Others have covered the recent nonsense about just how much (little) the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha Windsor costs taxpayers. I recall watching some simpering idiot staunch monarchist interviewed on the BBC the other evening stating that she would be more than happy to pay double. Well, she can pay mine if she likes – I’m sure I can find a better use for it. However, as pointed out by Chris, it’s all a bit of a diversion anyway. And, like the Devil’s Kitchen commenting on Robert Sharpe’s blog, I have no problem with privilege. Privilege is a simple fact of life, so get used to the idea.
No, it’s not the cost that annoys me. It isn’t some deep routed envy about a privileged lifestyle (although, I must confess, some of that moolah coming my way wouldn’t be kicked out of the door).
We are told (repeatedly) that we live in a democracy. So, remind me someone, because I seem to have missed it, just when did I go into a polling booth and place my cross alongside Saxe-Coburg Gotha Windsor where it asked for my preference on the little matter of head of state? Oh, I didn’t. Thought not. I know I’m prone to the occasional senior moment, but that would be a big one to miss – even for me. That and that alone, is my objection to the monarchy.
I haven’t seen a better solution to the one that we currently have. So, in other words, unless something drastically better to the current arrangement comes along, I’m very happy with the Queen and the Crown. 🙂
President Blair? Fuck right off with that.
Yeah, they all say that. A decade or so ago, Thatcher was the bogeyman put up as a reason not to have a democratically elected head of state. The issue is not one of personality, it is one of principle. Without an elected head of state, we cannot claim to be a democracy – and elected presidents work perfectly well elsewhere.
So, if Blair was elected as president (unlikely, but possible) I wouldn’t much like it, but I would prefer it to the present situation.
Hear hear, Longrider.
What the monarchy bring into the economy is rther more than they cost. The same cannot be said of MPs. I also like the fact that the head of state is, effectively, powerless: it gives more legitimacy to the parliamentary process.
I also don’t get why democracy is inherently a good thing; it is simply the least worst option. (We don’t live in a true democracy in any case. Lest we forget, the government that rules us was elected by less that 22% of the electorate: that’s not what I call a democracy.)
As for elected president’s working well elsewhere — well, I am sure that a lot of Americans would disagree with you there. As would the French (remember “vote for the crook not the Nazi”?).
If you accept the concept of priviledge, then you can accept the idea of a monarchy (in fact, it would be dishonest not to). And, let’s face it, how many of our “democratic” MPs are any less priviledged? Or, indeed, do their jobs better?
If you accept the concept of the monarchy, then you can accept the idea that — as a nation — it is a matter of pride that they don’t all ride about on bicycles. Yes, they are kept in style (as befits the head of state of a rich nation), but I have — to an extent — always viewed that as a decent renumeration for the fact that they are scrutinised — and are effectively in the job — from when they are born to when they die. We do not ask that of anyone else.
DK
Ah, yes, I wondered how long before someone brought up the “crook or racist” issue of the last French election (removes Captain Mainwaring hat). However, that too, strays into personality, not principle – to digress slightly, the French failure to fully engage brought the matter to an ugly head; they had only themselves to blame.
There is no reason whatsoever why an elected president could not operate in a similar “powerless” fashion to the current monarch. In many respects, your argument follows the weakest possible justification; tradition, heritage, national pride et al. The cost and money brought in is a diversion; France does not have a monarchy, yet the heritage left behind still brings in the Euros – so, too would our monarchy even had we not had a restoration.
Surely the strongest possible argument in favour of the monarchy has to be that of a lifetime of preparation and training that no politician is likely to have. Even so, none of this alters my basic premise, which, boiled down is this:
“No taxation without representation”
And as Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha was not elected by me and therefore does not represent me, I object to being taxed in order to pay for her without having the option to vote.
Greetings fella, long time no parler.
As a fellow republican I wonder if you’d like to write a longer dietribe to submit to the Carnival of Socialism 6.
Basically it’s a series of precies and links from my blog to other blogs of like-minded vitriol.
You can of course choose any subject you like privacy etc. but I always like a good rant on the minorchy.
I used to be a fairly committed republican, absolutely convinced it was a bad idea. Then I did a LOT of comparative politics, and also looked at different options.
I do, strongly, believe in the separation of Head of State (ceremonial, representative of the nation, etc) and Head of Government (elected, political, subject to attack, etc). I would utterly oppose any attempt at a directly elected head of Govt on the American model.
If you’re going to abolish the monarchy, then switch to the Irish/German model of ceremonial Presidencies. It works, and doesn’t lead to the mess that criticising the President is unpatriotic in times of crisis that the US has.
But, I’ve also read me Edmund Burke. I, personally, like radical change. Most people don’t. If Australia had voted for a Republic, odds are Queensland would have seceded (I read a study on it, ages ago, IIRC). Given that a ceremonial role can be carried out by anyone, why not keep the Monarch to keep the traditionalists happy?
Clarify the powers, especially that of the Crown, and ensure it’s got a defined role. Also, full taxes, and self supporting, like the Spanish King (and there’s a damn fine example of how a monarch ensured democracy in place of another civil war). As long as the monarch has no powers, fine with me.
:rock: (just because)
The Irish/German model would be my preferred option. I would never recommend the US model – ever. Keeping an unelected monarch because of tradition is, in my opinion, the worst possible reason. I remain a committed republican for the reason stated in my posting – I have not voted for the monarch, therefore I experience no sense of representation on my behalf.