"Prince Charles and Camilla, sittin' in a tree . . . "

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

I’m not a ‘Constitutional expert’ (love those when they come on the teevee: ‘Norman St blah blah Stevens’ and the boys) but as I understand it, Prince Philip represents the Queen as and when but only at official functions. Sure he puts his foot in it occasionally but I think he does it to get out of the bloody job ! I’m not convinced he would speak for her (in the hospital scenario), ultimately, that function would be filled by Charles – that’s a relief !

Perhaps I misunderstood you: While there are precedents for dumping one in favour of, say, a brother (for example, goes do-lally or takes the religious low road) and also Abdication, I know of no modern precedent or mechanism (there ain’t one) for the population saying: “On yer bike, we don’t like you”. The only way, I guess, is to go the route I described above i.e. Mandate > Referendum > President.

I like your optimism: “Lets elect whatsisface, looks like he might rise to the occasion”. Thing is: We would have a choice but as between who ? In this tabloid influenced democracy, I really, really, feel uncomfortable with any media-friendly options

Dude, don’t underestimate what you’ve got. Rock solid stability within a perfectly well defined Parliamentary system. It’s worked through Depressions, world wars and economic blossoming – without a Constitutional crisis. No Third, Forth of Fifth Republic’s, no 200 year old documents impinging on the demands of a modern democracy – it’s flexible, responsive to changes in society and those we elect get to play out their electoral mandates without interference. Friggin works for me.

What she is the most experienced Diplomat on planet earth with 50 years of knowledge and experience tucked away. Who’s next on the list; Castro , maybe ? All those little officials, politicians and Princes she met from backend-of-know where 30 years ago are now running their countries – familiarity breeds respect, at least in that game and if you play your cards right.

Also, I’m sure you grasp that by it’s very definition ‘Diplomacy’ isn’t something that’s bandied about in The Sun every morning. The fact is that the UK continues to punch far, far above it’s weight (influence) on the world stage ain’t no coincidence. Somehow the notion of Branson on State visits fill me with a little trepidation…

Are you saying you want rid but don’t know what they do anyway ? Glad you’re not my Doctor: “Don’t like the look of this squiggy bit, lets lop it off”
To my mind, it’s usefully an ill-defined role. Lets use an example, not Poll Tax because that was a taxation / Parliament issue…how about the Miners strike ?:

By all accounts this was the frostiest HRH ever became with a PM – the meetings with Thatcher during this time were, it seems, at best, functional – very cold, very formal, kept her waiting, etc…Not devastatingly important but…

Thing is:Thatcher had embarked on a project (the destruction of not just an industry but communities, cultures, a way of life) beyond her political Mandate – we didn’t vote for those excesses (not that all of us knew the extent of what was going on, or cared). Also, what was happening was impacting beyond normal politik, it was, if you will, social engineering. Had that progressed, HRH would have had to make a stand because it is simply not acceptable for a PM to stretch so far beyond the thrust of everyday politics. How to so do ? – Remember when Diana died ? You may not have but a lot of the country sat around watching Queenie when she came on the teevee to voice her ‘sadness’. The country sat and listened. It Was Important and, whether you or I like it or not, the people instinctively wanted to hear the ‘Official word’. Continuity and stability at times of crisis…sounds tripe but hey…

In essence, I guess the modern Monarch represents the voice of the people if things go pear shaped – a sounding post cum safety mechanism against the possible excesses of an Administration. Even a rallying point but with the useful characteristic of also being head of the Armed Forces. Always handy, that. Without wanting to sound grand; ‘The embodiment and continuity of the national conscience’

Other interpretations are welcome.

Yeah, I think I do. Why ? – because I see it as insurance against the absolutely inevitable corruption of principle. That may become manifest in favour, or cash, or ‘influence’, or any other way vested interests seek to promote themselves or their agenda. In short, unlike every other HOS in the world, there is no lobby system surrounding Queenie.

Rather him than me. It’s a bollocks of a job spending every day of your life (from birth to death) being publicly scrutinised and judged. It would absolutely do my head in! Is he morally fit - that’s not an objective question. I say; Yes he is if only because he’s the product of a hugely dysfunctional family and made a balls up under intolerable pressure to start pumping out Heirs – I blame the parents, don’t ya know. I don’t even think I understand “morally fit” in the context of a HOS. Was Clinton “morally fit” ? Is Bush…Is it that significant what a HOS does in his / her private life – you want ‘a modern Constitution’, why not start with easing off on the Victorian judgements ?

So you like the look of Martin Bell, Joan Bakewell, David Attenborough and Stephen Hawking. I’m not sure how you’ll conduct the selection of a short-list let alone the election campaign (err…how much would that cost, BTW) itself but I’m far from convinced the great British tabloid public would choose any of those over, say, Branson, Frank friggin Bruno, Barrymore or Les Dennis – take party politicians out of the scenario, ask the public who and what they know and it starts to get ugly.

“Attenborough ? Ain’t he that gezzer wot leaps around jungles” “Nah, that’s Bellamy – Attenborough’s the bloke what was a film director”

“Bakewell - Who that ?” “Some bird wot used to be on the beeb” “Ain’t she still on the radio ?” “Not on Radio Five Live, she ain’t”

" Hawking – 'oohs ‘e ?" "Bloke in a wheelchair wot can’t speak and knows fings abaht planets an’ all that"

“Don’t fancy any of them. Fink I’ll vote fer Branson”
Over to you – fancy standing ?

82

The international coverage of the upcoming marriage - at least what I’ve seen of it - seems to be badly overstating the amount of opposition to Mette-Marit or to the marriage. It’s more a question of whether the barrier between The Royals and Everybody Else has now been completely eliminated and, if so, is there any point in continuing to have a monarchy. The question is particularly interesting for Norway because the monarchy was voted in (in 1905); it could presumably also be voted out. Difficult, but not constitutionally impossible.

I guess snarking about Mette-Marit (and little Marius) gives journalists something to do during Silly Season…

83

“Even Al Fayed would be ashamed by the amount of money the Royals cost. Are you saying that you approve of these payments?”

—As a Yank, I may be wrong; but don’t the Royals bring in more in the way of tourist money than they cost?

Me, I’m a Royalist, as long as they are figureheads only. Most people are sheep; they need leaders to look up to; they need bright, shiny objects dangled in front of their eyes. That’s why religion and royalty serve a purpose (though both oftimes go awry). Here in the U.S., we have to content ourselves by idolizing movie and sports stars . . .

84

As a Londoner, you think I like that ?
London "Get out of my bloody way, you morons !!! Calling

85

This is difficult to quantify. So let’s not bother.

If the Royal Family attracts tourists then why is this? Presumably it has a lot to do with tradition, said he answering his own question. A lineage which goes back to William The Conquerer, 935 years of pomp, pageantry, castles, palaces, The Changing Of The Guard, Trooping The Colour and so it goes.

We often forget that the history of the Royal Family additionally comprises struggles for supremacy, intrigue, war, double-dealing, death, torture, exploitation of the masses, abuse of power and Princes Wishing They Were Tampons.

Tourists are paying good money to see the remnants of a monarchy which has employed the direst methods to seize, or maintain, power in this country.

I predict that the days of the Royals are numbered. And the lower this number shall be, the more this correspondent will be pleased.

86

I seem to recall some statistic about the cost to the individual taxpayer of the Civil List being about equivalent to the price of a Mars Bar each year. (But this statistic comes from, um, some time in the late Seventies, back when Mars Bars were worth something…)

Many of the royals are self-supporting: Charles, for example, makes all his money from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. Were the Monarchy to be abolished, would all those revenues be diverted to the common good of mankind? I seriously doubt it.

Of course, debates about the cost of the monarchy link into the debate about how much of their possessions are actually theirs, and how much Held In Trust For The Nation - another debate which shows no signs of ending. (This one led to Prince Philip’s well-known comment on Buckingham Palace: “This isn’t ours, it’s a tied cottage.”)

87

Talk about timely AP stories!

OSLO, Norway (AP) - The bride-to-be of Norway’s crown prince admitted - and regretted - her wild past Wednesday, days before their wedding, hoping to clear the slate at the start of a long path to her someday becoming queen. Ever since Crown Prince Haakon announced that he was dating Mette-Marit Tjessem Hoiby 15 months ago, the Norwegian news media has been abuzz about the future crown princess’ past. Hoiby, 28, the unwed mother of a 4-year-old boy, had frequented parties where drugs were used. Ahead of Saturday’s royal wedding, she for the first time neared a public admission of using drugs herself.

About half of Norway’s first-born children are to single mothers, so Norwegians barely raised an eyebrow over Hoiby having a child. But the nation takes a dim view of drug abuse, and public support for the monarchy has been declining in opinion polls. “I know this was very difficult for very many people, and I am sorry for that,” the statuesque blonde said, fighting back tears. “But unfortunately I can’t make those choices again.” Hoiby, a former university student and part-time waitress, said she now opposes illegal drug use and considers the subject of her past closed. The crown prince,
sitting beside her on a couch, gave her a long look and said, “It’s no wonder that I love her.”

Hoiby, who will become Crown Princess Mette-Marit, said she will miss her last name, but otherwise was getting used to her new public role. “I have been going to princess school for the past nine months,” she said.

—Where, no doubt, she was strictly supervised by Julie Andrews.

88

I think that’s my anti-Presidential slogan:

‘A Mars bar a day keeps Sean Connery away’

  • mind you, he might look pretty good at the State Opening of Parliament: “The names State, Head of State”
89

Well I don’t feel at all comfortable with the hereditary option. I certainly agree with you that the Great British Public can be manipulated by the media. But at least a bad choice under my system can be replaced - that’s simply not possible under the Monarchy.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
OK, but how much of the welcome stability is down to Parliamentary Democracy, and how much to the Monarchy? If we replaced the Monarchy with an elected President, would you expect any changes at all?

Yes, she’s certainly had the opportunities to become a great Statesman. But maybe she sleeps through the meetings.
She has never said or done anything to denote either intelligence or understanding of the UK’s society.

Yes, we do. However I think the true causes are:

  • early possession of nuclear weapons
  • seat on UN security council
  • close friend of US.
    There’s no evidence at all to link the UK world influence with the Monarch.

Yes, I remember the appalling Thatcher years. Of course the Queen did absolutely nothing as usual. (I’m sure Mrs. Thatcher was completely unmoved by being kept waiting.)

Well this paragraph is way, way below your usual high standard.
The Royals detested Diana, because she was far more popular than them. They tried to take her kids and spread stories about how mentally unbalanced she was.
There was indeed a national feeling of grief, but it was directed at the loss of an ex-Royal, not the Monarchy.

Yes, because she has no power and does nothing. By contrast there’s plenty of patronage around the Prime Minister.
How did someone as clueless as Mark Thatcher become a millionaire? (Hint: commission on Mummy’s arms deals)
But you’re saying you want to spend millions of pounds a year on Royal Yachts, Royal Trains, Secretaries, Ladies of the Bedchamber, minor Royals, upkeep of masses of castles and apartments etc etc - just because a president might be corrupted instead?
OK, let’s have a single president who does nothing. (No bribes.)
Let’s open the castles to the tourists, give trips on the Royal Train and save the country a fortune. We could probably open a new hospital or school annually on the money we save on these freeloaders.

I fully agree. So why not have a volunteer, who accepts the pressures willingly?

I think I am still entitled to expect such high standards.
The country pays millions annually to someone who automatically inherits. If he doesn’t want the pressures, he can abdicate. Until then I expect the future Head of the Church to keep his marriage vows - which were, after all, made in view of the whole Nation.

I agree with you that Frank Bruno would probably get more votes than my distinguished choices. But this is the same British Public who favour the Monarchy. Are they wrong there too?!

Oh, and I don’t want to stand as President. But if I did, I would not commit adultery; would cost, say £100,000 a year, (plus office staff) and live in one small part of one Palace.
Unlike Charles, I know what duty means.

90

Steady on, flodnak, I’ll just repeat your earlier quote again:

Sounds to me like the media are enjoying the fun after all. But just to clarify the BBC’s comments earlier, the news item basically gave the bare bones of the facts, then interviewed a few students outside a Norwegian YMCA in London, then showed pictures of Queen Sonja playing with little Marius around a bearskin rug. The students said they were a bit shocked while the couple were living together, but now that they’d decided to marry everyone was cool about it.

This is interesting, because it puts the question we’ve been dscussing back-to-front. So much of the negative views expressed by glee and others, and often by me, about our monarchy are based on irritation about them being so remote from our Everybody Else, and that this results in a personal arrogance on their part. You’re suggesting that if they became too ordinary people might not see any need for them after all.

Solving this problem need not require the abolition of the monarchy, though. Although Norway is a special case for the reasons you’ve said, the general view of European monarchies outside the UK shows them to be more popular than ours.

91

The French and the Russians managed OK :wink: .

I agree that we’re desperate for constitutional reform, but that doesn’t require Abolition. In spite of all my republican instincts, I still suggest that reform would be better overall. The criticisms you’ve made of the royals’ spending habits are easy to make based on an assumption that a presidential system would automatically be cheaper, which isn’t sound, and anyway those problems can be sorted out by continuing the sort of reforms we’ve seen in recent years.

As I see it, the problem with our parliamentary system is that it’s becoming more presidential. In this respect Blair is a natural descendent of Thatcher and it stinks.

There can be no doubt that immediately after the Falklands War, Thatcher would’ve been president, resulting in an even more exaggerated set of disasterous policies. Fair enough we could kick her out in an election, but without suitable alternative candidates we’d be no better off than we are now.

Australia had the chance to ditch the Queen recently. It was obvious to everyone (most of all the Aussies) that that’s exactly what they should have done, yet they didn’t do it. Why? Because they knew they’d be stuck with an impossible job of choosing a suitable president. It’s only when you face up to the responsibilities that you realise what a tough job running a Republic is - I mean a tough job for the people - and I’m not convinced that many Republics are well governed or that presidents are well chosen in the television age.

I do sympathise with many of your comments, but to continue London_Calling’s medical metaphor, I don’t think it’s wise to get a sick patient on the operating table, and start slashing away at the organs that don’t work without having healthy replacements for them.

92

Are you sure about that? Everything I read said that the referendum was defeated because it didn’t allow the Australian people to choose their president, giving that privilege to Parliament instead. (Any Aussies reading this want to clarify?)

I really don’t understand why you think it would be so difficult to elect a suitable Head of State. Ireland manages it all right.

93

There are precedents for removing unsuitable monarchs. Indeed, looking at the more recent examples (Charles I, James II, Edward VIII), it seems that the process is gradually becoming more streamlined and less painful.

Not that either the Queen or Prince Charles is necessarily unsuitable. Because she is unelected, the Queen has to be very circumspect in her public utterances - but if you listen to those she does make, you can see a certain amount of native intelligence and a high level of concern for the country, both of which are good things to have in a monarch. An example might be her Christmas broadcast last year, in which she gave a quite moving account of her religious feelings.

Prince Charles, too, does a lot of work for charity - and it is actual work, not just posing about looking fabulous in a ball gown (a role for which, I agree, he would be ill-suited). He’s often criticised for his wild ‘n’ woolly New Age beliefs, but these do seem to stem from a genuine desire to be open-minded, and a genuine wish to build an inclusive society. Again, these are good qualities to have in a monarch.

I’m really not convinced that the People’s Choice (Richard Branson? Sean Connery? Gail Porter? David Beckham?) is necessarily going to be better. Or even as good.

94

I’m going to open up a new thread about Haakon and Mette-Marit - it’s at best tangenital to this thread and anyway it’s getting lost among all the longer (on-topic) posts… Anyone who’s interested, see you there!

95

Well, I’m not sure that is my response everton – that was glee’s paraphrase of my position. I do say ‘fix it’ if you can guarantee me it’ll be an improvement. However, for it to be an improvement I need to know what needs fixing and what’s proposed.

At the moment, we don’t agree on what it is that needs fixing (Glee = everything, me = not a lot) and don’t seem to able to find anyone other than Richard Branson to fix whatever it is needs fixing.

ruadh – I understood Dana of ‘All kinds of Everything’ (sub) fame stood last time ? What price Bono in another 10 years ?

96

I think I’m going to star referring to this as my daily constitutional…

I think it’s down to the dynamics of the relationships between all of the Estates of Government. There have been times when the Court of Appeal and Law Lords have been surprisingly progressive or enlightened (albeit often in areas like Company Law rather than social stuff), occasionally the Commons becomes particularly animated (for example, the speed of action to ban hand guns)…it’s just flexible, solid and relatively dynamic and it doesn’t have to contend with the difficulty of different elected Institutions stifling each others agenda (witness: Senate and President).

Changes ? Yep, big changes, not least because the Executive will be perpetually tempted to push back the limitations of its power – it’s in the nature of the beast, IMHO. In addition, the ‘system’ is interdependent – perhaps like a clocks timing mechanism. If you change one component, you also need to adjust all the others – also, if the Executive is constantly pushing the boundaries, the relative powers of the other Institutions are constantly shifting. Uncertainly ‘Reigns’ and it’s all a bit uncomfortable, IMHO.

OK, that was a lousy. Let me try again to get the point across (which was in response to:" What is the Monarch’s political role? If she hasn’t got one, where are the 'checks and balances?"):

In pretty broad terms (and giving just one example): The PM is a Minister of the Crown > The Crown accepts the PM on the ground of him / her being the choice of the political party with the greatest representation in Parliament (typically) > That political party has an obligation to the electorate to carry out the policies on which it was elected (the manifesto). That’s the mechanism. Now lets see what might have happened if Thatcher had completely fallen off the end of her trolley:

Queenie says to Thatcher: “Ease off, Duckie or I’ll sack yer. You weren’t elected to do this”
Thatcher says: “Bollocks” and proceeds onto more radical ‘social engineering’ (remember, this in the post-Miners Strike period)
Queenie gets on the blower to the beeb: “Put me on air – I’m sacking the Bitch”

  • Country switches on, Queenie explains the what and why’s of what is now afoot.

  • Constitution engaged, Armed Forces remain loyal (presumably) to The Crown, Queenie decides whether the best course of action is to call for another Minister (to take over) or to dissolve Parliament and call for elections.

  • Elections come and go: If Thatcher (as leader of a party) gets re-elected, the ‘will of the people has spoken’ and Queenie puts the kettle on.

Now, if the role of this new HOS is to be similar to the function currently fulfilled by HRH, the person has to have incredibly significant weight and authority to sack a PM because it really is a major step. I cited the Diana example because it’s all we have had since the last Abdication to illustrate what happens when Queenie does have something to say: It struck me, at the time (and outside the immediate context of that broadcast), that a huge swathe of the country actually would instinctively look to The Crown for …whatever, at times of ‘crisis’

I could be wrong, but I do think there is (a surprising) instinctive understanding of Queenie’s role outside the murky world of politics. However, the appreciation of that role is dwindling, for sure.

Anyhoo, that’s all I want of a Head of State: Lurk in the background.for 50 years ‘just in case’ The rest should be done by Parliament. You say: What does she do (in Constitutional terms) and the answer is (outside of the Ceremonial stuff) bugger all in normal circumstances and thank goodness for that - It means HMS Rule Britannia isn’t on the rocks.

You say that’s too expensive, I say it’s money in the bank. Hey ho…

Just to re-cap: perpetual inexperience and knowledge, potential for corruption and undue influence, uncertain Constitutional abilities, replay the whole game every 4-6 year, how to select a short list, quality of applicants, the voting inclinations of the great British public, Frank Bruno, potential for brown envelope lobbying, disturbing the equilibrium of a well-oiled mechanism, pressure for the Executive…endless, really.

Well, when you do emerge into the 21st century, don’t forget to road tax the time machine. Why are you so entitled – this wouldn’t be a convenient device to justify your emotional dislike, per chance ? For me, this has to be a rational, ‘non-personality’, ‘cold light of day’ issue. No emotion, just whether there is a better viable Constitutional alternative – I do worry that much of the Abolition agenda is emotionally driven.

Yeah, yeah, that’s what they all say…
And apologies, BTW, for the Sean Connery comment: It should, of course, have read “The name’s Schtate, Head of Schate”

97

London_Calling - that was just my attempt to save space in the post, quoting two of glee’s comments with a mention of yours in between.

Good point, and you’re quite right of course, but it begs the question of why the Australian Parliament wanted to keep that privilege for themselves, and I suspect the reason maybe at least partially to do with the problem I’ve mentioned. I’ll wait for Aussie Dopers to set me straight about it though.

Ireland is to be congratulated on the choices made for President - Mary Robinson seemed especially well-received, there and abroad. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that it would be hard work finding a universally acceptible president for Northern Ireland (and of course I’m not suggesting the Queen is universally acceptible). I don’t think Britain is quite that factionalised, but every time the republic debate comes up we get the same bunch of hopelessly unsuitable names being mentioned, and even glee’s suggestions wouldn’t really fit the bill. I’m open to other offers, though.

I wish I could find a source for a quote I dimly recall, which was something like “the man who applies for high office is automatically unsuited to it”, but it rings true with me in this case.

My position seems to be somewhere between glee and London_Calling - I’m instinctively for a republic and can see lots of problems with the current setup. But I don’t believe the potential problems with the alternative have been thought through, and reform of the current system would solve many of its problems without generating more, the way an out-and-out republic might.