I am not necessarily opposed to repatriating the monarchy in Commonwealth realms, but know the path is frought with danger. Repatriation is a risky business. Even with the best political will and intentions, chances are politicians would royally screw it up. That said, there are very good reasons for and against going down that route, so today we focus on the positive:
1. Royals should embody our National Identity: The royals are British and we are no longer British. The world and the world's media will never identify our Queen or future King as anything other than British. Kings and queens should personify the nation and embody our national identity. Total patriotic fulfillment of that unique national identity requires that we have a fully independent sovereign who can represent us exclusively, not one who is shared by 16 other countries;
2. Monarchs should be the sole focus of Unity and Allegiance: The establishment of a resident monarch is more likely to command the allegiance and affection of its countrymen. It was possible for an absentee landlord to be the focus of unity and unfettered loyalty when we felt an integral part of the British Empire, but not so today. The Queen, her heirs and successors have all but disappeared from public consciousness;
3. A stronger and more indigenous Constitution of Liberty: If freedom wears a Crown, let it be worn at home. A resident sovereign who holds the popular affection of its people would more readily humble the pretensions of democratic politicians. A local majesty would more truly represent the popular sovereignty of the people, and as such would serve as a more effective constitutional bulwark on usurping politicans in possession (or not in possession) of their temporary mandates and majorities;
4. The Crown would be Decolonized: By ridding the naysayers of their best argument, we would better ensure the long-term survival of the Crown. The problem is not the monarchy, it is its delegated status. It is the secondary position of governor-general, not Her Majesty, that is the outdated colonial relic in our constitutional firmament and should be abolished. Nip this one in the bud and it may very well be sianara to fledgling republicanism; and
5. The Monarchy would be Revitalized: A fully repatriated monarchy would be the catalyst to revitalize and once again celebrate the crown at the centre of national life. Instead of rolling back the monarchy and vandalizing our inheritance piece by piece, we could begin to restore our royal heritage and enrich our national institutions with the ancient symbolism and glorious trappings it deserves.
Echoes Andrew Coyne: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/13/defending-the-royals/
ReplyDelete"And yet, for all that, the Crown is in trouble in Canada. Impregnable as its position may be in law, manifold as its virtues may be in principle, it has all but ceased to command the loyalty and affection of the people—one of its primary functions, after all, and the basis of its legitimacy in the long run... If we are honest, even we monarchists must acknowledge that there is something flawed in the institution itself. If the Queen, her heirs and successors have all but disappeared from Canadian public consciousness, it may be because they are hardly ever here...
"Imagine not just a King of Canada, but a Canadian King: living here, raising a family here, his children speaking in Canadian accents, in both official languages. Perhaps Harry will take some convincing, giving up London for Ottawa. But if he cares about the remarkable institution into which he was born, he should be prevailed upon to take one for the team."
Indeed. I stole a couple of his reasons. If there are any other arguments in favour that you or anyone can think of, I'm all ears. I think I pretty much captured all the big ones at least.
ReplyDelete1) Repatriation to which country? I was assuming Canada while I read that. But we can't repatriate to all Commonwealth realms, unless we chop up the whole Royal family and send them across the globe, and I can't see Jamaica (or any country) accepting one of Prince Edward's kids as Regent.
ReplyDelete2) The term 'repatration' might not be appropriate. The 're' part implies a Monarch lived there at one point. Maybe 'patriation' is more appropriate.
Although a patriation of the monarchy might defuse some of these republican arguments, I can't really see how it could be practically achieved. I also suspect that most republicans despise the concept of monarchy on principle and merely use these arguments because they are convenient.
ReplyDeleteLOL, you people are lunatics. Or joking. Either way, I love it. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteWe monarchists in Australia are thinking about putting this proposition forward the next time republicans begin their next campaign as well. It *is* a very risky business, and if a referendum on it goes to the public, and fails, I think it will be very difficult to win back the public's support for constitutional monarchy altogether.
ReplyDeleteFirst I've heard of that proposal actually being considered, Pink Panther, at least by the ACM and AML.
ReplyDeleteStill, it is a final option if all else seems lost.
But beyond that, if we were to ever become a republic, it isn't just a matter of people wanting to change back to a monarchy, but also the problem that the politicians wouldn't let us.
I'd prefer that Citizen Initiated Referenda be introduced to the constitution so that, if we the people want, we can ask our monarch to return, regardless of whether our politicians agree or not.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete^ Erm, never mind that. I didn't know of another way to edit my post.
ReplyDelete===
Well the idea is only beginning to be discussed - the proposal is barely off the ground at this stage, as far as I know.
I also agree with C.I.R. being introduced to the Constitution, if only to allow people a means of imposing our own will onto the politicians, as it should be, rather than the other way round.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the classic Internet Troll maneouvre. Observe, how he so violently arises screaming invective and hate and bigotry, without making any argument of his own. Rare indeed it is to see such a creature in these surrounds!
ReplyDeleteAnd now that I've finished chanelling David Attenborough, Pink Panther, that would explain why I'd not heard of it. Certainly, I have considered it (breaking the personal union is what I called it), but it would be a final resort.
I am inclined to concur that patriation is a better word. To repatriate the monarchy implies it was patriated before, or that the institution somehow left us and needs to be restored or returned to our shores.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that Her Majesty never left us, it would be more appropriate to conclude that the country left her in all but name. It's not that Her Majesty stopped being Canadian, it's that we stopped being British.
(Realize here that the Queen never became a Canadian or an Australian, or for that matter even a Briton, since she is not a citizen of any of those countries. Obviously monarchs are not citizens or nationals, they are embodiments of the state itself.)
The Queen legally embodies the nations of Commonwealth realms, but to the world she only personifies the national identity of Britain. So if we are the ones proposing to leave, then that is not patriation of repatriation, it is de-patriation, which is not something I would ever suggest.
If I was proposing something - and I'm not - I would be merely looking to change the line of succession, such that the next King or Queen exclusively embodies our nation, thus patriating the monarchy into a national insitution not a shared Commonwealth one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnd so the troll returns.
ReplyDeleteVery well, let's see if I can argue with an idiot and not get dragged down and beaten with experience.
First of all, that a comment was posted here that you disagree with does not mean that the rest of us agree with it. It is wrong to assume that the opinion of one commentator reflects the opinion of all commentators.
Second, what link does an Arab Muslim have with the Crown? What about a Somali Muslim? Or a Chinese Taoist? The answer is absolutely nothing. That the majority of immigrants tend to vote for progressive parties also implies that Laguna Beach's position has more tract than you would give him credit for (since progressive parties throughout the Commonwealth are generally republican).
Third, you actually ought to explain your position. Is it racist to say Asians are bad drivers, even though it's true? Laguna Beach Trad made an observation. If it is untrue, then prove it. It isn't enough to call him (and the rest of us) racist. You actually need to demonstrate how his comments are flawed and untrue (simply calling them racist does nothing, and you'll find it hard to shut me up by calling me a racist).
Finally, if you really are brave, post under your real name. Don't come here, when many of us reveal ourselves and our positions by publishing our names (assumed or otherwise), and presume that we'll give you equal weight as a contributor when you hide behind your anonymity. Take a leap of faith. It's good for you.
I'll also ask you to check your swear words at the door. If you want to insult us, at least do it with some wit (I recommend the TV Tropes page on Deadpan Snarker as a good starting point).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI told you to check your swear words at the door. That's why your posts are being deleted.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant.
Having thought about it a bit, why don't I actually show you how to disprove such a statement as my "Asians are bad drivers" above (such blanket statements generally tend to be wrong).
It's called the Socratic dialogue.
So what is your assertion? That Asians are bad drivers.
Well, have you ever seen a good Asian driver? I don't know. I only look at someone who drives badly.
So if an Asian was driving competently, you wouldn't see them? Yes.
Then not all Asians are bad drivers then. Point taken.
The Socratic dialogue picks holes in an assertion in order to modify it. There are plenty more examples on the internet.
Now, we have simply arrived at the assertion that some Asians are bad drivers (which, I might add, could be said of any racial group you care to name). How many is some? I don't know.
Thus, we could then ask a series of questions to further modify the assertion, ending up with, perhaps Asians tend to be bad drivers (which allows for exceptions, the good Asian driver you don't notice), or finding that Asians do not tend to be worse drivers than average or something else like that.
So, it's your turn now. Turn this on Laguna Beach's assertion that Third World immigrants with no connection to the British Empire are perhaps just as loyal to the Crown as a natural born Briton/Australian/Canadian/etc. I can easily see you at least demonstrating that his blanket statement is false (and if you're especially brave, you could propose a new assertion based on the questions).
And remember to check your swear words at the door. Either that, or your swear jar is making a killing.
As Mark Twain said, to do good is noble. To teach others to do good is nobler, and less trouble.
Please have a look at the blog Ross's Right Angle, where a new debate has just exploded on the monarchy (Aussie, Canada too!) We need some pro-monarchist posting!
ReplyDeleteAssuming here that we're talking about the Crown as an institution, I think non-Commonwealth immigrants do have an indirect, or at least inadvertent connection to the Crown. They choose to migrate to Australia, Canada, The U.K. and New Zealand, but not to Burma, Rwanda and Somalia, because they see the democracy and freedoms that are present within the Commonwealth Realms. When they are posed with the question, "Do you support a republic in this country?" they say "yes" because they are not aware of the connection between the Crown and the democracy and freedoms that we have.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Royal Family and the traditions associated with the monarchy that they feel no connection to, I believe. Another reason why patriation might be something to think about, if the future of the monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms is ever in peril. I am perfectly happy with the current arrangements as well, and I don't think a push towards a resident monarchy is necessary at the moment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePreceding The Monarchist's deletion of your post, sir, I will explain to you why they are being deleted. You don't determine the level of discourse here; The Monarchist does. This is his blog, not yours, and you will conduct yourself according to his standard, and not your own (when in Rome...).
ReplyDeleteYes, my statement above was flawed. That's the entire purpose of the Socratic dialogue - to take a flawed assertion, question it, and force its improvement.
Second, I don't shirk to tell the truth. If that makes me a racist, I stand proudly accused. Laguna Beach's statement is a generalisation, and thus, when analysed closer under the Socratic dialogue, is flawed. That there is a trend among Third World immigrants to favour progessive politics is well established (one plank of which is the distaste for European monarchy), but there certainly are anglophiles among those immigrants, who would support the Crown, and aren't too fond of republics.
I didn't set out to disprove your assertion (which I never saw, I might add) that we want to ensure the continuation of our monarchy because that much is true. However, trying to keep the savages out at this point is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. There are plenty of natural born Australians of Anglo-Irish descent who are republican. It is education that will carry the day for the Crown. Immigration is a matter that falls beyond the perview of this blog.
As a final point (upon which I will post no more on this - my apologies to The Monarchist for any annoyance this... discussion may have caused him), I'd like to say this - you, sir, need to grow up. If the only arguments you can bring up are so full of personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you as to completely miss every point I made, then you have no place among the civilised.
If I offend you by that statement, then cowboy up and take it like a man. I get so sick of skinless people like you in this so world full of sandpaper, and all my previous posts have fallen on deaf ears. I guess you opened your progressive mind so much that your brain fell out.
Good day sir!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you have certainly lowered the bar; congratulate yourself. You have utterly failed to address in a substantive way anything your opponent wrote, instead taking rhetorical shelter behind profanity (poor substitute for thought, that) and asinine asides utterly lacking in creativity.
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way, "Brennus", you may want to consult Wikipedia or whatever substitute for a book you employ; your Celtic chieftain was, in the end, driven out of Rome by Camillus, a man more worthy of your admiration, and his forces were wiped out by a Roman army. Civilization will prevail in the end.
Apart from this regrettable exchange, an excellent discussion everyone; I look forward to more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete"Calling out" someone as stupid or racist, which you apparently see as your mission in life, is not as intellectually substantive as you seem to think. And if this blog is permeated with such stupidity, then why do you linger? But please let us "dumbasses" babble on while you return to enjoy your hamsters and defecating dogs.
Save your time Wolfman. Like I said, his brain's gone and run off to the Bahamas (probably preferring the monarchy there). I guess it found the rest of him too odious to remain in contact.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, there are legions I could write to this anonymous troll, but let him be. He simply doesn't know when he's out of his league, and could never admit defeat.
Of course, given that he obviously despises all forms of discrimination, he'll be my friend. Unless, of course, he likes his contradictions.
So I guess that's £8 please. *Rings bell*
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, you can use the word "patriate," it's a valid word, coined by Lester B. Pearson.
ReplyDelete