The monarchy and the wider UK constitution is like the ultimate legacy system. Extremely hard to change because it has all grown organically and has tentacles and interdependencies everywhere. And there's no authoritative documentation (ie written constitution), just a whole lot of observations about how it has always worked in the past [1].
Its worth reading about the duties of the "Queen's Remembrancer" [2], who is a real person right now. All the bizarre stuff about knives and nails and horseshoes and tablecloths has been going on, year after year, for over 800 years. Like some kind of autonomous system that nobody knows how to shut down any more.
So I find the British constitution quite fascinating, in the same way that some really old software from the early sixties but still in use somehow, would be fascinating. Unless you power the whole thing down (revolution) all you can really do is change it slowly. I sometimes wonder if thats the point of it.
That is the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700. The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow power base that would be prone to collapse.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know it started to take shape.
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
I agree. I was thinking that it could have evolved to reduce the risk of destructive change and revolution, or to entrench the privileges of the powerful. I didn't fully appreciate the point that, to the rich and powerful, there is no distinction between those aims.
Don't muddle the monarchy and the "constitution". Few people want to change either because there's nothing relevant to change. Our laws are ultimately based on the Magna Carta and take into account the whole of law since. Do you think it would be better to replace that with a bunch of bullet points?
I wasn't advocating changing anything. I should probably have made it clear that I was referring to the role of the monarchy in the constitution. "The Crown" might have been a better phrase.
I'm totally ok with tradition and pomp... up to a point.
Comments
The monarchy and the wider UK constitution is like the ultimate legacy system. Extremely hard to change because it has all grown organically and has tentacles and interdependencies everywhere. And there's no authoritative documentation (ie written constitution), just a whole lot of observations about how it has always worked in the past [1].
Its worth reading about the duties of the "Queen's Remembrancer" [2], who is a real person right now. All the bizarre stuff about knives and nails and horseshoes and tablecloths has been going on, year after year, for over 800 years. Like some kind of autonomous system that nobody knows how to shut down any more.
So I find the British constitution quite fascinating, in the same way that some really old software from the early sixties but still in use somehow, would be fascinating. Unless you power the whole thing down (revolution) all you can really do is change it slowly. I sometimes wonder if thats the point of it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Remembrancer
That is the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700. The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow power base that would be prone to collapse.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know it started to take shape.
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
Act of Union, 1707.
England is what I meant.
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
I agree. I was thinking that it could have evolved to reduce the risk of destructive change and revolution, or to entrench the privileges of the powerful. I didn't fully appreciate the point that, to the rich and powerful, there is no distinction between those aims.
Don't muddle the monarchy and the "constitution". Few people want to change either because there's nothing relevant to change. Our laws are ultimately based on the Magna Carta and take into account the whole of law since. Do you think it would be better to replace that with a bunch of bullet points?
Tradition grounds us. Pomp is enjoyable.
I wasn't advocating changing anything. I should probably have made it clear that I was referring to the role of the monarchy in the constitution. "The Crown" might have been a better phrase.
I'm totally ok with tradition and pomp... up to a point.