It's a great article and the insight into the symbolism of the event is fascinating.
I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid.
Nevertheless, so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and inaccessible elite we'll never know if it is indicative of the true state of affairs, an elaborate coverup or somewhere in-between the two.
Where I come from to question the British Monarchy is not only unpopular, it's potentially offensive to the section of the community that considers themselves British. Compounding that, republicanism is a dirty word with violent connotations. Change is unlikely to come from this particular part of the world.
Yet with the Irish Republic right down the road we have context on what a Republic really means. One looks at the picture of President Higgins standing in line for an ATM [1] and makes a decision right away. It either fills you with pride or with scorn.
It looks like there's a nascent movement towards Republicanism over in the UK but it'll be a long time coming.
The thing is Republicanism won't actually solve the problem you mention, of the core group of powerful MPs being overwhelmingly representative of the elite. If anything it will swing things further under their control.
The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards. The true wealth is in random parts of the aristocracy that owns massive parts of west London, but again merely turning into a republic is not going to result in that being redistributed any more palatably than it is today.
It is a dated institution, and it is a bit odd to have people born into such a thing, but it really isn't that actively harmful, and certainly less harmful than a headlong rush into a worse alternative when it appears to be slowly diminishing into irrelevance without the need of any external stimulus.
In the list of "things actively harmful to the UK", bad behaviour and lobbying by multinational companies and the financial services industry is fairly near the top, while all the Royals except Charles are smart enough to stay away from political issues most of the time.
An actual dispute about Royal Assent on a piece of popular legislation would end in favour of Parliament fairly quickly.
You know about the corporate lobbying. I don't think any of us have the slightest idea what influence the Royals have over the wonks, men in grey suits and senior members of the Government.
Can you delve into a little more detail with the ATM picture? I am particularly confused about why it would evoke feeling of scorn but to be honest I am a little fuzzy on the pride aspect too. I imagine its because I am a yank, but the first thing that I thought of when I saw that photo is "why am I looking at the protectee standing still on the street and the only security detail I see has his back to (what seems to be the) main street so he can look down a side road?"
The picture shows the President queuing behind a member of the public to use the ATM.
As far as I know he's not required to do this, of course. He could have someone go for him etc.
In the UK it's very unlikely the Head of State would queue for an ATM and people who prefer the pageantry, pomp and ceremony of Royalty might feel this kind of behaviour demeans the office and is not worthy of a HoS. On the other hand, people holding more republican values might feel proud of their choice in electing a person who lives as they do.
I hadn't noticed the security thing. Ireland is neutral, guns are stringently controlled and no existing paramilitary group has a motive to assassinate the President. The security is probably there to mitigate the slightly increased risk of a 'lone nut' attack and not much else.
Thanks for the response. I was afraid I was wading into a mine field of politics that I did not understand. After reading your response I think that this is not a uniquely Irish predicament; I think this is an example of a universally "polarizing" question in any modern democracy. GWB was especially good at playing up the populist "a guy you would want to have a beer with" angle. Personally it has always been a non-issue to me. PotUS is not just like me or my friends and family and respectfully I will submit that your president does not live just like you do. I have never had a security detail escort me to the ATM and I cant imagine anyone would take my picture if they saw me standing in front of the ATM.
"I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid."
This was the bit I also remember from a documentary I watched recently, they only answer on the third knock, I think. And when they move to the room where the Queen is to give her speech they talk among themselves deliberately loud to signal once again that they don't care.
Comments
It's a great article and the insight into the symbolism of the event is fascinating.
I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid.
Nevertheless, so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and inaccessible elite we'll never know if it is indicative of the true state of affairs, an elaborate coverup or somewhere in-between the two.
Where I come from to question the British Monarchy is not only unpopular, it's potentially offensive to the section of the community that considers themselves British. Compounding that, republicanism is a dirty word with violent connotations. Change is unlikely to come from this particular part of the world.
Yet with the Irish Republic right down the road we have context on what a Republic really means. One looks at the picture of President Higgins standing in line for an ATM [1] and makes a decision right away. It either fills you with pride or with scorn.
It looks like there's a nascent movement towards Republicanism over in the UK but it'll be a long time coming.
1: https://twitter.com/AwningsIreland/status/448436785220452352...
The thing is Republicanism won't actually solve the problem you mention, of the core group of powerful MPs being overwhelmingly representative of the elite. If anything it will swing things further under their control.
The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards. The true wealth is in random parts of the aristocracy that owns massive parts of west London, but again merely turning into a republic is not going to result in that being redistributed any more palatably than it is today.
It is a dated institution, and it is a bit odd to have people born into such a thing, but it really isn't that actively harmful, and certainly less harmful than a headlong rush into a worse alternative when it appears to be slowly diminishing into irrelevance without the need of any external stimulus.
"The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards."
"it really isn't that actively harmful"
How can you be sure?
In the list of "things actively harmful to the UK", bad behaviour and lobbying by multinational companies and the financial services industry is fairly near the top, while all the Royals except Charles are smart enough to stay away from political issues most of the time.
An actual dispute about Royal Assent on a piece of popular legislation would end in favour of Parliament fairly quickly.
Depends on your perspective I guess.
You know about the corporate lobbying. I don't think any of us have the slightest idea what influence the Royals have over the wonks, men in grey suits and senior members of the Government.
Can you delve into a little more detail with the ATM picture? I am particularly confused about why it would evoke feeling of scorn but to be honest I am a little fuzzy on the pride aspect too. I imagine its because I am a yank, but the first thing that I thought of when I saw that photo is "why am I looking at the protectee standing still on the street and the only security detail I see has his back to (what seems to be the) main street so he can look down a side road?"
Sure.
The picture shows the President queuing behind a member of the public to use the ATM.
As far as I know he's not required to do this, of course. He could have someone go for him etc.
In the UK it's very unlikely the Head of State would queue for an ATM and people who prefer the pageantry, pomp and ceremony of Royalty might feel this kind of behaviour demeans the office and is not worthy of a HoS. On the other hand, people holding more republican values might feel proud of their choice in electing a person who lives as they do.
I hadn't noticed the security thing. Ireland is neutral, guns are stringently controlled and no existing paramilitary group has a motive to assassinate the President. The security is probably there to mitigate the slightly increased risk of a 'lone nut' attack and not much else.
Thanks for the response. I was afraid I was wading into a mine field of politics that I did not understand. After reading your response I think that this is not a uniquely Irish predicament; I think this is an example of a universally "polarizing" question in any modern democracy. GWB was especially good at playing up the populist "a guy you would want to have a beer with" angle. Personally it has always been a non-issue to me. PotUS is not just like me or my friends and family and respectfully I will submit that your president does not live just like you do. I have never had a security detail escort me to the ATM and I cant imagine anyone would take my picture if they saw me standing in front of the ATM.
"I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid."
This was the bit I also remember from a documentary I watched recently, they only answer on the third knock, I think. And when they move to the room where the Queen is to give her speech they talk among themselves deliberately loud to signal once again that they don't care.
"so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and inaccessible elite" You're referring to our members of parliament, right?