The Queen is dead.

[Maeght]

What on earth does point 3 mean?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh it's the nonc... Aw lovely doggies


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62870783

[Steve H]

What on earth does point 3 mean?

Only WZ knows.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth does point 3 mean?

I mean we have realised we have a point of consistency and permanence in our lives. Something immune from transient fashion a reliable link to hour past separate and immune from the political and media driven idea that we are all under probation....although it is the right wing press that tries to impose this on the monarchy.

When the Queens body is courteged through the Scots countryside it is the strongest reminder of an existent Scottish nationhood not least because it has it’s own monarch lying in state in it’s capital. That is certainly a blow to ReesMogg, Truss and the English nationalists who have sought to ignore Scotland.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only WZ knows.

Hopefully I’ve clarified and we can now finally debate. I look forward to seeing the argument for a republic.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Please note that this thread has been moved here from the General Discussion Board and also that the posts in a separate thread (the end of an error?) have been merged into this thread.

[ProfessorDavey]

1: President (insert name here). This is a well known objection to republicanism whether we are talking about Boris Johnson or Tony Blair. The most popular person is bound to be a celebrity in fact, our democracy in our constitutional monarchy has produced Prime minister Johnson a celebrity.

But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.

The succession of a ceremonial head of state by birth is definitionally above politics since there is no election or committee decision.

And why is that a good thing Vlad - I think having someone elected provided that person with far more credibility than simply being 'proclaimed' by ancient protocol simply because they happened to be born to a particular person 74 years previously.

[ProfessorDavey]

2: We have as much effective democracy as a lot of republics.

That is certainly arguable.

We have some major limitations in our democracy compared to many mature democracies that are republics. Not least that our Head of State has no democratic mandate, and also that we have a completely unelected second chamber of our parliament. And of course those two are linked. So sure you can trade off democratically dubious republics with a president (Putin anyone), which I can counter with  monarchies with equal or poorer democratic credibility, e.g. Saudi Arabia, but that isn't the issue.

Would we have more democracy if we elected our Head of State rather that have them appointed by birth - all other things being equal, well certainly we would. That seems to be unarguable against.

[ProfessorDavey]

3: Many of us have discovered a dimension to life and the place of a permanent reference embodied in monarchy on the death of the queen.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but if I reading you correctly I'd argue that you are wrong.

Many people have felt a sadness and a sense of loss because the Queen has died - the feelings relate to this specific monarchy, a particular person, not to do with the monarchy itself. And the feeling is related to natural reaction to 'end of an era' stuff - and the whole point about the end of an era is that it is the antithesis of permanence isn't it. We are sad because we feel the lack of permanence of the Queen - that the whole royal rigmarole trundles on doesn't really impact, our sadness, sense of loss and feeling of end of an era is because, regardless of whether there a royal family remains, a monarch remains, the Queen doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.

If they are ceremonial and non executive  then why bother starting to call them a president? If they are ceremonial and non executive then why does a bad un make any difference? Let me ask you this question, Davey...Name a bad president in recent history...and then try and name a bad constitutional monarch...the only ''Bad'' british monarch eliminated himself from office

And why is that a good thing Vlad - I think having someone elected provided that person with far more credibility than simply being 'proclaimed' by ancient protocol simply because they happened to be born to a particular person 74 years previously.

a presidential system would be easily politicised, in fact politicisation is guaranteed wherever there is an election and as we know some circumstances which are voted for are at least semi permanent and turn out to be a disaster vis Brexit. Again you ignore that Charles has served a lifelong apprenticeship. I did toy with the idea that a head of state be chosen by lot but that would turn up people who could not cut the ceremonial and wouldn't have time to mature into the job.
British society is not Irish society, intellectuals wouldn't in my view get a look in and Britain has form in the election of celebrity and men off the telly so I'm not sure what type of president the land of Boaty McBoatface would turn up.

[Steve H]

The timing of her demise apparently couldn't have been worse for Denmark, where they were planning a week of celebrations this week to mark Queen Margarethe II's Golden Jubilee. They've had to cancel some events and scale down others as a mark of respect. The news report where I read that said that she and our Queen were third cousins, which means they have a great-great-grandparent in common. I was not too surprised to discover when I worked it out that Liz's great-great-grandmother was Victoria, who seems to be the fons et origo of European monarchs.

[jeremyp]

But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.

But since it is a purely ceremonial position. Why does it matter if they are elected or simply inherit the position?

[Steve H]

Actually, I'm coming round to think that a drastically slimmed-down and reformed in various ways and much less expensive monarchy might be best. I don't want an executive President like America's much, and if we have a ceremonial one like Ireland's and Israel's, we may as well keep the monarchy. It'd be a pity to get rid of such an ancient institution - over a thousand years. What does need to go is the House of Lords, to be replaced by a fully directly-elected senate. Hereditary peers could still keep their titles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is certainly arguable.

We have some major limitations in our democracy compared to many mature democracies that are republics. Not least that our Head of State has no democratic mandate, and also that we have a completely unelected second chamber of our parliament. And of course those two are linked. So sure you can trade off democratically dubious republics with a president (Putin anyone), which I can counter with  monarchies with equal or poorer democratic credibility, e.g. Saudi Arabia, but that isn't the issue.

You are conflating constitutional monarchs with absolute monarchs.

Would we have more democracy if we elected our Head of State rather that have them appointed by birth - all other things being equal, well certainly we would. That seems to be unarguable against.

I think perhaps we should be also talking about democracy and where it would be appropriate and where it's absence constitutes a real or felt deficit. A constitutional monarchy has been shown to be more durable and reflective of the British experience and indeed more useful in terms of soft national power than any presidency I know of.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not entirely sure what you mean, but if I reading you correctly I'd argue that you are wrong.

Many people have felt a sadness and a sense of loss because the Queen has died - the feelings relate to this specific monarchy, a particular person, not to do with the monarchy itself.

I take issue with that. The emotions are to do with her being queen. You cannot legitimately separate that from the woman. She was an excellent examplar of what that role can mean and be.

[Steve H]

The bloke behind the Princess Royal must have come straight from the billiard hall.

[Maeght]

I mean we have realised we have a point of consistency and permanence in our lives. Something immune from transient fashion a reliable link to hour past separate and immune from the political and media driven idea that we are all under probation....although it is the right wing press that tries to impose this on the monarchy.

When the Queens body is courteged through the Scots countryside it is the strongest reminder of an existent Scottish nationhood not least because it has it’s own monarch lying in state in it’s capital. That is certainly a blow to ReesMogg, Truss and the English nationalists who have sought to ignore Scotland.

I haven't realised that and don't see that the cortege demonstrates anything other than there are people who support the monarchy, whereas some don't. Nothing new there.

I don't think that the country should have a hereditary monarchy because it represents a society where privilege and ancestry is seen to be more important than achievement and who the person is, their qualities, rather than what they are.

[Gordon]

A constitutional monarchy has been shown to be more durable and reflective of the British experience and indeed more useful in terms of soft national power than any presidency I know of.

Not really - it is only "durable" because nobody with political clout seems prepared to have a serious discussion regarding the ongoing role of the monarchy and/or its relevance - forelock-tugging seems to be the order of the day.

I was listening to Radio Scotland while driving this morning and one of the commentators mentioned that support for the monarchy in Scotland is in the mid-40s %: a minority, and reduces further among younger age groups, and that among supporters of Scottish independence that figure drops to around 20% - I missed the reference but I'll try and find it.

In other words it simply isn't the case that support for the monarchy is at a steady state everywhere or across the age range.

[Anchorman]

I haven't realised that and don't see that the cortege demonstrates anything other than there are people who support the monarchy, whereas some don't. Nothing new there.

I don't think that the country should have a hereditary monarchy because it represents a society where privilege and ancestry is seen to be more important than achievement and who the person is, their qualities, rather than what they are.

   


Whether you like it or not, the ceremonial will demobnstrate the separate nature of the union.
The monarch's coffin rests under the Scottish, not the UK, royal standard.
The service this afternoon will be in a Scottish presbyterian Kirk, not the official English state church.
The dcoffin will have the Scots crown placed on it - this has not happened since the time of James V.
The monarch, will be addrerssed by the Scots Parliament, where, unlike that of England, he will sit on a level below elected members. The government here is not HM government, but the Scottish Government.
Yes, minor differences, but differences all the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are conflating constitutional monarchs with absolute monarchs.

No more than you were conflating executive presidents with non-executive presidents - that was my point.

[Maeght]

   


Whether you like it or not, the ceremonial will demobnstrate the separate nature of the union.
The monarch's coffin rests under the Scottish, not the UK, royal standard.
The service this afternoon will be in a Scottish presbyterian Kirk, not the official English state church.
The dcoffin will have the Scots crown placed on it - this has not happened since the time of James V.
The monarch, will be addrerssed by the Scots Parliament, where, unlike that of England, he will sit on a level below elected members. The government here is not HM government, but the Scottish Government.
Yes, minor differences, but differences all the same.

Thanks, I haven't taken much notice of the plans for the cortege, laying in state etc so good to have that info.

[ProfessorDavey]

But since it is a purely ceremonial position. Why does it matter if they are elected or simply inherit the position?

I didn't say it is a purely ceremonial position - because it isn't.

What I said was that "the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position". Our head of state, regardless of whether they are a monarch or a non-exec president wields considerable soft power, way beyond a purely ceremonial position. We hear this all the time - the importance of the soft power of the head of state.

So yes it does matter who has this role - and my point is that a role of this nature and importance should be something that everyone should (so they wish) be able to aspire to. Currently most people cannot - they can aspire to be PM, aspire to be a doctor, aspire to be Archbishop of Canterbury etc, etc, but they cannot aspire to be head of state. Whether they have the skills etc is a different matter, they can still aspire to that position. And there will be plenty of people in the UK who have the right skills etc to be a fantastic head of state, but they are barred due to accident of birth.

So in some respect it doesn't really matter if the head of state is elected or appointed (although I think elected would be preferable), the point is that theoretically everyone should have the opportunity to hold that role. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you ignore that Charles has served a lifelong apprenticeship.

Why is that necessary, or even desirable.

The reality isn't that Charles has had a lifelong apprenticeship - really he was brought up to be King and has spent most of his life simply waiting for his opportunity. I'd actually argue that having spent effectively 55 years of his adult life in a non-job, waiting for the job he was born to hold has been pretty damaging. One of the great positives for the Queen was that she became monarch young - she was a blank page in terms of political opinions, gaffs, controversies etc. And therefore was able to maintain a level of neutrality, knowing that her private views weren't known. Charles isn't like that at all - we all know his views on all sorts of issues - that he won't profess them publicly as King is irrelevant, we know what he thinks in the background.

And further, why is 74 years of apprenticeship such a positive for Charles, when the Queen had just 15 (from the point when it became apparent she'd be Queen) and her father literally weeks. Didn't seem to impact their abilities to do the job.

[ProfessorDavey]

4: It has heightened our connection to history and lifted people to a view of the world world above the consciousness of existence imposed upon us by press, media and the here today gone tomorrow poltician.

But the royals are the epitome of the famous for being famous. Their profile is entirely due to a symbiotic (or parasitic, you take your choice) relationship with the media and the press. There is absolutely nothing noteworthy about, for example William (or George) except for who their parents were. Their profile within the press and media isn't based on the fact that they are good at x, talented at y. We are pumped with a constant stream of press and media pieces about the royals due to nothing more than the quirk of birth. Without that media and press profile the royals are nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I take issue with that. The emotions are to do with her being queen. You cannot legitimately separate that from the woman. She was an excellent examplar of what that role can mean and be.

Which rather demonstrates my point.

People are mourning the death of a monarch, they aren't mourning the monarchy, because that trundles on. The sorrow etc is about the person, not the institution.