The monarchy pre-dates England having any sort of prestige at all. Indeed, it pre-dates England as being a single kingdom or a collectively ruled entity of any sort.
It's still a nostalgic symbol of the days when "the sun never sets on the British Empire". Nobody is nostalgic for the days when England was a tiny backwater whose only claim to fame was bothering the French.
It's a nostalgic symbol of the myth of 2,000 years of history. (Although I think in practical terms the earliest anyone even remotely sensible would date the history is the Anglo-Saxon colonisation, ~1500 years ago.)
The idea that there is a continuous history even of the English over this time is utterly risible - let alone the British, 'Britain' as a thing being - as the GGGGP says - the product of the imperial era more than anything else (act of union 1707, last Jacobite rising 1745; treaty of Utrecht, which cemented British supremacy, 1714; rapid colonial expansion thereafter).
The more pressing problem with the monarchy is the 'royal prerogative', which has the effect of turning 'Call Me Dave' Cameron into a de facto president.
As a believer in the exclusive democratic legitimacy of the legislature, I do not believe in monarchs - born or elected.
The history of Britain dates back to the Caesar's half-arsed invasion, surely. The history of the various British peoples seems pretty continuous from Anglo Saxon times onwards. I don't understand why citing particular 18th century treaties is meant to contradict that.
Are you suggesting that you would prefer Cameron as a de jure President?
I know there is a debate about when the idea of "Britishness" as a cultural thing started, but for 2,000 years we have had a monarch, and I would suspect if you chucked King Alfred into the state opening of parliament he wouldn't find all the rituals completely alien.
I actually like the idea of a hypothetical post-revolutionary Britain which seeks to emphasize the humble status of politicians by requiring that all their political arguments are voiced by a randomly-selected homeless person.
Kind of a mixture of the ceremonial humbling of the Queen mentioned in the original article and the Troubles-era rule that all Sinn Fein statements must be read by an actor.
Comments
That's a nice spin in the headline, but a homeless person could equally well fulfil the requirements.
In reality the Queen is a symbol of the glorious colonial times.
Not really. I think the monarchy pre-dates any colonies Britain/England had.
The monarchy pre-dates England having any sort of prestige at all. Indeed, it pre-dates England as being a single kingdom or a collectively ruled entity of any sort.
It's still a nostalgic symbol of the days when "the sun never sets on the British Empire". Nobody is nostalgic for the days when England was a tiny backwater whose only claim to fame was bothering the French.
It's a nostalgic symbol of 2,000+ years of history.
It's a nostalgic symbol of the myth of 2,000 years of history. (Although I think in practical terms the earliest anyone even remotely sensible would date the history is the Anglo-Saxon colonisation, ~1500 years ago.)
The idea that there is a continuous history even of the English over this time is utterly risible - let alone the British, 'Britain' as a thing being - as the GGGGP says - the product of the imperial era more than anything else (act of union 1707, last Jacobite rising 1745; treaty of Utrecht, which cemented British supremacy, 1714; rapid colonial expansion thereafter).
The more pressing problem with the monarchy is the 'royal prerogative', which has the effect of turning 'Call Me Dave' Cameron into a de facto president.
As a believer in the exclusive democratic legitimacy of the legislature, I do not believe in monarchs - born or elected.
The history of Britain dates back to the Caesar's half-arsed invasion, surely. The history of the various British peoples seems pretty continuous from Anglo Saxon times onwards. I don't understand why citing particular 18th century treaties is meant to contradict that.
Are you suggesting that you would prefer Cameron as a de jure President?
Or even Ed Milliband?
I know there is a debate about when the idea of "Britishness" as a cultural thing started, but for 2,000 years we have had a monarch, and I would suspect if you chucked King Alfred into the state opening of parliament he wouldn't find all the rituals completely alien.
I actually like the idea of a hypothetical post-revolutionary Britain which seeks to emphasize the humble status of politicians by requiring that all their political arguments are voiced by a randomly-selected homeless person.
Kind of a mixture of the ceremonial humbling of the Queen mentioned in the original article and the Troubles-era rule that all Sinn Fein statements must be read by an actor.
The Queen is a symbol that classism is alive and well in Britain.
Best remove the symbol, then, so we can pretend that classism no longer exists?