I agree the King/ Windsors are awful, and there should be a plan to sideline them if any right wing/ radical party comes to power - as they will try to interfere. But does your concluding statement not contradict the whole piece.
"The British, more than any other nation, have maintained a flexible constitution under the recognition that no single form is preferable at all times and for all people."
The flexible constitution is a consequence of having a monarch/ figure head which persists regardless. If we do away with that, we move towards a written or more static constitution.
While I like many readers surely agree that the current state of the monarchy is pitiful and perhaps even detrimental to the existence of the British people, any attempt to abolish it and replace it with a stronger republic would be disastrous before the political culture is sufficiently right-wing enough to bring about a “based” constitution. If it were done now we could only imagine the liberal horrors our political parties would contrive in creating the political framework of United Republic. A great idea to be sure, but not yet.
The thought of a govt such as Starmer and co having greater powers is horrendous. The public is fickle and the danger is that if the right wing gained power and then didnt perform adequately it would be deposed to give way for another power and riches aggrandising Leftwing authoritarian govt and we would be even worse off than we are now.
the power to summon, dismiss, and dissolve Parliament (as constitutionally permitted)
But we have no constitution. And here it matters, because a Prime Minister loosing his majority could easily dismiss parliament and so avoid an Election.
You shall not, if you value freedom. Monarchy is a powerful anti Presidential force, and Presidentialism creates the opportunity for self coup and tyranny.
Abolishing the monarchy without a clear plan for the consequences and for what follows is just vandalism. Contenders for President: Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson ....or even worse.
Our entire legal system is built on the Crown in Parliament. Reworking that would be a mammoth and costly undertaking. Constitutional reform in a multi-culural society could end in chaos. Careful what you wish for.
Great article. Too much to comment on. Just to say that a British - or English - republic sounds too much like a Jacobine notion to appeal to the eternally 'centrist', wishy-washy national public. The notion of Charlie being a Guenonian monarch is hugely droll! Friend of mine called Esme' has been plugging it assiduously for a while. By the way, it is a widely shared misunderstandig that Sufis are so spiritual and lovely - warlike Sufi tarikats like the Mevlevi fought fiercely in the Turkish armies. And why no reference to the rumour that Andrew's real dad wasn't Philip but Lord Porchester? Too low or too incendiary? 😈 Anyhow, I enjoyed this one! Cheers from Fr Frank!
Cracking article, though I grew up in a rightwing republican household so have none of the baggage beloved of some. I like the way you suggest further limitation of the monarchy in such a way as to avoid constitutional overhaul, which would, as someone points out here, be the ultimate Blob-fest. Chuck just needs to stfu and be given reasons he can understand for doing so. Some of us were not much impressed by his sainted muvver, either; and Billy is much as you say; praps his brighter wife can persuade him to say "I am not interested in the succession" when his father pegs it or abdicates. As Hitch says, an empty throne would be nice. Symbolical and cheap.
Well, wielding that was one of Johnson's few good moments. It was very amusing to watch Gina 'Citoyenne du Monde' Miller getting into such a tizz in consequence. ...So yes. I don't have the feeling for politicking to say whether the prime minister or the cabinet would be better. If we are lucky enough to get a PM in possession of A Pair, he or she would be a preferable wielder of the prero.
Read any history & far from the role claimed today—the mature, refined King advising the PM—the opposite usually held: the PM was a stewarded the monarch. Senior PMs were older, classically educated in history, literature, empire, constitutional practice, and elite social codes.
Victoria basically lived off advice from Melbourne: from personal affairs, political coach, To an amusing anecdote where Victoria asks why there are so few viscounts at her coronation & Melbourne informs her that viscount isn't really an English title.
Peel was also insistent on the correct propriety of Victoria's personal household choices. Young Elizabeth II took Churchill as her constitutional guidance. Asquith & Goldstone's disdain for the monarchs is hilarious considering their complaint is pretty much 'uncouth'.
You really can't imagine PMs saying anything of the sort about Charles that Asquith, Goldstone, even Disraeli, said. The PM is now a thin, managerial media client who seems to look to the monarch for 'deep', 'cultured' advice.
In this sense, perhaps your 'Windsors suck', 'abolish the monarchy' is slightly too harsh. If Charles had Lord Melbourne, I suspect he'd be a rather fine King. And if he had to rely on Starmer as his Melbourne, he's a rather excellent one... That is to say, the decay of the monarchy may be more of a symptom of a wider cancerous spread of British politics rather than something to be cured itself.
So agree with all this. One benefit would be to rid ourselves of the awful dirge that is the National Anthem. Replace it with 'I Vow to Thee my country.'
Good read. As a few other commenters have suggested, a reduced role rather than abolition of the royals might be easier and just as effective on delivering reform.
If we do go all the way, then I'd personally prefer 'British Commonwealth/Free State over 'United/ British Republic' as the formal name of the country.
Eh, I think the English abolished the monarchy in the 17th century, and then again in the 18th. A bit late to come up with a republic. We’d end up with the latest TV star or boaty mcboat face. Time to retreat back to a property owning patriarchy
I agree the King/ Windsors are awful, and there should be a plan to sideline them if any right wing/ radical party comes to power - as they will try to interfere. But does your concluding statement not contradict the whole piece.
"The British, more than any other nation, have maintained a flexible constitution under the recognition that no single form is preferable at all times and for all people."
The flexible constitution is a consequence of having a monarch/ figure head which persists regardless. If we do away with that, we move towards a written or more static constitution.
While I like many readers surely agree that the current state of the monarchy is pitiful and perhaps even detrimental to the existence of the British people, any attempt to abolish it and replace it with a stronger republic would be disastrous before the political culture is sufficiently right-wing enough to bring about a “based” constitution. If it were done now we could only imagine the liberal horrors our political parties would contrive in creating the political framework of United Republic. A great idea to be sure, but not yet.
The thought of a govt such as Starmer and co having greater powers is horrendous. The public is fickle and the danger is that if the right wing gained power and then didnt perform adequately it would be deposed to give way for another power and riches aggrandising Leftwing authoritarian govt and we would be even worse off than we are now.
You don’t need a constitution beyond ‘Parliament is sovereign’. Unconstitutional Republicanism
the power to summon, dismiss, and dissolve Parliament (as constitutionally permitted)
But we have no constitution. And here it matters, because a Prime Minister loosing his majority could easily dismiss parliament and so avoid an Election.
You shall not, if you value freedom. Monarchy is a powerful anti Presidential force, and Presidentialism creates the opportunity for self coup and tyranny.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uW77FSphM6yiMZTGg/why-not-parliamentarianism-book-by-tiago-ribeiro-dos-santos
On the other hand, first past the post is really outdated.
I would keep the monarchy, (perhaps slim down who is considered important) and make clear their job is to shut up and perform ceremony.
Abolishing the monarchy without a clear plan for the consequences and for what follows is just vandalism. Contenders for President: Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson ....or even worse.
Our entire legal system is built on the Crown in Parliament. Reworking that would be a mammoth and costly undertaking. Constitutional reform in a multi-culural society could end in chaos. Careful what you wish for.
Dangle chairmanship of the FA in front of William and be done with it all.
Great article. Too much to comment on. Just to say that a British - or English - republic sounds too much like a Jacobine notion to appeal to the eternally 'centrist', wishy-washy national public. The notion of Charlie being a Guenonian monarch is hugely droll! Friend of mine called Esme' has been plugging it assiduously for a while. By the way, it is a widely shared misunderstandig that Sufis are so spiritual and lovely - warlike Sufi tarikats like the Mevlevi fought fiercely in the Turkish armies. And why no reference to the rumour that Andrew's real dad wasn't Philip but Lord Porchester? Too low or too incendiary? 😈 Anyhow, I enjoyed this one! Cheers from Fr Frank!
Cracking article, though I grew up in a rightwing republican household so have none of the baggage beloved of some. I like the way you suggest further limitation of the monarchy in such a way as to avoid constitutional overhaul, which would, as someone points out here, be the ultimate Blob-fest. Chuck just needs to stfu and be given reasons he can understand for doing so. Some of us were not much impressed by his sainted muvver, either; and Billy is much as you say; praps his brighter wife can persuade him to say "I am not interested in the succession" when his father pegs it or abdicates. As Hitch says, an empty throne would be nice. Symbolical and cheap.
A permanent Regency with the PM or cabinet as a whole formerly wielding Royal Perogative?
Well, wielding that was one of Johnson's few good moments. It was very amusing to watch Gina 'Citoyenne du Monde' Miller getting into such a tizz in consequence. ...So yes. I don't have the feeling for politicking to say whether the prime minister or the cabinet would be better. If we are lucky enough to get a PM in possession of A Pair, he or she would be a preferable wielder of the prero.
Read any history & far from the role claimed today—the mature, refined King advising the PM—the opposite usually held: the PM was a stewarded the monarch. Senior PMs were older, classically educated in history, literature, empire, constitutional practice, and elite social codes.
Victoria basically lived off advice from Melbourne: from personal affairs, political coach, To an amusing anecdote where Victoria asks why there are so few viscounts at her coronation & Melbourne informs her that viscount isn't really an English title.
Peel was also insistent on the correct propriety of Victoria's personal household choices. Young Elizabeth II took Churchill as her constitutional guidance. Asquith & Goldstone's disdain for the monarchs is hilarious considering their complaint is pretty much 'uncouth'.
You really can't imagine PMs saying anything of the sort about Charles that Asquith, Goldstone, even Disraeli, said. The PM is now a thin, managerial media client who seems to look to the monarch for 'deep', 'cultured' advice.
In this sense, perhaps your 'Windsors suck', 'abolish the monarchy' is slightly too harsh. If Charles had Lord Melbourne, I suspect he'd be a rather fine King. And if he had to rely on Starmer as his Melbourne, he's a rather excellent one... That is to say, the decay of the monarchy may be more of a symptom of a wider cancerous spread of British politics rather than something to be cured itself.
So agree with all this. One benefit would be to rid ourselves of the awful dirge that is the National Anthem. Replace it with 'I Vow to Thee my country.'
You propose to destroy English institutions in order to save them.
Do you keep your limbs if they are gangrenous?
If I have a brain tumor cutting off my head would keep it from metastasizing into the rest of my body, but that would rather defeat the purpose.
Good read. As a few other commenters have suggested, a reduced role rather than abolition of the royals might be easier and just as effective on delivering reform.
If we do go all the way, then I'd personally prefer 'British Commonwealth/Free State over 'United/ British Republic' as the formal name of the country.
I have always thought that 'the Royals' are at the centre of the mess that the country is in, led by Liz, Phil, and Chas.
Robespierre is an archetypical leftist.
No.
Eh, I think the English abolished the monarchy in the 17th century, and then again in the 18th. A bit late to come up with a republic. We’d end up with the latest TV star or boaty mcboat face. Time to retreat back to a property owning patriarchy