Democracy and Monarchy

[french frank]

Personally I've been fascinated observing vox populi responding to mike carrying reporters in various random locations, trying to figure out from them what it is that appeals about having a monarchy rather than elected president.

I suppose, regardless of the political argument, people have seen an exemplary monarchical role model in our recent sovereigns, George VI and the Queen - in fact for the majority of people, just the Queen. Decent role models for elected presidents have been harder to find, now more than ever. Monarchy as an abstraction may be hard to justify in a 'democratic' world (I mean a world where most developed countries recognise democracy and elections as good things), but most human beings don't hold any belief that amounts to a system: that you can have democracy and still have a monarchy seems demonstrable.

In any case, the individuals who become monarchs have little say in the matter: in a democracy I can't think the monarch has the absolute power to abolish the monarchy. Here, that is left in the hands of the people through their elected representatives. One day, perhaps, who knows? But I doubt it would be a recipe for a better society.

As more and more autocrats have been gaining power through elections which are less than democratic, the attraction of an undisputed and generally decent and capable human being as a figurehead 'chief' seems to increase rather than the reverse. Will Sweden - Sweden! - now go the way of other countries? The one attempted military coup in western Europe in recent times was thwarted by the king.

[HighlandDougie]

....has someone tampered with this thread....there seem to be several 'non contraversial' messages that have been taken away ???????????....OI !!!!!

Indeed. As the posts concerned included one I made which was neither controversial nor political, I don’t think it too much to ask “why”. If it was on the grounds that the post was flippant or silly, that’s fine. I do, though, have ever so slight feelings of concern that recent removal of posts is beginning to look like a form of censorship by moderators without reasons being given other than hiding behind the “controversial”, “political” or “personally insulting” tags. Those are all legitimate reasons, of course, and we have to trust to the judgement of moderators on that but, as eighth says, when posts fall into none of these, are we being subject to personal whim on, say, “relevance”? Anyway, let’s see if this post survives …

[Dave2002]

I'm indifferent about the death of the Queen - but will renew my opposition to the monarchy and communicate this renewal in the face of apparent forelock-tugging from its subjects.

When I was much younger - and that was a long while ago - I was opposed to the monarchy. One day my father, who may also have been slightly opposed, suggested that having a relatively benign monarch was a better option than having an elected “leader”, who may often turn out to be a tyrant. Whether all the pageantry and the nonsense about “titles” is necessary and worthwhile - I can’t really say. Seems to be a commercial enterprise which on occasions brings benefits to some. I think I still have my coronation mug from the 1950s, though maybe T shirts will be substituted this time. The continuity of a head of state who outlives each elected leader does seem to bring some benefits.

Lastly, the monarchy was previously abolished hundreds of years ago, so England at least has tried that. That “experiment” didn’t last long.

[Joseph K]

Indeed. As the posts concerned included one I made which was neither controversial nor political, I don’t think it too much to ask “why”. If it was on the grounds that the post was flippant or silly, that’s fine. I do, though, have ever so slight feelings of concern that recent removal of posts is beginning to look like a form of censorship by moderators without reasons being given other than hiding behind the “controversial”, “political” or “personally insulting” tags. Those are all legitimate reasons, of course, and we have to trust to the judgement of moderators on that but, as eighth says, when posts fall into none of these, are we being subject to personal whim on, say, “relevance”? Anyway, let’s see if this post survives …

Completely agree. Not sure why the moderators on this forum have become more & more heavy-handed over time...

[french frank]

Lastly, the monarchy was previously abolished hundreds of years ago, so England at least has tried that. That “experiment” didn’t last long.

In any case, the more pressing problem in this country is social inequality. The idea that abolishing the monarchy (and appropriating all the associated wealth and property?) and electing a head of state every four or five years will in reality benefit the poorer members of society seems to me to be fictive. There are more important causes to fight and the abolition of the monarch just seems like a distraction.

[Joseph K]

When I was much younger - and that was a long while ago - I was opposed to the monarchy. One day my father, who may also have been slightly opposed, suggested that having a relatively benign monarch was a better option than having an elected “leader”, who may often turn out to be a tyrant. Whether all the pageantry and the nonsense about “titles” is necessary and worthwhile - I can’t really say. Seems to be a commercial enterprise which on occasions brings benefits to some. I think I still have my coronation mug from the 1950s, though maybe T shirts will be substituted this time. The continuity of a head of state who outlives each elected leader does seem to bring some benefits.

Lastly, the monarchy was previously abolished hundreds of years ago, so England at least has tried that. That “experiment” didn’t last long.

I am reminded of Tony Benn's Five Questions:

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”

Ok, so regarding (1) you could say they don't actually have much power. But they certainly are rich, and there are things like Prince Andrew doing bad things which he can essentially escape gaol thanks to British tax payer money.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

The continuity of a head of state who outlives each elected leader does seem to bring some benefits.

Lastly, the monarchy was previously abolished hundreds of years ago, so England at least has tried that. That “experiment” didn’t last long.

Unfortunately, recent times have shown that a continuity head of state is no brake on a rogue PM. However, people in these times are surely intelligent and reasonable enough for a re-run of abolishing the monarchy, or at least getting rid of much of the pointlessly expensive pageantry and forelock-tugging... Ahem.

[gradus]

If posts are removed do the moderators inform the member concerned of their intention?

[french frank]

Unfortunately, recent times have shown that a continuity head of state is no brake on a rogue PM. However, people in these times are surely intelligent and reasonable enough for a re-run of abolishing the monarchy, or at least getting rid of much of the pointlessly expensive pageantry and forelock-tugging... Ahem.

I think the main consideration is whether it does any actual harm. If one believes it somehow validates and buttresses an entire hierarchical, hereditary power structure, I can see that abolition is an essential step towards a more egalitarian society. But that's just a belief: I haven't seen any proof that the whole edifice would fall and a shining new world emerge, but I do have a sceptical streak.

I also have an innate resistance to complete consistency. Plenty of exceptions to rules. So plenty of yeses to arguments and then reaching a contrary conclusion.

[Ein Heldenleben]

This thread has changed from being a discussion on the music being played on Radio Three and the Proper length of a mourning period to a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a constitutional monarchy. Most of the posts on this are “political” . Can I suggest a “Whither the Monarchy thread ?” and the posts moved there?
Back ON thread I am enjoying Radio Three much more at the moment. Solely classical music and little irrelevant jabber,

[oddoneout]

This thread has changed from being a discussion on the music being played on Radio Three and the Proper length of a mourning period to a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a constitutional monarchy. Most of the posts on this are “political” . Can I suggest a “Whither the Monarchy thread ?” and the posts moved there?
Back ON thread I am enjoying Radio Three much more at the moment. Solely classical music and little irrelevant jabber,

I second the suggestion of a separate thread for the monarchy matters debate, not least as "normal" R3 service is now resumed it would seem, with today's schedule being the usual line-up, so there will be less reason to contribute on the OT.

[Dave2002]

Can I suggest a “Whither the Monarchy thread ?” and the posts moved there?

If it helps, yes. Though the monarchy issue is perhaps more interesting.

[Dave2002]

I am reminded of Tony Benn's Five Questions:

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”

Ok, so regarding (1) you could say they don't actually have much power. But they certainly are rich, and there are things like Prince Andrew doing bad things which he can essentially escape gaol thanks to British tax payer money.

Unfortunately the answers to questions 2-5 are often the more important and difficult ones. Particularly 3 and 5..

[french frank]

From 2012, nothing added since then and started by you, Dave2002!

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?5651-Democracy-and-Monarchy&highlight=Monarchy

I leave it, forelock tugging for approval from higher up.

[Dave2002]

How can one have a democratically elected monarch? It's either a Monarchy or it's a Republic, surely?

Our system of government, while not perfect in many ways and in recent years let down by poor quality incumbents rather than the system itself, has served us well for 1,000 years in both war and peace and I see little need for any change.

Depends exactly what you mean by democratically elected. Since the thread was started I have learned that Poland has had elected kings, though admittedly the electorate was somewhat smaller than the whole population.