Monarchs and Traitors

I notice while catching up on the land of blog that the Devil’s Kitchen is railing against republicans. Indeed, he uses the word “traitor” to describe such folk. Most of the time, I find myself laughing out loud at his rants. Indeed, I am in complete agreement on the matter of The London Marathon and the state of butter. But on the monarchy, we disagree. Or, maybe not entirely. You see, I’m a lifelong republican. Oh, well, I guess that makes me a traitor. Not that this worries me too much as I have never been one to dish out loyalty on the basis of such things as nationhood or the head of state. Loyalty, to me, is something earned not granted.

I blame Oliver Cromwell. If he had done the right thing instead of becoming the very thing he rebelled against, then likely as not, we would be a republic now and the argument would not exist. However, despite his faults, Cromwell did give us the kernel of the parliamentary democracy we have today – well, him, the restoration and the glorious revolution. Is that glorifying terrorism, I wonder? Never mind, back to the point.

DK points out in his rant that Tony Benn’s airline pilot argument is rather silly. Indeed it is. However, an asinine argument does not undermine the case, simply the person making it.

Naturally when considering the alternatives, the current political bogieman is waved before republicans… “Do you want Thatcher in Buck House?” They used to ask. Now, it’s “do you want Tony Blair in Buck House?” Good point, but misses it, too. In a republic, if that was the choice, so be it… As the Americans have been discovering recently, the current crop of presidential candidates are no George Washington… :dry:

I would prefer the European model rather than the American one, whereby the head of state is separate from parliament and the prime minister – a bit like our monarchy but without the divine right stuff. Of course the flaw in a republic is something the French had to stomach when faced with a stark choice in their presidential elections between the racist and the crook. They chose the crook. Of course, there is nothing that says a monarch cannot be equally flawed, despite a lifetime’s preparation. Our history is littered with bad monarchs… James II anyone? Or, what about that layabout George IV? If Charles I had kept his head, well, he would have… kept his head.

I would also like to see a head of state refuse to sign bad law – as happened in France recently. Although in that case, it was good law, but the French do have to be French. Yes, I know that this would prompt a constitutional crisis, but, given the dire state of our parliamentary democracy, perhaps that is exactly what we need. A good constitutional crisis might clear the air.

The problem for republicans at the moment is that the alternative to a monarchy looks remarkably like the French choice; making the “do you want Blair in Buck House?” a compelling argument against. I mean, what do we have to expect on a ballot paper? Blair and one or more of his thoroughly egregious colleagues? And the opposition benches has to offer what, exactly? Cameron? What a nauseating little tick that man is. Sheesh. I would hope an independent stood, someone of calibre and independence of mind. Someone who understands the gravitas needed for the job. Someone with gravitas… Mrs Windsor might be a suitable candidate, for example. Our current monarch isn’t a bad head of state. Indeed, as a person, I quite like her. It’s the right of birth and job for life thing that sticks in my craw. There’s the rub, of course. If our current monarch (who, frankly, has done rather well) stood, I and doubtless many others would vote for her.

So, while I am content to be a republican traitor; for the moment, though, I’ll live with the status quo – it’s miles better than the alternative and that just doesn’t bear thinking about.