it comes up, and that goes for all those places. The difference is, they aren’t getting any of my taxes.
And everyone misses the point of consituential democracy, guarenteed rights that aren’t easily dumped on. Where in England, a simple act of parliament will do, the ROI or the US might need a referendum. It’s seriously one of the best inventions ever.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2006 @ 03:42 PM
