The Royal Family’s real purpose is for those rare times when the Tory party is in opposition. It is so Conservatives never have to think of a Labour Prime Minister as the head of State. All those nice Chief Constables and Wing Commanders can put up a picture of The Monarch in their office, and not have to worry about accusations of political bias.

As for the pledge, it has always been a way of keeping the riff, raff out of the Westminster club.

Can’t see politicians taking this issue on, at the moment though. They are very unpopular as it is, the last thing they want is the dreaded Mail attack about being anti Monarch.

I don’t completely follow this article. If it were asking for the removal of the Queen, or at least a vast reduction in her de jure and de facto powers, then I would be broadly in agreement. But simply moaning about the above powers, with no call to remove her, and asking to remove an oath (not an important issue, even to Sinn Fein MPs in private), seems rather fatuous. If we’re going to keep her as the head of our “monarchical semi-democracy”, then we should have an oath to her. Can’t see the forest for the trees, and all that.

The oath of allegiance is ceremonial and I can take it or leave it, but the Monarch in our political system is essential as the primer inter pares – the ultimate celebrity!

She is the absolute example of our representative democracy and the only person constitutionally and necessarily predisposed against crime – surely Liz is the model for the best of British and the standard which we are measured by?

Unless a presidential system appeals more to your sensibility – one where the Head of State has the perogative to exercise partial control over government, appoint unelected ministers and can effectively bypass channels of accountability to instigate and execute potentially damaging policies like, for example, war.

We should ditch the oath to the Queen

…no, we should just ditch the Queen.

Of course we should ditch the monarchy completely.

However, a campaign to challenge the oath is in my view completely compatible with that position, and is a sensible tactical move that can develop broader support for the republican cause by highlighting the ludicrous inconsistencies and anomalies of a monarchy.

I welcome this campaign as a step towards republicanism, rather than a compromise with an unelected monarchy.

synergy6 – I work for Republic, I don’t think I need to spell out that I believe in the abolition of the monarchy.

Are you suggesting that in the course of our campaign we shouldn’t criticise aspects of the monarchy and the constitutional system we have? It’s not enough for us to simply recite “abolish the monarchy, abolish the monarchy…”? Instead we are engaging in the wider debate about the constitution and raising questions about the various aspects of the debate.

As Martin Walker says – this is a move that can develop broader support for republicanism. It is a step toward a broader debate which will help us reach our ultimate goal.

I agree, Martin Walker. Yes it would be wonderful to think our elected representatives would take in upon themselves to include a full, no-holds-barred constitutional convention in their manifesto, one allowing for absolutely everything to be challenged, including (especially!) the monarchy ! rather than the watered down pledge made by Brown, specifically ruling out any discussion of monarchy. But whilst we wait for a new generation of leaders who might have the courage to go all-out for constitutional reform starting at the top, we must content ourselves with this much smaller but nonetheless important step of removing the obligation to swear the oath of allegiance. What an archaic, mediaeval practice and how debilitating to our political system and democratic institutions.

Graham Smith, if that’s your intention, that’s fine. But why not write a post about your opposition to the monarchy, rather than this waffle? Just because the Daily Mail can’t inch itself away from narrow, single-issue stories; I would hope LC readers can handle a little more breadth.

As for “will help us reach our ultimate goal.”, will it? It’s mana from heaven for the pro-monarchy papers, making the debate seem small and petty. Other than SF MPs, and the odd immigration case, it’s not important, and won’t be, for the vast majority of people. I mean, I would get rid of the Queen, but the oath doesn’t even matter to me as it stands. “Save £100 a year in taxes” or “have a President” might be more meaningful to the public.

Broader support for the republican cause may be hard to find. Nobody will want to get rid of all the palaces etc., and the only difference an elected figurehead (as the republicans seem to want) will make is adding the expense of an election every five years to the current set-up.

Are there not more important things to worry about? Besides, I’d rather swear allegience to the queen than to a bit of cloth.

Thomas,

“surely Liz is the model for the best of British and the standard which we are measured by”

Aye, dull, grey and grim.

http://www.monsterevo.co.uk/Non%20Car%20Pics/tumbleweed.jpg

“Unless a presidential system appeals more to your sensibility – one where the Head of State has the perogative to exercise partial control over government, appoint unelected ministers and can effectively bypass channels of accountability to instigate and execute potentially damaging policies like, for example, war.”

Is it possible that your conception of possible political systems is a little…binary? The Republic’s model is here*.

Besides, the PM can already appoint persons to positions of power, and many republicans will support campaigns such as Elect the Lords. His predecessor was also particularly effective in bypassing channels of accountability, but that debate can be spluttered over elsewhere.

Synergy6,

“I mean, I would get rid of the Queen, but the oath doesn’t even matter to me as it stands.”

It’s a part of our society that is intrinsically anti-democratic.

“As for “will help us reach our ultimate goal.”, will it? It’s mana from heaven for the pro-monarchy papers, making the debate seem small and petty.”

The issue is representative of many of Republic’s concerns, stating, for example, that compulsory allegiance to a monarch is fundamentally anti-democratic. To run with your logic for a sec, the 42 Days debate was “mana from heaven” for statists as made the debate regarding civil liberties seem small and petty.

Ben

* http://www.republic.org.uk/policy/index.php

“It would be a mistake to think that this is merely a symbolic issue.”

It’s hard to think of anything more purely symbolic than a vague oath of allegience which commits you to nothing whatsoever in practice. That some people have a principled objection to this symbolism is fine – but it’s all symbolic.

I must admit that I think the whole issue of monarchism vs republicanism is an incredibly dull and ultimately pointless one. Abolishing the monarchy is not going to improve the lives of British people or the state of the world in general. Why on earth should I care about the monarchy – one way or the other – while we have troops in Iraq, inequality in our cities, and a thousand other real, non-symbolic concerns?

If the British constitution (i.e. the Westminster system – which is not unique to Britain) gives too much power to the executive branch and not enough to the legislature, then that’s a real problem to be fixed. (I’m much happier with the Westminster system than the American system or the Italian system, though.) But the monarchy is a symbol and a distraction from the true constitutional issues.

Britain has 99 problems but the bitch ain’t one. As it were.

Ah, the blushing violets of the liberal left! Always eager to impress on us their “radical” conviction and stance, but nearly always timid when it comes to specifics. So when republicanism, or even a move to open some space for debate and legitimise the position of Republicans more is openly addressed by those with a bit more drive and real conviction, our blushing violet “liberal left” are reduced to spluttering “well its not that important an issue” and “there are lots more important things to devote a small amount of time to” when what they really mean is “EEK! That would be unpopular – it might get me bashed in the street or excommunicated by the Sun and Mail readers at work if I raised my head above the parapet on that one” So the pinnacle of hierarchy, deference, reaction and social conservatism, the most visible and revered symbol of an “unchanging and unchangeable” status quo is left untouched, so the Sun and Mail readers can rest easy that “everybody” supports the monarchy apart from a few Irish people – with implied terrorist sympathies.

Meanwhile the local reactionary pops in to this thread above to demonstrate the level of his, er, understanding and wisdom. (That is of course if it is not a parody – is it a parody? It matters not.)

So for the reactionary mind (i.e. that mentality that liberal lefts are supposed to be opposing) the monarch is
“essential as the primer inter pares – the ultimate celebrity!”

Laughably, the reactionary believes that Liz is “the absolute example of our representative democracy and the only person constitutionally and necessarily predisposed against crime”

The reactionary ascribes, without a blush, to the “Presidential system” the very powers that the monarchical system has for a long time bestowed upon the Prime Minister, particularly of late with the style of Thatcher and Blair. Indeed a system where the PM, taking on the powers of the monarch “has the perogative to exercise partial control over government, appoint unelected ministers” and “effectively bypass channels of accountability to instigate and execute potentially damaging policies like, for example, war.”

Lets get it straight – if you support non-elected monarchy you are in the final analysis an anti-democrat, someone who supports hereditary passing on of the post of Head of State rather than election.

One of the biggest problems for the “liberal left” in England is the strength of an utterly reactionary and backward form of national consciousness – the guardians of the status quo openly celebrate that the monarchy is the “stabilising factor” which should ensure that the oligarchy never really loses control and celebrate that the monarchy might “step in” (i.e. military rule/fascism/autocracy or whatever) if things get “out of hand” (i.e. out of – their – hands)

To detach English National consciousness from deference to the hereditary ruling class and feudal detritus should be a long term project of anyone seeking to move England in particular in a more progressive direction. This is the importance of even small moves to legitimise open expression of Republicanism in England (something you can still be accused of Treason for, remember, and still something seen as an aberration by much of the population). From minority status legitimacy we can aim progressively to move towards a majority opinion. But first we need to get off the starting blocks. Republican sentiment polls something like 15-25% but without consolidation and legitimation this cannot grow. The consolidation and development of a republican bloc of opinion should be an achieveable aim in most parts of Britain.

Of course this does not mean that republican agitation should be put before the really urgent tasks of rebuilding collective and political organisation and a mass movement for sustainablility and justice – it does mean that it is an important piece of the overall social change needed in England at least – due to differing national identities the republican cause has much more traction already in Scotland and Wales. Chipping away may be all we can achieve in many fields at the moment, this does not mean that we should not keep on chipping. We should remember that in the relatively recent historical past, progressive people paid a very high price to express and promote views that some “liberal leftists” now are shy about.

“Ah, the blushing violets of the liberal left! Always eager to impress on us their “radical” conviction and stance, but nearly always timid when it comes to specifics. So when republicanism, or even a move to open some space for debate and legitimise the position of Republicans more is openly addressed by those with a bit more drive and real conviction, our blushing violet “liberal left” are reduced to spluttering “well its not that important an issue” and “there are lots more important things to devote a small amount of time to” when what they really mean is “EEK! That would be unpopular – it might get me bashed in the street or excommunicated by the Sun and Mail readers at work if I raised my head above the parapet on that one”

Well we’ve clearly got you blushing, or red in the face at any rate. Look, I honestly don’t care about the monarchy one way or the other, and I suspect most other commentators feel the same way. I’d have no objection to you abolishing it if it makes you feel happy, but just don’t tell me that in doing so, you’re making the country more democratic or persuing some kind of progressive agenda.

“Lets get it straight – if you support non-elected monarchy you are in the final analysis an anti-democrat, someone who supports hereditary passing on of the post of Head of State rather than election.”

Given that the head of state has no power to rule, it is not undemocratic to make in an unelected position. Democracy means rule by the people. The Queen doesn’t rule over us. Parliament does, which we elect. Surely it’s much more undemocratic that the local chief of police is unelected, since he actually has some power to make decisions which could affect me? Or that judges are unelected?

No need to get rid of the oath if the monarchy is removed.
* wipes hands and leaves *

I think the thing that pisses me off the most about ardent republicans is their sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, patronising attitude.

I didn’t say that there are more important things to worry about because I’m scared of the Sun, I said it because there are more important things to worry about. The Queen, as Woobegone says, has little power other than the symbolic, and those that she has she doesn’t use.

In the teeth of a credit crunch, and facing a Tory government whenever the next election is, and with people losing their livelihoods daily, I repeat, there are MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.

There are definitely more important things to worry about than abolition of the monarchy. I do, however, think that the oath to the Queen should be abolished, simply because as Tony Benn once pointed out it forces republican politicians to choose between voting their consciences and keeping their oath. It’s only a form of words, but some people (regrettably few, but they do exist) take oaths they make very seriously…

Andrew, that’s all well and good, but what would you replace it with? Because whatever you replace it with would be prey to similar objections from various interest groups.

The monarchy gets in the way of the Left’s desire for total control over the state, especially over the things previously regarded as politically neutral and therefore loyal to the crown – the civil service, the armed forces and the police. All these bodies are now increasingly politicised. It’s also very interesting how republican leftists seem untroubled by the most powerful anti-democratic force, that of EU intergration. Why is it that they seem to take a serious matter with levity and a relatively trivial one so seriously? Is this not the sign of a decadent mind?

“Why is it that they seem to take a serious matter with levity and a relatively trivial one so seriously? Is this not the sign of a decadent mind?”

It’s not that they are decadent, it’s just that they’re dishonest. It shows that they don’t really care about democracy at all. They’re just a set of embittered, sneering permanent adolescents who hate this country and think it awfully bold to be “republicans”. It’s really that simple.

“The issue is representative of many of Republic’s concerns, stating, for example, that compulsory allegiance to a monarch is fundamentally anti-democratic. To run with your logic for a sec, the 42 Days debate was “mana from heaven” for statists as made the debate regarding civil liberties seem small and petty.”

Err, no. Just… no. If you can’t see the difference in importance between: a) imprisonment without trial for 6 weeks, and b) swearing an oath to a monarch……. well, I give up trying for sensible debate, really. (Here’s a hint: one matters, one doesn’t).

“It’s also very interesting how republican leftists seem untroubled by the most powerful anti-democratic force, that of EU intergration. Why is it that they seem to take a serious matter with levity and a relatively trivial one so seriously?”

Is that comment meant to be satire? It reads like a poor parody of the fury spewed in the Mail’s comment section. The idea that all leftist republicans want to replace the monarchy with the EU is transparently ridiculous. The most vocal opponents of original entry into the EU tended also to be republicans – Benn, Foot, etc. That hasn’t changed, as far as I’m aware…

Doug,

Just think back to that mercilessly brief but vicious republican outburst after the death of Diana Spencer. I remember that most ridiculous of euro-fanatics, Will Hutton coming very close to saying we ought to have a republic. Andrew Rawnsley was another one who let slip his real views and straightforwardly said we should become a republic. Neither of these men care about democracy or sovereignty. They just feel they ought to against the monarchy because it’s a ‘archaic’ institution. Look, you cannot rail on about the monarchy being undemocratic if you favour EU membership, but most British leftists nowadays are either actively or passively in favour of the EU whilst being actively or passively hostile towards the monarchy. These two positions cannot sit together I’m afraid. Tony Benn understands this of course but most left-wingers are happy to contradict themselves.

Bootyboomboom – You can’t base you assessment of the entire republican left on two journalists. If you’d chosen two left-wing republicans elected to high office within a leftist party espousing such views, I’d be more willing to listen. You could presume they’d been elected by a number of leftists with similar views; but there’s no evidence to suggest Hutton or Rawnsley are representative of anything. So, you’ve not actually provided much beyond quasi-anecdotal evidence to back what otherwise remains a general assertion.

Remove words four to six from the headline of this article and we’ll be all right,

Synergy6,

“If you can’t see the difference in importance between: a) imprisonment without trial for 6 weeks, and b) swearing an oath to a monarch……. well, I give up trying for sensible debate, really.”

In your search for the elusive sensible debate you appear to have missed my point.

In your initial comment, you appeared to recognise the invalidity of the Monarchy, but claimed that the article was “simply moaning about the above powers, with no call to remove her”. This is not a criticism of the importance of the oath – which you are now suggesting – it is a criticism of Republic’s choice to fragment their campaign.

My rebuttal is thus: the campaign against the oath highlights many of Republic’s objections to the Monarchy, particularly its anti-democratic nature. The campaign may gain greater support and consideration than an immediate demand for the abolition of the Monarchy, which would be – how shall I put it – just a tad optimistic. In these circumstances they could actively challenge the current political system while promoting their wider aims.

In the latter comment you changed tack and said “I mean, I would get rid of the Queen, but the oath doesn’t even matter to me as it stands”. Republic’s campaign – as well as opposing the costs of the Monarchy – is largely one of principle, in that they believe one cannot perfect a democracy while retaining an unelected head of state. The oath is representative of this contradiction, as it is compulsory that democratically elected politicians are subservient to the Monarch.

The comparison to 42 Days was thus: A libertarian would oppose the majority of governmental powers. Therefore, if this hypothetical individualist were to campaign against the recent legislation one such as yourself might say that they were “simply moaning about the above powers, with no call to remove them”. In fragmenting their campaign, however, they can promote their aims and disseminate their ideas.

Ben

(Sorry that the previous comment was so nauseatingly long and humourless by, by God, I hope that it was sensible.)

B

* but

(I’m on a roll here.)

B

Ideologically I’m all for scrapping the monarchy with as much pain and upset as possible. But I also wonder what’s the point – what would we replace them with, and what would be the real difference? WTF is the point of voting for a ceremonial head of state, who’d have no law-making powers?

The queen should get a modest salary. The rest of ‘em can go get real jobs.

The monarchy gets in the way of the Left’s desire for total control over the state

Yes, replacing it with a proper democracy is part of the left’s plan for complete domination. We already have the media industry covered. Have you been taking your pills?

But I also wonder what’s the point – what would we replace them with

A proper representative democracy?

BenSix @10
Blair didn’t bypass channels of accountability, he subverted them – a different thing altogether.

greenman @12
I don’t have a problem with the separation of powers between the Head of State and the Head of Government, so what is wrong with elected leaders of parties exercising partial control? That is what they are elected to represent after all, is it not?

I think you are confusing the need for an elected Head of Government and the desire for an elected Head of State. The conflict arises in that elections confer legitimacy and therefore an elected HoS makes the separation of powers redundant undermining the security against tyrrany such separation provides.

My guess is that you don’t associate the dangers of gang culture with democracy.

Sunny @29
What is a proper representative democracy?

All this stuff about the monarch has “no power”. LOL
Have you been paying attention to the reasons the establishment apologists give for the monarchy? Not for them nonsense about tourism or palaces.
No – the power of the monarch is cultural and social, psychological, symbolic and mythological – and it is still massive. The most articulate reactionaries understand this very well and are also quite honest in pointing out that in practical terms the monarchy is also the option of last resort if the ruling class and its power is threatened – basically this means that the monarchy is the leadership of a fascist/autocratic regime in waiting. The democratic trappings are dispensable.
Observing that at least one or two of the possible future holders of the office in Britain in the future hold views that are reminiscent of 1930s “Blood and Soil” ideas, and the likelihood that we are heading for major economic,social and environmental turmoil should give those on the left who think the monarchy is an “irrelevance” pause for thought.
Opposing the monarchy is not a “distraction” from important questions that face us, it is a necessary addition to fighting on these issues which shows a fuller understanding of the scale of the tasks – not purely economic or political challenges, but social, cultural and psychological too….

A proper representative democracy?

Sunny,

The thing is, in most other nations – such as Germany and Italy, the ceremonial head-of-state is just a constitutional figurehead. So what’s the point of democratic representation?

Does someone really need a democratic mandate to open parliament and say “hi” to foreign dignitaries? Why waste everyone’s time?

Aaron,
A figurehead has social, cultural and symbolic meaning and power.
Saying you will accept a hereditary figurehead has implications in all these fields.
Saying that a figurehead should have democratic legitimation therefore also has an effect on all these levels.
In addition there are the political implications in extreme situations as mentioned in my post above.
By refusing combat on the social, cultural and symbolic fields we limit ourselves to the political and economic and leave the forces of reaction holding all the Jokers and high value cards.

A figurehead has social, cultural and symbolic meaning and power. ~ greenman

What a crock. The HOS has zero impact – social, cultural, or symbolic – on my everyday life.

Strip them of their assets. Pay her a salary. Keep a couple of cars on, and send the rest of the aristocracy packing. Sweden, Norway, Spain and The Netherlands maintain monarchies without any of this bullshit.

“Republic’s campaign – as well as opposing the costs of the Monarchy – is largely one of principle, in that they believe one cannot perfect a democracy while retaining an unelected head of state.”

Well, we disagree on that much. Some of the countries I would look at as paragons of representative democracy (as already noted) have unelected heads of state. If you simply asked “unelected head of state – more or less democratic?”, I’d have to say less, but then it is around #583 on the list of changes this country could do with. (#582 is making grass a bit greener, and #584 is making the BBC licence fee conditional on the destruction of all materials pertaining to “Eastenders”.)

“A libertarian would oppose the majority of governmental powers. Therefore, if this hypothetical individualist were to campaign against the recent legislation one such as yourself might say that they were “simply moaning about the above powers, with no call to remove them”.”

I believe the difference between the two cases is the relative importance of the example. I would (as someone who would consider himself a libertarian), say that “42 days” goes deeply and fundamentally against my understanding of the social contract in this country. Indeed, even without reference to the wider picture of civil liberties, I simply have a gut feeling that 6 weeks of detention without trial is intrinsically wrong. On the other hand, I think even if I felt strongly about monarchy, an “oath” for prospective passport holders and MPs still wouldn’t concern me in the wider picture. But, meh, each to his own.

“The most articulate reactionaries understand this very well and are also quite honest in pointing out that in practical terms the monarchy is also the option of last resort if the ruling class and its power is threatened – basically this means that the monarchy is the leadership of a fascist/autocratic regime in waiting”

Of the six longest-surviving law-governed democracies on the planet, four are constitutional monarchies (Britain, Australia, Canada, and Sweden) and two (Switzerland and the United States) are republics. And do you actually think that Hitler would have found it easier to ascend to power had the Kaiser remained and the Weimar Republican constitution had not been put in place?

Stop chatting b—-ks all your life!

Bootyboomboom: “Of the six longest-surviving law-governed democracies on the planet, four are constitutional monarchies (Britain, Australia, Canada, and Sweden) and two (Switzerland and the United States) are republics.”

Nice numbers, BBB, but correlation doesn’t always mean causation. Of your four constitutional monarchies, we should take out two (Australia and Canada). The monarchy aspect is superficial and both countries maintain independent case law systems. The culture of both countries is sufficiently liberal and democratic that they will still be members of the Commonwealth *when* they ditch the royals.

Sweden, again, is a special case. The role of Swedish monarchy is very different to the UK. And amongst your constitutional monarchies, whatever happened to Denmark? Denmark is the only constitutional monarchy that never had an empire.

greenman – in forgetting that revolution is just another form of reaction you expose yourself as the type of reactionary you denounce.

I also sense a touch of ‘us and them’ in your analysis, in that you make the mistake of lumping all your opponents into a single group as ‘apologists’, which has worked only in unifying everyone against you!

Yeah, life is so unfair, but it can get worse if you try to force it.

“All this stuff about the monarch has “no power”. LOL
Have you been paying attention to the reasons the establishment apologists give for the monarchy? Not for them nonsense about tourism or palaces.
No – the power of the monarch is cultural and social, psychological, symbolic and mythological – and it is still massive. The most articulate reactionaries understand this very well and are also quite honest in pointing out that in practical terms the monarchy is also the option of last resort if the ruling class and its power is threatened – basically this means that the monarchy is the leadership of a fascist/autocratic regime in waiting. The democratic trappings are dispensable.”

Are you really seriously suggesting that in a national crisis which threatens the state, Queen Elizabeth II might form a fascist regime? You’ve been listening to the Sex Pistols a bit too much I think.

“Observing that at least one or two of the possible future holders of the office in Britain in the future hold views that are reminiscent of 1930s “Blood and Soil” ideas, and the likelihood that we are heading for major economic,social and environmental turmoil should give those on the left who think the monarchy is an “irrelevance” pause for thought.”

Are you seriously suggesting that Prince Charles has Nazi leanings? Really? Stupid new age leanings, yes, but Blood and Soil? Really?

“Opposing the monarchy is not a “distraction” from important questions that face us, it is a necessary addition to fighting on these issues which shows a fuller understanding of the scale of the tasks – not purely economic or political challenges, but social, cultural and psychological too….”

It does seem to be distracting you since you’re coming out with these fascist conspiracy theories, which I presume are distracting you from the fact that there actually are real fascists getting votes in this country. If the BNP take power in an election there’s nothing the Queen could do to stop them. Because she has no power! Honestly!

Bootyboomboom :

“The monarchy gets in the way of the Left’s desire for total control over the state, especially over the things previously regarded as politically neutral and therefore loyal to the crown – the civil service, the armed forces and the police.”

Ah, this would be why so many lefties on here are saying the monarchy is irrelevant and rejecting republicanism. Because we all want to take over the state… yes…

“All these bodies are now increasingly politicised.”

And as soon as the Conservatives are elected it will all go back to being great and politically neutral – I’ll believe it when I see it.

“It’s also very interesting how republican leftists seem untroubled by the most powerful anti-democratic force, that of EU intergration. Why is it that they seem to take a serious matter with levity and a relatively trivial one so seriously? Is this not the sign of a decadent mind?”

The EU is run by an elected body. How it can seriously be called anti-democratic is beyond me. Centralist, sure, but not anti-democratic. Not everything bad has to be anti-democratic, you know.

OK Aaron -
You say –
“Strip them of their assets. Pay her a salary. Keep a couple of cars on, and send the rest of the aristocracy packing. Sweden, Norway, Spain and The Netherlands maintain monarchies without any of this bullshit.”

Try openly campaigning for even this “minimum programme” and you will see what social, cultural and symbolic power the British monarchy can call upon, and how the monarchy and what it represents is far more important to the British ruling class than it is to the ruling class in the countries you mention (and even there the Royals still play the “reserve government” role I mentioned earlier).

Boomboomboom – thanks for the foul insults, usually mean we’re hitting home.
You say -
“Of the six longest-surviving law-governed democracies on the planet, four are constitutional monarchies (Britain, Australia, Canada, and Sweden) and two (Switzerland and the United States) are republics. And do you actually think that Hitler would have found it easier to ascend to power had the Kaiser remained and the Weimar Republican constitution had not been put in place?”
Yes, the key words are “longest surviving” – this tells us the strength of the monarchical system as a deterrent to any significant constitutional or political change – a guarantee of ossification and a bulwark of an entrenched ruling class. Which is kind of my point….
There is an rule in internet discussions about raising the Nazis as an example, and you just broke it – suffice it to say that what you are arguing is that democracy is basically a bad thing, far better to leave the ruling class untouched for …. order, stability and discipline, eh?

Woobegone. No, I don’t think the present incumbent is a fascist, or likely to “lead” anything in any meaningful sense. What she is, is a figurehead, which is what we have been discussing. A figurehead, who, note – IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES – would be used by authoritarian and fascistic elements of the state as a rallying point.

You say -
“It does seem to be distracting you since you’re coming out with these fascist conspiracy theories, which I presume are distracting you from the fact that there actually are real fascists getting votes in this country. If the BNP take power in an election there’s nothing the Queen could do to stop them. Because she has no power! Honestly!”

The BNP are no more of a threat to the British establishment than were the NF in the 1970s. That does not mean they re not dangerous to the communities they target, and it does not mean that they do not seek to divide communities with broadly the same economic interests. It does not mean that we should not campaign vigorously to marginalise them and drive them back into their fetid holes.

But the real threat of authoritarianism and fascism in Britain comes from elements of the existing establishment and ruling class – as it did in the 1970s (see the Wilson plot and the various private armies and coup plots). It is in this sense that the monarchy is a threat.

As for Charles, now would I suggest that? A chap could get themselves into serious bother for suggesting that the “Traditionalism” espoused by the heir to the throne is of a piece with the mystical right radicalism of Schuon, Guenon and Evola…..

“But the real threat of authoritarianism and fascism in Britain comes from elements of the existing establishment and ruling class as it did in the 1970s”

Greenman, if you would care to read Peter Oborne’s excellent book “The Triumph of the Political Class”, you would understand the “establishment” which might still have existed in some form the 1970s, has for the most part dissapeared and is no longer relevant in any real way today.

Our new and expanding elite is what Oborne calls the “Political class” which has almost no connection with the old landed gentry and is metropolitan in orientation. This new ruling class has it’s own morality, manners, habits and behavioural codes which place it at a sharp angle to mainstream society. In Oborne’s word’s: “the real divison in British public life is no longer between the mian parties but between the political class and the rest.”

It has, if anything been opposed to the traditional institutions of British civil society and the state; the judiciary, the monarchy, diplomatic intelligence services, public standards and cabinet government. It governs in a totally new way to the old ‘establishment’ and uses the press and the broadcast media as the key method of communication between ruler and ruled. This is just boiled-down; he goes into much greater detail in the book.

Greenman, English republicanism is an honorable intellectual tradition, but I honestly think that you ought to read this book so as to bring yourself more up-to-date with how Britain is really governed today. Then you can perhaps review your position in the light of what you have read. But continually mentioning this long-lost ‘establishment’ will not get you taken seriously by anyone apart from the most deluded Marxists.

“Yes, the key words are “longest surviving” – this tells us the strength of the monarchical system as a deterrent to any significant constitutional or political change – a guarantee of ossification and a bulwark of an entrenched ruling class. Which is kind of my point….”

So Sweden is conservative and ossified? It has the second highest tax rate in Europe, 80% of the workforce is unionized… right wingers would probably say that made it ossified (they’d be wrong) but I doubt you would.

This “more important things to worry about” argument is very odd. Since when do we only deal with one thing at a time? Dealing with constitutional reform doesn’t mean we take our eye off the ball when it comes to the economy, Iraq, schools, hospitals or anything else.

The idea that this is a ‘left’ issue is also daft, and the idea that this is an attempt by the left to control the state is even dafter. This implies that the monarchy keeps power from politicians, when it does quite the opposite. As I said in the piece, politicians tend to be pro-monarchy because the monarchy is pro-politician. It gives them virtually unlimited power over the state.

Aside from all other debates about the powers and the constitution no public office should be inherited. The principles that underpin the monarchy are the antithesis of democracy.

As the power of the monarch is expressed through the Prime minister’s use of the royal prerogative, isn’t any MP who opposes decisions taken under the prerogative is therefore a traitor. Blair for example never asked parliament to put troops into war in Afghanistan. MPs opposing this foolishness have theorectically broken their oath to the queen.

Mr Coldstream
Ha ha ha Sherborne-educated Peter O’Bore as Private Eye call him??? Ha ha ha.
Presumably this new “Political Class” with no connections to the gentry includes the probable next Tory Prime Minister, old Etonian and descendant of a certain King William, whose children are listed as descendents of James 1, and who worked for a certain gentleman associated with the European establishment group known as Le Cercle that has just the range of contacts and opinions associated with those 1970s plotters. Even the lower bourgeois origin buffoon Hague was involved with this shady nexus.
Of course the technocracy are a shiny new and effective cohort in the army of the powerful, but they may not always be necessary, and the real movers and shakers hold them in contempt.

The oath to the queen is evil. She is not the nicey nice indivudla the media claim she is bad as princess diana. Why the heck should we make an oath to some old cow.? Only nazi scum want to keep the dumb oath.

What next an oath to Hitler an oath Pol pot She has had affairs and is a crook. Why shoul;d people basically be banned from being MPs if they do not fall for PR drivel about this old nazi.