FYI: I anyone wishes to submit a counter-response to this post please feel free to email it into committee@bulsonline.org thank you.
I seemed to have developed a particular reputation of disdain for two prominent branches of British society in my final year of University, religion and the institution of the Monarchy. Religion bashing is something I spare for my own personal blog as after all BULS is an entirely secular society. So today my focus will be on the institution of the Monarchy and the case against it.
Unlike some fellow Republicans, I’m not too fussed about the costs it brings. My own personal gripe of the Monarchy is how it undermines our own basic sense of ethics and morality. We can all say as an ideal that we strive to not treat anyone differently or give special privileges or persecute others merely because of their background or the family any individual just happened to be born into. In a nutshell we try not to value an individual’s self-worth on the family they just happened to be born into. This is the very basis of meritocracy and equality (well at least equality of opportunity). Yet, when it comes to the Monarchy we seem to conveniently forget this ideal.
Now personally, I like to have a consistent a world view as possible. If a base ethics works in one area I’m sure as hell it’ll probably apply and work in nearly any other area. And this is what we get from many Royalists, a suspension of such basic ideals and ethics all in the name of making them feel special. This is also an argument I often hear/see “But the majority of people are in favour of the Monarchy.”. So what? Popular support/belief has absolutely no bearing on what is right or wrong, or true or false.
I’d also like to address the famous fallacy from tradition. Last year at my work (Lifeguarding) at around the time of the Royal Wedding where one of the cleaners (a lovely old dear) asked what I’d be doing on the day of the Royal Wedding. I honestly replied, “Oh, I’ll be avoiding the celebrations as much as possible as I don’t think we should have a Monarchy.”. I was met with a disgruntled reply with mutterings of ‘It’s good for tradition.”. I didn’t have the heart to say this at the time as she was an old dear but what I really wanted to say in response was, “So was the bubonic plague for 300 years, and so was persecuting gays and women for hundreds of years and not giving them the vote!”. Like popular support, tradition has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong, or true or false. Tradition is not a reason to keep or get rid of anything.
I realise I’m in a minority here and I realise that my dream of a Republic is far flung dream probably beyond my lifetime. But all changes for the better have to start from some where.
Max
Although I agree that the monarchy is a medieval anachronism representing much of what is wrong with this country, the jubilee a distraction covered in nauseating fashion by the BBC, and the use of ‘workfare’ labour for it a scandal, and I would indeed favour a republic, I do think that both ardent monarchists and republicans should relax slightly for this, if only for the good of our communities, the Union and the queen herself.
As a historian, between cringeworthy moments the diamond jubilee is still of interest to me, as Elizabeth is only the second British monarch to span this length of time (yes, all this shows is the achievement of not dying); the makeup and values of the UK are so different in 2012 to 1952 that it is a good excuse for people interested in history to reflect on what has transpired over the period, not only nationally and internationally, but in our own lives and our families and friends. Plus it is heartwarming to see the flag reclaimed from the far right and the BNP.
I have no respect for the sycophants around her in court, politics and the media, however I do have some respect for the queen herself, as I could never live my whole life as she has in the public eye and not give my view on the issues of the day. Her family is as dysfunctional and hypocritical as everyone elses, and although I’d prefer it if the ‘first family’ were not hereditary and always white, they are something of a ‘national family’, complete with inappropriate old granddad and awkward stepmother. Charles’ tribute to his parents last night was quite touching and reminded me of wedding/graduation/birthday/funeral speeches in my own family and friends’ families.
Oh I agree Luke, I can’t doubt that she’s endured a lot and put a tremendous amount of effort into her role. But this post isn’t an attack on her but rather the actual institution of the Monarchy itself.
I think jack straw desceibed it best where he said that the most equal countries socially in the world, the scandanavian countries are all with the exceeption of finalnd consitutional monarchies and that 7 of the top 10 countries to live in are monarchies
So Monarchies directly cause Scandavian models of high equality? Oh the facepalms
btw who was the last working class prime minister of this country or president of an important country,I bet you wouldnt find many whixh shows that they arnt equaly socieites
Pete, like I give a toss, for once, just for once, it’d be quite nice if you’d focused on the argument at hand rather than coming out with this drivel. But while we’re at it, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Gordon Brown.
But ultimately, who cares if I can reel a list off like that (but it’d be nice if you thought your opinion through first), because allowing the British Head of State up to theoretically anyone means ANYONE can do it. Not just Royalty and working classes, but the upper, the middle and the lower-middle classes would be allowed to do the job instead of confining it to one family based on the archaic and immoral principle of birth rights.
Interesting piece Max… I do think it is a mistake to personalise this, not you but as some of the comments have done. It is the institution of ‘The Crown’ that is the issue. I don’t think it is necessarily true, either, that a majority are in favour. It seems that those ‘in favour’ are the most reluctant to put it to the test.
If the power of The Crown were actually to be devolved to the population, as it is supposed to have been, then the monarch could be brought, realistically, within the scope of the law (and tax system). There could be an official residence that goes with the job and so on – but how to achieve it?
I would suggest that the process has already started with the recent moves to reform the House of Lords along with the devolution of Scotland and Wales etc. I would propose that far reaching reform of inheritance law is vital. The Queen has already accepted the end of Primogeniture concerning the throne. This should, of course, be adopted and extended, as law across the land – as in many continental countries. If all property had to be divided equally among all offspring the power of the aristocracy would very soon disappear – the Normans understood this very well.
I agree with your realisation that it will take a long time but these are just some measures that, I feel, might speed things up and bring more of the nation on side.
Pete
…Sorry Luke my comment should have started with ‘Interesting piece Luke’ innocent mistake.
Pete.
I was lucky althugh i suspect my wife of being an undercover royalist we managed to spend the entire weekend in our caravan totally disconnected from the outside world, no telly or internet GREAT!!! NO TEDIOUS JUBILEE.