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.
Comments
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.