tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post4235602083259380845..comments2024-03-23T08:00:26.020+00:00Comments on THE MONARCHIST: What we are not defendingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-89430496782471418782008-09-02T22:19:00.000+01:002008-09-02T22:19:00.000+01:00Right you are, Bolingbroke. Let's devise and aim t...Right you are, Bolingbroke. Let's devise and aim to perfect a current list of arguments for the Crown and file it in some conspicuous location.Beaverbrooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-80510944333174205582008-09-02T23:57:00.000+01:002008-09-02T23:57:00.000+01:00Bravo! I'm glad to see there's acknowledgment some...Bravo! I'm glad to see there's acknowledgment some of the "modern" arguments for the monarchy are simply nonsense. Please copy this to the CML, NZML, AML etc...Lewishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14732618881212335191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-26291361038525722152008-09-03T00:26:00.000+01:002008-09-03T00:26:00.000+01:00I think this is all true, though there are reverse...I think this is all true, though there are reverse sides to some of them; for in a few cases they are perversions or misdirections, not so much outright falsities.<br><br>For instance: take sentiment and nostalgia. The wrong sort of sentiment, and the wrong sort of nostalgia, is abhorrent and illogical. But there is justly an emotional bond with the crown; it simply isn't wibbly and ridiculous, and blown with every gust of nonsense; it is religious, chivalric, historic, and strong like iron, and there are many noble orders, portions of liturgy, and annual rituals, as well as deeply bedded unspoken feelings in the mass of subjects, which go to sustain it.<br><br>It is I suppose, however, not so much a *reason* as a part of monarchy, and something equally worth protecting.Sir Walter Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-43040796650041067782008-09-03T00:27:00.000+01:002008-09-03T00:27:00.000+01:00Speaking of NZ, all things being equal, imho we st...Speaking of NZ, all things being equal, imho we stand to lose far more than we would gain by becoming a republic. In effect our current system may only provide the notion of a limit to political power, but that alone is worth retaining. The monarchy is the link to our cultural development and freedoms. As such it represents the nation whereas governments essentially only represent political organisations. They come and go, as do their ideologies and with their departure we are never the worse off. Nothing that is proposed matches the majesty (pun intended), of our current arrangement for government. History I think has taught us little people to squint our eyes when listening to charlatans :)Cramwoldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-2552387697562806882008-09-03T05:10:00.000+01:002008-09-03T05:10:00.000+01:00Thank you for the comments. I just think this blog...Thank you for the comments. I just think this blog needs to put forth its arguments, through genuine and truthful introspection, without any of the politics indemic to the monarchist leagues. And let them stand or fall on their respective merits. Republicans of goodwill should be able to read them, be convinced of their honesty, and then agree or disagree with them on that basis.Bolingbrokehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07403736132216152383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-7031415816299786692008-09-03T09:31:00.000+01:002008-09-03T09:31:00.000+01:00I would suggest the good members of this blog read...I would suggest the good members of this blog read Vernon Bogdanor's excellent book 'The Monarchy and the Constitution' for a well-written argument in favour of the powers of the Sovereign in British politics.<br><br>And while I agree that most of what Bolingbroke puts forward as rubbish arguments are indeed rubbish, I would say that financing of the monarchy - at least in Britain - is a subject that constantly comes up and I find myself repeatedly having to correct people's notions about the Civil List and so on.<br><br>So I'd argue for elaborating on that aspect at least!Adrian Kidneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-1387908597763768782008-09-03T10:44:00.000+01:002008-09-03T10:44:00.000+01:00Lord Bollingbroke, I have to mainly agree with you...Lord Bollingbroke, I have to mainly agree with your points. Arguments 1 to 6 are easily debunked. Point 7 is less well defined.<br><br>While I utterly detested my nation's (the UK) open display of self-pity over the unworthy Diana, surely the Monarchy is an emotive issue for many people? A virile attachment to our institutions, is surely based in part on emotive sentiment? I reiterate that I do not think that a favourable "Hello" magazine style <br>cult of celebrity is remotely healthy: rather I insist that it must be recognised that a lot of people are simply fond of the monarchy because it is a part of the national fabric.<br><br>I say "in part" for I agree that there are many "rational" arguments for the retention of the status quo.<br><br>I am based in "Great" Britain and certainly from my view such rational arguments are:<br><br>1) The office of Head of State is politically neutral.<br><br>2) Institutions swearing allegiance to the head of state, such as the Army and Civil service are therefore politically neutral.<br><br>3) This country has benefited from the parliamentary monarchy in terms of political stability. (Relative to our neighbour nations in Europe and certainly relative to the many nations that have undergone revolution in the "Republican" Commonwealth or Latin America to cite two examples). While there do exist very successful republican states, we have no experience of that model and there is no particular drive for such a change as the current system works extremely well.<br><br>4) Enhanced prestige on the international stage. The UK is the last "old" great power that has retained its continuity. I believe that our traditions of negotiated compromise between factions in the UK are regognised abroad when the royal family visits. Furthermore, the Royal family are shared with some very well-thought-of independent nations (Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The monarchy is therefore "imperial" (in the sense of world-reaching and traditional) and simultaneously representative of some of the most liberal and free states on the planet. Dismantling this network from the UK's perspective would clearly be folly.<br><br>These are the arguments for retention from the UK's perspective. From the point of view of the other realms the arguments might be different.<br><br>There is no longer a particularly deep political relationship between the realms, although people links are strong, as is mutual investment. This is perhaps a cause of Republican sentiment in those countries?Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-12698674684995563602008-09-03T14:08:00.000+01:002008-09-03T14:08:00.000+01:00As an Englishman who has lived in the UK, New Zeal...As an Englishman who has lived in the UK, New Zealand and now Australia (and a long-time reader of this excellent blog), I would like, if I may be so bold, to add a couple of comments:<br><br>In response to P's last question I would say that in Australia much of the Republican sentiment appears to be based upon the idea that the monarchy and Britain are both distant and uninterested in the affairs of the Antipodean realms. <br><br>I do not honestly believe, however, that these sentiments have been generated primarily by some primordial national need for 'independance.' On the contrary, as P suggests, I think that it is more to do with a lack of cultivation of UK-Australian political and cultural relations, and more so on the part of the British. If the Royal Family and the British Government were to take a more active interest in the Commonwealth, I think they would be warmly welcomed.<br><br> The Australians are, from my experience with and amongst them, by and large a conservative and traditional lot. While they possibly wouldn't tell it to your face, they still seem to hold a fondness and connection to the UK in their national psyche.<br><br>Secondly, and possibly more importantly, I believe a rational argument exists for the monarchy based on the grounds of executive experience.<br><br>Unlike an elected President, a monarch is born to rule. This means that, from their birth, an heir apparent is schooled and trained in the arts of statecraft, and the guardianship of the power they hold in trust. They have their whole life to prepare for their office and because of this, it is no accident that Her Majesty is regarded by all who meet with her to be a politically wise and naturally conservative head of state. In addition, an heir apparent is watched from birth and their personal traits and foibles noted from an early age. When a king or queen ascends the throne, the realms of the Commonwealth know what character of person we are getting.<br><br>In comparison, let us examine the current US Presidential election. This is a political contest, with all the mudslinging and rose-tinting that entails. The two candidates that have <b>not</b> prepared all their life for the office they are about to hold, and it is a common assumption that some sort of scandal will rock any presidency at least once. <br><br>Until the election campaign, McCain and Obama especially have lived personal lives generally unknown to everyone but their own constituents. And now, the American public must attempt to examine each of these men's characters through a lens clouded by political narrative and filtered information. <br><br>Whilst a constitutional monarchy is described by the Republican movement as archaic and impractical, it can be seen that, as well as the oft-cited inherent stability, monarchs are more often than not far more able to wield executive power deftly and wisely than a politician who may or may not be fit for the task and who has to get himself re-elected every few years. <br><br>In addition, quite simply, a monarch is aslo far more able to bring public attention and scrutiny to bear on important domestic and national issues that may otherwise have been overlooked for being 'politically inconvenient.' Whatever you may think of Diana, one must respect the way she used the media to focus a spotlight on matters that concerned her.<br><br>Our roads and infrastructure in Australia are woefully neglected by buck-passing governments - imagine how much could be accomplished if Her Majesty came with her accompanying media parade to 'encourage' some action from her ministers?<br><br>Hmm...that was longer than expected, I hope it is worth something!Davionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-71642808762460892192008-09-03T15:01:00.000+01:002008-09-03T15:01:00.000+01:00Actually I think most anti-Monarchy sentiment in A...Actually I think most anti-Monarchy sentiment in Australia stems from rabid hatred of Britain that seems prevalent in many baby boomers, along with associated anti colonialist feelings. Support for the monarchy is much higher in we younger generations that did not get brought up with all that 60s nonsense.Lord Besthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08505734600505832039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-42789416819882289742008-09-03T16:10:00.000+01:002008-09-03T16:10:00.000+01:00In reply to Davion's post.Perhaps a practical way ...In reply to Davion's post.<br><br>Perhaps a practical way of enhancing the relationships between the realms would be to offer some kind of advantage where possible? <br><br>For example, Australia and New Zealand have a scheme where their citizens can seek work in the other countries without going through the immigration processes required of citizens of other nationality. This is aided by their proximity but also must surely make the two friendly rivals happy to be associated to each other.<br><br>Bilaterally, Britain could offer to extend the kind of deal we give to Irish citizens to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. (Irish citizens have the full rights of British Citizens and vice versa in either country.)<br><br>This would be a pretty good offer - for example if such a treaty applied between the UK and Canada, Brits and Canadians would have so many more opportunities open to them such as home rate university fees and working opportunities.<br><br>This would also allow hard negociated deals with the EU and NAFTA to remain in place and wouldn't affect national sovreignty.<br><br>Does this sound realistic? It doesn't sound unreasonable to me, although the Brits may be too embarrased to propose it in case they are rejected.Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-39655058841836942852008-09-03T17:13:00.000+01:002008-09-03T17:13:00.000+01:00Well, the UK did originally pursue this policy imm...Well, the UK did originally pursue this policy immediately postwar, but I understand Canada passed its own immigration laws in the late forties which began to unravel it.<br><br>There is a lot of population interchange among the Crowned Commonwealth though, more so than ever before. London is a hive of Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, it's marvellous. as you say, the younger generations seem less rabidly hostile to the Crown and the UK, partly because they didn't have the 60s, but also because more get to appreciate British culture now and see its links to their own.Adrian Kidneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-63525737109967008152008-09-04T10:22:00.000+01:002008-09-04T10:22:00.000+01:00Sirs,Thanks to "Lord Bolingbroke" for this great p...Sirs,<br><br>Thanks to "Lord Bolingbroke" for this great post.<br><br>If one is defending the Commonwealth Crown as an institution which is good for its peoples, one must avoid irrelevant arguments. One such argument is tourism.<br><br>Moreover, "if it works, don't fix it" is an argument very much defensive in nature. If one bases one's case on it, there is a high risk that one will lose in the end.<br><br>Of course, a case can be made that much of so-called "progress" is not progress at all. However, just rejecting new solutions on the basis that the existing works is to a large extent fighting a losing battle.J.K. Baltzersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.com