The mention of the civil war is the cue to where all this comes from. As usual after a civil war, what emerged was not a democracy but a military dictatorship. The UK was a Protestant theocracy for a while. This was sufficiently awful that there was no substantial opposition to the return of the monarchy after the death of Cromwell; however 20 years later a combination of desire for parliamentary power and anti-Catholicism resulted in deposing the monarch and replacing him with a different monarch imported from Holland, who would be under the control of parliamentarians.
Unpicking the constitutional settlement opens several extremely controversial cans of worms. For example, the role of religion in the UK; authority over the armed forces; land ownership reform; the House of Lords; the electoral system in general; devolution; and the strangeness of the Crown dependencies (channel islands, Isle of Man, etc).
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy, as well as a wide spread of society who are affectionate towards the Royal Family.
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy
The stress on "are" makes it sound like this would be considered a difficult to believe position. For my own part as a happy Royalist, if some bizarre and unfortunate circumstance came down to us being forced into another Royals vs parliament civil war, I'd be on the Royal side in a heartbeat.
As an American with little knowledge of British politics this is a bit surprising. Do you mind going into the reasons that lead you to be on the Royal side?
xanderstrike did a really good job of explaining a part of it. The monarch is our true head of state and the Royal Family our 'family of state', if you will. For all their problems, the Royal Family provides a real sense of continuity for Britishness and, to a lesser extent, an important sense of separateness from politics (usually) and what I consider critical 'reserve powers' to protect us from potential extraordinary political events (it's hard to speculate, but I doubt George V would have allowed a Hitler-esque figure to dismantle the political apparatus of the UK in the way Hitler did in Germany under von Hindenburg).
I must confess I recognize I am slightly biased as our current monarch is such a good one. I might not have been so keen on the institution in Richard III's time ;-) Politicians come and go and prime minsters are lucky to stay around for 10 years, but Queen Elizabeth II has been the figurehead of my country for 62 years and has essentially devoted her life in service of it. I have a lot of respect for her as an individual.
There are a variety of lesser, miscellaneous reasons too. I see no specific need to change, the Royal Family provides a net profit to the country financially, having an army allied to the country rather than its current political system is best, they don't have a significant impact on democratic procedure in ideal times, they provide a long-term narrative and stability, and more besides.
You know how there are Americans who hate the current government and would like to see it all thrown out, but will stand and defend their nation without hesitation? The Royal Family is a concrete and personal representation of the nation, it's like if Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty were real people who existed outside of national and local politics representing the cultural heritage of the nation as a whole. We would treat them like royalty (ha) and protect them at all costs.
Comments
The mention of the civil war is the cue to where all this comes from. As usual after a civil war, what emerged was not a democracy but a military dictatorship. The UK was a Protestant theocracy for a while. This was sufficiently awful that there was no substantial opposition to the return of the monarchy after the death of Cromwell; however 20 years later a combination of desire for parliamentary power and anti-Catholicism resulted in deposing the monarch and replacing him with a different monarch imported from Holland, who would be under the control of parliamentarians.
Unpicking the constitutional settlement opens several extremely controversial cans of worms. For example, the role of religion in the UK; authority over the armed forces; land ownership reform; the House of Lords; the electoral system in general; devolution; and the strangeness of the Crown dependencies (channel islands, Isle of Man, etc).
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy, as well as a wide spread of society who are affectionate towards the Royal Family.
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy
The stress on "are" makes it sound like this would be considered a difficult to believe position. For my own part as a happy Royalist, if some bizarre and unfortunate circumstance came down to us being forced into another Royals vs parliament civil war, I'd be on the Royal side in a heartbeat.
As an American with little knowledge of British politics this is a bit surprising. Do you mind going into the reasons that lead you to be on the Royal side?
xanderstrike did a really good job of explaining a part of it. The monarch is our true head of state and the Royal Family our 'family of state', if you will. For all their problems, the Royal Family provides a real sense of continuity for Britishness and, to a lesser extent, an important sense of separateness from politics (usually) and what I consider critical 'reserve powers' to protect us from potential extraordinary political events (it's hard to speculate, but I doubt George V would have allowed a Hitler-esque figure to dismantle the political apparatus of the UK in the way Hitler did in Germany under von Hindenburg).
I must confess I recognize I am slightly biased as our current monarch is such a good one. I might not have been so keen on the institution in Richard III's time ;-) Politicians come and go and prime minsters are lucky to stay around for 10 years, but Queen Elizabeth II has been the figurehead of my country for 62 years and has essentially devoted her life in service of it. I have a lot of respect for her as an individual.
There are a variety of lesser, miscellaneous reasons too. I see no specific need to change, the Royal Family provides a net profit to the country financially, having an army allied to the country rather than its current political system is best, they don't have a significant impact on democratic procedure in ideal times, they provide a long-term narrative and stability, and more besides.
You know how there are Americans who hate the current government and would like to see it all thrown out, but will stand and defend their nation without hesitation? The Royal Family is a concrete and personal representation of the nation, it's like if Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty were real people who existed outside of national and local politics representing the cultural heritage of the nation as a whole. We would treat them like royalty (ha) and protect them at all costs.
Personally, I prefer a hint of the long term over a huge amount on the short term.
Picking a side if forced to is hardly extreme. Trying to overturn a democratic decision by starting the civil war is more what I was thinking of.
American here, out of curiosity, why?
Extra bank holiday on their jubilees.