Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is the monarchy in trouble?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is the monarchy in trouble?
The British monarchy has its origins so far back in time, it’s easy to forget just how old it is. Its roots – in both Anglo-Saxon England and the ancient Kingdom of Alba – stretch back well over 1,000 years and it’s now comfortably into its third millennium. So, you could be forgiven for thinking it’s as stable and enduring as the rocks that form these islands themselves.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If the Queen had any nous she should have refused the shameful prorogation, she did not save us.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/f7xkd8/mercedes_das_system_concept_2/
Last week I attended my German naturalisation ceremony, which was presided over by the local mayor.
I was surprised by how political (and impassioned) his speech was. Maybe I shouldn't have been - he's a politician after all, and probably wanted our votes.
But one thing he said struck me as interesting: he told us explicitly not to love Germany, and that loving a country is a dangerous thing.
I wondered if there are many other countries where anyone conducting a citizenship ceremony would say such a thing.
People will say they support the system and mean it, but I think the argument about the risks of it being caught up in indentity politics or becoming a fissure point in itself is compelling, such that a lot of those who think they support the system, when forced to choose over some other principle it may come into conflict with, will discard it.
So in short, I think Casino's analogy about it being like shale - looking strong but vulnerable to a few sharp strikes - is spot on.
Right now Boris Johnson knows the Queen will sign whatever is presented to her, that's not a healthy place for democracy.
And it would happen in two or three strikes. The first to politicise it as an issue and polairse people, and the second and third strikes - a few years later - for the anti side to win on a platform of indefinite suspension or abolition.
Almost as amused at the idea that someone might be outraged that the Head of the Church of England should be a Protestant.
The use of the word “shameful” to describe an act or non-act is generally evidence of something that is in no way objectively shameful. Journalists and lazy writers like it as it allows evidence limited assertions (a similar school of writing to “questions are being asked...”.
They are still styled Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
HRH is not being used whilst they have stepped back from their public roles, which seems appropriate.
BTW it is a diversion to suggest, as one or two have, that the monarchy is inadequate because it can't stand up to government. That is the role of parliament (all the time), courts (in their modest but necessary requirement that government obeys its own laws) and people (every few years.)
The playboy prince with dodgy friends, the American divorcée and the rest of the hangers-on, not so much.
HM has been as popular as she has, for as long as she has, by having no public opinion on anything. The rest would be well advised to follow her example.
I'm no fan of the monarchy but there's a list of things a mile long that are more deserving of political time and attention to get fixed than this, and there's probably an equally long list of things that would be more effective polarizing wedge issues if you're cynically trying to surf to power on the back of them.
Nothing is going to happen while the Queen is alive. She is an extraordinary figure - one of the truly great figures of our history - who transcends the institution. But after she is gone, things may well get more complicated. Small waves - Australia and New Zealand, perhaps Canada, too - finally becoming republics, say, may become bigger ones. This will not happen quickly, but you can see how it might happen.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
I know that the data supporting their allegations is pathetically weak - for example the £200m a year cost figure is heavily sourced from the Mail and the Express.
Even if the institution was seriously in trouble, is there any agreement over what form of republic would secure a wide basis of support. Would a president be little more than a titular head or state, nodding through legislation and opening high speed railway stations? How long would a presidential term last, 5, 7, 10 years or for life? Is the alternative a president with strong executive powers, anyone for President Boris?
Conversely, France's Third Republic survived a turbulent start, mainly because few could agree on the legitimacy of royalist or imperialist pretenders to the throne - Bourbons v Orleanists v Bonapartists.
The Kings Touch is a recognised treatment for scrofula (cutaneous tuberculosis) but humours are bodily fluids.
Or even Germany.
The monarchy and govern might might be well prepared and rehearsed for the day it happens, but it’s pretty much assured that the rest of us won’t be.
Just formally transfer powers that the monarch previously held to the PM and get on with it.
And, of course, as in all hereditary systems, we have to take what we're given. Sooner or later we'll get a King or Queen who most people actively dislike. To which the correct royalist answer is "suck it up, you don't get to choose", but whether the monarchy is strong enough to handle a decade or two of that may be doubtful.
Too many published spider-writing letters to HMG whilst Monarch might make Charles less endearing than his mother.
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Can anyone tell me what qualifications the fornicator and adulterer Prince Charles has to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England?
It also turns out my family shares an undertakers with the royals. I never realised!
He did say love your family, your friends, other people.
And he said be proud of democracy.
The Union could easily become subject to a pincer movement from both sides and end up with a referendum on its future. This must be avoided at all costs. Whilst ‘No’ would be very likely to win, its bedrock of support does represent a turbocharged Conservative vote. A referendum would establish a fissure in British life that would be unlikely to be healed ever again. A victory on 55% of the votes simply isn’t good enough for an institution that’s meant to unite the country.
PB 2020:
See header.
One of the problems of this debate is trying to define "patriotism" which seems to mean different things to different people. I wouldn't describe myself as patriotic - I've made money backing against England in big sporting events and have I felt a twinge of guilt about that? No.
England = shale
BBC News - Four new UK coronavirus cases among ship evacuees
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51606368
You need regular sleep, eat healthily and avoid stress, politics doesn't help on that front.
https://twitter.com/joeIjoeIjoel/status/1231562554931138561?s=20
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
We think of Henry VIII as well as extremely unpleasant as also being moderately old - in fact he was 56 when he died. Elizabeth I is portrayed in school history as outliving her contemporaries and dying in old age, she was actually 70. Edward VII is seen as a very old man when he became King. He was 69 when he died.
Prince Charles is 71 now, and counting. The logical thing would be for Charles to take the throne and make it clear he would stay as King for about one year but not have a coronation. After the year Charles could abdicate - gives the nation time to mourn Elizabeth II and then William could become King and be crowned about three months later. We would then have a monarch of the age to do all the stuff monarchs have to do. Charles and Camilla could do the Queen Mother role jointly - something to which they are probably well suited.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SenatorMeow/status/1231613651020402688
It is easier to list the Kings who did not have mistresses than those who did. James I ?, Charles I, William III ?, George V, George VI.
I would like to be able to vote for our next head of state. I have no problem with Charles or William standing as candidates. I might even rank them above the Tory candidate - assuming we would use AV.