Long to reign over us

Kevyn Bodman

I too am a republican.
Nevertheless I respect the job done by The Queen at the Cenotaph.
In my opinion this is her most important public appearance every year.

The hereditary principle is absurd, but a constitutional monarchy does maintain the vital separation between Head of State and head of government.

It is essential that these jobs are separated so that people are never led to forget, or allowed to forget, that it is perfectly possible,indeed reasonable, to love one's country but loathe one's government.

So, better a constitional monarchy than an executive president like in France or the USA.

But best of all a ceremonial,non-executive president with strictly limited functions and elected by popular vote,not chosen by our politicians.

David Bouvier

I think you are not so much a republican anymore then. You do not have to believe that they are special to prefer this system.

I passionately believe that it is better to have our commander in chief be a non-politician for example.

Throughout history there have been good and bad monarchs. Hopefully there is relatively little harm that a bad one can do in our system, yet much good done by not having any of the alternatives.

It is perverse (perhaps un-conservative) to oppose a system for failing in theory when it works in practice.

Occasional Ostrich

Kevyn Bodman
November 12th, 2009 8:46am

If it were not that the Monarchy IS constitutional, the hereditary principle WOULD be absurd. But government of this country can proceed with or without the engagement of the Sovereign. Does that reduce them to insignificance? Emphatically NO! One only has to look at the behaviour of foreign heads of state (especially those who dumped monarchies of their own) when the meet the Queen. THEY see that the institution of our monarchy is something special, entirely separate from the person at the head of it. Heaven forbid that the heir to the throne should risk sullying it by becoming involved with the mucky aspect of politics.

Bunnykins

Rather odd sentiments for a republican. You do not say what purpose you think the Queen serves other than to make us feel all warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately, whether the next generation of royals will be able to apply themselves to their duties with the same devotion and quiet modesty as the Queen is highly doubtful. Then, I fear, you will get your republic.

The Puppet Master

But she never does anything really important. When has she ever opposed any of the governments intrusive surveillance, or opposed the transfer of power to Brussels? Never. Her duty was set out in her Coronation oath, she just didn't do her duty.
She is pointless.

Bill Rees

Susan, you don't explain why you are a Republican, and it would be interesting to see why you have that view.
I am not a Republican, and I strongly believe in the hereditary principle, and regretted its loss in the reformed House of Lords.
The monarchy, and the hereditary peers in particular, gave us some independent voices at the heart of the constitution that have now been lost, to our detriment, I regret to say.
Inevitably some hereditary peers were dead losses, but that was a small price to pay.
I write, incidentally, as someone who was brought up in a working class household whose parents and grandparents were implacably socialist, and who hated the monarchy and everything it stood for.
I realised very early on that envy is one of the worst vices, and that tradition trumps an unattainable equality every time.
More and more, the Queen looks a rather sad lady to me, incidentally. She must wonder what has happened to this country even more than most of us do.

EC

Charles must never be King.
Long Live The Queen!

adele geras

I'm also a Republican though I have to confess to cutting pictures of the Queen and her sister and others out of newspapers when I was about 8 or 9 years old to paste into scrapbooks which also included lots of clippings of movie stars. I've always regarded the Royals as a kind of soap opera I've been enjoying for many years but I do have enormous respect for the Queen. I've also noticed something else. I always used to scoff at her clothes in the 60s and 70s but in her old age she's become I think something of a fashion icon! Terrific to see that happening. And if you look back at the archive shots, she was a really lovely-looking young woman. Long life to her!

SUSAN HILL

I will explain why I am a Republican at some point.
I don`t think it is feeling 'all warm and fuzzy' - admiration and respect are not warm and fuzzy though perhaps 'affection' is.
She does not do important things in the sense of making great changes because she does not have the power. But she represents steadfastness and unfailing duty to a great many people and that is no bad thing in a world where the concept of both are unknown to many. She represents a continuity too and for this reason, as for others, when she dies we will find she leaves a great void which I doubt will ever be filled in the same way again.
If we are to continue to have a monarchy then let us have simply that - the Queen or King plus consort and nobody else whatsoever in any position of privilege. They are really all that is needed. BUt as I say, I`m a Republican. And I will explain why in a future blog.

Augustus

Although I can see the point of republics, especially those which have been former colonies, I cannot imagine for one moment Britain becoming one. Yes, Monarchs are unelected, but on the other hand, they uphold a tradition which represents many great and dramatic moments of history. And as the rights and liberty of English subjects and their representatives, especially the requirement of the Crown to seek the consent of the people as represented in parliament, has been recognized for over three hundred years, it would seem chulish in the extreme to want to
abolish British royalty in order only to satisfy the whims of revolutionary and bigoted subjects. There are no civil or political rights which the people of a nation such as the United Kingdom would gain from such a purposeless and vindictive
confrontation. And although it is quite possible to effectively pledge allegiance to a republic (as in America), an oath of allegiance to a sovereign has a more respectful ring about it.

Bunnykins

Off the point, I admit. But something that's been worrying me somewhat nonetheless. Augustus. Are you a chubby lad? Incidentally, I agree with your comment. I am too linguistically challenged to put it into words.

Snowman

I’m afraid, you wettish republicans may not be entirely correct in asserting that the Queen’s role boils down to purely ceremonial duties, and the maintenance of historic continuity. Listen to this.

By the 5th clause of the memorable Declaration delivered by the Lords and Commons to the Prince and Princess of Orange, 13th February 1688, and afterwards enacted in Parliament as the Bill of Rights, it was declared ‘that it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions of such petitioning are illegal’, and this right is recognized in the statute itself (1 Will. & Marry, sess.2, c. 2) as among the ‘true, ancient, and indubitable rights of the people of this Kingdom,’ and again reasserted in the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will. iii. C.2).

I reckon that if ever the people of this country were to indeed petition the Queen, she would have to respond to this ‘true, ancient, and indubitable right.’ The Act of Settlement still sits on the statute books.

Fergus Pickering

A ceremonial president chosen by popular vote? How long would the fellow serve? For ever? We'd be lumbered with David Beckham for ever. Or would it be some total nonetity? Can't uo underrsatnd that it is BECAUSE the royals are just anybody that it works so well. You may say just anybody but bloody rich. I say the president would be rich anyway. Probably not Beckham. Probably some ex BBC person or some long-serving Quangista. Dame wotsit Leather? Would you really like that?

Beer Moth

Bunnykins

If lard is your bag then I'm your man, forget that Augustus tosser.

But before I commit myself fully: can you guarantee profuse sweat-glands?

Here's hoping. And already we've shared one of our 'special' times.

mac

Bang on, Fergus.

Leaving aside the uninspiring, the 'sleb' or the deadbeat ex-politico candidates we'd get - and it would be a list of biddables assembled by the political establishment, whatever was claimed to the contrary - we can, of course, all have the utmost faith in the machinery of any popular vote in modern Britain. One "adjusted" by the likes of Mr Cowell perhaps to get the 'right' answer, or one fixed by a Labour Party in government for the same reason.
"You need help choosing, don't you? Yes, you do need help choosing, we're telling you do.
Now tick here and be quick about it.
Or else".

SUSAN HILL

I would have a term of presidency - 5 years maximum. And elected but not elected from the entire population. People would put themselves forward and canvas and there would have to be certain criteria, though not necessarily political. Oxford and Cambridge manage it with Vice Chancellors. This is not a position with any power, purely ceremonial.

Hysteria

but Susan - if the post has no power and is purely ceremonial - then what is the point of throwing away all the benefits (tradition, duty, link to history, international respect etc.)of the current system, to be replaced with a "celebrity".? Given the general apathy toward the electoral system I would have very low confidence that an elected president could generate the same respect and loyalty as the Queem.

In your justificstion for a Republic I hope you frame it in the specifics of the UK and not in the abstract.......

JohnAnt

I stopped being a lifelong republican the moment at the Jubilee in August 2005 when I saw the Queen and the D of E driving up the crowded Mall, apparently alone in an open private car, smiling and waving vigorously directly at the cheering crowds. This was one month after the London bombings; security levels were at max; anyone could have been there at the front of the crowd, carrying any weapon. I was struck with sheer jaw-dropping disbelief at their sheer bravery.
If we had a politician doing that job, they'd still be vetting the chauffeurs, bullet-proofing the baby-seats and deciding the colour of the silken cushion covers.

Verity

Puppetmaster wrote about HM: "But she never does anything really important. When has she ever opposed any of the governments intrusive surveillance, or opposed the transfer of power to Brussels? ...

"She is pointless."

... No. Who else could have contained arrogant, preening, self-congratulatory airhead Tony Blair who, in his first audience with her, held out his hand like a game show host and said, "You can call me Tony."

And HM, taking his hand, replied, "And you can call me Your Majesty."

seb

The hereditary principle is not nearly as absurd as the alternatives. We could combine the role of Prime Minister and Head of State. Every ribbon-cutting ceremony would then be performed by a human being largely reviled by most or many members of the electorate as a buffoon, a liar or a crook. We could vote for a Head of State every few years. Who would the British be likely to choose? An X-Factor judge? Noel Edmonds? Jeremy Kyle? One of our large cohort of much reviled ex-politicians?

Absurd? You, to quote one of the States' recently deceased heads of state, "ain't seen nothing yet".

Nicholas

"I would have a term of presidency - 5 years maximum. And elected but not elected from the entire population. People would put themselves forward and canvas and there would have to be certain criteria, though not necessarily political. Oxford and Cambridge manage it with Vice Chancellors. This is not a position with any power, purely ceremonial."

And it would be disastrous. It would be like New Labour with knobs on to the power of 10. How that would advance us one iota apart from pandering to the politics of envy which seem to run through the British like the motto through a stick of rock I have no idea.

The Monarchy is one of the constants I look to to reassure myself that we haven't yet descended totally into the world of . . . well, I'm not sure how to describe it really - but I know I detest it. The accident of birth, the humility and the concept of continuous, lifelong duty operate exactly as a counter to the ghastly, grubby vested interests, rank ambition and political manouevring that your republican alternative would usher in. Vice Chancellors of colleges? Good grief - do you have any idea what hotbeds of bitchy back-stabbing, convaluted scheming politics, jealous overwheening ambition and leftist infestation they represent?

I'm really surprised at this. It's bad enough to watch a once respected institution that is supposed to represent a voice from the right dish out celeb awards to a couple of the most extreme leftist threats facing our constitutional traditions, another to read blog after blog from a trendy leftist perspective speculating how New Labour might be saved or who in their incestuous, nepotic community will succeed who like some byzantine stalinist soap opera, but now a republican blogger at the Coffee House?

Utterly fantastic that you should put thought to this rather than the dire straits the supposedly "elected" and "democratic" leaders have brought to us, with the glaring example of the march of an uber republican, embryonic Super President Tony Blair still hanging over us. Is that what you really want? Some ghastly El Presidente like those jumped up little socialist apparatchiks in suits who puff and preen themselves for the EUSSR group photos - with their entourages and families bleeding us white, an arrogant Liam Byrne clone as Head of State? A cod Prince or Princess? An ersatz representative of the liberal elite (because you could be sure he or she would not truly represent anything else).

Well count me out. And don't bother explaining why you are a republican - frankly I'm not the slightest bit interested - any more than you would be to hear why I am not.

Hmm. To continue my subscription or not to continue my subscription to this magazine with its very odd change of direction?

Snowman

Nicholas @ 4.36:

good, but marginally over the top; try again, please.

SUSAN HILL

Nicholas. You call me a Leftie ? My goodness, I stand very far to the right of Melanie and everyone else on here. I`m to the right of Thatcher. I may be a Republican but that does not have to make me a Leftie.
You may not be interested in why I am a Republican but others commenting above you have asked the question - which is why I said that I would explain sometime. You don`t have to read it do you ?

Peter From Maidstone

There aren't a lot of things I feel so very strongly about, but I think I would be willing to fight and die to defend the monarchy. I would not let that slip away into the darkness that would follow.

Very, very few of the Catholic and Orthodox monarchs who are called saints deserve to be so, but our Queen does. I wish she were Orthodox so that she could be canonised. She is a truly heroic and remarkable woman.

Nicholas

Susan Hill: Er, no, I don't think I did call you a Leftie (I've re-read my post quite carefully) - I think I called you a republican blogger, which unless I missed something is indeed what you are.

I did however refer to other blogs (not yours) at the Coffee House articulating from a trendy leftist perspective and I don't think I'm wrong about that either.

It is quite difficult for me to reconcile the idea of a conservative from the right being a republican - but that may just be a measure of my own prejudice in such matters. In my own case I confess my position is less from any starry-eyed romanticism about the Monarchy than real anxiety about what would probably replace it - as somewhat colourfully explored in my post above. But in addition to that are two binding oaths I have taken in my lifetime to remain loyal to Her Majesty and which I do not intend to abrogate even though my current circumstances may not strictly require them.

Since your protestations of conservatism are couched so passionately and my first response to your post was so robustly foam-flecked (q.v. Snowman) I undertake to put aside my tin-foil hat, consign my dressing gown to the washing machine, return the single malt to the lockable cabinet and await your further blogging on this subject with the interest I previously so vehemently disavowed.

Until then, then.

Nicholas

PS Peter from Maidstone I share your sentiments. If push came to shove I too would be prepared to fight and die to defend the Monarchy.

Owen Morgan

"But best of all a ceremonial,non-executive president with strictly limited functions and elected by popular vote,not chosen by our politicians."

This just doesn't make sense. How do you switch from a constitutional monarchy to a solely ceremonial presidency, elected by the people? John Howard identified this problem at the time of an Australian referendum on the monarchy, some years ago. Suppose the ruling party has managed to gain a Parliamentary majority with eleven million votes. Suppose then that the very first president of the UK brings in fifteen million votes. How can the government assert that it has sole authority to make policy, when it has been elected on a far slenderer majority and a significantly smaller overall number of votes than the president has? Mr Howard's solution was to offer voters a presidency elected by the Australian Parliament in Canberra, which would have retained Parliament's primacy. I seem to remember that this was denounced as a ploy, intended to make a republican system as unattractive as possible, so as to ensure a win for the monarchists. In fact, John Howard put forward the only republican option that could safely be grafted on to Australia's democratic constitution without requiring the re-writing of the constitution from the ground up. It's a lesson that seems to have been completely lost on republicans in this country.

Oh, and Susan, John McCain is a Republican. Sarah Palin is a Republican. I'm a monarchist and you're a republican.

hadrian

Whilst, as an admirer of Oliver Cromwell ( for all his warts!), I see nothing inherently wrong with a Christian Commonwealth/Republic, I must say I have been a life-long devotee of our Constitutional MonarchyI think it gives us the best of both systems and provides a checks and balance approach all good government must incorporate. There is also some inherently 'mystique' quality about a Hereditary Monarchy rooted in Christian values and vows. And as an ardent lover of British History I must say it'd have been a far more tedious subject without the personalities of all our Royals to study.
My favourite Monarch? Oddly enough, probably Queen Mary II who has long been overshadowed by her husband, King William of Orange and neglected as Sovereign in her own right. It is said her sheer graciousness and intelligence won her a great train of affection and admiration. Sadly her poor sister, Anne wasn't quite as winsome a figure.

hadrian

Some have commented on here about their willingness to go to the length of fighting to defend the Monarchy. Well, as a Constitutional Monarchist I can empathise with those instincts; however, I must confess I'd more readily do it for Her Majesty than I'd for Charles who strikes me as having some downright dodgy views, not least his disloyalty to the Act of Settlement and its attendant, sacred vows to uphold and defend Reformed Christianity. If any Monarch breaks faith with those vows I think we can expect divine disfavour not just on the Monarchy as an institution but on the nation as a whole.
Long may our present Queen reign and defend the Church against defection and agression furth of these Isles.