Why I am a Constitutional Monarchist
I am an Australian and Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, our Monarch, the Queen of Australia doesn't live in Australia, she lives in Buckingham Palace in London. Most people call her the Queen of England even though there hasn't been such a title since the Union of England and Scotland in 1707. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of 16 Realms or countries and she is also head of the Commonwealth which consists of 16 Realms, 5 Monarchies and 33 Republics. But she remains at one and the same time the Queen of Australia.
Now this isn't about the Queen of Australia but about why I support Australia remaining a Monarchy and why I support it in other countries, inside and outside of the Commonwealth. I support Constitutional Monarchy for four reasons Tradition, History, Family and Politics.
Tradition
Here is an institution that is more than 1000 years old, it has stood the test of time. It is not the latest thing and that gives it a glamour that is all it's own. Some try to treat the Royal family and the institution as just another celebrity, but they are not. They can trace their history back into numerous periods of history and then can say that they have been a major part of that history. How many celebrities can say that?
The institution is the custodian of palaces and castles, documents and ceremonies. It is the symbol of a nation and it's people, it is even more than that because it is a symbol of 16 realms and the people of those realms. Not just a symbol, a living symbol of living nations and their living people.
History
To the best of my knowledge no one in my family has ever meet a member of the Royal family, non the less we share a history. A history that covers good times and bad, war and peace but at all times shared. We have sworn allegiance to the Monarch of the day, we have served and we have been loyal. Just as the Monarchs have served us and been loyal to us. It is not a one way street but a shared thoroughfare. No politician or celebrity can say that, we are simply ships passing in the night. But not the Monarchy it has been there in the background of our lives for centuries.
Family
At it's heart Monarchy is about family, the Monarchy is a living symbol because it's members are born into it, they marry and they die. All as members of the Royal family. They are ordinary people but born to a special duty. A duty that is a burden, people notice the wealth, they notice the glamour, but they forget that at all times it is a duty. One the individual royal did not choose, which is why so many of us give them our loyalty and our love. Because they serve us, even if they renounced the Monarchy and left their family they would still not escape that burden. People love a royal baby, they love a royal wedding and they grieve a royal death. Because they see their own family, the lifes and dramas they experience projected large. Monarchy is about family.
Politics
In times past Monarchs had vast powers, now nearly all of that power is gone. But the Monarch does still have power, they still have influence and personal charisma. But the greatest power they have is existing at all. A modern Monarchy stands outside of everyday politics, they do not deal with policy nor with personality politics. But each side knows there is a neutral watching them. The people are not neutral, we are the biggest partisans of all. But the Monarch or their representative is watching. The Monarch decides who forms Government and when a Government has gone too far. Of course it must be sparing in it's use but the power is real. Monarchs stay outside of politics, Republics try this with Presidents but Presidents are not born to the role. They get to be President because they are political figures.
If all goes as it should, one day, I hope far distant, the current Queen of Australia will die, as we all must. Then her son will become King of Australia and then his son and then his son. The connection between past, present and future is clear for all to see. I hope that our futures continue to be shared for a very long time.
God Save the Queen!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Principle of Respect
Good points. I think the best argument for monarchy is the sight of the huge crowds that are drawn by royal weddings and jubilees. It shows that monarchs have a very deep, very real connection to their peoples that just cannot be replicated by politicians. You'd never see millions line the streets to celebrate the wedding of a president's grandson.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Panther
ReplyDeleteQuite correct, Politicians are only for the present, here today gone tomorrow. But the Monarchy is for the past, the present and the future.
Mark Moncrieff
Politicians are only for the present, here today gone tomorrow.
DeleteAnd that's the crux of the matter. If politicians make an awful mess of things they don't have to pay the price. They collect their pension and live in comfort for the rest of their lives. And they never have to look further ahead than the next election.
Monarchs on the other hand know that if they make an awful mess of things it's their own birthright they're destroying. Monarchs don't look ahead a year or so to the next election. They look ahead to the next reign, and the one after that. What the country will be like in fifty years matters to them.
My only problem with our monarchy is that it has too little power. A constitutional monarchy requires a strong monarchy to balance the viciousness, selfishness and short-sightedness of politicians.
Npinkpanther,
ReplyDeleteThese days the monarchy is nothing more than a state-funded reality programme, full of talentless celebrities and dysfunctional characters. Folklore and tradition keeps conservatives in love with the monarchy, while TV and glossy magazines dupe others into believing the royal family is significant. Those people attend royal weddings for the occasion more than anything else. As for them not attending "the wedding of a president's grandson", well they might if the groom was destined to become president himself.
Dear Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I cannot agree, with one exception, to what you have written. The part I agree with is:
"tradition keeps conservatives in love with the monarchy".
Absolutely it does, tradition is very important to Conservatives.
However the idea that the Royal family is talentless, celebrities or dysfunctional are ideas I would suggest, you have put forward to be provocative not as any proof that any of these things are true. You may believe them to be true, but that does not mean that they are true.
I do not know where you live but where I live the media are not always royal lovers, in fact they are very republican. It is the people not the media who love and admire the Royal family. That is why they appear on TV and in magazines not the other way around.
You may indeed be correct about the Presidents grandson, but if he is to be President then that nation has a Royal family without the honesty.
Mark Moncrieff
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, suggesting that something is valid because it is old is purely absurd and the worst kind of reasoning. (Bloodletting, for instance, has just as long and illustrious a history.) Furthermore, the British monarchy hasn't lasted the test of time. For example, today's monarchy resembles in no way that of old. Further still, in 1649 King Charles I was executed and Britain was a Republic for more than a decade -- longer than the reign of many of its kings and queens. Secondly, monarchs are seldom loyal to the state or to their subjects, frequently forming alliances with enemies or those seeking to undermine public interests. In fact, much of history is authoritarian monarchs and would-be monarchs crushing popular opposition... Thirdly, few monarchs sit for life and only sometimes, when it suits them, do they appear to have a sense of duty -- certainly nothing beyond that of a mere politician who needs their vote. (What history are you reading? Few British monarchs have ever lasted twenty years on the throne, even going back a thousand years, and many died in a struggle for power. Edward V was on the throne only two months; Richard III sat 2 years; Edward VI 6; James II sat 3 years; Anne, 12, Mary, 5; George IV, 10; William IV, 7; Edward VII, 9; Edward VII, mere months, abdicating with no sense of "Duty" whatsoever... These people sound a lot like politicians to me.) Lastly, monarchy has extraordinarily little to do with family and, as such, it's a truly heroic task to trace a clean line between the ages. Many monarchs had many wives or husbands and even more children, few of whom ever saw the throne, resulting in many notable disputes, and often murders, over lineage. (King Richard III killed his two nephews in order to take the throne; Henry VII killed Richard III for the throne; Mary vs Lady Grey; Stephen vs Matilda...) There is virtually nothing of recognizable "family" going on there and far more resembling celebrity culture of today.
ReplyDeleteDear CNS
ReplyDeleteCongratulations you have both the stupidest and the second stupidest comments on this entire blog!
You seem to have missed a very important word, Constitutional. That means that before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 there was no Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and therefore everything you have written which is before that time is null and void.
You say "Firstly, suggesting that something is valid because it is old is purely absurd and the worst kind of reasoning." Absolutely wrong! The idea that something that has survived three centuries has not proven itself is absurd. As for bloodletting i'm afraid thats a strawman argument.
" monarchs are seldom loyal to the state or to their subjects", is a simply remarkable statement to make. Where is your proof? Remember in Britain after 1688. The only British Monarch to fit your description was Charles II who signed a secret treaty with France, but he wasn't a Constitutional Monarch.
"few monarchs sit for life" Since 1688 only one British Monarch has Abdicated and even that isn't strictly true as he was never Coronated, that of course being Edward VII. Apart from him, all reigned until they died, no exceptions.
"only sometimes, when it suits them, do they appear to have a sense of duty" that is simply malice, there is no proof at all of that.
"Few British monarchs have ever lasted twenty years on the throne" You fail to take into account the fact that life expectancy is much longer now than it once was, also Monarchs become Monarchs after the death of the last one, not once they reach a certain age. But 3 Monarchs since 1688 have all reigned for more than 59 years,George III died 10 months before his 60th year on the Throne. Totaled together that is more than 180 years from just three Monarchs!
" Lastly, monarchy has extraordinarily little to do with family" I cannot believe anyone could say something so ridiculous! The only way to become the Monarch is to be born into the right family, simple.
Also if you or anyone else writes to insult me "I think you may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.", in future I will simply delete your postings.
Mark Moncrieff
Let me thank you for responding so thoroughly (despite my obviously offending you.) Please know that I’m writing with genuine interest in your worldview. Given that I’m so misinformed maybe you’ll enlighten me further on a few of these points.
ReplyDeleteYou stated: “You seem to have missed a very important word, Constitutional. That means that before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 there was no Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and therefore everything you have written which is before that time is null and void.”
I can assure you I was only using your own words as reference. You admit yourself that "history" and "tradition", “bloodlines” and “family” are key, so I'm not sure how everything predating 1688 is irrelevant. But more importantly, you insisted in your piece that the "institution is more than a 1000 years old" (2015 - 1000 = 1015) So I'm actually just going with what I’ve been given, using your own words and numbers here.
You then go on to suggest that bloodletting is a strawman. This is no strawman. Your words: “the idea that something that has survived three centuries has not proven itself is absurd.” Bloodletting has been practised all across the globe. Bloodletting was valued by the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, and Aztec -- and for eons (not mere centuries like your Constitutional Monarchy.) It can is also found to be recommended in ancient Ayurvedic texts and by early Arabic surgeons. Judeo-Christian writings even recommend certain days of the week for best results. Much more recently, for example, in 1923, Sir William Osler -- that Canadian physician recognized as the “Father of Modern Medicine” -- recommended bloodletting in his medical textbook, The Principles and Practice of Medicine. Several other twentieth century European medical texts recommend bloodletting as an almost universal panacea with promises to cure everything from acne and asthma to cancer and cholera, from plague and pneumonia to scurvy and smallpox... and many other ailments. And, of course, this technique was a major tool used on generation after generation of ailing Constitutional Monarchs. And yet, despite its age and wide application, bloodletting (like Monarchy, I would suggest) is a highly problematic, and even dangerous, relic of the past -- not a proven and reliable practice. So no, because something is old doesn’t make it effective or worthy of praise.
Dear CNS
DeleteFirstly my apologies for taking so long to reply to you, I have been very busy at work.
Bloodletting is a strawman argument for two reasons, first it is provocative, you could have picked any number of ideas or techniques but instead you choice one that was provocative. I would suggest to put Constitutional Monarchy in a bad light. It's a nasty way to argue.
Secondly bloodletting is still used in limited circumstances, primarily to releave pressure on the brain. It may have a different name but it is basically the same thing.
The British Monarchy is over 1000 years old,hence my "institution is more than a 1000 years old", fact.
Constitutional Monarchy only came about from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, so in an essay on Constitutional Monarchy anything before 1688 is irrelevant.
Mark Moncrieff
You continue: “‘monarchs are seldom loyal to the state or to their subjects’, is a simply remarkable statement to make. Where is your proof?” Like any politician, the first concern of a monarch (Constitutional or otherwise) is maintaining their position. If they need to engage with undesirable characters or entities (or buy space in popular magazines, newspapers, or spots on television and radio), or even (yes, historically) murder members of their own family, they will do so. This may not be in the public interest (those that actively maintain their power and position) but is solely in the interest of self preservation and preservation of the institution.
ReplyDeleteYou attempted to refute my statement that royals and monarchs are self serving and have little sense of duty. And you state that “even if they renounced the Monarchy and left their family they would still not escape that burden [of being born with a special duty to family and country].” But of course this is plainly false. This is just what abdication is. Edward VIII’s abdication is a prime example. He left the throne merely to marry someone, an American determined to be unfit as queen (both socially unacceptable at the time, and unfit from the perspective of Edward’s own royal family.) He did not abdicate for some higher purpose, he did it because he felt no obligation at all -- to family or nation -- to fulfill his born duty. Further still, Edward was accused of being a Nazi sympathizer while stationed in France during WWII, and was subsequently shipped of to the Bahamas for the remainder of the war. Was this a sign of his loyalty to his nation? Further, Edward wrote, in 1920, of his Australian subjects, whom he’d just visited, that "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys.” A sign of his sense of duty to his subjects and respect worthy? I think not. Edward is the only example we need to disprove the theory that royals have some kind of higher calling and sense of duty, but there are many more. We can simply look to Edward’s brother George VI. George VI is known as “the reluctant king.” His biographers note that in his journal he himself wrote, upon learning of his ascension to the throne, that he “broke down and sobbed like a child” at the idea that he would have to take responsibility. Or we might look at Edward’s father, George V. George’s first cousin, Wilhelm II of Germany, led the Central Powers against Britain in WWI and George’s family all bore Germain titles such as “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha,” “Battenberg,” and “Schleswig-Holstein.” As Germany was feared, and German ties looked suspicious to the British public, George had all his family members change their historical, blood-given names to more Anglo ones (“Windsor” and such.) Was this a duty to tradition and to family heritage, to the nation and its people, or was this obvious self preservation? Right around that time as well, George’s first cousin Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, was overthrown in the Russian Revolution of 1917. The government of the day offered political asylum to the Tsar and his family, but fears that revolution might come to the Britain caused George to worry that the presence of Russian royals in Britain would highlight the family’s royal and familial sympathies and make his own overthrow more likely. Of course, the Tsar and his immediate family stayed in Russia and were killed by Bolsheviks in 1918. Was this duty to country, to the sitting government, or to family? None of the above! It was it mere self preservation.
Dear CNS
DeleteYou really have a problem with the word "Constitutional". no Constitutional Monarch has ever committed murder or ordered one.
Edward VIII is actually proof of my position. He abdicated in 1936 and was famous his entire life for being the man who should have been King. He was not an obscure figure, he could not escape. We are even talking about him 40 years after his death!
Ordering the nobles and the Royal family to change their name was an act of loyalty to the Kings subjects. It hurt many of those involved but hey did it because they were loyal. Not simply to the State, which is really the Government, but to the Nation, the people.
Maybe King George V should have allowed the Russian Imperial family to seek asylum in Britain, he didn't because it was his duty to protect the Realm, the State and the Nation. He put his duty to both above his love to his own cousin. To imply that he was simply selfish is wrong.
While you suggest that monarchs are neutral (“Monarchs stay outside of politics”) of course, this is impossible. Not only do monarchs accept public funds, shut down whole cities for royal events, participate in current events, train with and head the military, visit other countries, and meet with world leaders, but they are also used as political pawns (and use their wealth and influence for their own ends as well.) In what way are these actions neutral or benign? These are highly political acts that have real-world repercussions. Period. There are countless historical examples of direct political acts by your Constitutional Monarchs, and these can be found in the biographies and on the Wikipedia pages of all of them. How about when Edward VII, a good Constitutional Monarch, was sent by the UK government to “secure the friendship of Egypt's ruler, Said Pasha, to prevent French control of the Suez Canal if the Ottoman Empire fell.” Or how about the well-documented fact that Queen Victoria often attempted to influence government policy and ministerial appointments. By your accounting, just how far “outside of politics” is this exactly? As you must know there are countless recent events we could cite as well. For instance, Prince Charles just met Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams this year. Was that not a direct and deliberate political act? Archbishop Welby and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar met with Prince Charles this year as well. Not political in any way? How many more counter examples would you like?
ReplyDeleteIn your piece you were arguing that monarchs have a life long duty, one they cannot escape. To this I suggested that not only do they have no such duty, but that they do not “serve,”in any meaningful sense, for life or even for very long. You told me that I “fail to take into account the fact that life expectancy is much longer now than it once was” But I do not. Even going back a thousand years you have monarchs living 60 or 70 years (Edward the Confessor, Edgar the Ætheling, Henry I, Matilda...) These folks lived to virtually the same age as the royals of the 20th century. (So how much has life expectancy moved if the most powerful in the land today die around the same age as those 1000 years ago? Edgar the Ætheling, born in 1052, lived to age 72, longer than 3 of the last 5, and 7 of the last 12, monarchs. Fact.)
You wrote “They serve us for their entire life and they have little choice about it” This is plainly false. Most serve a short term, 10 or 20 years, not unlike a politician. (In fact, many politicians spend much longer in “public service” than royals or monarchs.) Let’s just look at the last 300 years if you like. William III lived 51 years, reigned 13 years; Anne lived 49 years, sat on the throne for 12; George I lived 67 years but ruled for only 13; George II lived to be 76 but sat on the throne for only 33 of those years; George IV live 67 years but ruled only 10; William IV lived 71 but ruled only 7; Edward VII lived 68 and ruled for 9; George V lived 70, but sat for only 26... So it’s safe to say that they don’t “serve”, in any meaningful sense, “for their entire life.” (Unless by “entire,” 100%, you mean 10% or %40) By contrast we might look at the Dalai Lama, who was born into his position and, when he dies, will have served in this role his whole life. Does this compare in any meaningful way to the life experience or public service of Queen Anne or any King George, say?
Furthermore, royals have absolute choice in the matter. Some commit murder to win the position (or their ancestors did, thereby securing the position for them), others freely and willingly abdicate, as you have noted… Again, how many more counter examples do we need in order to disprove these points of yours? (There are many more specifics I assure you.)
Dear CNS
DeleteYour definition of politics is so broad as to be meaningless, everything the Monarch does is political to you. The Constitutional Monarch has duties, but non of them involve public policy. That is politics, tax rates, employment or foreign policy for example. The Constitutional Monarch is not involved in any of these things. Meeting Foreign officials or visiting other countries is not politics, even if the they are official.
A Royal is a public figure 100% of their life, if they are born into the Royal family. Only those who marry into it are not public figures 100% of the time. To think that only the Monarch is on duty is wrong. As the official photos for Prince Georges second birthday show quite clearly.
Mark Moncrieff
You then cited my comment about family: “‘Lastly, monarchy has extraordinarily little to do with family’” and added “I cannot believe anyone could say something so ridiculous! The only way to become the Monarch is to be born into the right family, simple.” In your piece you stated that people love the royal family "because they see their own family, the lifes [sic] and dramas they experience projected large." I believe I clearly wrote that the idea most of us have of family, and what we experience within our own families, does not reflect and cannot extend to the situation or lived experience of virtually any monarch at any time. And that it's a very funny thing indeed to suggest that it does. (If the connections are so vague and slight then we all have as much in common with any and everyone else as well, and very obviously not some special deep connection to the royals.) But you spoke of "history" and of "tradition" and these cannot be ignored. You can't ignore the past, the pre-Constitutional Monarchy. Being born into wealth and fame built on centuries of oppression, exploitation, betrayal and, yes, murder. These are irrefutable facts about living monarchs and how they arrived at their position -- and it’s not something I relate to, understand, or appreciate.
ReplyDeleteDear CNS
DeleteYou wrote quite a lot to come your point.
"built on centuries of oppression, exploitation, betrayal and, yes, murder."
If you pay attention you'll find that describes Republics just as well.
Mark Moncrieff