The Monarchy - should we abolish it?

[SusanDoris]

I have no need or desire to do so, not being the fawning and forelock-tugging type.I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose. That's what it's for.Envious, absolutely not. Not bitter either. You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy, much as in other contexts many people make the same error of mistaking dislike for fear. Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.
All of them.

Your words may not be envy, but have you considered that they are rather selfish? since there is very far from being an overwhelming majority  for abolishing the monarchy, what about the feelings and wishes of those people who think it is just right? It is no good saying that they are sycophants; I for one am most certainly not.

[Shaker]

Your words may not be envy, but have you considered that they are rather selfish? since there is very far from being an overwhelming majority  for abolishing the monarchy, what about the feelings and wishes of those people who think it is just right?

These things are subject to the shifting sands of time, alias changing social demographics. I haven't checked the most recent figures (I'm going off to see if I can find the stats I want) but I will stick my neck out and say that I very strongly suspect that support for the monarchy mirrors religious affiliation, i.e. a feature of older rather than younger age groups. If I'm right in this - I don't know but I think I am - then as with religion, we can expect to see support for the monarchy dwindle over time.

It is no good saying that they are sycophants; I for one am most certainly not.

I don't know any other term for people who support an institution comprised of people who occupy their massively privileged position due entirely to what an earlier poster called a random act of coitus.

[jeremyp]

I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose.

Yes, but if you are trying to put together a reasoned argument about why something should be different, it just makes you look like a bitter arsehole.

Envious, absolutely not.

But that is not what it looks like.

You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy

I don't think I do, actually. You are quite capable of arguing against things you don't  like without descending to insults under most circumstances, so I have to assume you have a special hatred for the monarchy.

Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.

Buck House is not ugly. I admit I don't know what Sandringham looks like, so it could well be ugly.

All of them.

I don't think so. Don't forget, they are mostly not just private residences.

[jeremyp]

My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum, and that he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor.

The House of Windsor was just a rebranding exercise. Technically, we still in the Sax Coburg Gotha dynasty. Naturally, during the First World War, the idea that the Royal Family's name was German was not popular.

[Shaker]

Yes, but if you are trying to put together a reasoned argument

Which on the current thread let alone others on the same subject I believe I have, in #14 and #26 -

about why something should be different, it just makes you look like a bitter arsehole.

That's only your interpretation.

But that is not what it looks like.

As is that.

I don't think I do, actually. You are quite capable of arguing against things you don't  like without descending to insults under most circumstances, so I have to assume you have a special hatred for the monarchy.

No more or less special than my other hatreds. The current thread is about the monarchy, though. Get me on a thread about Islamism, genital mutilation, the Roman Catholic Church, animal cruelty, the Conservative Party and a hundred and one other things and you'll see far worse.

Buck House is not ugly.

I think it is.

I admit I don't know what Sandringham looks like, so it could well be ugly.I don't think so.

If you don't know (I do - I've been there, against my will) where does the I don't think so come from?

This a house so vast that one monarch (can't recall which one but it may have been either George V or VI) wouldn't actually live in it day to day and moved himself and queenie into a small(er) cottage in the grounds, smaller in Sandringham terms meaning somewhere where umpteen homeless people could be housed.

Don't forget, they are mostly not just private residences.

Some are; and in any case, whether they are or are not, this has no bearing on their architectural obnoxiousness, number or size.

[Anchorman]

The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.

 



Too often, the debate descends into personality.
I, too, have no issue with any of those members of Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor's clan.
I've even met a few - and applaud Charles work on projects such as Dumfries House.
However, I fail to see why we should defer to anyone because of a title conferred by genetics; nor why members of the police, hudiciary, forces, etc, should swear allegiance to an individual with no realauthority.
I can't see why an elected figurehead president with non-executive status is so wrong. It works perfectly well in many counties; Ireland, Finland, Poland and Germany to name but four.

[Shaker]

Quite.

[Anchorman]

I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great.  I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.

Elizabeth not-the-second might be nice enough -and dedicated to what she thinks is her role - but the thing is; we have absolutely no choice in who is or is not the puppet with the golden hat or the pen in their hand.

[Robbie]

I believe if the majority of the population wanted to be rid of the monarchy, they'd go.   Strikes me that on the whole they are popular at the moment.

[Gordon]

I believe if the majority of the population wanted to be rid of the monarchy, they'd go.   Strikes me that on the whole they are popular at the moment.

The problem there is that we'll never get the chance to decide.

As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.

[jeremyp]

Which on the current thread let alone others on the same subject I believe I have, in #14 and #26

Your belief is incorrect them. Post 14 is a stream of invective and post 26 is an argument that the popularity of the monarchy is declining, not that it should be abolished, unless you want to throw in an ad populum fallacy.

That's only your interpretation.

Yes, that is why I said "it looks like..." If you don't want people to interpret your posts on the monarchy as sour grapes, it might be an idea to tone down the insults.

Get me on a thread about Islamism, genital mutilation, the Roman Catholic Church, animal cruelty, the Conservative Party and a hundred and one other things and you'll see far worse.

Except that you have been on such threads many times and you don't normally cheapen your posts in this way.

I think it is.

Which is your subjective opinion.

If you don't know (I do - I've been there, against my will) where does the I don't think so come from?

You tell me, it's your post that runs two parts of my answer together to make it look like I don't think Sandringham is ugly even though I haven't seen it.

Incidentally, if I had said that, I would be technically correct. I don't have an opinion on the aesthetics of Sandringham (not having seen it) so how can I think it is ugly?

meaning somewhere where umpteen homeless people could be housed.

Really? How many is "umpteen". How many rooms in this alleged cottage? Sounds to me like you are just mouthing off again without any real grasp of the facts.

Some are

Which ones?

[jeremyp]

As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.

As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered against the monarchy is spite.

As long as our head of state is constitutional, I see no reason why we need an elected president.

[Shaker]

The problem there is that we'll never get the chance to decide.

As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.

Indeed.

A fallacy that wouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged by some of the monarchy supporters on this thread in any other context, it seems to me.

[Shaker]

Your belief is incorrect them.

Which is your subjective opinion.

Post 14 is a stream of invective and post 26 is an argument that the popularity of the monarchy is declining, not that it should be abolished, unless you want to throw in an ad populum fallacy.

I'm glad you mentioned that, since as Gord of the Board has already said an ad. pop seems to be one of the most regularly-used cards of the monarchy supporters (i.e. #25) who state outright (or at the very least strongly imply) that the monarchy should be kept because most people think it should. They're correct on a purely statistical basis; one of the most recent surveys I could find said that 68% are happy with the status quo. (Support strongest, as I earlier said I felt would be the case, in older generations). These things however tend to shift with time; we've seen it with religious adherence and I see no reason why the same shouldn't be the case with the public attitude to the monarchy. It may be the case that as years go by we'll see a comparable slide in support. I find it hard to believe that there'll be a reversal of the trend toward non-religion and likewise (for much the same reasons, i.e. cohort replacement etc.) I don't see the royalty-apathetic now picking up monarchical sympathies as they age.

Not that it will make a blind bit of difference since as Gordon has observed, even if public support stood at 1% we don't get the chance to decide. We don't have any say in who our head of state is. That, to me, is a quite absurd state of affairs.

The more important point of course is the fallacy at the heart of this would-be argument. Retention or abolition of the monarchy has to stand on its, or their, merits/demerits as rational arguments, not on numbers as the pro-monarchies would seem to have us believe. As with the existence of gods, I know of no good arguments for; all the good arguments are against. If somebody can come up with what I think is a sound case for retaining the monarchy, I'd give it all the serious attention and thought any rational, cogent argument deserves.

Yes, that is why I said "it looks like..." If you don't want people to interpret your posts on the monarchy as sour grapes, it might be an idea to tone down the insults.

Interpretation doesn't concern me unduly. You're allowed to be wrong after all.

Which is your subjective opinion.

... about your subjective opinion, and the price of butter going up to boot. Where will it all end?

Really? How many is "umpteen". How many rooms in this alleged cottage? Sounds to me like you are just mouthing off again without any real grasp of the facts.

I can't find the number of rooms for Sandringham (though I did find that it occupies 20,000 acres of land) but Buck House has 775. Pick what you think is a decent amount of space for a single person and then families of ascending size and see how it carves up. You can have extra paper if you need it.

[Gordon]

As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered against the monarchy is spite.

As long as our head of state is constitutional, I see no reason why we need an elected president.

I'm not advocating an elected president though: a constitutional head of state, and especially in the guise of the monarchy here with all the privilege, influence and sycophancy associated with it, seems anachronistic to me and not suited to modern democratic politics.

The charade whereby the leader of the party that wins a GE has to be 'invited' by the Queen to form a government is just one example of the utter silliness of the current situation. 

[Anchorman]

Why should we force the person who wears the golden hat, not only to believe in a religion (a thing, according ro members of this foum, which is impossible), but to be titular head od one branch of one religion in one of the constituant parts of the (so-called) UK, simply because the then monarch of that country wanted  a sprog by the 'right' woman?

[Robbie]

You're not alone in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).

[Nearly Sane]

I am not against the monarchy because of spite, or jealousy or because I am a killjoy. Indeed I feel rather sorry for those born into this weird and fetishized existence where they become some weird semi mythical scapegoat for people's own lives.  Once their lives might have been relatively unaffected other than the bizarre notion of people having to bow and pay deference to you simply because of an accident of birth but now with a 24 hour news cycle and what appears to me, the unhealthy obsession some have with the intimate details of the lives of others, we focus on did a two year kid look happy, nipslips, and who wants to be a tampon. As Anchorman has noted they are expected to believe in a certain way but now the entirety of their lives are dissected like sheep entrails.


And again, I would say they seem currently to do a good job. Somehow William and Harry are seemingly well intentioned despite having grown up in the glare of being children of symbol of some almost Bacchic death for their mother, paraded to be grieving, and to comfort those who never met their mother: a sacrifice in a nation's psychodrama.


I am also not convinced by either sides use of financial arguments. In the scale of our expenditure, any saving on the costs here would be minimal. The upkeep of the multiple big hooses would be maintained. The other side based around tourists would make sense if people didn't flock to countries such as France with no monarchy but simular history and grandes maisons.

And that applies to the killjoy argument too. I don't as I cross the border in Ireland, suddenly find that I walk into the Republic and find people in a less joyous mood than the North. I don't use the Channel Tunnel and step out in France and see people marooned in misery for lack of monarchy. I don't stand on the border between France and Spain and step from the dark clouds of depression into sunlit uplands of joy.

The monarchy is a bad idea based on the idiocy of hereditary status but more importantly it breeds the sense of deference that Bagehot talked of in The English Constitution and this extends to having an unelected second chamber, with a remaining hereditary status now outnumbered by a vast horde of appointees generally in thrall to parties rune by people who go to schools that are for the privileged! These schools and universities follow the like chooses like and thus we have govts made up disproportionately from those backgrounds and only last week the absurd figures on the demographics at Oxbridge.  Tied up with the fatuous nonsense of a national religion in by far the largest part of the union, and you have a sclerotic deferential state that supports a status quo on a nonsensical idea.

And yes, if we move to a more democratic system, it will neither change overnight, or completely. But should we not, we institutionalise the inequality, and the deference and indeed the use of people born into the absurdity as the bread and circuses mentioned by Udayana.

[Robbie]

...now with a 24 hour news cycle and what appears to me, the unhealthy obsession some have with the intimate details of the lives of others, we focus on did a two year kid look happy, nipslips, and who wants to be a tampon. As Anchorman has noted they are expected to believe in a certain way but now the entirety of their lives are dissected like sheep entrails.


Agree with that, it's horrible.

[SusanDoris]

You're not alone in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).

With a bit of luck, William and Kate will move to a better awareness and acceptance of non-belief, i.e. atheism and secular humanism, but I'll be long gone!

[SteveH]

Reckon on what basis?

Floo never bothers with boring old reasons for her opinions - she just plucks them out of thin air!

[SteveH]

Why should we force the person who wears the golden hat, not only to believe in a religion (a thing, according ro members of this foum, which is impossible), but to be titular head od one branch of one religion in one of the constituant parts of the (so-called) UK, simply because the then monarch of that country wanted  a sprog by the 'right' woman?

You are incorrect in assuming that the modern church of England is descended from Henry's break with Rome. His daughter Mary took us back into the arms of Rome, and it was the second break, under Elisabeth, which was permanent. Elisabeth broke with Rome because of her sincere belief in protestantism.

[Anchorman]

You're not alo ne in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).

Charlie Windsor - who isn't 'Prince of Wales here, but 'Duke of Rothesay (for what it's worth) is fere to believe whatever he wants and talk to all nthe plants in creation, if he feels so inclined - it's supposed to be a frre country.
But the daft tradition which infests the tripe laughingly calldcour democratic system hasd diddly squat to do with 'britain', and far too much to do with English trash wrapped up in 'tradition' to be taken seriously.

[Anchorman]

With a bit of luck, William and Kate will move to a better awareness and acceptance of non-belief, i.e. atheism and secular humanism, but I'll be long gone!

 



By 'eck, Susan...faith?
Well, whatever, it takes a lot of faith to think the absurdity known as the Act of Settlement will be discarded by the tripe known as Westminster any time soon.

[Anchorman]

You are incorrect in assuming that the modern church of England is descended from Henry's break with Rome. His daughter Mary took us back into the arms of Rome, and it was the second break, under Elisabeth, which was permanent. Elisabeth broke with Rome because of her sincere belief in protestantism.

 


Who cares? This is supposed tyo be the 'United Kingdom' - not England. (Not that you'd know it, given the tradition -bound anachronistic tripe of Westminster)