Are the royals on the rocks?

1222325272842

Comments

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    That individuals in the royal family routinely courtesy to the Queen in the confines of the palace, or anywhere else for that matter, is bizarre.

    It's no more bizarre than members of the military saluting a senior officer. It is, in fact, rather similar.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work.

    The same quango that currently supplies 'advice' -- you can then have the grown up political debate as to whether that is a desirable state of affairs.
    what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them?

    All these issues exist already, they are just hidden by a veneer of polite fictions.

    But it is the very difficulty of grown up political debate that is the problem, so demonstrated by England's recent series of tory-led decisions using the prejudices of the right-wing working class to put at risk peace in Ireland. Do you really want this set of questions to be determined in the same way as Brexit?
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.

    I didn't miss your point. I hit it straight on the head and nailed it into the wood in one shot.

    I repeat: Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    "doing that" means taking something that works and breaking it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    That individuals in the royal family routinely courtesy to the Queen in the confines of the palace, or anywhere else for that matter, is bizarre.

    It's no more bizarre than members of the military saluting a senior officer. It is, in fact, rather similar.

    Do they do that at home if they happen to be members of the same family?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Me wrote:
    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.

    I didn't miss your point. I hit it straight on the head and nailed it into the wood in one shot.

    I repeat: Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    "doing that" means taking something that works and breaking it.

    I cannot for the life of me how completely changing our relationship with the rest of Europe bears any relationship to entirely cosmetic changes to how appointees are appointed.

    Just carry on doing what you are already doing, but stop pretending the Queen does it.

    This is like arguing that if Djelibeybi got rid of its king there wouldn't be anyone to make the sun rise.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Because, and I can't believe I have to walk you through this again, how do you reach the decision to make that specific change? Once you decide to change, the opportunity arises to think about not only the process of changing the system, but what the system will be. You can't just say "We will no longer call her Queen. We will call her Head Muppet." It opens up a can of worms. It did in Australia in 1990, and that's why the Monarchists won the referendum. People got scared of the detail. Scared people means rising prejudice means ripe for manipulation by tories or worse, fascists.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work.

    The same quango that currently supplies 'advice' -- you can then have the grown up political debate as to whether that is a desirable state of affairs.
    what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them?

    All these issues exist already, they are just hidden by a veneer of polite fictions.

    But it is the very difficulty of grown up political debate that is the problem, so demonstrated by England's recent series of tory-led decisions using the prejudices of the right-wing working class to put at risk peace in Ireland. Do you really want this set of questions to be determined in the same way as Brexit?

    I think if it were true that the only thing standing between you and some right wing imaginary were an elderly lady with a funny hat then you have other issues on your hands amongst them the fact that her successor appears to be weak-willed, tetchy and a bad judge of character.

    In fact what happens at present is that either a particular appointment doesn't matter, or your equivalent of the Tories put their finger on the scales of the various appointment committees who 'advise' the monarch, and everyone pretends to business as usual.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Do they do that at home if they happen to be members of the same family?

    Monarchy is like a uniform you can't take off.

    I like the Queen, and I like the stupid minutiae of formal etiquette that surrounds her. But the modern monarchy, like so much else in Britain, is the result of the accumulation of hundreds of years of mostly nonsense. If we were going to start from scratch and come up with a new constitutional arrangement now, we wouldn't invent a monarchy.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    But its not the only thing Chris.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I'm somewhat tickled that this argument is made by someone who is fairly firmly non-Conformist.

    I'm also someone who generally believes in the importance of starting out from where one finds oneself to be, rather then burning everything that went before to the ground. I'm theoretically in favour of a secular state, but I'm not sure disestablishment of the CoE, now that it's there, would be welcome. Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Look,I feel for you people in England. You have vestiges of a milennia of aristocratic control to deal with. But that's where your energies ought be directed. Separate out the symbol from the system, turn the House of Lords into a Senate-like body, and raise your death duties. That should do it. And if you keep Her Maj, the working class conservatives will be quiet. Attack Her Maj or her family's privileges, and the working class conservatives will slit your throats.

    Keep the Monarchy, do away with the nobility. Leftist populism using the Monarch as a sock puppet: what could go wrong?
  • edited March 9
    Does anyone else curtsey to their mother-in-law in private? What if you don't?

    Remembering when princess Anne came to Saskatchewan and there was a briefing about what people were supposed to (mostly) not do. Recalling an older FSIN (Federation of Saskatchewan Indigenous Nations) got up at supper and tapped her on the shoulder and had a chat with her. With several jumping people all negatively excited about it. Some of the commentary was no one is better than anyone else. Which is normal.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Because, and I can't believe I have to walk you through this again, how do you reach the decision to make that specific change? Once you decide to change, the opportunity arises to think about not only the process of changing the system, but what the system will be. You can't just say "We will no longer call her Queen. We will call her Head Muppet." It opens up a can of worms. It did in Australia in 1990, and that's why the Monarchists won the referendum. People got scared of the detail. Scared people means rising prejudice means ripe for manipulation by tories or worse, fascists.

    I'm not proposing changing the Queen's name. Read what I actually wrote. And don't you dare talk to me like I'm an idiot.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    oh fuck off Karl. Stop being lazy with your self-referential one liners.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    oh fuck off Karl. Stop being lazy with your self-referential one liners.

    Any suitable response at this point belongs in Hell.
  • I remember (apparently it was in 2009) royal boot lickers were having a collective moment of frenetic excitement because Michelle Obama put her arm round the queen. At some point after that I saw an interview with Charles in which he said the queen wasn't remotely bothered. You do have to wonder who actually gives a toss about all of this royal protocol.

  • I don't think a republic is going to happen in any case. There are plenty of working class monarchists.

    Incidentally, I enjoyed the interview, to my surprise. It was interesting, and I thought Harry was articulate, and Meghan's description of feeling suicidal rang true to me. The idea that they are lying seems unlikely to me.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    oh fuck off Karl. Stop being lazy with your self-referential one liners.
    Host hat on
    Not appropriate in Purgatory. See the Guidelines especially 1 and 3.

    If you need to say this sort of thing, take it to Hell.
    Host hat off.
    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Because, and I can't believe I have to walk you through this again, how do you reach the decision to make that specific change? Once you decide to change, the opportunity arises to think about not only the process of changing the system, but what the system will be. You can't just say "We will no longer call her Queen. We will call her Head Muppet." It opens up a can of worms. It did in Australia in 1990, and that's why the Monarchists won the referendum. People got scared of the detail. Scared people means rising prejudice means ripe for manipulation by tories or worse, fascists.

    I think the exact problem that led to Brexit being such a balls up was that it was not considered properly in advance, and this has been documented very well on this forum. It was a binary question without any consideration of what would happen if people chose to leave, and then it became a shambles when they did.

    There's nothing to stop you planning it all out properly in advance and then saying "here are all the consequences". At which point it could be decided upon. That's what happened with the Scottish Independence referendum - the indy side had a 600+ page document describing the plan. Now, they lost, and perhaps it was because people were scared of the detail, but at least someone had put the effort in up front.

    I think it you look at organisations like Republic, they have probably thought about it quite a lot as well.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I think we (sorry, the UK as a whole) have enough troubles on our shoulders without having to take a total reorganisationof the state on our shoulders when there is no popular demad for it from the majority of folk (and yes, I do know about the SNP and Sinn Fein).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.

    In reality these consequences already exist - the status of Crown Dependencies is a wax nose that has been twisted to suit the purposes of the state and various powerful and corrupt individuals - until now the figleaf of the 'Crown' has been used to avoid shining too much light on these situations.

    The more prosaic day to day operation of these dependencies will continue as ever - because they consequences of a bureaucratic machinery that will tick along regardless of who is at the top.

    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification. There's going to be much more scope for mystery in religion than in statecraft.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.

    In reality these consequences already exist - the status of Crown Dependencies is a wax nose that has been twisted to suit the purposes of the state and various powerful and corrupt individuals - until now the figleaf of the 'Crown' has been used to avoid shining too much light on these situations.

    The more prosaic day to day operation of these dependencies will continue as ever - because they consequences of a bureaucratic machinery that will tick along regardless of who is at the top.

    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification. There's going to be much more scope for mystery in religion than in statecraft.

    The "Crown" in all these cases is just a word and in no way implies a connection with Buck House. The dependencies are dependent on the UK government or whatever ministry deals with them, not on her Maj.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification.
    I don't. But some people do. It takes all sorts, and dealing with their expectations and prejudices, to achieve successful policy implementation.

  • Eirenist wrote: »
    I think we (sorry, the UK as a whole) have enough troubles on our shoulders without having to take a total reorganisationof the state on our shoulders when there is no popular demad for it from the majority of folk (and yes, I do know about the SNP and Sinn Fein).

    Literally no one is proposing this. Any wholesale political reorganisation (and God alone knows we need it) is independent of removing the House of Windsor as the head of state. All the actual functions of state can continue as they are - they just become part of the judiciary, legislature, or civil service, as necessary.

    "We'd have to change everything" is false. It would, however, allow us to change some things.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I think we (sorry, the UK as a whole) have enough troubles on our shoulders without having to take a total reorganisationof the state on our shoulders when there is no popular demad for it from the majority of folk (and yes, I do know about the SNP and Sinn Fein).

    Well, stimulating popular demand would be the first step in a democracy anyway, wouldn't it?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    You do have to wonder who actually gives a toss about all of this royal protocol.
    I think it safer to stay with institutions, if you don’t mind. In that way we are spared the embarrassment of personalities. After all, that’s what institutions are for, isn’t it?”
    - Oliver Lacon in John Le Carré's The honourable schoolboy.
    “Nothing is possible without men; nothing is lasting without institutions.”
    - Jean Monnet.

    If you have institutions, protocol will develop. It's a necessary evil. If you try and do away with protocol you get "call me Tony" and "call me Dave" and studied informality that hides even greater evil. Some realities are symbolic.

  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    A day in the life of the queen. It's a bit Janet and John in presentation, and dated 2016, but however one might choose to disregard the importance of what she actually does, it would appear she has lived a busy and conscientiously businesslike life. As I understand it, this would be nothing less than her own expectation of herself. I doubt very much that many present day politicians could claim the same. Perhaps not even the Queen's own critics could say as much, who knows. What she achieves is up for debate; but clearly she does considerably more than 'bugger all' by anyone's objective standards for hard work. And I say that, not as a fan, but because I feel it's only fair to say so. I'm ambivalent about royalty and have no particular attachment to them.

    One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.

    Because of the divisive nature of politics, it seems to make sense to have a neutral figurehead of some sort to do 'state' related business, celebrations, provide a focus for national events etc. It could be argued that the current monarchical institution is not entirely fit for purpose however personally commendable the work ethic of the current Sovereign. But Britain doesn't seem to be placed to have alternatives for state figureheads at the moment. Speaking personally, I'd be happier celebrating the opening of a hospital wing with such a figurehead unveiling the foundation stone, rather than Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson or some other Tory limelighter. But it's clear that the country is increasingly divided as to who or what kind of person might stand as a figurehead for national unity.

    For those who dislike the undemocratic nature of the monarchy; it has to be borne in mind that democratically there will always be huge swathes of the country being represented by those who they did NOT vote for. Brexit, at least, has taught us that lesson. Without the Crown for balance (arguably), Britain is currently represented on the world stage as the anti-EU, isolationist, Brexit Britain yahoos our political masters present us to be internationally. Democracy has its limits.

    Back to Harry and Meghan. I'm guessing there isn't a tabloid editor who isn't right now thanking the Media gods for the interview. The red tops must think all their birthdays and Christmases have come at once.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I have, somewhere, a poster of the line of inheritance of the Crown. Yup, back to Cerdic. But if you pursue that line, it goes back further, as far as Woden. And there's another line to Brutus (after whom Britain is not named) son of Aeneas, son of Aphrodite, and looking at her antecedents is a bit Eeew.
    Royal blood, rubbish.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.

    In reality these consequences already exist - the status of Crown Dependencies is a wax nose that has been twisted to suit the purposes of the state and various powerful and corrupt individuals - until now the figleaf of the 'Crown' has been used to avoid shining too much light on these situations.

    The more prosaic day to day operation of these dependencies will continue as ever - because they consequences of a bureaucratic machinery that will tick along regardless of who is at the top.

    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification. There's going to be much more scope for mystery in religion than in statecraft.

    The "Crown" in all these cases is just a word and in no way implies a connection with Buck House. The dependencies are dependent on the UK government or whatever ministry deals with them, not on her Maj.

    Quite so, which is entirely why a monarch is superfluous.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If you have institutions, protocol will develop. It's a necessary evil. If you try and do away with protocol you get "call me Tony" and "call me Dave" and studied informality that hides even greater evil. Some realities are symbolic.

    Citation needed. There is plenty of institutional evil to go around, some of it greater than either Blair's or Cameron's.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    It appears that what some shipmates (and the tabloid press too, I fancy) really hanker after is a head of state who can be sacrificed annually to make the crops grow.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I remember (apparently it was in 2009) royal boot lickers were having a collective moment of frenetic excitement because Michelle Obama put her arm round the queen. At some point after that I saw an interview with Charles in which he said the queen wasn't remotely bothered. You do have to wonder who actually gives a toss about all of this royal protocol.

    But the Queen was very pissed when the Trumpster walked in front of her during the military review. You could see it on her face. Almost an "off with his head" look.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Eirenist wrote: »
    It appears that what some shipmates (and the tabloid press too, I fancy) really hanker after is a head of state who can be sacrificed annually to make the crops grow.

    For the tabloids, a young woman is better, preferably foreign, with "exotic DNA", not head of state.

    Removed duplicate quote. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • And this is a bad idea because...?
    :wink:

    I think that what some of us, at least, would like is a neutral Head-Of-State, elected every five years or so, but who does NOT interfere with the due processes of Parliament.

    A year or two ago, I might have said that HM the Q was fulfilling that role, but this business of *Queen's Consent* (which seems to apply to HRH Prince Charles as well) has rather tarnished that image. Maybe the National Anthem needs to be changed:

    *May she amend our laws...*

    No, let's do away with the monarchy, the Royal Family and all (metaphorically speaking), and have a President...or Lord Protector...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    oh fuck off Karl. Stop being lazy with your self-referential one liners.

    Any suitable response at this point belongs in Hell.

    The point is that I met the thrust of your argument. You avoided meeting the thrust of mine. I don't blame you. Its clear that your position succeeds on principle and fails in practice. The solution I presented works in practice but lacks principle. Its a pickle.

    Another point is that me starting to swear and posting reflexively is a bad sign, as is being awake at 2:30am.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.

    Eh?

    *Lord Protector* was the title assumed by Oliver Cromwell, after the execution of Charles I, which firmly demonstrated the repudiation of any *divine right* of kings...

    What's the Archbishop of Canterbury got to do with it?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    And this is a bad idea because...?
    :wink:

    I think that what some of us, at least, would like is a neutral Head-Of-State, elected every five years or so, but who does NOT interfere with the due processes of Parliament.

    A year or two ago, I might have said that HM the Q was fulfilling that role, but this business of *Queen's Consent* (which seems to apply to HRH Prince Charles as well) has rather tarnished that image. Maybe the National Anthem needs to be changed:

    *May she amend our laws...*

    No, let's do away with the monarchy, the Royal Family and all (metaphorically speaking), and have a President...or Lord Protector...

    Your last Lord Protector left rivers of blood up and down Ireland, but at least he refused the Crown when offered.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    But I don't think you did meet the thrust of my argument. If I missed the thrust of yours it's because it was entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. My argument is that all the stuff that actually needs doing is already being done by people other than the Queen. She rubber stamps some of their decisions. Remove the need for the rubber stamp and you don't need wholesale upheaval. Just have power being seen to vest where it actually vests and not where it doesn't vest but is technically held to vest.

    For example, British laws require Royal Assent; in theory the Queen's approval is required for a Bill to become Law. In practice she has no role in the drafting of laws nor actually any say in whether they become law, in that her assent is never refused. So just remove the requirement for her Assent. Job done.

    Similarly, High Court Judges are theoretically appointed by the Queen. In practice she appoints whoever the Lord Chancellor tells her to. So the real power is with the Lord Chancellor (and I imagine a number of people working for him whose advise he strongly follows). So why not just stop pretending the Queen appoints them and grant the power directly to the Lord Chancellor, whose decision it is anyway?

    The Queen doesn't need renaming as anything else. Her role is written out. There is no massive change in what is actually done and by whom. I cannot see how it "fails in practice" since in practice little has actually changed, bar demonstrating that the Queen isn't actually a necessary part of it.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.

    Eh?

    *Lord Protector* was the title assumed by Oliver Cromwell, after the execution of Charles I, which firmly demonstrated the repudiation of any *divine right* of kings...

    What's the Archbishop of Canterbury got to do with it?

    The Queen is technically the head of the Anglican Church. Remove the monarchy no more head of the church. Lord Protector is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It is also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It is sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch.

    Remove the monarch, the archbishop can carry on without a Lord Protector.

    BTW, I don't think the Lord needs any human protector.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    My response was that proposing change to that institution opens up the whole can of worms. Other proposals will be bought up, and things will get complicated. The last can you opened got you out of the EU and loyalists in NI repudiating the Good Friday Agreement.

    My suggestion is to keep the symbol of the monarchy to keep your working class conservatives happy while you do the reform that is really needed: finishing the job begun by Mr Atlee, who did for the gentry.

    I expressed this better on the computer rather than here on my phone in bed.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If you have institutions, protocol will develop. It's a necessary evil. If you try and do away with protocol you get "call me Tony" and "call me Dave" and studied informality that hides even greater evil. Some realities are symbolic.

    Citation needed. There is plenty of institutional evil to go around, some of it greater than either Blair's or Cameron's.

    I've been in informal, allegedly protocol-less environments, in which the unspoken protocols were all the more powerful, evil, and unchecked for being unspoken. I'm not by nature a protocol-lover, but I've worked enough in environments in which it is de rigueur to have come to accept there's a place for it.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    And this is a bad idea because...?
    :wink:

    I think that what some of us, at least, would like is a neutral Head-Of-State, elected every five years or so, but who does NOT interfere with the due processes of Parliament.

    A year or two ago, I might have said that HM the Q was fulfilling that role, but this business of *Queen's Consent* (which seems to apply to HRH Prince Charles as well) has rather tarnished that image. Maybe the National Anthem needs to be changed:

    *May she amend our laws...*

    No, let's do away with the monarchy, the Royal Family and all (metaphorically speaking), and have a President...or Lord Protector...

    Your last Lord Protector left rivers of blood up and down Ireland, but at least he refused the Crown when offered.

    True. I wouldn't really wish him back...
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.

    Eh?

    *Lord Protector* was the title assumed by Oliver Cromwell, after the execution of Charles I, which firmly demonstrated the repudiation of any *divine right* of kings...

    What's the Archbishop of Canterbury got to do with it?

    The Queen is technically the head of the Anglican Church. Remove the monarchy no more head of the church. Lord Protector is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It is also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It is sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch.

    Remove the monarch, the archbishop can carry on without a Lord Protector.

    BTW, I don't think the Lord needs any human protector.

    No, the Lord doesn't, but as you very well know, the title was that of Cromwell - as in *His Lordship, the Protector*.

    The ABC could carry on FWIW as leader of the Anglican church in this country (England), but that's perhaps a subject for another thread.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.

    In reality these consequences already exist - the status of Crown Dependencies is a wax nose that has been twisted to suit the purposes of the state and various powerful and corrupt individuals - until now the figleaf of the 'Crown' has been used to avoid shining too much light on these situations.

    The more prosaic day to day operation of these dependencies will continue as ever - because they consequences of a bureaucratic machinery that will tick along regardless of who is at the top.

    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification. There's going to be much more scope for mystery in religion than in statecraft.

    The "Crown" in all these cases is just a word and in no way implies a connection with Buck House. The dependencies are dependent on the UK government or whatever ministry deals with them, not on her Maj.

    Well, yes and no. The corporation sole named The Crown may
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.

    Eh?

    *Lord Protector* was the title assumed by Oliver Cromwell, after the execution of Charles I, which firmly demonstrated the repudiation of any *divine right* of kings...

    What's the Archbishop of Canterbury got to do with it?

    The Queen is technically the head of the Anglican Church. Remove the monarchy no more head of the church. Lord Protector is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It is also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It is sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch.

    Remove the monarch, the archbishop can carry on without a Lord Protector.

    BTW, I don't think the Lord needs any human protector.

    Are you mixing up Lord Protector and Supreme Governor? And the Monarch is only SG of the CofE, they have no jurisdiction over other Anglican provinces, even those of the other constituent nations of the UK.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Making the UK a republic might, like Brexit, have all sorts of unintended consequences. The legal and judicial status of the Crown Dependencies and their residents is one question that immediately springs to mind.

    In reality these consequences already exist - the status of Crown Dependencies is a wax nose that has been twisted to suit the purposes of the state and various powerful and corrupt individuals - until now the figleaf of the 'Crown' has been used to avoid shining too much light on these situations.

    The more prosaic day to day operation of these dependencies will continue as ever - because they consequences of a bureaucratic machinery that will tick along regardless of who is at the top.

    ISTM that you are reacting with less scepticism than if I told you that you needed the chap with the gold robe and funny stick make your baptisms valid, and with rather less justification. There's going to be much more scope for mystery in religion than in statecraft.

    The "Crown" in all these cases is just a word and in no way implies a connection with Buck House. The dependencies are dependent on the UK government or whatever ministry deals with them, not on her Maj.

    Well, yes and no. The corporation sole named The Crown may
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lord Protector? Just can't get away from the divine right of kings/queens. I think the Archbishop of Cantaberry can administer the Anglican church well enough.

    Eh?

    *Lord Protector* was the title assumed by Oliver Cromwell, after the execution of Charles I, which firmly demonstrated the repudiation of any *divine right* of kings...

    What's the Archbishop of Canterbury got to do with it?

    The Queen is technically the head of the Anglican Church. Remove the monarchy no more head of the church. Lord Protector is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It is also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It is sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch.

    Remove the monarch, the archbishop can carry on without a Lord Protector.

    BTW, I don't think the Lord needs any human protector.

    Are you mixing up Lord Protector and Supreme Governor? And the Monarch is only SG of the CofE, they have no jurisdiction over other Anglican provinces, even those of the other constituent nations of the UK.

    Yes, I wondered that, but I think @Gramps49 may have been referring to this Wikipedia article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Protector

    The monarch, since the time of Henry VIII, has also been entitled *Defender of the Faith*, and IIRC Prince Charles caused a bit of a fuss when he said that he would prefer to be *Defender of the Faiths* (plural) to reflect the multiplicity of religions and faiths in this country.
  • The monarch, since the time of Henry VIII, has also been entitled *Defender of the Faith*, and IIRC Prince Charles caused a bit of a fuss when he said that he would prefer to be *Defender of the Faiths* (plural) to reflect the multiplicity of religions and faiths in this country.

    "Defender of the Faith" was a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X, and referred explicitly to Henry's defense of Catholicism and opposition to Luther. Following the reformation and Henry's excommunication, the title continued to be used by King Henry (and has been used by all monarchs since) with a slightly different meaning.

    AIUI, The Prince of Wales's statement was that he wanted to be "Defender of Faith".
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    And this is a bad idea because...?
    :wink:

    I think that what some of us, at least, would like is a neutral Head-Of-State, elected every five years or so, but who does NOT interfere with the due processes of Parliament.

    A year or two ago, I might have said that HM the Q was fulfilling that role, but this business of *Queen's Consent* (which seems to apply to HRH Prince Charles as well) has rather tarnished that image. Maybe the National Anthem needs to be changed:

    *May she amend our laws...*

    No, let's do away with the monarchy, the Royal Family and all (metaphorically speaking), and have a President...or Lord Protector...

    Nope. I really dont want someone who is ambitious for it.
  • The monarch, since the time of Henry VIII, has also been entitled *Defender of the Faith*, and IIRC Prince Charles caused a bit of a fuss when he said that he would prefer to be *Defender of the Faiths* (plural) to reflect the multiplicity of religions and faiths in this country.



    AIUI, The Prince of Wales's statement was that he wanted to be "Defender of Faith".

    I stand corrected.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.

    Again, no one is suggesting we dig up the plant. Only that it is cut down to a stump, and the old, creaking gnarled thing has a republican graft which can then grow gracefully on towards the sunlight sky, its branches providing cool shade against the harsh summer heat and shelter against the cold winter storms.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.

    Again, no one is suggesting we dig up the plant. Only that it is cut down to a stump, and the old, creaking gnarled thing has a republican graft which can then grow gracefully on towards the sunlight sky, its branches providing cool shade against the harsh summer heat and shelter against the cold winter storms.

    O what a beautiful analogy, and an enchanting vision!

    One day...but probably long after I'm gone...
    :disappointed:
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.

    Again, no one is suggesting we dig up the plant. Only that it is cut down to a stump, and the old, creaking gnarled thing has a republican graft which can then grow gracefully on towards the sunlight sky, its branches providing cool shade against the harsh summer heat and shelter against the cold winter storms.

    O what a beautiful analogy, and an enchanting vision!

    One day...but probably long after I'm gone...
    :disappointed:

    That's what I thought. Apres moi, la republique.
Sign In or Register to comment.