The "Royals" Thread

[thirdcrank]

I wonder if the emergence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge AKA William and Kate is putting the wind up thinking republicans.

[Bonefishblues]

Seemingly, the new, modern face of Royalty has made a right old Horlicks of their PR on their recent sojourn in the Caribbean. An enduring tradition indeed

[thirdcrank]

Seemingly, the new, modern face of Royalty has made a right old Horlicks of their PR on their recent sojourn in the Caribbean. An enduring tradition indeed :lol:

I already got that but does the PR fluff really matter? It may matter to anyone hoping the royal family will self destruct and perhaps they feel the need to pile on (in the modern lingo) in the absence of anything more significant.

[Jdsk]

I wonder if the emergence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge AKA William and Kate is putting the wind up thinking republicans.

My preference for democracy over inherited privilege and patronage isn't affected by anything that individuals do or don't do or say or don't say.

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

Seemingly, the new, modern face of Royalty has made a right old Horlicks of their PR on their recent sojourn in the Caribbean. An enduring tradition indeed

I already got that but does the PR fluff really matter? It may matter to anyone hoping the royal family will self destruct and perhaps they feel the need to pile on (in the modern lingo) in the absence of anything more significant.

My comment wasn't from any political standpoint - I can take them or leave them. It was more that they are the much-vaunted new face of Royalty, yet it's clear that they and their PR Team has made some really terrible errors* on this tour - and politically they seem to have been left exposed too, with the apparent surprise at the content of speeches in New Providence & Jamaica, and the late decision not to go to Belize.

*Black fingers through metal mesh fencing, and aping the military inspection of his grandmother, even down to using the same Landy both figure prominently.

ETA
And yes, it does matter - hugely

[thirdcrank]

It's hard to see anything in favour of selecting the head of state by accident of birth, but it's what we have.

A couple of obvious negatives in the way we do it are that it both legitimates the antics of our political head of state and bequeaths on them the considerable patronage once the prerogative of our kings and queens. Then it comes with a big royal family with no defined role.

But politics is all about personality and probably increasingly so, and that's the problem for anybody looking for democratic change. ie without a coup or invasion. I can't think of a period in my lifetime (b 1944) when any sort of democratic change would have been thinkable. eg Had there been some sort of plebiscite on the matter I believe the majority would have been for the status quo. Had the queen taken the initiative and abdicated in a way which ended the monarchy, I fancy that if there had then been the option to write-in a name in the subsequent election of the new head-of-state then the former queen would have been selected as queen emeritus, a hands down winner against any of the leading party politicians of the last 70 years and with no campaigning by her.

Around the time of the Charles-Diana-Camilla-Dodi fuss, I thought it spelled the end of the monarchy at the next succession and little has happened to change that view, except the emergence of the Cambridges. At the moment, the biggest thing that anybody has come up with on here seems to be that in a world governed by spin etc., they got it wrong. So I think the big problem for the advocates of change is that the Cambridges are taking over the role and just at a time when the elected politicians are increasingly viewed with contempt.

I've never been in a position where I was remotely likely to receive any sort of honour etc so I cannot say how I would have reacted. I do think that it's hard to be a part-time republican without the appearance of humbug. "I don't like the title 'Queen's Counsel', but it's part of the system. (And it's up to you where you stick your red flag.)"

[Nearholmer]

“It's hard to see anything in favour of selecting the head of state by accident of birth,”

There is possibly one thing in its favour, which is that “appointment by accident of birth” avoids the competition between ambitious individuals with big ideas about their own capability that characterises the selection of heads of state in many other countries.

Of course, a great deal depends on the constitution of the country, the exact role/powers of the head of state, and the qualifying criteria for candidates. The USA has a fairly powerful executive role for their head of state (not unlimited power by any means though), likewise France, but not all republics do, Ireland’s is I think similar in role to ours, ditto Germany.

Personally, I used to be a fairly convinced republican, but now have a growing appreciation of the usefulness of having someone appointed as head of state by accident of birth, although as Tom Paine pointed out c250 years ago it does solidly guarantee that a truly useless one will arise periodically (Edward VIII?). What I’m still entirely opposed to is the vast retinue of hangers on, ordinary mortals somehow given special status for no good reason. At max we need the incumbent, an heir, and a spare, which I think is what he Netherlands manages with (and their monarch used to be famous for riding a bike, so their system can’t be all bad).

[Psamathe]

....
Of course, a great deal depends on the constitution of the country, the exact role/powers of the head of state, and the qualifying criteria for candidates. The USA has a fairly powerful executive role for their head of state (not unlimited power by any means though), likewise France, but not all republics do, Ireland’s is I think similar in role to ours, ditto Germany.
....

In the UK the only purpose of our Head of State seems to be protecting their own personal interests (e.g. adjusting legislation to ensure they are exempt or are not impacted). Beyond that they seem to serve no purpose.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

How have they adjusted legislation in the way you mention?

[Nearholmer]

Hmmmm …… so who is the titular head of the armed services then? And, who formalises the formation of a government? And, other little jobs like that.

There are tasks that any country needs to have done in order to function safely within a constitution (even if it is a constitution as opaque as ours). If things like transfer of powers between governments aren’t looked after properly it isn’t long before violence ensues, and if the armed forces are loyal to transient politicians a military coup is practically guaranteed.

The basic question is whether those jobs are better done by an elected president, or by a constitutional monarch, and there are pros and cons of each, and examples of presidents and monarchs who do good jobs, and presidents and monarchs who are corrupt and self-serving.

[Bonefishblues]

I'll have a go - mates rates and all that

[Nearholmer]

I think you’ve misunderstood slightly.

The traditional thing to do is buy a presidency, then exploit it for your own benefit. Quite normal in some places.

So, you pay me, not the other way round.

If you want to be a monarch, it’s a bit harder. You need to raise an army, then overthrow the existing monarch and have yourself crowned. Not really something anyone has done much of in Europe since the Middle Ages, so possibly best if the army consists mostly of knights in armour and archers

[Bonefishblues]

Well that doesn't sound at all an attractive proposition, I have to say

[Nearholmer]

Just think about it: how many super-yachts, villas, and carbon-framed, full-suspension bicycles could you have if you had an entire country and it’s population to exploit?

A small up-front investment in corrupting a voting system, or raising an army is surely worthwhile.

[Bonefishblues]

Bugger all at the moment I fear.

I'm going to keep my powder dry and wait for better times