Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must do.
Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin.
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a patriot" crap.
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I
think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian,
Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm
an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to
law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not
intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition
behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the
office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair
election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of
allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance,
individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of
it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of
them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
yep, the Queen is quite frugal in that matter. The cost of representation and the the perceived splendor aren't really correlated.
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
It's also worth saying that the "soft power" of a Royal Visit, not even the Queen, is immense. A visit from the US President is probably on par with a visit from the Queen in terms of soft power projection, no other head of state in the world would garner anything close.
A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either.
The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it.
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter.
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
And yet there is a growing chorus of voices in the USA complaining - with some justification - that the country is run by an elite for the exclusive benefit of that elite. The fairness aspects you talk about are, at this stage in the evolution of Western democracy, largely nominal.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
The replacement, given that people still believe in the idea of democracy, would be either elected by the people, or appointed by the political classes. Either way, they would be political insiders, and so would be identical to the Blairs and Camerons of this world.
I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.
I am with you in concept, and the idea of royalty seems crazy when the current generation has more in common with the Kardashians and Hiltons than anything seemingly royal.
That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
I agree, but I imagine they'd have a hell of a time unweaving the multitude of agreements and concessions between the monarch and the government over the centuries. Give them back a bunch of assets and property to manage under private ownership and be equally taxed on and we'd have a fair start.
The "bunch of assets" that the crown effectively surrendered in return for financial dependence on parliament is the Crown Estate, currently worth GBP 8.1 billion (USD 13.6 billion).
They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance.
Comments
Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must do.
Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin.
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a patriot" crap.
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
But you do get haplotype worship.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/
yep, the Queen is quite frugal in that matter. The cost of representation and the the perceived splendor aren't really correlated.
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
I'm not sure that I agree. If you look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw) you'll see just how much money they make for the UK.
I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.
It's also worth saying that the "soft power" of a Royal Visit, not even the Queen, is immense. A visit from the US President is probably on par with a visit from the Queen in terms of soft power projection, no other head of state in the world would garner anything close.
A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either.
The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it.
I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.
Not a job she can get fired from, was hired to do, or is held accountable for etc...
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
[edit: grammar]
Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
Hear hear. Good show, my Commonwealth sibling.
Nor one she chose, or can choose to leave
EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.
Surely we should abolish such a job! It's practically slavery to condemn an entire family to live a specific way.
I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
Fun to think about!
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
And yet there is a growing chorus of voices in the USA complaining - with some justification - that the country is run by an elite for the exclusive benefit of that elite. The fairness aspects you talk about are, at this stage in the evolution of Western democracy, largely nominal.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
What is the evidence that elections select for merit?
What is the evidence that they don't?
Why is any of that important when it comes to a parliamentary system where the head of state is not the head of government?
"Not a job she can get fired from"
That's what Charles I thought......
Yes, way back in 1649. Are there any modern precedents, in any monarchy?
The Russian revolution is a much more recent example I think.
More recently than that, didn't a bunch of princely states end their royalties with the creation of India?
The monarchy actually saves the country money over all from just first layer income given to the country...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
The replacement, given that people still believe in the idea of democracy, would be either elected by the people, or appointed by the political classes. Either way, they would be political insiders, and so would be identical to the Blairs and Camerons of this world.
I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.
I am with you in concept, and the idea of royalty seems crazy when the current generation has more in common with the Kardashians and Hiltons than anything seemingly royal.
That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
Prince Harry is only something like 4th in line to the throne though, they didn't let Prince William go to Afghanistan.
Fair enough. I cite Harry because he's the one doing the dumbest things in his free time. (Though not that much worse than when I was 19)
I agree, but I imagine they'd have a hell of a time unweaving the multitude of agreements and concessions between the monarch and the government over the centuries. Give them back a bunch of assets and property to manage under private ownership and be equally taxed on and we'd have a fair start.
The "bunch of assets" that the crown effectively surrendered in return for financial dependence on parliament is the Crown Estate, currently worth GBP 8.1 billion (USD 13.6 billion).
They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxa...
She avoids the 40%-over-£325k inheritance tax normal people have to pay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_King...
The whole financing of the Royals was updated fairly recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011