Time for Republic Bye Byes?
The oldest human being recorded in modern times was Jeanne Louise Calment, who lived from 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997.
During that time, her country, France, was governed by (take a deep breath):
The Third Republic (1871–1940). A temporary government. Ahem. It can itself be divided up into Paris Commune, Royalist and Radical periods.
The War Time Occupation cum Vichy Regime (which is not pertinent here, except in so far as the Third Republic was a little disfunctional and may have contributed to the circumstances which allowed WW2 to happen.)
The Fourth Republic (1946-1958).
The Fifth Republic (1958-present).
If we go back just 30 years before Jeanne Louise Calment‘s birth, we also get:
The Revolution of 1848.
The Second Republic.
and the Second Empire.
While we in the UK had, over a period of 2 centuries, the Great Reform Act, the Abdication Crisis, gradual Reform of the House of Lords, some revolutionaries plotting in their spare bedrooms and getting precisely nowhere, and the Rutland Hokey-Cokey.
It’s not a difficult choice: would you prefer to hack up a new Constitution every few years, with all that that implies, or have lunch with your beloved followed by an afternoon’s fishing?
Is it any wonder that, when asked, we Brits keep saying that we prefer a Constitutional Monarchy? Left Foot Forward (of all places) summarised it last year:
- Support for Monarchy
While there are variations in the questioning between the Ipsos-Mori poll (2011), the ICM polls (2011 and 2009) and the GFK NOP (2007), the “monarchist answer” is given by between 63 and 78 per cent, while the “republican answer” is given by between 18 per cent. These figures have barely moved in more than 15 years.
The case against comes down t0 a few points:
1 – The Economic:
‘It’s too expensive’.
2 – The Theological – Political:
‘I don’t believe in it so it must change’.
‘In a Democracy a Head of State must be Elected’.
‘Politicians have too much power by inheritance from the Monarch’.
and 3 – The Personal:
‘Prince Charles is an Arse’.
One doesn’t amount to very much, two needs a separate article for another day, and three is the last refuge of the frustrated.
But our Republican campaigners don’t do themselves many favours.
The last report I took to the time to read from Republic argued that the Monarchy cost £202.4m a year, with half of that based on an unevidenced aside in a Daily Mirror article claiming that the Royal Security bill was £100m a year, and then went into how many schools and hospitals that guessed amount of money may or may not be able to buy.
That’s hardly an inspiration to transfer them from the Muppets’ Gallery to the ‘campaigning groups to be taken seriously’ category.
Run down the league table of top European countries to be imitated, and it will usually include the Nordics – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – and also Holland, of which 4 from 5 are Constitutional Monarchies.
So I’d call myself a pragmatic Monarchist; we are fortunate in still having a figurehead removed from the daily mud-wrestle of politics. And we don’t have to do the overnight schizophrenia fit required of USA citizens when a grubby politico becomes “Mr President”.
While we have it, that is fine.
If we lose the Monarchy, for whatever reason, then we’ll have to follow the route of successful Republics, and do our best to emulate the benefits by creating a President divorced from day to day politics.
Or, as a trading nation, we could simply import another one – like last time.
-
1
February 14, 2012 at 13:03 -
2
February 14, 2012 at 13:49 -
Like many other parts of our Constitution that may be all wrong in theory, it actually works rather well in practice. About three-and-a-half centuries of experience should be enough to convince all but most blinkered. Can’t understand the constant wish of some to tinker with it – it’s not as if we’re short of real problems to solve, like a economic crisis precipitated by an out-of-control growth of debt, for example.
To echo Spiral Architect – God Save the Queen.
-
3
February 14, 2012 at 13:54 -
Charles makes the case for a Republic just by breathing. If the monarchy is to survive, a way should be found to jump a generation to William.
-
4
February 14, 2012 at 15:26 -
No, the monarchy makes the case for having Charles as King.
The Charles must surely know what is required of the UK monarch and I have no doubt that he will carry out that role well if required.
Charles, his father and other members of the family can’t do right for doing wrong, they are in a limbo world, neither public or private.
What the monarch says in private is never revealed and what the monarch says in public is carefully scripted and, generally, repectfully received.
-
5
February 14, 2012 at 16:28 -
JimS, what Charles has said in public over the years has been disgraceful for a future King. He’s not very bright (I do know, I’ve met the fellow) and he’s obsessed with pseudo-scientific and “green” nonsense; his amoral behaviour is a poor example for a national figurehead and his increasingly political utterances show no separation between private and public concerns.
If the succession passed to Willaim, it would reinvigorate the monarchy – Charles will hasten its demise.
-
-
-
8
February 14, 2012 at 14:52 -
9
February 14, 2012 at 15:16 -
I’m waiting for the ECHR to decide a monarchy is incompatible with human rights as you can’t elect the King/Queen and we all know the right to vote for a numpty is a human right.
-
10
February 14, 2012 at 15:58 -
In theory, I would prefer an elective monarchy along the lines of the old Witangemot, but the ubiquity of political f***wits and the absence of anyone with talent and integrity willing to put themselves forward for election prompts me to say May Her People Save The Queen and stick with the present system as the least worst option.
-
11
February 14, 2012 at 16:36 -
Okay who has hijacked this formerly libertarian blog?
Your question, if I may say so presents a choice between bad and worse and then says “aren’t we lucky to have the bad option not the crap one”
Here’s another idea. Abolish the post, don’t replace it. Simple.
As for the monarchists amongst you, are you really telling me the very best you can come up with is a mix of pop idol and feudalism? Really?
Get off you knees and stand up.-
12
February 14, 2012 at 17:32 -
I guess that would be me
.TBH, I see no conflict.
I’m not after a pure anarchy (ask Occupy what happens when you try and build one); rather a practical maximisation of liberty.
-
14
February 14, 2012 at 17:42 -
I’m not on my knees. Why is it that everytime someone says anything supportive abpout the monarchy they are instantly assumed to be on their knees, tugging a forelock and mumbling ‘yer worshipfulness majesty ma’am’ in a yokel accent?
I’m with Anna on this one. If we were starting from scratch I would go for a republic – while understanding the limitations of democracy i.e that lots of people won’t bother to vote and the choice will probably be between a series of ex-politicians whose sole ‘redeeming’ feature is that they are so bland they havn’t upset anyone.
But we aren’t starting from scratch and I think the current constitutional monarchy is working quite well. It’s been said better by others so I’ll quote them:
Anna: I’d call myself a pragmatic Monarchist; we are fortunate in still having a figurehead removed from the daily mud-wrestle of politics. And we don’t have to do the overnight schizophrenia fit required of USA citizens when a grubby politico becomes “Mr President”.
Engineer: all wrong in theory, it actually works rather well in practice.-
15
February 14, 2012 at 19:09 -
On forelocks, I read a complaint about Andrew Marr tugging his forelock.
Now, that *would* be interesting.
-
16
February 15, 2012 at 05:18 -
Why do you refuse to contemplate simply not having this position at all? No monarch, no president, nothing. Simply get the PM, the deputy PM or the Speaker to do any necessary glad-handing and abolish the rest.
Are we really saying the country is a better place because Katie Middleton goes around smiling at people and holding flowers whilst surrounded by heavily armed body guards? This nonsense belongs on the middle ages and if you really think you aren’t on your knees, ask to withhold your tax contributions that go towards the Monarchy. Your relationship with it will become clear.-
17
February 15, 2012 at 12:31 -
There are very few countries (ignoring totalitarian states) that do not have some kind of separation between head of state and government though that separation can be pretty blurred – see France. The key point is the desire to avoid total concentration of power. It is arguable how strong the separation in the UK is given how the current settlement works but the Queen has substantial power to form or disband a Government and this in theory keeps it in check.
I would say there is a strong case to have a least two centers of power in a democracy even if one is only exercised in extremis. I would also expect that this would be a libertarian viewpoint if it is accepted you need a form of government.
-
18
February 15, 2012 at 14:01 -
Given the quality of the present and former Speaker, I would be minded to scrap that post or replace it with a hologram Betty Boothroyd equipped with an industrial strength laser to evaporate the MPs of the calibre of those who thought it funny to take the mick out of the similarly excellent Bernard Weatherill. He kept himself rooted to reality by having a piece of tailor’s chalk in his pocket.
-
-
-
-
19
February 14, 2012 at 18:07 -
As the economic crisis unfolds in Euroland and dissent with “democratic” rule by idiots and charlatans becomes openly displayed, who is to say that a sixth republic could not appear in France. Others are predicting a muslim theocracy, which given recent happenings could as easily happen in Britain in the next twenty years making this discussion moot.
Our relationship to the monarchy is indeed a strange phenomenon, even more so out here in the commonwealth, but it has a comfortable “look and feel” and it’s costs are not too outrageous. If we occasionally have to suffer a King Charles then perhaps his excesses can be cured by a Cromwell, in the mean time you are spared the agony of treating a misfit like Gordoom Brown regally.
More worrying in your constitional democracy is the constitutional bit, which is made up as you go along by the rights lawyers. Cherie Blair is a bigger threat to your well-being than a King Charles or god forbid a Queen Di (luckily that one was dodged).
Like a creaking, past its prime. washing machine, sometimes the better option is to NOT try fixing it.
-
22
February 14, 2012 at 19:59 -
I must admit that the current, evolved Constitutional Monarchy has several advantages. Firstly, it actually works fairly well. Yes, there is the occasional problem, Charles will not be one as the day he does become King is the day he can NEVER, ever say anything for himself and he knows it. The alternative of St Tony of Blair or Snotty McDoom or indeed an “x-factor” celeb arriving as Head of State and at considerable cost scarce bears thinking about. A greater advantage of the current system is the cost: at present it in fact runs at a net profit! We receive far more income from the Crown Estates than are paid back to the Crown. True, we could consider it as a “least worst” option but as the current system clearly works, why change it? Many of those proposing a republic as a “grown up” solution see their own representative as being the “El Presidente” and of course provided that were not the case have no objections. Could you imagine the hoo-haa if Mrs T had been President or indeed the aforementioned His Tonyness or The Wicked Witch?
-
23
February 14, 2012 at 20:17 -
The simple two-word answer to the “Shall we ditch the monarchy ?” question:- President Blair.
Thanks, but no thanks.
-
24
February 14, 2012 at 20:54 -
Matt, this is the answer to your first point in the case against http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
The reason I’m against a republic is that it is ‘top’ politics – all right as long as you whip it all the time but the moment you stop it wobbles all over the place, just look at the US – every time the pres changes so does almost all the political direction.
-
26
February 14, 2012 at 22:23 -
If the monarchy goes you will end up with one of two choices :-
A leader chosen from ”England has talent” on TV.
Or
A group of tribal leaders from the site that balkanised britain has become. -
30
February 15, 2012 at 00:36 -
Thank you Michael for mentioning the cost of the Monarchy. The ignorant buffoons who bleat on about the several millions of pounds paid by the Treasury to H.M. are completely unaware of the fact that this comes from the Crown Estates, and on my last reading of published figures it worked out at about 25% to H.M. & the rest into government coffers.
Mudplugger and Ivan along with Michael and others have stated the best reasons to leave well alone. God Save the Queen!-
31
February 15, 2012 at 05:41 -
So because the Crown pays some* taxes like everyone else, this is a reason to keep them? I also pay taxes, certainly in excess of what the state pays me. Can I be Lord high surveyor of the south of England?
If we all stopped tugging our collective forelocks they would still be jetting around the world like these East European former monarchs having homage paid by people with a pathological need to worship and bow and say Gawd bless ‘em and God Save the Queen etc. Kinda cringeworthy really.
(Reckon Buckingham Palace is on the council tax list?)
-
32
February 15, 2012 at 10:47 -
Yes it is.
The Daily Mail was frothing about it some time ago:
I expect there may be dozens of assessments, because there a number of apartments, and presumably business rates etc.
Not that that will change anyone’s views.
-
-
-
33
February 15, 2012 at 09:01 -
The issue of our monarchy is a bit like the council prayers; an imperfect evolution, but it works and does no harm.
Before tinkering on points of principle we should consider what we want government for and prioritise fixing the bits that impede or corrupt those objects. I don’t think monarchy would be too high up my list.
For my money, transparency must be the highest priority. The more that is out in the open, the more aware we can be of crooked and despotic behaviour. So watch out for moves to curtail FoI.
For purely economic reasons of course. -
34
February 15, 2012 at 10:30 -
“the Monarchy cost £202.4m a year”
That sounds pretty cheap to me, especially compared to what gets spent on the other system across the pond – Obama is spending over $1bn just to stay in office!
I believe it also brings in a few tourists.
-
37
February 15, 2012 at 11:55 -
The Armed Forces are loyal not to Parliament, but to Queen and Country. In theory, if the politicians become too pesky, the monarch could order them to enter parliament and arrest the politicians. The fact that it doesn’t happen (and isn’t very likely to happen) does not alter the fact that it could happen – and would be constitutional if it did. That must act as a small reminder to the politicians where they stand – one of the many subtle checks and balances on power that have evolved over time.
Without the monarchy, and command of the Armed Forces presumably passing to the politicians, what checks and balances exist on their power, and the temptation to abuse it?
-
38
February 15, 2012 at 12:54 -
Er it DID happen albeit some time ago.
-
39
February 15, 2012 at 13:27 -
There you go, then.
Worth remembering that the Republic didn’t last for exactly the reason set out above. The Monarchy was therefore re-instated, albeit Constitutional rather than Absolute, and has lasted ever since as a method of civic administration. Why? Because it works.
-
40
February 16, 2012 at 03:22 -
Dear Acts, I feel you are missing the great English joke here. The biggest appeal of the royal family is that it has no legitimacy. We know that the monarch is only there because we feel like it. The monarch knows that and we know that she knows. (In that sense rather libertarian). It could be any family although, like a third generation family baker, they are trained to be much better at it than someone chosen at random. Bending the knee is not an act of deference to the monarch. It is a happy collective ritual in which we the people pay respect to ourselves. If the national symbol were chosen on merit, we should have to respect them, which would make us feel inferior and spoil everything. If there were no head of state we should have to respect our political leaders – not too credible these days. Of course, the monarch can earn respect in office, as the current Queen has done, but that is just a bonus that enhances our respect for ourselves.
-
-
.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }