Anyone else confused by the emotion over Queen Elizabeth's passing?

The BBQ Pit
281

I would tend to agree, but @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness has been arguing that given the choice between on the one hand, preventing crimes against humanity at the cost of the constitution or on the other maintaining the constitution at the cost of permitting crimes against humanity, it’s always utterly clear cut and getting it wrong makes you a moral failure. You and I find it perhaps a bit more complex, but it’s a challenging idea I’m interested in exploring.

If it does, I’m very sorry, but part of the reason it might is because that’s not the question. It’s not about pushing the limits of power. It’s about absolutely unequivocally breaking them so clearly and publicly that there cannot but be a severe constitutional crisis, the ultimate ramifications of which you cannot know but which may very plausibly end up with a worse overall situation than you have now.

Without making it about your personal advocacy, do you think Obama should have done that? Do you think he will die a moral failure for not doing that?

282

Well, no it’s not. Again, the suggestion is that there could be a severe constitutional crisis if the monarch speaks up. That’s disanalogous from anything in the American system.

I remain unconvinced that the constitutional crisis is inevitable. It IS about pushing the limits of power.

283

You’ve gone a bit further than that, I think:

If I’ve read these as going further than just pushing at the boundaries then I think that’s understandable. (I’m assuming that where you’ve said “monarchy” with respect to Britain, the underlying principle means you’d be comfortable substituting the “constitution” or perhaps “the Presidency” in the US?)

As for the issue about disanalogy of the monarch speaking up: you can’t surely be suggesting that moral blame attaches to someone who can only speak up about an atrocity and doesn’t because of constitutional concern, but doesn’t attach to someone (in this instance Obama) whose concern for constitutional issues means that they not only don’t speak up, they refrain from taking direct action?

284

You’re being disingenuous by constructing a false dichotomy. As LHOD notes, you have done nothing to convince us that a UK monarch speaking out against atrocities would somehow be more likely to prompt a constitutional crisis than remaining silent on such atrocities as they go on. But, even granting for the sake of argument that it really is a choice between speaking out against atrocities (as a monarch or anyone else) and prompting a constitutional crisis versus remaining silent with respect to atrocities to preserve the constitution… if your constitution is really as frail as such a dichotomy would suggest, then maybe it would be best if it does fail. Maybe that’s what happens when you build your constitution upon a house of shifting hereditary monarchs???

I mean, holy shit, I never thought the UK was a house of cards waiting to come down at the slightest ill-wind emanating from the mouth of a mere mortal like the King or Queen, but I guess I was way off if you’re to be believed.

I have yet to read an argument for maintaining the monarchy that didn’t actually turn out to be a better argument for tearing it down, whether for the sake of the people who must live under such a system or for the sake of the monarch and his/her family.

285

It may help clarify things if I tell you that I think the monarchy is a bad system for precisely these reasons. Hereditary monarchy is bad and we would be better off out of it. Nothing of what I have written here is an argument for maintaining the monarchy.

OK, what would you consider proof? As I said, LHOD himself has linked to an article in which the actual King says it would be stupid for the monarch to make their opinions public in the way he did as prince. If that guy’s constitutional analysis isn’t good enough, whose would be?

As to the second part of that, it is manifestly and obviously true that hushing up atrocities has not in fact caused a constitutional crisis. If the bar is “more likely” than that, it’s a low bar.

Like the man said, be better. LHOD’s line was that the Queen should have threatened to dissolve the monarchy. “Slightest ill wind” isn’t what we’re talking about here and in all honesty, you don’t need to use that kind of hyperbole to make a convincing case against the monarchy.

286

The queen had better fix everything at once, because the moment she pushes the limits of her power, she won’t have any.

287

C’mon. I later said, in response to your good points,

Was that not clear that I wasn’t standing by that specific example? Very well: I’m not standing by that specific example and concede it was not a good one.

288

Someone with an actual background in constitutional law? Someone whose analysis isn’t distorted by their extreme personal connection to the question?

289

We know that the Queen did not speak out publicly against atrocities put into place by Parliament enacted policies. Stanislaus and a few others have given legitimate reasons why the British monarchy should not engage in public political debates, or use their apolitical positions as a political megaphone.

We also know that the Queen, though not obligated to do so, had private weekly meetings with whichever Prime Minister was active at the time. What we don’t know is what was discussed during those meetings. Sure, they may have discussed fluff, like what type of tea is best for High Tea, or which of the Queen’s corgis is cutest, but I don’t believe they did. I think they discussed matters of more substance, including humanitarian issues.

Knowing what little I know about the Queen as a non-Brit, I believe the Queen was intelligent and caring. I believe she was aware of at least some if not all of the crimes against humanity committed by Britain, and if she was aware I believe she would have voiced her concerns firmly during her private PM meetings. Did the PMs listen? Did they heed her advice? We don’t know.

If this is the case, did voicing her concerns stop all of the British crimes against humanity? Obviously not, because atrocities still occurred, including the Kenyan concentration camps. What we don’t know is whether or not her private meetings had any positive effect at all. It is not unreasonable to believe that they did have a positive humanitarian effect in some ways on some issues, and no effect in other ways, including the Kenyan camps. Are the failures her fault, or the fault of PMs/Parliament who did not heed her advice (assuming she proffered advice, which I believe she did). I’m giving the Queen the benefit of the doubt and believe she did the best she could while staying in her wheelhouse of knowledge and given abilities, without potentially creating a constitutional crisis, which would no doubt result in no positive effects, nor reduce humanitarian atrocities.

But, you say she could have megaphoned her political concerns publicly, instead of privately. The reason being this had the potential to persuade Parliament to do the right and moral thing, even though private persuasion had no effect. That is a long-shot hope. Maybe it would have helped, but probably not. It would certainly make the Queen look like a white knight in the eyes of the world—look at that wonderful queen who fights evil Parliament in the name of humanitarian justice! But, it would have also created a constitutional crisis with the potential to do more overall harm than good, even with regard to humanitarian efforts.

Members of the Royal Family are closely linked to hundreds of charities, military associations, professional bodies and public service organizations. Some are well known, others are not. Having a Royal patron provides vital publicity for the work of charities, and helps them grow and to be more effective.

Placing the constitution in crisis by engaging in public political debate over singular humanitarian issues (e.g. Kenyan concentration camps) would probably not help those singular issues any more than private meetings, but the resulting constitutional crisis could very well put the monarchy at risk or at least lessen its effectiveness, which could harm the charities they are associated with. Choosing ones battles is the smart thing to do and battling in private is the smart thing for the Royals to do. If the Queen did not try to persuade the PMs in private to refrain from immoral acts, then shame on her. But, I think she did. Did she win all her battles? No. Did she win some? We don’t know, but I think she tried.

Vitriol should be wholly directed at the power brokers who create and implement policies that are crimes against humanity. The Royals are not the power brokers and they should not be political megaphones.

290

Yeah–what Charles said wasn’t even analysis, it was an assertion. It’d definitely be interesting to see an actual analysis by someone more knowledgeable of British constitutional law than anyone on the board.

291

FTR, I’m 100% on LHoD’s side in this thread, and find the number of people arguing that avoiding minor political instability at home is more important that stopping the systematic slaughter of innocents in Kenya to be pretty appalling.

292

Except that, as I read it, the people who aren’t 100% on LHoD’s side aren’t saying this. Rather, they (or at least some of them) are saying other things, like that the Queen didn’t have the power to stop the systematic slaughter of innocents, or that the kind of action LHoD wants her to have taken would have done more harm than good (or at least that it might have been reasonable for her to believe so at the time).

293

Why do you say “minor”?

294

Because I don’t think it would be major?

In 1955, the Queen gives a speech saying, “It’s come to my attention that the British government is committing atrocities in Kenya. I urge every Briton to write to their member of Parliament and urge them to put a halt to this.”

You’re acting like the next day, all of England is going to look like the opening to 28 Days Later. I suspect the actual fallout, to people who aren’t members of government or part of the royal family, would be pretty minimal.

295

As with many things like this the analysis is complex and open to interpretation. Overall, the British monarchy seems a net benefit, financially, to Great Britain…by a long shot. I think part of the problem is if you are Joe Taxpayer you may see no benefit from the monarchy existing and it only costs you money. But if you sell Queen Elizabeth bobble-heads then they are great.

The analysis below is 10 years old but I think that is recent enough for our purposes.

296

But do you think that when I argue that
a) the Queen was not in a position to speak out as LHOD initially suggested she should and
b) had she done so it wouldn’t have worked and that
c) had she done so it would have sparked a major constitutional crisis

that I am “arguing that minor political instability at home is more important than stopping the systematic slaughter of innocents”?

297

In effect? Yes.

298

Can’t find the original lecture, just a quote in a

> wider article

, but I looked for Bogdanor because he’s an acknowledged authority:

“His role will alter when he becomes sovereign. Then, he is bound by the conventions relating to advice. His speeches and acts are then those of his ministers. It is, I think, absurd to think he is unaware of this,” constitutional historian Professor Vernon Bogdanor said in a 2017 lecture."

299

You think that when I say “major constitutional crisis”, what I mean is “minor political instability”? Really?

OK, well let me reassure you that I don’t in fact believe that. I’m honestly surprised that you took that from what I wrote - could you do me a favour and quote the posts where you think I said that?

300

I don’t think anyone here is in favor of the Kenyan concentration camps (or any humanitarian atrocity). To the contrary, preventing them in the first place is what everyone favors.

The question is whether or not public involvement of the monarchy would have any real positive effect on reducing atrocities. If it has no effect, but still doesn’t cause other deleterious consequences, then sure, they should go public. Better to try something than nothing at all.

But from my admittedly limited knowledge of British constitutional procedure, it appears the fallout from the monarchy engaging in public political discourse would result in instability, and more than just minor instability.

If an action has no positive effect on atrocities, then it is simply giving lip service. Lip service can help the reputation of the speaker, but it doesn’t help people in concentration camps. If the action has no positive effect and potentially causes adverse effects (like diminishing Royal patronage of charities), then that is not the best course to take. YMMV.