In our introductory post we stated that the UK monarchy is controversial. Let’s quickly look at the reasons why.
1 – No-one should be born into power
The concept of ‘from the people, for
the people, by the people’ (and the much more succinct ‘Liberté, égalité,
fraternité’) is based on the idea that no-one should be in a position of
authority merely because of who their ancestors were. The fact that the next
three people to be Head of State have already been determined, regardless of their
capabilities or values, can be difficult to accept.
The role of UK Head of State is both
ceremonial and very powerful, with conventions as opposed to a constitution limiting
the authority of a monarch. This Schrodinger’s Cat of power is in and of itself
a source of controversy.
2 – Why Saxe-Coburg and Gotha lineage?
Some people don’t mind a royal family, they
simply object to it be the current Mountbatten-Windsor vintage. Prince Charles
isn’t particularly popular (see here: source) and his son’s support
isn’t what it once was (see here: source). Why not someone else?
why not someone else?
3 – The cost of monarchy
The argument regarding the
cost/benefit of a monarchy isn’t an easy one to quickly surmise. It is true
that France receives more tourists than England, which is in part as a result
of the amount of access available to royal palaces and sites (see here for the
numbers: source)
Tourism is only one aspect, however,
as the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwell need to be considered too (see
here for an example: source)
The Crown Estate may create jobs and revenue, but is it as efficient as it
could be?
In addition, is an annual grant of
over £80 million the best that can be done (see here: source)?
Would a republic be cheaper?
4 – God save one?
A national anthem calling for God to
save the monarch (as well as calling for the confounding of enemies’ politics? source)
isn’t the most inspiring message. God is asked to save the queen 3 times before
quickly squeezing in ‘oh, and also, God save us all’, except of course those
‘knavish’ folk who are her enemies. Compare this to other countries:
Australia (http://anthemworld.com/Australia.html)
Bangladesh (http://anthemworld.com/Bangladesh.html)
Bolivia (http://anthemworld.com/Bolivia.html)
Burundi (http://anthemworld.com/Burundi.html)
 |
| (Tell us in the comments what your favourite national anthem lyrics are!) |
The main arguments in support of
monarchy focus on two issues; the value of tradition, and the fear that a
politician will become head of state (for example, Tony Blair). This blog post
is entitled ‘Common Ground’, so let’s see where we can generally agree:
The role of Head of State should be in
line with tradition (either a King or Queen).No politician, past or present, should
get the role.No-one should be born into the role of
Head of State.The Head of State should cost far less
than £80 million, including security costs.The national anthem shouldn’t be for
one person’s enemies to be opposed by God.
There is only one option that meets
all these conditions: a female cat (also known as a ‘Queen’) should be selected
to be Head of State. It would be cheaper (a topic we will look at in the
future), prevent any risk of political interference, and make the national anthem
more palatable for those of us who don’t fully agree with its current meaning.
Tradition is kept, the principle of
everyone being born equal is enshrined, and it makes economic sense. This is
common ground that the majority of people can share.
In our next blog, we will look at the
specific benefits of this approach. Until then, please leave your thoughts in
the comments section below.
Beira Nevis
No comments:
Post a Comment