The Patriotic Case for Republicanism

Victor Southern

Particularly silly.

The President of the United States wields executive power. Constitutional monarchs do not.

You need a new dictionary Mr Cohen - one that defines some of the bigger words such as Patriotism.

I expect most of the readers of Time will not even need one, Americans understand patriotism. It is our miserable, snivelling, envious Left that doesn't.

Craig Murray was right about you and your ever-changing political philosophy where he says that you disprove the theory that it is possible to drink a lot and still make sense. I suspect you wrote this article looking through the bottom of a half-full glass.

Tufty

Can't even be bothered to read it!

Richard Manns

Your comparison is misleading.

I could equally suggest that we take the route of the American system:

"FInd a demagogue. Find a cause that is just, but the solution to the problem is already being debated by Parliament anyway. DIstort the debate and cut off communications, so that the people are more easily warped by your poor arguments and catchy one-liners. Start a civil war even though most of the people are against you, let atrocities on both sides commence and blame the opposition for them all. Win the war, and drive thousands of your opponents out of the country and into the wilderness."

I've always thought that the US was extremely lucky that democracy grew quickly post-Washington. Look at what happened to France instead.

Nicholas

Oh dear. I hope this is just a little touch of provocative mischief from someone who still has his Red Flag carefully folded in the attic even though he is not waving it any more. This sort of logic is that of a New Labour politician - contrived, conniving, devious and manipulative - a word game. Worthy of a Hain but hardly to be expected from the intellect of a Cohen. It misses so many considerations completely.

Not least the Divine aspect that showed itself when the sun shone yesterday, the brightness and warmth causing the imps and demons of the left to retreat briefly, but blissfully, into their shadows.

Nicholas

Another taster: "As of late April, about 5,500 applications to hold street parties to celebrate the nuptials had been received. There were tens of thousands of parties, by contrast, to mark the arranged marriage of Charles Windsor and Diana Spencer in 1981. The apparent waning of royalty's magic may be the result of communities' being not as tight-knit as they were 30 years ago."

Yes indeed. Thirty years ago was pre-New Labour (oh, bliss) and the combined assault on our communities and children by the ideological Left. Thirty years of relentless Leftist propaganda, brainwashing in our schools and universities and of ideological legislation. Thirty years of politicised public sector and police, of aggrandising ideologically leftist councils, of increasingly barmy political correctness. But above all thirty years of stifling bureaucracy, red tape and regulation, from both Westminster and Whitehall in the hands of the Left and from Brussels, also in the hands of the Left.

So yes. People have changed. But don't ever presume it is only through the exercise of their free will. And if you are proud of the change you need to take a much longer, harder look at the democratic and liberal sensibilities you appear to hold dear.

Bill Rees

What frustrates me is that you rarely see the case for a Constitutional Monarchy fully articulated, and why it works to separate the Head of State from the functions of the Prime Minister.
In the UK we owe our freedoms, such as they still are, to the way in which government notionally defers to the Monarchy.
The Monarch only has one significant remaining executive power, and that is to be able to dismiss a government that lacks support in the country. Anyone thinking that it shouldn't hold that power should look to the Ivory Coast. And it's foolish to think that a foolish politician trying to cling on to power against the wishes of the people could never happen here.
The key thing about the Monarchy is that the royals are transient personalities, but permanent constitutional bulwarks against megalomaniacal politicians.
To frame a debate about the Monarchy in terms of inequality is just ridiculous.

John HW

Well, here's one reader who certainly agrees, Nick. After drowning in toxic saccharin for the last 72 hours, which has driven me to the point of considering swearing vengeance on the next person to use the word 'commoner', I think your article is actually a model of good sense and restraint.

Mr Adequate

OK. I've read the piece and I don't agree with it, as predicted.

Why would I? It's tripe.

Firstly, as mentioned above, the monarch does not have executive power.
Secondly, all the talk about deference is a red herring. Even the most bunting-draped flag-waving ultra-monarchist does not believe that the royals are better than him or her. It is the institution that counts, even though some people got a bit giddy about Di and very many respect the Queen.
Which leads to your points about Charles. He does not have real power; when he becomes King he can go on about homeopathy and the wise words of dahlias to his heart's content and no-one will take any notice.
and the wimmin of England going republican because of how he treated Di? Yeah, right.
Finally, it is true to say that a republican need not necessarily be unpatriotic. However, most republicans (in the UK) are also unpatriotic lefties who despise their country and want nothing more than to tear down all its institutions in favour of the bright socialist five year-planned future.

Oedipus Rex

Nick Cohen - "I am quietly confident that not a single reader of the Spectator will agree with it."

Oh dear, wrong again Nick! You're right, particularly in refuting the ludicrous notion that republicans are unpatriotic.

It's so telling that when royalists invoke history and culture they betray their ignorance of those such as Milton, Byron, Shelley, early Marvel and Wordsworth - I could go on (the musicians, the painters the scientists, Erasmus Darwin and the Lunar Society) but I haven't all day.

As for "the Divine aspect when the sun shone" I'm tempted to say 'get a life, sunshine' but 'get a psychiatrist' would be more apposite.

kevin mitchell

What an unhappy lot many readers of this magazine are: squint-eyed, pinched-nosed, superior, sneering, privileged, condescending and deaf to any view that remotely smacks of leftism. The bile would kill a cat.

Fergus Pickering

Imagine swearing loyalty to a piece of paper, or even several pieces of paper, or even (with the EU in mind) to a veritable telephone book. I think, I really do think, I would prefer to swear loyalty to a Queen, or even to a tree (or a wooden cross, come to that). But you Socialists are all in thrall to the written word, theories and not things. Conservatives are not. Read your Oakeshott, fellow.

Nicholas

Yes, Oedipus Rex, revert to type and therefore resort to abuse. You clearly missed the tongue in cheek but that's hardly surprising.

Your third paragraph is especially obscure as to its point and relevance.

Jeremy

Nick Cohen:

"...consider trying to explain to an American why the U.S. should import the British constitution. 'You must make someone President for life,'..."

If this is the basis of your argument, then it is a fraud. For you know as well as I do that political power is exercised by Parliament and not by the monarch.

@Oedipus Rex:

I quite agree. Like yourself, I very much enjoyed "early Marvel" - especially the work of Jack Kirby...

Ron Todd

Wrong I agree with it.

John HW

I honestly would never have dreamed that even a Coffee Houser would be able to bring the EU into this debate, but lo and behold it has happened. As a connoisseur of 'Vicar's links' I am (almost) open mouthed in admiration.

Nicholas

"What an unhappy lot many readers of this magazine are: squint-eyed, pinched-nosed, superior, sneering, privileged, condescending and deaf to any view that remotely smacks of leftism. The bile would kill a cat."

Actually it is all those things, which are so much more characteristic of the left than the right, that have resulted in the bile! Or do you think Baroness Ashton is not privileged, is truly the product of democracy and was not put in post by superior, sneering and privileged (leftist) politicians? Squint-eyed maybe, I give you that, but I prefer that to the blindness (and hypocrisy) of the left thanks.

Hain summed it up perfectly with his twittish comments yesterday. You all think it is all about the Left and Labour - and that it should be for everyone else to. It's a project for you. That is what gets up peoples noses - but actually people would be happy without it. Without the 20% gobbing off louder and harder than the usually silent 80%. Most of us just want to enjoy our lives with as little interference from politicians generally and zealous lefties especially.

Andrew Fletcher

Regardless of you may think about the merits of Republicanism vs Monarchy the fact is Britain will never completely ditch the monarch. It just won't happen. Lets get real
The focus should be on flogging them like crazy to maximise the return on our investment in them (via the civil list)
A lot of foreigners love all that royal nonsense and with the economy flatlining we need all the tourist bucks we can get
Also we should cut the dead wood (Andrew, Princess Pushy and all the hangers on who toxify the brand)

Frank P

Nick Cohen

Oh do fuck off with this nonsense; particularly today after the rag-tag-and-bobtail band of 'republicans' yesterday had their noses rubbed in the horse-shit that remained after one of the greatest shows on earth. It amazes me that even the most committed and misanthropic of lefties can offer their barbs of petty envy and spite for a least another decade for public consumption. Get used to it! The Monarchy is here to stay. We can't even find someone with enough nous and charisma to occupy No.10 as Prime Minister; what chance a replacement for the incumbent of Buckhouse and its outstations 'mongst the current so-called political elite? Leave well enough alone and enjoy the occasional splash of pomp and circumstance, which not only binds our nation but lifts its spirit - sullied and sad from a tsunami-sized soaking of socialism for the past half-century. Mean spirited thieving bastards!

cg

I don't agree with the argument but I do respect it. On the other hand, I have no respect for the intolerance of certain people responding on this board.

Herbert Thornton

Republicanism versus hereditary Monarchy? With respect to both sides of this discussion, the topic misses the two main - and entirely different points. One is - what is the best mechanism for government and the other is what symbols should we have to represent the nation?

I see no problem at all with having the monarchy as the nation's symbol. Such real power as it once had has been whittled away over time to the point where it is so residual as to be no longer vital to the process of government. At the same time it's an institution rather like the Union Flag itself - one that is and generally remains above politics.

When it comes to the idea of Republicanism, I suggest that when we look at the American example of it, 'Republicanism' is really the wrong word. The essential and finest part of the American Constitution is not so much that there is no hereditary monarch, but that there is an effective division of powers. That is a far better arrangement than the present British one where Prime Ministers are usually in possession of powers barely distinguishable from those of a dictator.

I suggest that it is entirely possible - and highly desirable - for Britain to adopt a Constitution where the Prime Minister is separately elected, has no seat in Parliament and has functions akin to those of an American President, but expressed to be exercised in the name of the monarch; where Parliament has functions akin to those of the U.S. Congress - and of course that retains the hereditary Monarchy.

The monarch could well be invested with some temporary residuary powers that could be used - e.g. - while an election was taking place, or in the event of some grave constitutional crisis that prevented the normal system of government from functioning.

John

I agree with you Nick.

One prince looked like a reject from Marillion circa 1985, the other looked like a lion tamer, together they resembled a tribute act to Col. Gadaffi.

This is of course what Britain does best...puuurrlease!

Baron

Nick Cohen makes a strong case for the British Republic: “'You (the Americans) must make someone President for life,' you begin. 'It might as well be Barack Obama….”

if that’s the argument, a part of the argument for ditching what we have, I suggest, Nick, you should seriously consider taking up knitting.

at it’s deep bottom, the case for the republic rests on an axiomatic belief in universal suffrage, the conviction that people have the inalienable right to choose everyone who has a say in governance, if one offers them a range of choices, they will inevitably pick the best, as near the best as it gets, it’s akin to the quip ‘the market’s always right’, goes beyond it for there are no checks, restrictions on the universality principle.

well, I respectfully disagree, the voluntary decisions of the many often fail to figure the right option whilst a single individual gets it.

The analogy with the market ain’t perfect, it hints though at one feature of the arrangement of constitutional monarchy, never mentioned for it goes totally against the unquestionable certitude of universal suffrage, that it combines the take on things of the many (filtered trough the political process with all its boils and warts) with that of one.

The former works through the election box in the domain of politics with all it entails, parties, ideas, manifestos, elections, deals, lies and stuff, the other has no need to seek the consent of anyone, no need for approbation by anyone either, sources its power from itself, is answerable to no one but to his or her own conscience, the sense of doing right per se. Its mere presence keeps a lid on those in power who may be tempted to go beyond their brief, it links us with those we follow, those who will follow us, it gives us identity that goes beyond the political, tribal, cultural.

I reckon the mix has suited the character of the indigenous people superbly, has served the country well, if we keep it, it will see us through the centuries ahead just fine.

and another thing:

John @ 7.53:

You think it funny, witty or what?

Capn Flint

Case for the monarchy - if abolished, we would need a President: politicians stitch everything up among themselves, so that would be Neil Kinnock followed by Blair followed by Major or Brown, or Glenys Kinnock or any of the other Kinnocks. Or Paddy Ashdown or Denis Healey.

Case against the monarchy: Her Maj signed the Lisbon Treaty. Queen Victoria would have refused to do so and demanded a new General Election.

Kenny

"Hence a man's reaction to Monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be "debunked"; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."

The quoted material is from C S Lewis' essay on "Equality". I have read it many times over the years to the point where I can quote from it at length without resort to the text. But it was not until I went looking for a full transcript to link to moments ago thst I discovered that it was originally published in this magazine in February 1944...

The full essay can be read at the link immediately below.

http://diwanggising.multiply.com/journal/item/64/Equality_An_Essay_by_CS_Lewis_1944

Ovid

I don't mind people professing to be republicans, what I can't abide is the ignorance of those who have such a shallow view of the nature of that regime that they do not recognise a republican constitution (even an unwritten one) when they see it. A Constitutional monarchy is a republican constitution. Montesquieu recognised that and says so. Bagehot in the 19h Century and with better cause thought the UK a republic. What distracts people is the use of "constitutional monarchy" to describe constitution where a Monarch exercises no power. We call every other regime by reference to the people who exercise power - democracy, oligarchy, monarchy - but thanks to lawyers (who have no political science) the UK (and Australia) constitution are described by reference to the person who exercises no power.
A republic is a regime in which the people share in ruling and being ruled. The UK has such a regime and it has been a democratic republic since the mid 19th century when the electoral system was reformed.

John HW

Typical mean spirited abusive piece from Frank. Only goes to show that lots of these righties are simply intolerant and bad tempered: incapable of having a reasonable and vigorous argument without resorting to unpleasant abuse. Shame.

Herbert Thornton

Ovid -

I in general agree with you, but I would add that the monarchy lost real power from the the moment Charles I was beheaded. Power then passed to Parliament. Such power as the monarchy recovered under the Restoration was comparatively little and that has been whittled away ever since to the point where it is now quite insignificant. Britain is now in effect a Republic, though one with a constitution inferior to that of the U.S. because there is, in Britain, no real separation of powers.

Some inroads are now being made on the powers of Parliament, but they are alarmingly undemocratic because they are being made by a Judiciary that is both unelected and power hungry.

Tim Reed

Once again, Nicholas expresses my thoughts perfectly.

As for that twit Hain - as a member of that breed of particularly self-regarding, professional politicians of the left - he is incapable of comprehending that on some occasions the poxy MPs are NOT the centre of attention. He probably had his stop-watch ready, to count the number of seconds that millitwat was on screen.
Pathetic.

Ovid

Herbert, as you imply, the reduction of royal power was gradual and over time, but some moves were of greater effect than others. The Bill of Rights invested the Parliament with power over money but the ministry (until Victoria) was chosen principally from the Lords - the British aristocracy are actually oligarchs - with a vested interest in protecting their wealth and position - as Asquith discovered. . The Act of Settlement replaced primogeniture with the rule of law. Shakespeare's King plays show the history of England as civil war fought over who shall be king. The great democratic reforms of the 19th century changed responsible government from "responsible to the monarch" to "responsible to the people".

Nicholas

"Only goes to show that lots of these righties are simply intolerant and bad tempered: incapable of having a reasonable and vigorous argument without resorting to unpleasant abuse. Shame."

Many of us righties think the same about lefties. In fact I would go so far as to say that abusiveness from the left towards the right is much more prevalent in the blogosphere. Right wing commentators are frequently the target of various clichéd epiphets - we all know what they are - intended to marginalise or demonise their views. There is a general presumption by the left that the right wing is not just in disagreement but "unacceptable" which smacks faintly of Mao or Pol Pot.

So where does that leave us?

But another factor is the under dog effect. The left have held sway in Britain for so long and at such great cost to reason, rationality, common sense and justice that there is a genuine anger against them. They always indulge in the self-delusion of believing themselves somehow not responsible for the consequences of their actions. It is always someone else's fault. Even now, after 13 years of authoritarian New Labour government barely a year of coalition government is somehow responsible for everything that went before. I don't think the left (probably due to the aforementioned presumption) understand or even recognise this anger. Their tribal cliquishness probably protects them from much of it and even when in power they could not distinguish between "the public" and their own activists, place men and quango or fake charity sycophants. Their behaviour generally exacerbates the resentment (q.v. Hain). Hyperbole and hubris they have in spades but little or no humility. History shows that the minority left can hold sway and turn the screw on the majority for long periods on the pretence of representing them (which they don't) but that eventually a tipping point is reached. That is on the way in Britain - or at least England.

So, yes, we really don't like you, and yes, we are angry about what you have done (and so arrogantly) to our country. Deal with it - it's going to get a lot worse as the left is held properly to account. To paraphrase, we're as mad as hell and we're not going to take this (from you) anymore.

David

Nicholas @ 0812; Outstandingly summed up. Impossible for me to put it any more concisely about the last 14 years.

Oedipus Rex

Herbert Thornton & Ovid

You make some interesting points, particularly about the nature of the separation of powers.
The PM has too much power here for the very reason that the monarchy 'stays out of politics'. For this to change would entail either increased power for the monarchy or a change of system (I don't mean to AV or not to AV). How this change should come about is frankly a mystery to me - intelligent debate is eschewed by the media that prefers that we run a live touristic soap opera to make them and ourselves a few quid while the politicians are either too cynical or wary to bring this forward.

Change usually comes about through stark necessity - maybe it will be internal with some future incumbent demanding liberation from the ordeal that they and their children will be having to undergo.

Herbert Thornton

Oedipus Rex -

I'm no more optimistic about the future than you are, but a factor that I didn't mention in relation to Britain's Constitution is the extent to which Parliament's powers have been abdicated to government from and by Europe. Capn Flint lays some of the blame for that on the Queen by saying that Queen Victoria would have refused to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Perhaps so, but had she done so she would have been confronting not just one of the succession of dictators who go by the name of Prime Ministers, but the entire British Establishment including virtually all the spineless and dishonest Members of Parliament, the main political parties, a politically correct Judiciary, the bureacracy and the media - a rather daunting task even for a Queen as determined as Victoria.

But are the electorate not also to blame for allowing themselves to be brainwashed into such a state of timidity and apathy that they lack the determination to actually do anything about it?

Why, for example have they been so reluctant to support either the BNP or UKIP? A truly determined electorate would vote for either the BNP or for UKIP - and for virtually nobody else. Imagine a Parliament where the greatest number of MPs were from either the BNP or from UKIP, with a small rump of relics from the now main parties. It is within the power of the electors to vote in exactly that sort of Parliament - but what will it take to persuade them to do it?

Nicholas

"A republic is a regime in which the people share in ruling and being ruled. The UK has such a regime and it has been a democratic republic since the mid 19th century when the electoral system was reformed."

I would question that - or at least modify it. In the UK one might say that "some" of the people share in "some" of the ruling . When I was young the democratic structures were much less complex and the concept of representation much stronger and more "parochial" (in a positive sense). Now the burgeoning state and semi-official state, not to mention Europe, has increased the breadth of unaccountable rulers and the wishes of the people, such as they can be represented, are too often presumed. If I believed that my vote would mandate every single law and regulation governing me I might agree. Sadly that is not the case.

As to Herbert Thornton's last point the answer lies simply in the rise of propaganda over truth. The population are subject to relentless political propaganda, even if not exclusively from the government or politicians. And the propaganda does not just promote a false positive but many false negatives as well. The population have become less rational and more dependent, perhaps a side effect of staggering immaturity, so more susceptible to it. The great myth that permeats the political narrative in this country is that things are as they seem, that there are no hidden agendas or manipulative conditioning. The current angst and frustration being demonstrated by politicians over the AV referendum, for example, shows just how determined they are to control rather than to represent.

John HW

By God, some of the seething anger on the right is scary stuff, ahem, Nicholas. I would actually agree that sanctimonious anger and self-righteousness is a peculiarly lefty phenomenon, but when all is said and done I would suggest that left and right have done equal damage and good to the country. Of course that is a debatable proposition, but let's at least debate it in a reasonable way and with less recourse to vituperative intolerance of opposing points of view.

Frank P

JohnHW

" but let's at least debate it in a reasonable way and with less recourse to vituperative intolerance of opposing points of view."

Why? Because 'tolerance' aka submission, suits your M.O? How about some tolerance for the debating style of others? Just because not tolerating the intolerable, in your opinion, is 'nort naice', doesn't mean to say it ain't right. Academic arseholes of the left have had it all their own way for far too long. They have controlled the media, politics, education. It's time they learned the facts of life as experienced by the uncosseted who pay most of the taxes that keep them comfortable in their enclaves and corridors of power and influence. The intertubes have put paid to that little monopoly. Get used to it, because it's gonna get worse (from your point of view). Or pop over to the Gruniad blog where they are still in charge.

Noa.

There is a strong case which can be made for republicanism in the UK.

However Mr Cohen, in comparing an elected US Presidency with the present system of constitutional monarchy, has failed signally to present it.

Ovid

Hebert & Oedipus, given the republican nature of the British constitution I can't imagine any change to the actual institutions (other than Lords) that would not cause more damage and disruption in the short term than intended good. Good government in a democracy depends as much on the good character of the people as it does on good laws - what used to be called a gentility of manners and that depends upon stable family life. Good laws used to encourage and support family life - now they focus on "reform" and "rights".

Fergus Pickering

Vituperation is the heart of debate, John HW. If we all agree cosily, then there is no debate at all.

Matthew Blott

I haven't read the link yet but I certainly agree 100 per cent with this post as I am a Republican, so here's one Spectator reader at least who agrees with you Mr Cohen.

Oedipus Rex

Noa - "There is a strong case which can be made for republicanism in the UK.

However Mr Cohen, in comparing an elected US Presidency with the present system of constitutional monarchy, has failed signally to present it."

Interesting Noa...could you then have a stab at making that strong case? I'm all ears.

Noa.

Oedipus Rex

Noa - "There is a strong case which can be made for republicanism in the UK... However Mr Cohen, in comparing an elected US Presidency with the present system of constitutional monarchy, has failed signally to present it."

Interesting Noa...could you then have a stab at making that strong case? I'm all ears".

Touche, Oedipus! I thought someone would never ask!

Let's start by saying that the constitutional monarchy in the UK has signally failed to perform its key role of 'last resort' in refuting and repudiating the vast swathes of totalitaran legislation enacted by Labour.
If the monarchy has any role at all in our society, other than as a tourist attraction, it was to act as the balance of power and arbitor of the peoples freedoms.

The US constitution, modelled on an idealised British model, at least achieves that balance between Senate, Congress and Presidency.
Here, within the Commons, the overweening power of the oligarchical cabal and unelected PM, subject only to their EU masters, and unconstrained by either a functioning House of Lords or a constitutional concerned monarch.

If the monarchy cannot perform the role the great constitutionalist lawyers rationalised for it then it resorts to being just another quango. And as such, deserves the closest srutiny by Eric Pickles.

David Lindsay

"They don't have it in America" has always been the only, and the supposedly knock-down, argument of those who hate the NHS. But it is not really an argument at all. In any case, they will soon be unable to use it against the NHS. And they, very largely the same people, cannot properly use it against the monarchy, either.

The confirmation that Ed Miliband would attend the Royal Wedding in a morning suit, such as trade union leaders used to wear to Royal Ascot in the days when they were always justly and often technically known as barons, confirmed that he was True Labour rather than New Labour, as surely as David Cameron's vacillation on the subject confirmed his desire to be the Heir to Blair. Stuart Reid's always excellent Catholic Herald column last week pointed out that anti-monarchism was a Thatcherite cause back in the day, spearheaded by the Murdoch papers, and posited that as the explanation for middle-class mean spirits towards the Royal Wedding. He was, of course, quite right.

Thatcher scorned the Commonwealth, social cohesion, historical continuity and public Christianity. She called the Queen "the sort of person who votes for the SDP". She arrogated to herself the properly monarchical and royal role on the national and international stages, using her most popular supporting newspaper to vilify the Royal Family. She legislated to abolish the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for individual Australian states, to end the British Government's consultative role in Australian state-level affairs, and to deprive the Queen's Australian subjects of their right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council. And she legislated to pre-empt the courts on both sides of the Atlantic by renouncing the British Parliament's role in the amendment of the Canadian Constitution.

That last points to the fact that efforts to cut constitutional ties to Britain have been a white supremacist, and an anti-Catholic, cause ever since Thomas Jefferson. Which is to say, ever since Dr Johnson asked, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" That wretched tradition has continued down through the foundation of Irish Republicanism by those who regarded their own Protestant and "Saxon" nation as the only true one on the Irish island, through anti-monarchist attitudes to Australian Aborigines from the Victorian Period to the present day, through Hendrik Verwoerd and Ian Smith, through attempts to abrogate the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, and through the patriation of the Canadian Constitution against the wishes, both of the Aboriginal peoples to whom the Crown had numerous treaty obligations, and of the government of Quebec.

The BNP wants to abolish the monarchy, the Queen being descended, via the "Negroid" Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, from the part-black Royal House of Portugal, and, via Elizabeth of York and her Moorish ancestors, from Muhammad. She has little of the "English blood" favoured by the likes of the EDL, and her children have almost none. If born of his marriage to Mr and Mrs Middleton's daughter, the successor of Lady Diana Spencer's son will be the first ethnically English monarch for almost, if almost, exactly one thousand years, since 1066. And even he will have plenty of other things in him, as all ethnically English people have had ever since that year, if not even earlier.

Only a movement of morning-suited Labourites, steeped in royal, parliamentary and municipal pageantry and charity, could preserve and celebrate the pageantry and charity of the City of London while ending its status as a tax haven and as a state within the State, Europe's last great Medieval republican oligarchy, right where the United Kingdom ought to be. The liberties of the City were granted to a city properly so called, with a full social range of inhabitants and workers. The Crown should explicitly guarantee the hereditary economic and cultural rights of, for example, the Billingsgate fish porters in the same way as it guaranteed or guarantees the economic and cultural rights of Aboriginal peoples elsewhere in the Empire and the Commonwealth.

Stephanie Tohill

"I don't agree with the argument but I do respect it. On the other hand, I have no respect for the intolerance of certain people responding on this board."

Hear hear CG! I am no Republican but neither I am a monarchist (it's not particularly something that bothers me) but I am distrubed by those staunch supporters of monarchy who decree than any and every British Republican is somehow 'unpatriotic', a 'lefty', detests British traditions etc...

It is possible to be strongly patriotic and still disagree with the concept of a constitutional monarchy. So much for allowing people diverse opinions. Pathetic.

daniel maris

I am more or less in Stephanie Tohill's position.

Really, I am happy for people to decide. If the people like a constitutional monarchy, that's fine. It has its downside (e.g. unelected royals like Charles lecturing us about Islam being a religion of peace) but it has its upside (if your lucky the monarch is truly above politics and acts like a constitutional glue).

Lynn Johnston

Given the choice between a monarchy and a written constitution I have no problem in deciding what I would chose. I have read the Spectator for years, think the left in this country are brilliant at messing it up, but would still prefer to live in a country where the people themselves live by the values they themselves have enshrined.

Nicholas

"I am distrubed (sic) by those staunch supporters of monarchy who decree than any and every British Republican is somehow 'unpatriotic', a 'lefty', detests British traditions etc..."

It's not a decree. Most of them are. Check out a few of the supporters names on the Republic website. All the usual suspects. Those who lie down with dogs can expect to get fleas.

"It is possible to be strongly patriotic and still disagree with the concept of a constitutional monarchy."

Is it? If the concept is understood I doubt that. Most of the "republicanism" articulated in this country is either motivated by envy, spite or communism (whether dressed up as caring socialism or not). Very few of our "public" republicans can make a case without slagging off the Royals on a personal level (q.v. Brand, Izzard, Alibi, etc.). The Monarchy is an integral part of the British State and has been for centuries - if you want rid of it you are not patriotic - whatever you say or pretend. And pretending to be neutral and then posting republican propaganda is an old lefty trick. If you are really not bothered why post at all - and why post in support of republicans?

Sussed you.

"So much for allowing people diverse opinions. Pathetic."

No-one is saying that people can't have diverse opinions (although the Left is actually somewhat less flexible on that - it depends on the opinions). But you can't stop others expressing contempt when 20% of the population try to impose their wishes on 80% and slag off our Royal Family into the bargain.

John Montague

It's difficult to imagine our head of state adopting a stance similar to that of, say, Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President. This is partly because the institution of monarchy itself is not as secure as that of the Czech Presidency.

Her Majesty would not be prepared to jeopardise the continuation of our constitutional monarchy by taking any stand that would set-up the institution for the kind of retaliation that Lloyd-George meted out to the Lords when they defied the Commons.

Whether one is mean-spirited enough to cast this reticence as family self-interest, or whether one understands that the Queen sees the preservation of her role as a matter of moral and religious duty is irrelevant; the fact is that our Head of State is all too aware that the exercise of hereditary State prerogatives does not sit well with 21st century conceptions of the public commonwealth. Her heir will, one hopes, be equally cautious.

It is an interesting paradox of hereditary power that it is less liable to abusive exercise than its elected equivalent precisely because of the very real possibility of its abolition.

Some might say that this precariousness of the Head of State's position grants too much political clout to the Prime Minister, or worse, to unelected media proprietors and executives, but, like Ovid above, I can't really see how we could do better – or at least not when I start contemplating the likely candidates for the job.

Fergus Pickering

'The people live by the values they themselves have enshrined?' What drivel, and at so many levels. There were fifty odd rich white blokes who wrote the thing. In what sense were these 'the people'? And do ordinary human beings go about living by the values of a document so pompous and boring. I'd prefer the Sermon on the Mount. That's the sort of thing I could try to live by. Not having a written constitution cuts down of political claptrap. I'm FOR that.

Ian Walker

The problem with republics is that you end up with a politician as your head of state, usually one who's acquired an awful lot of baggage on the journey.

Whereas the modern 'constitutional monarch' is well aware of how apolitical they have to be.

The pop quiz is, who do you prefer - Sarkozy, Berlosconi, Putin or The Queen? Maybe Blair, or Brown (who thought they were head of state anyway with the revolting 'Prime Minister Blair' affectation that they encouraged everyone to use.

There are alternatives to a hereditary monarchy for finding your head of state, but the minute you introduce a ballot box, you introduce corruption, and the rich powerful and slimy will float to the top.

Ovid

It is a very important principle of politics that you don't change things to which large numbers of people are attached. If, for example, the British monarchy was removed from the political scene so that they played no part in British life how can anyone say that the whole of Britain would be happier. The Monarchy is perfectly adapted to doing nothing - the men join the military and the women do charity. It is not envy that made a million British people watch the recent wedding. It was affection for the family - despite some of their eccentric ideas.
If ordinary people in a democracy can have such an outpouring of affection for people who in terms of wealth and privilege will always be up there, those same people can have the same affection and friendship for each other. That friendship for each other is the greatest blessing that politicians can give to their citizens. It was once the hallmark of English life and is still evident today.
Removing the monarchy will not make the Britain a republic because it already is one; but it will remove one of the constitutional cornerstones of the British way of life. The unhappiness that is noticeable in parts of the UK is not due to the political system it is due to the economic struggle than many face. That is not the system. It is imprudent politicians.

Old Slaughter

If the rest is as disingenuous as the sneak peek, why bother?

daifromwales

Following Bright's blog (above left), we have this as well. Another idiot. I'll trawl along the rest - but any more like this and that's the last Spectator I shall buy.
It's very politically incorrect to criticise foreigners in the UK - but is Mr Cohen actually British?

Richard mills

Hi Nick

This is funny! And well written. Who could ask for more.

The comments that this provokes are also wonderful!

Really, I think that the Spectator and the articles it is constructed of are here for personal edification and for a bit of pleasant reading.

However, if you read the comments section you would imagine some sort of intellectual (I use that word with such a small 'i' it is basically ntellectual) war was going on, and that every opinion or thought was a mortar round desperately fired towards the enemy.

A nice, amusing article, full of provocative points and wry, dry, wit. What could be more British!!

Rich

Ian S.

What about the dynastic tendency now becoming apparent in US politics - Kennedy, Bush, Clinton? Mark my words, Chelsea Clinton will hold political office in less than 20 years.
As regards republicanism - two words - President Kinnock.

Herbert Thornton

Ian Walker (May 3rd 11:AM)-

Your description of a republican Head of State being "usually one who's acquired an awful lot of baggage on the journey." is no doubt accurate.

But won't the very same description also be true in Britain, assuming that Prince Charles outlives the Queen?