What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

Scroll to see replies

Choosing on the basis of merit is not something done through elections.

Monarchy acquires merit through pre-inheritance training, and through long-term service.

on what basis should the queen's family have this privilege, as opposed to a family that is "better bred"? the queen isn't intelligent nor strong, so why should her family be trained for the position of head of state? and why should the position of head of state even be for life to necessitate this in the first place?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 181

Midlander

Original post by gladders

Yes, they do, actually. The Portugeuse president back in the early 2000s dismissed the PM and installed his favoured candidate, who was then defeated at the polls, that president then being in place but deeply unpopular. The Czech PM is a known eurosceptic and gets in blows with the government quite frequently.

Most other ceremonial presidents are not elected, which is a detail you seem to be determined to ignore.

I want an elected head of state, but even in the cases where they are not chosen by popular vote the candidate is changed on a regular basis and is not idolised on the basis of their ancestry. It is also possible for anyone to obtain the position.

Oh no! I don't want that! :rolleyes:

Hah, did you expect me to be a staunch defender of the hereditary principle in all things? I'm afraid I'm not a caricature.

So you are a hypocrite like Cameron then. What makes the position of head of state more acceptable to be inherited than one in the House of Lords?

Reply 182

User1824259

None. People are just obsessed with the Queen.

Reply 183

Pro Crastination

Original post by zippity.doodah

They won't be able to answer that, because they know that deep down, hereditary inheritance of power is an idea that fundamentally contradicts liberal democracy. Unless they don't believe in liberal democracy, of course.

Reply 184

gladders

I have been in work for years and I can say without hesitancy that if you offered me days of shaking hands and eating banquets, for life, with palaces and country estates to live in, I would snap your hand off. So would anyone who struggles to make a living. The Queen would not trade places with them, end of discussion.

I have never claimed this and you have seen me criticise ceremonial positions many, many times. But *if* we absolutely must have a ceremonial leader I want the position elected.

Sorry, but again you’ve ducked the issue: you failed to answer why a republic would willingly create an office that you consider such a waste of time. Are you somehow smarter than millions of Germans?

Again: why bother electing a ceremonial position if you think it’s such a waste of time?

It adds accountability

No it doesn’t, as once installed, they are generally impossible to remove through institutional mechanisms, except in extreme scandals. In that regard, they are no more accountable than the Queen.

and reduces the celebrity status attached to the position.

Can do, but not guaranteed. You can have elected celebrities. And anyway, why would we want to have a nonentity in a ceremonial position?

Still not as good as an executive leader but some advantages over treating people literally as royalty on account of their ancestry.

Oh god, seriously, an executive presidency is one of the worst forms of democratic government ever devised. A look over the Pond should tell you that the American system is gridlocked and undemocratic.

And your response hasn’t explained how it affects the workload of the position, so try again.

David Cameron is an Old Etonian born into a life of privilege-he has much more in common with the Queen than he does with someone struggling to put food on the table.
I consider each and every person in the UK fit to speak to the PM in such a way-someone being a Windsor does not somehow elevate them above anyone else.

It may surprise you to learn that historically, the Prime Ministers more likely to overrule, ignore and lecture the monarch has actually been the Conservatives, and the Labour/Liberal PMs have generally been more keen to treat them with a bit more wariness and respect. Check out the lives of Gladstone, Asquith, Attlee and Wilson versus Salisbury, Balfour, Baldwin and Thatcher.

Reply 185

gladders

Original post by Midlander

So you are a hypocrite like Cameron then. What makes the position of head of state more acceptable to be inherited than one in the House of Lords?

Because it's a ceremonial, impartial position. Lords are political by nature. I don't think the Lords should be elected, but I have no attachment to the hereditary system itself.

Reply 186

gladders

Original post by Onde

If judges are decided based on qualifications and from the opinion of a selective group of informed people, it would still be preferable to a hereditary head of state.

But that's beside the point here, as I find your insistence on election as a catch-all requirement to be as absurd as those who demand that judges be elected. The hereditary monarchy does its job extremely well, and if your only real complaint is that you don't like inheritance, then it just doesn't impress as an argument.

Reply 187

zippity.doodah

Original post by gladders

Because it's a ceremonial, impartial position. Lords are political by nature. I don't think the Lords should be elected, but I have no attachment to the hereditary system itself.

if you are admitting the lords are political, how can you say they shouldn't be elected? they aren't appointed on merit seeing as the vast majority of them are party peers.

Reply 188

gladders

Original post by zippity.doodah

on what basis should the queen's family have this privilege, as opposed to a family that is "better bred"?

If it's an inherited monarchy, then it has to be a family, and history has placed it in the Windsors. *shrug*

the queen isn't intelligent nor strong,

Actually, I'd say she is both highly intelligent and very capable.

so why should her family be trained for the position of head of state? and why should the position of head of state even be for life to necessitate this in the first place?

First, in an hereditary monarchy, it is easy to train princes, from birth, to be kings. If the training is at all competent, they acquire both the habits of statesmanship and the requisite propositional knowledge to rule wisely. Maybe the training won’t be competent. But, in a representative system, no one even makes a serious attempt at such training. We are governed by amateurs.

The fact that kings are trained – even competently trained – to rule wisely doesn’t mean that they will do so. They might have all sorts of incentives to pursue policies detrimental to their subjects. Maybe. But (a) they aren’t as beholden to the people as representatives (and so needn’t succumb to rash popular pressures), (b) there is more of an opportunity to (from birth) inculcate in them a sense of civic duty and (c) they are materially secure. The second potential advantage of a hereditary monarchy, then, is that it is easier both to normalize an hereditary monarch into caring primarily about the good of his country, and to remove the main incentives – money and power – to govern poorly. (On the other hand, it is more difficult to counter another incentive – to be an historical figure of note – which might e.g. incline monarchs towards militarism.)

In short, it’s arguable that a monarch is more likely both to have the capacity to be a better ruler than a representative and to realize that capacity. So the two “potentially big advantages” monarchism has over representative systems imply that, potentially, monarchies are much better at promoting the nation than their representative counterparts.”

Reply 189

gladders

Original post by zippity.doodah

if you are admitting the lords are political, how can you say they shouldn't be elected? they aren't appointed on merit seeing as the vast majority of them are party peers.

Quite. I agree with your criticism. I think it should be appointed, but all candidates should be subject to a rigorous and meritocratic vetting system that ensures truly skilled, knowledgable and outstanding people should go there.

Reply 190

chazhopkins99

As far I can see, the monarchy are kept in to make money! The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle. Where would we be without our heritage? America

Reply 191

zippity.doodah

Original post by gladders

would it really need to be a chamber in the legislature, as opposed to a committee? if a government that represents the people (let's say we have PR hypothetically so I can say this) and this body of intelligent lords/senators disagrees with the government's action/bill, e.g. to legalise something, or to criminalise something - how does intelligence means that democracy will occur? does it mean that democracy can and should be blocked if a certain amount of wisemen disagree?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 192

Midlander

Original post by gladders

Well, my experience is different – from what I’ve seen, such jobs can be, if glamorous, still incredibly stressful and hard work. You’ve clearly seen different from me, but you are making a big mistake in assuming your experience trumps all.

We should create a poll and see whether people would prefer to be royalty or continue with their existing jobs. Why would someone relying on a food bank not want to exchange places with someone who can count banquets as work?

Sorry, but again you’ve ducked the issue: you failed to answer why a republic would willingly create an office that you consider such a waste of time. Are you somehow smarter than millions of Germans?

Again: why bother electing a ceremonial position if you think it’s such a waste of time?

The Germans do a lot of things well and keeping their head of state recycled every 5 or so years, and not keeping it within one family, is a fairer set-up. Not the one I'd want but, and once more I have to emphasise it, I do not want a ceremonial head of state either.

No it doesn’t, as once installed, they are generally impossible to remove through institutional mechanisms, except in extreme scandals. In that regard, they are no more accountable than the Queen.

They are removed by these things called elections.

Can do, but not guaranteed. You can have elected celebrities. And anyway, why would we want to have a nonentity in a ceremonial position?

The cat comes out of the bag, gladders thinks commoners are unfit to be head of state. Does the Duke's thinly veiled racism clinch it for you?

Oh god, seriously, an executive presidency is one of the worst forms of democratic government ever devised. A look over the Pond should tell you that the American system is gridlocked and undemocratic.

And your response hasn’t explained how it affects the workload of the position, so try again.

Yes people choosing the person who leads the country is a hideous form of democracy. Executive presidents must perform the tasks of ceremonial ones but with the added responsibility of enacting change in their country. Deciding whether it should go to war, deciding how to manage the economy, and so on and so on. It is light years ahead of a ceremonial office in terms of workload.

It may surprise you to learn that historically, the Prime Ministers more likely to overrule, ignore and lecture the monarch has actually been the Conservatives, and the Labour/Liberal PMs have generally been more keen to treat them with a bit more wariness and respect. Check out the lives of Gladstone, Asquith, Attlee and Wilson versus Salisbury, Balfour, Baldwin and Thatcher.

If David Cameron openly refuted the Queen it would be a PR disaster from which he would do well to recover. The Tories have always been staunch supporters of royalty and the elite, that is surely no secret.

Reply 193

username402722

I always start by mentioning the thought of President Blair.

Reply 194

Midlander

Original post by barnetlad

I always start by mentioning the thought of President Blair.

He wouldn't be elected. 4/10, must try harder.

Reply 195

username402722

Original post by barnetlad

I always start by mentioning the thought of President Blair.

Original post by Midlander

He wouldn't be elected. 4/10, must try harder.

He would have been in say 2000 or so.

Reply 196

Midlander

Original post by barnetlad

He would have been in say 2000 or so.

It is 2015 now and he is widely hated for his role in the Iraq war. What makes Prince Charles a more appealing candidate than a commoner?

Reply 197

username402722

Original post by Midlander

It is 2015 now and he is widely hated for his role in the Iraq war. What makes Prince Charles a more appealing candidate than a commoner?

No politics, the tradition, tourism and that he will be succeeded by Prince William for whom there is a lot of affection.

Reply 198

gladders

Original post by zippity.doodah

Of course not. It can have the same powers as the present House of Lords, which is to offer amendments and appeal to the Commons to think again based on what was raised in debates in the Lords. It can delay for up to a year, but if the Commons remains determined, it can overrule.

Basically, the dynamic between the two chambers is that the Commons always gets it way, but the Commons will also concede to good arguments and persuasion if they are waved in its face.

It would be wonderful if simply a committee would advice, but experience of the Commons committees is, while they do good work, the Government's majority there means inconvenient arguments get ignored and overruled. The Lords at least forces such warnings into the limelight in a way a committee simply cannot do.

Reply 199

gladders

Original post by Onde

The issue isn't about whether the hereditary monarchy does its job well. It's more about how it is unfit for a modern democracy and how an alternative head of state would be accountable, and ideally, better.

All of these things are merely assertions on your part, and not demonstrably true. 'Unfit for a modern democracy' is in the eye of the beholder. I think it is, and many others do, too.

'An alternative head of state would be accountable' is an statement not obviously true, as a monarch can be removed for far less severe sins than a president could do, and it being 'better' isn't either - the best you can say is that they are as good as each other.