A Right Royalist
Advantages Britishness, Constitutional Function & Tradition
Disadvantages Some unsuitable family members - no names mentioned!
The Author
Author's newest reviews
|
16/04/2007
|
|---|
|
02/04/2007
|
|---|
A few years ago I was queuing to see the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. I think at the time myself and a friend were shooting looks of disapproval at some tourists who had the audacity to queue jump – I then realised that whether we like it or not respect for queuing is perhaps unique to the British! Behind us a film of the Queen’s coronation (which I am no where near old enough to remember) was playing. I didn’t pay a great deal of attention until the enormous crown was placed on her head and the crowds outside surged forward cheering wildly. This was the first time I’d ever seen the coronation and the magnitude and ceremony of it all bought tears to my eyes. I remember thinking that I would definitely go to William’s coronation. Nowadays I truly hope that day will come.
There are many reasons I support the monarchy and as I am young and generally liberal minded they are not based on either a love of the class system or plain old-fashionedness. Instead my reasons are as follows:1) Tradition: I will freely admit I am biased on this issue. As a student of British history I have spent years studying the British constitution and the various Kings and Queens of our realm. Some have been great, others good and a few useless! To see hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition swept away without good reason would be a travesty. Yes the Queen and her family does cost us a tiny amount each. But it is a price I am willing to pay and I’m sure the ceremony, comfort and protection American presidents receive comes at a similar cost.
2) Unique Quality: I think the British are a people fiercely defensive of their uniqueness. Our reluctance to embrace Europe is ample testimony to this fact. We are very protective of our distinctive traditions and ways of doing things. Having a monarchy fits British character and acts as our most important distinguishing feature.Tourism is of course also a factor here. One of the major reasons people travel to Britain (regardless of the awful weather) is because we the most famous kingdom. This portrays an image of tradition, ceremony and splendour. Many of London’s top tourist attractions relate to the British monarchy: Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court, the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey. And if that monarchy were not still around these places would loose a lot of their poignancy. For example there is something sad and unsatisfying about visiting Versailles despite its undeniable splendour.
3) Important Function: I believe that the way our constitution works – i.e. having an elected government headed by a prime minister and then a hereditary head of state is a very sensible system.When a country has no monarchy at best the elected president takes on many additional roles. In America the president and first lady (who can herself take on iconic status, for example Jackie Kennedy) are responsible for public ceremonies, meeting and greeting the people and welcoming foreign dignitaries. In Britain these responsibilities are shared. I personally would much rather meet the Queen than Tony Blair or the late Princess Diana than Cherie!
At worst an absence of monarchy can encourage much darker developments. I firmly believe the reason Hitler was able to gain such absolute power in Germany was that he could become both the political and ideological head of state. Germany had lost its monarchy after World War I (House of Hohenzollern headed by the Kaiser) and the shaky Weimar Republic replaced it. Of course there are many reasons for Hitler’s rise to prominence most of which are irrelevant here. Hitler became chancellor in 1933 but was also able to become president when Hindenburg died in 1934. Thus Hitler had absolute power both as Germany’s head of state and as its political leader. Had a hereditary monarchy remained in place this would have been almost impossible. Hitler may still have become chancellor but a hereditary head of state, importantly with an automatic replacement, would have been very hard to push aside. Had it remained there would always have been qualifications on Hitler’s power, someone who could technically have got rid of him or refused to take the country to war. And just as important it would have been impossible for Hitler to build up such an extensive cult.None of the most renowned dictators in history have co-existed alongside a monarchy. Not Hitler, not Mussolini, not Stalin, not Napoleon, or more recently Saddam. I do not deny that some kings and queens have acted in a dictatorial fashion themselves. But this has not been the case in Britain for a long time. I am not saying that all countries without a monarchy will at some point develop into a dictatorship. America is clearly in no danger as things stand. But if the economic and political circumstances are right, i.e. there is instability, it is more likely. I don’t believe that Britain is in any danger of becoming a dictatorship because Britons are not fundamentally a revolutionary peoples (back to the queuing!) but I am comforted by the fact our monarchy provides an important defence against it.
4) Focus Point: The monarchy also provides a useful focus point for the nation, for example during times of celebration or grief. When World War II was won the people instinctively gathered around Buckingham Palace shouting ‘Thank God for a Good King’ to which George VI deeply moved replied ‘Thank God for a Good People’. On Remembrance Day his daughter now provides the focus for our sorrow and respect. And especially when political tensions run high it is useful to have a neutral figure to perform such functions. If something awful has happened to you, for example you have lost your home or even a relative to war, you do not necessary want to be confronted with the political figure you may feel is responsible.5) Role: Finally I believe that the Queen does an excellent job. Her devotion to her country and duty has been tireless. All the royal family raise large amounts of money for charity, represent us abroad, entertain foreign dignitaries and head ceremonial occasions. Although I am not overly keen on the idea of Charles III it has always been the way with monarchy that you have to take the rough with the smooth. And I do believe William will make an excellent king.
In conclusion perhaps we do not NEED a monarchy. Clearly we could manage without as we have done in the past (Commonwealth) and many other countries do so today with great success. But these I the reasons I WANT a monarchy and why I feel it performs a useful function. I’m sure many will disagree but in my opinion bring on King William V!
Attention, this is the first review from this author
Instead of giving a negative rating, consider:
Help this member by giving your advice
Report fraud (for example plagiarism) or other issue with the review to the Ciao support team
Add your comment
Page 1 of 7
| 1 - 5 out of 33 comments
muttleythefrog 03/01/2005 02:38
"Finally I believe that the Queen does an excellent job. Her devotion to her country and duty has been tireless" - oh I disagree. The Queen is incapable of writing even her own speeches. If she truly was devoted to her country she would realise that according to the rules she should not be our monarch (but in fact a middle aged bloke in Australia should be) and step down. She is incapable of managing her own affairs, none of know what belongs to who, but she is so tireless in her duties that she is incapable of letting a court know that someone she likes is being wrongfully charged with theft. She is so tireless that she plays mind games with her entire family and happily hides exempt from employment legislation enabling her to treat staff in a manner incompatible with the rest of society. I do believe you are correct in suggesting the monarchy is a focal point for the nation - though I estimate within 100 years they will be targetted for bloody revolution when the tolerant British finally fight for a right to be recognised as a citizen. Interestingly, the UK never declared war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq - because the advice to government clearly was that there was a potential for the war to be illegal. As the Queen is commander of all our(her) armed forces, she would now be liable to face an international court if we had declared war. Tony Blair has a duty to protect his Monarch, so do not believe that our government can act with independence from monarchy any more than we should believe that the Monarch would ever overrule the will of parliament or the people. She will take a deep breath when the ban on hunting with hounds is passed.. or will she begin a revolution... perhaps not yet. Chuckle... Enjoyed you review... But I'll be fighting for country not Queen I'm afraid..lol Well done, Pete xx
muttleythefrog 03/01/2005 02:38
"I firmly believe the reason Hitler was able to gain such absolute power in Germany was that he could become both the political and ideological head of state" - any head of state can become political and ideological head of state. The difference between Germany Pre-WW2 and Britain today is at least they got to elect that person, and potentially were able to remove them should they not be right for the job. Accountability, accountability... our leaders must be accountable.. a Monarch is not accountable to anyone, and can pursue any ideology they like - such as Christian indoctrination. If we study the most horrific leaders over history the vast majority were unelected. You just selected one bad example of an 'elected' one - and indeed Hitler was an innovative politician that would have appealed to many. Sadly after taking power his ideology became more prominent in policy and we need not go into that. "And just as important it would have been impossible for Hitler to build up such an extensive cult." - but theoretically he could be removed from power by election if such arose, a Monarch building up a cult could not except by revolution.
muttleythefrog 03/01/2005 02:37
Oh girl you've got them going here. Well done, well written, and well constructed. However, I completely disagree with your analysis and conclusions..lol.. and don't be surprised at that given I was on the street dancing like an idiot when the 2 minute silence for the queen mother death was observed. I despise the monarchy. I'll take some of your points and make a republican response. "Having a monarchy fits British character and acts as our most important distinguishing feature." - The British, in my view, are an innovative and practical people and the monarchy is precisely the opposite. We are also increasingly multicultural and multi-faith, something the monarchy certainly is not. "I believe that the way our constitution works – i.e. having an elected government headed by a prime minister and then a hereditary head of state is a very sensible system." - sensible? What is sensible about not being able to elect your country's head of state and commander and chief. And the government is not elected, it is appointed by the Reigning Monarch, hence "Her Majesty's Government". What her subjects want, or her government for that matter, is subject to her screening.. only she can approve.
Bollinger28 21/06/2004 14:31
Page 1 of 7
| 1 - 5 out of 33 comments
Good review--i think you sum up well that we may not need a monarchy but maybe we do WANT one.Personally I'm not proud of our country in the slightest.The British Empire, The Boer War,our role int he slave trade and our recent support of USA in an illegal war.I prefer to think of myself as European