Democracy and Monarchy

[Flosshilde]

Oh dear, Scotty; still waiting for that OBN?

[teamsaint]

Here is a list of the people I know who support the monarchy:

My mum.

List ends.

[scottycelt]

Here is a list of the people I know who support the monarchy:

My mum.

List ends.

Your mum always knows best, team ...

[teamsaint]

Your mum always knows best, team ...

do you know her , by any chance......?

[scottycelt]

Oh dear, Scotty; still waiting for that OBN?

If I knew what an OBN is I might be able to give you some sort of reasonably accurate answer, Flossie ...

[Flosshilde]

Order of the Brown Nose, Scotty. Awarded for excessive devotion to the monarchy.

[JFLL]

Which rather suggests that the monarchy has followed a direct line of descent for the past 1000 years, when of course it hasn't, with, in England, different factions & branches vying for the crown - the Wars of the Roses, for example - or monarchs being deposed for religious or political reasons.

I don't think that Petrushka is suggesting that the essence of a monarchy is always to follow a direct line of descent. A monarchy can easily function, and certainly survive and prosper, without it if necessary, and can even be elective, like the Holy Roman Empire for its first 700 years. It's the institution that has continuity, not the ruling family.

[MrGongGong]

Here is a list of the people I know who support the monarchy:

My mum.

List ends.

(Scotty is only hoping for the OBN)

[Flosshilde]

I don't think that Petrushka is suggesting that the essence of a monarchy is always to follow a direct line of descent. A monarchy can easily function, and certainly survive and prosper, without it if necessary, and can even be elective, like the Holy Roman Empire for its first 700 years. It's the institution that has continuity, not the ruling family.

But he does say "Our system of government, ... has served us well for 1,000 years" - & as our (present) system is an hereditary monarchy I assume that's what he meant. He also dismissed the idea of an elected monarch as tautologous - even though we have had at least one (or two) in the last 300 years or so, & other countries have an elective monarchy.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

He also dismissed the idea of an elected monarch as tautologous - even though we have had at least one (or two) in the last 300 years or so...

???? To whom do you refer?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Of course, even the hereditary pattern can get it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Real_Monarch

[Pabmusic]

But he does say "Our system of government, ... has served us well for 1,000 years" - & as our (present) system is an hereditary monarchy I assume that's what he meant...

That's what I assumed too. But several posters in this thread talk as if there might be a 'privilege' to rule going back (whether or not unbroken) for 1,000 years or so. No, not at all.

Our monarchy dates only from the Act of Settlement 1701, which established rules under which parliament allowed the monarch to rule, and indeed who could be monarch. There have been other important acts since then which define the relationship between parliament and the monarch (Statute of Westminster 1931, for instance) but all those colourful, terrible, uplifting, shameful and hideous things that happened before 1701 (or actually 1688) happened under a system we no longer have. For the last 300 years and more, the monarch has ruled only with the consent of parliament. That parliament could abolish the monarchy tomorrow, but chooses not to. As it is, the succession is a matter (ultimately) for parliamentary approval, since it says who can and cannot take the throne - although parliament will try hard not to get involved too quickly, as witness the abdication crisis.

[JFLL]

But he does say "Our system of government, ... has served us well for 1,000 years" - & as our (present) system is an hereditary monarchy I assume that's what he meant. He also dismissed the idea of an elected monarch as tautologous - even though we have had at least one (or two) in the last 300 years or so, & other countries have an elective monarchy.

By 'our system of government' he means a monarchy as opposed to a republic, as I read it. Most monarchies are hereditary, but they don't have to follow a 'direct line of descent'. What he objects to is a democratically-elected monarchy, which I agree would be tantamount to a republic. I don't think one could call Cromwell an 'elected monarch', by the way.

[BBMmk2]

From what i could gather from this ,morning News prpgramme, it was that quite a large majority want to stay in with the Union.

[Flosshilde]

Couldn't agree more -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKZnz3SOhhw

or perhaps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs