Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Monarchy Profile: The United Kingdom

Name: The United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms
Reigning Monarch: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Reigning Family: House of Windsor (formerly known as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha)
Status: The monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth Realms is probably the most well known in the world and certainly no monarch reigns over so vast a territory or array of nations. Nonetheless the traditions shared by these plethora of peoples is essentially the English monarchy when you get down to it. Today the monarch reigns but does not rule. There had long been a tradition of powerful monarchs in England but also an aristocracy and parliament that had a share of power as well. This basic system endured until a coup and a Dutch invasion in 1688 ousted the last Stuart king of the British Isles, replacing the Scottish family with a Dutch and later a German royal line. Part of the bargain in this was that monarchs would henceforth leave government up to the parliament and such has been the case ever since. The monarch is a necessary part of government and retains extensive powers in theory which are, in practice, exercised by the prime ministers who govern in the name of the monarch. Monarchs do not intervene in politics but the Crown is theoretically the basis of all government authority and royal assent is required for all laws.


  1. The biggst Tragedy of the british CIOmmonwealth is that they too have succumbed tothe idea that the only Valid form fo Government is a Democratic one. No matter how often the Politicians show themselves ot be corrupt, self inteested feinds and robber barrons, no matter how often they lie and cheat and get caught in endless scandal, they are seen as the moral alternative to a Monarchy, no matter how just or good, because hey ostentatiusly represent the Will of the People. This is true even when the peopel are clealry dicided on social and governemntal issues, for whoever wins, leads.

    The concept of lettign the Queen Reign but not Rule is based on our society's embrace o Dmeocracy, and to many it'd be a horror to let her actually make sdescisions on Priniple. So what if she cudl do a better job? hes not been elected so somehow its unfair.

    But all Democracy has brouht Britain is a declinign pwoer base, a lost Empire, and an Immoral drink, sex, and abuse culture roote din hedonistic nihilism.

    Personally I should think a healthy dose of Tradition, reason (real reaosn, not the fake stuff passed off by the modernists) and veneration for the Crown wudl do wonders.

    God Save the Queen!

  2. True, though today the problem runs a bit deeper. Most British laws are now made by the EU whose leaders are not elected by anyone and not accountable. The British problems, I think, run back to the English Civil War. Because Parliament was victorious, regardless of the fact that the monarchy was later restored, the "Roundheads" never considered themselves beaten and so their "loyalty" was always conditional. There was constant animosity during the reign of Charles II and then after the overthrow of James II the Parliament pretty much established that they are the final and ultimate authority -not the Crown. Again, though, nowadays they have ceded that to the EU.

  3. It seems to me that, despite all the talk of Liberty and Freedom and the overthrow of Tyrants, men are naturally desposed to favour Tyranny for some pervrse reason. The Kings they overthrow are nearly always better than the Republics they create after them, and the Republics gradually reduce Freedom and what t means to well below what the Kings origional offenses limited it to, but as its done in the name of the People it is allowed. But in the end, the subsumed mass of people, now nameless and faceless agents of the State, praise this systsem as if the complete removal of all that makes them the least bit different, and that obliorates their independants, makes them independant individuals, whiole colectign their governemnt issued checks.

    Worse still, the Governemtn of for and by the people will always surrender itself to a greater and higher power, to fulfill that ltuimate dream of world harmony through equality. The Equality beign the equalitt of confrmity. When rthe British Parliment gave up its powerws to the EU, it did so int he hopes that the agenda woudl gain more pwer, that the European Parliment would become a greater power stil, wihthte UK Parliment simply a part o the greater whole. Mmebers of Parliment from Britain go to the European Parliment, and gain personal power as well.

    its about creatign a global Republic, where all are equel for all are the same, and by forcign that equality into existance by makign everyone think and act the same and centrally plannign all they do, think, and beleive.

    John Lockes ideals, perhaps, started this mess.

  4. And yet I think it was Thomas Jefferson himself who said that "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." But most of all I think of that famous and all too true today phrase of Goethe, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Republicans cling to the illusion that "they" are in charge because it is so much more comfortable a lie than the truth of the matter.

  5. I agree. I also find it zironic that Jefferson was such a Lockian nd yet Lockes Ideas, as well as his own, lead invariably to conclusions they sought desperately to avoid. IE, in what sense can the people rule when the peopel is made up of individual persons who will not all have the same interests, desires, or beleifs? The only Logical mean aroudn this is to ensure everyoen is on the smae page, thus the need for a Uniform culture with Uniform Education. Both men also envisioned a Unitive Republic, but hwo can a Government inheranlty base don Competition ever breed Unity? How do you make sure the man most worthy of the job gets the Job? Both daid that the peopel woudl select the Cheif men from their ranks and they woudl be selected baed on Morality, Dignity, and Worthiness from the populace, but we've seen that this usually doens't happen, rather we pick whoever has the flashiest logis and supports our political beleifs the most.

    And what stops the Governemnt of, for, and by the peopel to become Omnicient and ever-present? In a Governmetn that is base dupon the concpt of the Peopel ruling all and being Supreme, what actual motive is there to plac eIndividual Rights over Collective Rights? Woudln't a Truly representitive Government favour thatwhich is beneificial, ro seen as beneficial, tot he Majority? (And thus the Majority of Voters.) Isn't the idea of a Republic, a step away form Dmeocracy which both hated, the Logical stepping stone towards Dmeocracy by its very nature?

    And nowadays we do favur Democracy. And isn't emocracy itself Inherantly more interested in the good or the many over the good of the one?

    And on what logical grounds do we hold that the Majority will always make a wie or even good decision? Or remain Moral?

    Woudln't a Government that tells its peopel that they each as an individual get to choose th Government, but that works in relaity as a system whereby people must compete for the cheif office and win it if they gain more supporters hwo will vote for them as oppsoed to the other, also foster Selfishness in the Voters themselves? And short sightedness? If the peopel are too intereste dinmakign sure their political party wins power and the other party looses, and if they support that party base don their own self interest, woudln' that mean their cheic concern is dominatign whole groups of peopel for their own personal desires? How does that Foster Morality?

    Woudln't it be in the ability of a Government which is based on the Doctrine of all men beign created as Equal and the Government itself Driving its just powers from the people to claim as much power as they like? Unlike a King, or even a Dictator, a Deocracy has no one to fight other htn a long line of Beureucrats, largley operatign annonymously in the name of the People, which in truth is mroe of a Vauge COncept iin most indkvidual peopels minds. Ther sno oen to fight if yoru done wrogn by the SYstem as the SYstem is suppose to represtn everyone, including you.

    I beleive Goethe was riht though. Peopel have for so long assumed Democracy Equals Freedom tnhat they just assume that if we didnt live in a Dmeoracy we'd not be Free, and are Free now because every so often we go to a poll and cvote. Its really madness.

  6. I really don’t think this democracy bashing is fair… Yes, democracy isn’t the “fount of liberty” that so many people like to think; Yes, democracy isn’t perfect and can be corrupted (like any form of government), but democracy in and of itself is a virtuous concept, at least in my opinion.

    Prof. David Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy said that there are three duties of a government to a nation that take precedence over everything else: 1) the defence of the realm, 2) the soundness of the currency, 3) the keeping of law and order. While these duties can be carried out without democracy, the fact remains that these are “national” concerns. What is a nation but a people? Any government, democratic or not, should exist for the nation – thus the people – and I merely think that democracy is the best way of maintaining that precedent.

    However you are right about how politicians are more often than not, evil and corrupt, and have proven themselves undeserving of our trust. I like the concept of constitutional monarchy because it ensures the greatest check there can be against political power: that is a hereditary Sovereign in whom all constitutional executive authority is vested, and from whom all sovereignty derives. The Sovereign’s very being there even seems to squash the political ambitions and the personal agendas (the “baggage”) that come with politicians. They know they can never achieve their malicious intents while the Sovereign exists. There is no way to get around the crown, control the crown, or influence the crown: they can only hope to advise it.

    I think the main difference in monarchy between the 17th Century and now is that, instead of the monarch being accountable to parliament, the parliament is now accountable to the monarch. The politicians must now obtain the consent of the Sovereign when they want to create legislation. I prefer it this way as it more fully acknowledges the authority of the crown over the politicians – instead of the other way round, which resulted in a great deal of fuss and bother with Charles I.

  7. EXCEPT in todays system the Crown is expected ot pass any bill the democratically elected Parliment decrees, no matter what. If Her Majesty the Queen of Australia, or her Governor General acting on her behalf, ever refused ascent to a law the Politicians wanted, they'd manufacture an outrage over it, claiming that the Crown has beome tyrannical and beguin to refuse the will of the people. So the Stop Gap does leak a bit in that regard. If the Crown would actually use its powers, and if it could witrhout fear of this creating a situation in which the removal of the Crown would be the most liekly result, then I'd agre that such a banalced system woudl seem good. I myself like Constitutional Monarhcy but think it needs ot be Three Teired. The Commons ught to be elected, the Lords either appoitned (But not by political parties) or hereditary, then the Soverign.

    Each shoudl have real powers. The Commons woudl pass the laws, the Lords coudl amend them, or even refuse them, and the Crown can refuse even the Lords altered version. I woudl, like America, allow rhe idea that if 2/3rds of the commons voed for it again, the Lords Rejection woudl be overturned,and if 2/3rds of both houses voed for it a second time, the Soverigns Veto could be overturned. That'd solve he problem some beleive exists in Monarchy. But, I 'd let the Crown have real power and allow the Two Houses of Parliment be decided by differign franchises.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...