I think the government’s quiet support (in the personage of the Prime Minister) for this private bill indicates that they hope this reform of the monarchy will create a modern, equal opportunities version for the 21st century that will allow them to silence any criticism of the institution itself. You know, now that European Catholic aristocrats can marry the heir to the throne and women won’t get discriminated against no should they stand in the line of succession one cannot object to the monarch as such. Given that the government has proposed compulsory loyalty oaths for school children, demanding that they swear allegiance to the Crown I can see where they are going with this and it isn’t in a Charles I direction.

It’s of a piece with feminists telling us that the world is now a better, fairer or more justly equitable place because women can sit on the boards of giant transnational corporations or become the heads of various states. You can’t criticize these institutions anymore because they don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, race or religion. Much like the way we all have to love the USA these days, no matter who they bomb or torture, because they elected a black man president.

It ignores structural and systemic wrongs. A dictator doesn’t become more palatable because anyone can hold the position.

The glass ceiling was the analogy that came to mind for me too when I first saw this story.

It is clearly right that within the paradigm of an existent monarchy there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender. However, I don’t care very much because it only affects ridiculously rich and ridiculously privileged people.

Nonetheless I do have a problem with the strategy of “don’t do something that is right because leaving it wrong could at some point in the future cause a crisis which could lead to us making wider gains”.

The (admittedly tiny) step of reforming the succession rules could be a valuable precedent for future reform (or, indeed, abolition) of the monarchy.

It’s also the case of doing something that makes very little real difference to the world as such (about 0.00001% of the population will now no longer get discriminated against by this change) and costs virtually nothing to implement but its supporters can crow to the skies about how righteous they are in bringing about this change that they’ve obviously spent centuries fighting for and risked their reputations, their sacred honour and careers to achieve. A handful of traditionalists have got their feathers ruffled by the proposal but the population at large couldn’t care less. Except probably the Ulster Unionists/Orange order and I’ve not heard anything from them about it.

Meanwhile millions of women in Northern Ireland still can’t get an abortion. Changing that outrageous iniquity really would be progressive and a case of simple justice but it would cause the government far too many problems with both the Unionists and the Catholics in the province. So it gets left as it is, horrendously unfair though it may be to those millions. And I see almost no one in the ‘progressive’ camp doing anything about it. If the government can support this bill and find the parliamentary time to debate it, it can support a bill to right that far worse wrong. (It did of course have the option at the start of this year and it went out of its way to do nothing).

The (admittedly tiny) step of reforming the succession rules could be a valuable precedent for future reform (or, indeed, abolition) of the monarchy.

Why fix something you plan to throw away?

Honestly, I don’t see the advantages of abolishing the monarchy. You didn’t have to agree with devolution to see that it had clearly identifiable benefits – mainly, more local control over decision-making.

On the other hand, I don’t really get the point of creating a republic. The unwritten constitution and I support changes which have been made to it to make it modern e.g The Human Rights Act. However the monarchy is a stabilising presence relatively untainted by politics and it doesn’t interfere with parliament.

How would a President be elected? Would he/she have more or less formal powers than the Queen currently has? Would by virtue of being elected, the President have more informal powers? I think that this would be a complete waste of political capital, have miniscule benefits and would probably end up having negative consequences which we can’t forsee right now.

What shariq said.

I suspect Harris – a man I would be tempted to vote for him if I lived in Oxford West and were not a Labour Party member – privately agrees, and has only tabled such a frankly feeble proposal in the expectation that it is the most with which he can hope to get away.

It would be nice for Sunder Katwala to pop in to acknowledge that everything I said about this bill and its motives was right .Those of us who support the Monarchy musty not take a step back from attempts to reduce its status to just anoiher Public Sector drone on which the Progressive bilge can be poured .

Just as I thought

“At the apex of the highly developed and still largely unassailable British class system – the social networks that centre on the landed aristocracy, the county set, the upper layers of the Church of England, the Bar, and the City, and officers serving in ‘good regiments’ – stands the royal family.”

Do you think that by abolishing the monarchy you will undermine this system?

What Shariq said, but after watching the recent Dispatches on the ‘Problem’ Princes, I’d like reforms to make sure they don’t abuse the system. I’d also like the lesser Royals to get proper jobs – no-one really cares about them.

[4] Meanwhile millions of women in Northern Ireland still can’t get an abortion. There are about 350,000 women of childbearing age in the Six Counties.

I don’t see why the head of state should always be a posh person. Seems a bit unfair that.

You didn’t have to agree with devolution to see that it had clearly identifiable benefits – mainly, more local control over decision-making.

What benefits to England?

I see benefits to Scotland. I see benefits to Wales – what I want to see is real regional government of England.

As for the monarchy – if they are to stay, get rid of the civil list and and any benefits that are paid to them and to add to that they all should pay their taxes like anyone else.

“As for the monarchy – if they are to stay, get rid of the civil list and and any benefits that are paid to them and to add to that they all should pay their taxes like anyone else.”

Agreed, providing they can keep the revenue from the Crown Estates.

It is clearly right that within the paradigm of an existent monarchy there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender.

What about discrimination on grounds of birth order? Or discrimination on grounds of parents marital status?

There must be discrimination against some people – it is not possible for everyone to be the sovreign.

Not that I can honestly say I give a damn.

Agreed, providing they can keep the revenue from the Crown Estates.

If they are taxed in full on it and not just the surplus – then we have a negotiating start point.

Why can’t I be King?

Because you’re not the first (not-married-to-a-Catholic) male in line to the throne.

I thought we’d covered this.

I think the Monarchy should be put out to tender. If another firm can do the job cheeper then the job should go to them.

Also, the succession smacks of nepotism to me.

@ 19 – that will be Capita then.

“Because you’re not the first (not-married-to-a-Catholic) male in line to the throne.”

I might do a better job though.

“I think the Monarchy should be put out to tender. If another firm can do the job cheeper then the job should go to them. ”

Yes, and I have always thought that seeing as the right believes in the free market, members of the Royal family should charge for appearances . Opening fates, or supermarkets, would have a set fee, and if they give a speech it could increase..

No doubt the shires would be have plenty of garden parties, and fetes that need opening by gormless, posh airheads. All the money they make could be deducted from the Civil list, just like people on Welfare.

17. Why can’t I be King?

Because you are not German.

From Post 22:

“17. Why can’t I be King?
Because you are not German”.

Obviously this is serious, cutting-edge humour, but perhaps a touch racist? The point, presumably, is to alert people to the fact that the Royal Family has German ancestors. So what Sally? Germans are people too, aren’t they?

“Obviously this is serious, cutting-edge humour, but perhaps a touch racist? The point, presumably, is to alert people to the fact that the Royal Family has German ancestors. So what Sally? Germans are people too, aren’t they?”

Besides, most of the English have German ancestors.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to sally, she is either a troll or a 12 year old with a mother-sized chip on her shoulder. Phrases like “gormless, posh airheads” are indicative of an IQ in single figures.

6. Shariq, your comments display common sense- the rarest of senses.

Spain, Japan, Demark, Belgium, Netherlands , Sweden and Norway are all constitutional monarchies and appear to have adjusted to the modern world in an effective manner. Juan Carlos of Spain stopped the coup d’etat by the civil guard and military officers and in doing so , saved socialists and liberals from being imprisioned. That is why many Socialists in Spain are keen monarchists.

14 and 16. Richard as you know well, if the Monarch regained the income from the Crown Estates it would be far larger than the Civil List.

I imagine many jewish and muslim people would prefer the Monarch to remain anglican, rather than become Roman Catholic. The C of E and the Methodists have women priests and the Roman Catholics do not . A Monarch who took a more traditional view of doctrine than the present Pope, is unlikely to produce more harmonious relations between faiths.

There is the issue of if there is no Monarch , who is the head of state. Sarkozy ,Chiraq de Gaulle and D’Estang all act like monarchs. Or should as in Germany, the Chancellor is the senior politician with the head of state acting in ceremonial , almost monarchal manner.

Japan manages to marry a constituttional monarchy, a respect for tradition while having some of the largest and most successful technology companies and is a major exporter- why cannot we copy their success?

Someone mentioned the royals ‘keeping’ the Crown Estates. The Crown Estates were never the personal property of the Windsor family, so they won’t get them in a republic.

Anyway, onto the main point. Absolutely right about not tinkering with the monarchy but getting rid of it instead.

@Fellow Traveller

The government has no intention of doing anything about this proposal. They made all the right noises so they can defeat the Harris bill with the excuse that they’ll do it properly at a later date and not look like they’re in favour of discrimination. It’s a nice way to kill off a half-decent idea.

Want to know why they won’t do anything about, read my CiF post from Friday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/27/gordon-brown-monarchy-constitutional-reform

Basically all prime ministers love what the monarchy gives them – power – and they’re not going to jeopardise that.

@Shariq

I think you’re missing an important point here. It’s not just about electing a replacement for the Queen. It’s about having a genuinely democratic constitution based on the sovereignty of the people.

A lot more on the constitution and answers to your points at http://www.republic.org.uk

The monarchy cannot be reformed. This bunch of scroungers-par-excellence MUST be abolished at one stroke. Alas, no British government will allow much scrutiny of these parasites. It’s very sad that in 2009 we still have royalty and religion plagueing our lives. Ken Partington

Charlie:

“Japan manages to marry a constituttional monarchy, a respect for tradition while having some of the largest and most successful technology companies and is a major exporter- why cannot we copy their success?”

Our status as a constitutional monarchy has no bearing on our technology, exports or any other aspect of trade and industry. It also has nothing to do with whether we have a “respect for tradition”.

I could name a whole load of republics – France, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland – that seem to be doing pretty well without a hereditary head of state and a taxpayer-funded life of luxury for their family. I would say that most of them have a respect for tradition too.

Ultimately, though, this is about having a fully-functioning democracy where power flows upwards from the people, rather than trickling down from the Crown. And no, this isn’t about the Queen personally using her (considerable) powers – it’s about the monarchical system that gives Gordon Brown the powers of a king.

Shariq:

“However the monarchy is a stabilising presence relatively untainted by politics and it doesn’t interfere with parliament.”

How is the monarchy a stabilising presence? Please explain.

“How would a President be elected? Would he/she have more or less formal powers than the Queen currently has? Would by virtue of being elected, the President have more informal powers?”

Well, how about the German or Irish model? The President has a largely ceremonial role but with some important reserve powers (such as the power to appoint a Prime Minister, to call elections and to sign Acts of Parliament into law).

“I think that this would be a complete waste of political capital, have miniscule benefits and would probably end up having negative consequences which we can’t forsee right now.”

Well, that’s always a good way to shut down the debate – the old “unintended negative consequences” line. Care to say what these might be?

Green Party Oxford West candidate Peter Tatchell is a declared Republican!

http://www.greenoxford.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=378&Itemid=135

I thought Tatchell was intending to split the so-called “progressive” vote in Oxford East rather than standing against Evan in OxWAb?

Oh the Monarchy freaks are emerging from their holes in force again. They have no rational views to put forward – a bit like the blinkered Starkey who always raises the absurd and asinine ” unintended negative consequences” of a President this and a President that as a reason for doing nothing.. This is the rhetoric of fear and it will not wash any more. I agree that the time is ripe for the abolition of this outrageous institution and the spongers who live orrff it. William.

Ken. There is a difference in my opinion between royalty and religion. One we are compelled to pay for through our taxes and the other we are free (at least in the UK) to believe in or not. Some religious people are republican too. Let us get rid of the one that is held in place by our government. Religion will remain and rightly understood can be good for the individual. I would like to see the Anglican Church disestablished and it’s bishops removed from the House of Lords. The reason the AC remains in it’s privileged position is simply the royal connection. Remove the monarchy and remove the church from it’s loose state connection. Even though I have religious beliefs I want a secular state. The Head of this State should be free from religious ties in his/her role but free to hold them on a personal level.

Religion and royalty are two seperate issues. The queen should not be the Head of State nor Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church.

28. There is agood argument that if Germany and Austria had become constitutional monarchies after WW1, it would have prevented the rise of the Nazis. Juan Carlos of Spain, ordered the army back to barracks in 1981, stopping the coup d’etat. A friend’s father who was liberal journalist was very grateful as he was on the Civil Guards list of people to be arrested.

Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are modern countries with constitutional monarchs.

A Conservative party , in power for 18 years, with 12 of those years with Thatcher and Tebbit as president and prime minister would have been interesting. If the leadership had been Foot and Benn , then I think the result would have been just as unsuitable for this country. A constitutional monarchy helps to prevent extremism. Shariq, has made a good point about unintended consequences. There is the possibility of this country falling into a depression which could prove the basis of the rise of extremist parties. Elected politicians can be very spineless at standing up to extremists, whether communist or fascist, as was shown in the 10 years before 1940. A constitutional monarch can help to glue the country together in time of crisis.

The French president acts like a monarch, De Gaulle and D’Estang are perefect examples . France is now on her fifth republic.

The Royal Perogative which allows the Prime Minister so much power can be given to Parliament without the need for abolishing the Monarchy.

Richard Harris – The point of mentioning the German Royal connection may be considered racist by some but it is nevertheless a fact. In 1917 the change of name from Saxe – Coburg – Gotha Unt … goodness knows what was changed to Windsor. This was when Britain was at war with Germany and the King in order to save his teutonic neck and the Monarchy opted for the change. It was a deplorable act that the British media failed to address at that time – hence the present d appalling undemocratic institution we are lumbered with in the 21st. Century. Yes I will repeat it the 21st Century??????? William.

We do not want to take a thousand years gradually picking away at the monarchy. Get rid of it lock stock and barrel and restore to the people the property and lands the monarchy appropriated in the past.
It is quite indefensible on moral grounds and on pollitical grounds this country needs a new start , putting our disgraceful colonial past behind us, with a written constitution in a classless society where everyone is empowered to participate. I want my grandchildren to live in a new, fairer Britain where all children are treated like princes and princesses and in which anyone can aspire to becoming the elected Head of State.

The monarchy should be abolished while it exists we do not have true democracy. Religion should play no part in politics and we should be able to choose our head of state on merit, regardless whether they have a religion or not.

[32] The first efforts to remove the bishops from the Lords go back to 1641! I think they’re well aware they’re anomalous and tend to abstain in principle from controversial legislation, valuing their membership for its speaking, not its voting, rights. Other faith leaders are offered life peerages from time to time. There is of course no example anywhere in the world of an appointed legislative house commanding public respect – the Canadian senate is held in even lower esteem than our Lords.

But be careful what you wish for – I have a recurrent nightmare of the Tories offering an elected Lords on some form of “fancy franchise” (property ownership, perhaps – or exclusion of welfare recipients) – won’t appear in their next manifesto, but maybe the one after that?

[33] Charlie, I know it’s hopeless arguing with you because, in the best tradition of the sergeants’ mess, you never listen to anyone, but one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Yes, Juan Carlos I is an excellent advertisement for constitutional monarchy – apart from suppressing a coup, he gave personal backing to the legalisation of the Communist Party! You can almost feel sorry for Franco, who bequeathed him the throne in his father’s lifetime, believing him to be the more sympathetic to Francoism. But of course, Juan Carlos remembered that his grandfather had been deposed, and this has doubtless coloured his approach.

On the other hand, our own George V exercised his prerogative power to appoint as Prime minister a man who had only a handful of followers in the House of Commons – Ramsay MacDonald in 1931: the constitutional position was clear – he should have invited Henderson, as leader of the largest Party, to form a government: if (as was likely) Henderson had declined, he should have turned to Baldwin as leader of the second largest Party. Either man should have been granted a dissolution upon request, as indeed MacDonald was.

There is also the disgraceful behaviour of Sir John Kerr, Governor-General of Australia in 1975, in dismissing the Whitlam government.

Of course, such shenanigans are possible with elected non-executive Presidents too although as their reputation and status are necessarily conduct-based that may be thought to be a safeguard.

The Whitlam case is also interesting in that it arose from his failure to get his budget through the (elected) Australian Senate, where he didn’t have a majority. It’s a nice question as to whether an elected Upper House should have the power to do that in a Parliamentary system (as opposed to a US-type one).

“Constitutional Monarchy”?

Our Constitution is not worth the paper it’s not written on. Let’s build a real constitution taking only what is truly just and democratic from our present arrangements.

Maybe France still has some tumbrils and associated kit we could borrow to deal with those undemocratic left-overs who don’t want to live under a constitution that has removed their hereditary priveleges.

@Charlie

“There is agood argument that if Germany and Austria had become constitutional monarchies after WW1, it would have prevented the rise of the Nazis”

No there isn’t. Can you explain that logic? Europe was in an almost permanent state of conflict when it was ruled by kings and queens, now we’re enjoying one of the longest periods of peace on the continent in history.

If this ‘good argument’ was so good, why did the Allies insist on a federal republican constitution for Germany after WWII?

Monarchy does nothing for peace whatsoever. Carlos in Spain was put on the throne by Franco. Kudos to him for supporting democracy, but he did that because he was a decent man, not because he was king. Spanish support for their monarchy doesn’t go much further than Carlos… like the UK Spain has a very unpopular heir.

Your comments about Thatcher/Tebbit are just fantasy, as is your rather bizarre statement that monarchy prevents extremism. Monarchy doesn’t prevent anything. If you take a look at the way the constitution works, you’ll see that the monarchy abdicated responsibility for power long ago and that power now rests with the PM. Even if the Queen wanted to stop an ‘extremist’ PM she couldn’t without triggering a constitutional crisis which she would lose.

More importantly though, she has no right whatsoever to make decisions about what political opinions are ‘extreme’. That’s the job of the electorate.

Of course, there is no rational justification for a monarchy. However, there is a pragmatic justification which suits our current democratic process and there is still a large majority who would prefer to keep a monarchy for maintaining traditions and cultural and social identity. Plus, anything that makes the socialists through their toys out of the pram is a good thing.

I think, public interest in the lives of the Royal Family are waning. That could be the result of our politicians becoming more entertaining. Unlike the royals, the Govt makes changes that effect our lives. They also preach to us on morality and honesty, so it hilarious when the Home Secretary is claiming for her husband’s porn films.

Personally, I’d like to see a further cut in the civil list and more of the Royal palaces turned over to profit making tourist attractions. I’m happy to see sexual equality in accession to the throne, but I would not like to see changes to the rules that disqualify Catholics or other religions. Such a move would be contrary to our identity and our historical struggle for a more progressive religious culture.

Fellow Traveller in #4 is close to the truth. This whole debate is timed to hide the present iincompetence of the Govt, the defeat of the Left on the issue of debt and fiscal stimulation and the corruption of Brown’s ministers. It is also a sop to sectarianism in Scotland, where Brown is desperate maintain the status quo that keeps Labour in power. It will become another Fox Hunting debacle.

As someone raised a Roman Catholic in Northern Ireland in the really bad old days of Unionist one-party rule, I have always objected to paying tax to maintain a political and religious dispensation – personified in the Monarchy – which discriminates against the faith I was raised in. My mother and father were made to swear allegiance to the Queen on a Protestant Bible even in pretty low level, non-political, jobs. If they hadn’t, they would have been sacked ! We are told much has changed since then. Has it – really ? Tinkering with the Monarchy is pointless and will be resisted all the way. Far better to have a republic where any citizen can aspire to be Head of State and where no religion is established with its clergy sitting in Parliament by right, funded by all taxpayers of all faiths and of none.

All of those calling for the abolition of the monarchy – are you in favour of a referendum?

[42] Yes, I’m in favour of one. Not during the present reign, but if Charles refused to be crowned until he’d won one I’d think better of him. Wouldn’t you?

Two things.
First – as to Evan Harris’ Bill:
The principle of male primogeniture and the principle of civil rights discrimination on the grounds of personal beliefs are both so odious that any effort to remove them -even from something as equally odious as the monarchy- is to be welcomed.
However, removing the monarchy and all other hereditary titles and functions would be far better.

Second:
“@Charlie
“There is agood argument that if Germany and Austria had become constitutional monarchies after WW1, it would have prevented the rise of the Nazis” ”

My dear boy.
Didn’t you know that Fascist Italy was a Constitutional Monarchy?
That Mussolini wasn’t Head of State but Prime Minister?
Have you never read about who ignored the actual parliamentary majority but put Mussolini into office and dissolved Parliament to let him win a rigged election?
Have you never heard of the intellectually and physically stunted Head of the House of Savoy, the King of Italy from 1900 to 1946, Victor Emanuel III?

37. I thought debate was about raising points of argument. What I have said is that a country can have a constitutional monarchy;have a democratic and well funded welfare state with its companies at the cutting edge of technology and being significant export earners.

39. Graham Smith. Germany no longer had a monarchy in 1945. Perhaps the Americans learnt from 1919 and kept on the Emperor in Japan to hold the country together to enable the growth of a democratic system. In 1945, Japan was run entierly by the Americans.

In 1919 the power vacuum in Berlin led to conflict between the communists and nationalists. Conflict destroyed the Social Democrats and moderate conservatives , especially the Bavarian Catholics. It became a struggle between the communists and the Nazis. Many communists ended up as Nazis. There was no moderating systen to act as ballast to prevent violent swings between the extremists. The destruction of a monarchy helped Franco to come to power. Often the presence of conservative forces prevent the rise of fascism and the presence of social democrats prevents the rise of communism. In the late 1930s France fell apart politically and was incapable of defending itself against the Nazi invasion- even though it had a largy army. There was no entity around which a sufficient percentage of the French people could unite to effectively oppose the Nazis . The French communists collaborated with the Nazis up to May 1941 and the Vichy Government collaborated up to mid 1942 ( Mitterand included).

The royal families of Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium helped to maintain unity of purpose amongst an occupied people.

The comments from Prince Charles that he is determined to become king beggar belief. On what possible democratic basis could this be supported? How can Gordon Brown, or any other British politician, lecture Iraq, Iran or any other country about the virtues of democratic government when the UK allows the Queen immunity from being questioned in parliament, her rather sad and dysfunctional family continues to squat on the over burdened taxpayers, and any attempt to question their privileges is still viewed as lese majesty. The Monarch is the pinnacle of a class system which is outmoded, embarrasing and still views the rest of us as her “subjects.”

Tinkering with this system is pointless. Sweep it away and release the energies of a population from this nonsense where titles are conferred on royals of no very obvious merit and these far exceed whatever might be conferred on someone of genuine worth and merit. The conferring on a generalship on Edward Windsor, after he failed to complete a military course, is distasteful to many, such as myself, who has served in the military and devaluations genuine and hard earned promotion.

The red herring of dividing anti-monarchists by demanding to know their proposal for its replacement is the only successful tactical move left to the indefensible institution’s defenders.

No monarchy in history -anywhere on earth- was ever peacefully abolished with an alternative proposed and agreed to replace it. Not even Italy in 1946.

No Monarchy in history was ever successfully abolished by agreeing that it should go – but only after the next system was agreed. Not even in Sweden where the Social Democratic Party, committed to a Republic, has won every election but four since 1932 and yet the King still presides at Cabinet meetings!

Every attempt to abolish monarchy by arranging the alternative first has failed. Everywhere.

The issue is clear and simple. Monarchy must be abolished – immediately. Once its gone, the House of Commons can exercise Sovereignty through the Speaker and summon a National Convention to debate a Constitution to be presented to the People in a Referendum. If we cant agree on that, we have already lost.

As to my own preference for what should replace it, of course I have a point of view.

I prefer the Swiss model where there is no Head of State and no Head of Government.

Swiss sovereignty is vested in the Swiss People and the Swiss Government is obligatorily a Coalition.

The Speaker of the Unicameral Parliament arranges the negotiations between parties so that the Government (the Federal Council) allocates its jobs between themselves by agreement.

The members take it in turns to be presiding officer (Chair) and Vice-Chair for 6 months each.

The Chair signs Ambassadors appointments and receives foreign Ambassadors.

The Chair also goes to the Airport to greet or wave goodbye to visiting foreign Heads of State.

I remember when Reagan met Gorbachev in Geneva, they arrived on 29 June and left on 3 July.

It was the Minister of Education who went to greet them and the Minister of Transport who saw them off.

The Swiss waste neither time nor money on any of the useless functions of State President or Prime Minister.

They have no cult-of-personality national ‘leader.

Parliament appoints and controls the senior officers of the Swiss Armed Forces and when war clouds gather the Parliament elects one officer to be ‘The General who is mandated to do whatever is necessary to ensure that attacking Switzerland would be a bad idea for any potential agressor.

The General is required to deliver a full accounting of actions taken – once the danger is past.

That is how Switzerland kept both the Kaiser and Hitler at bay.

I like that system.

It works.

Switzerland is the only country on earth with monuments commemorating Generals who never fought a war.

Who needs a Head of State?
What use are they?

Who needs a Head of Government?
What use are they, either?

45. Charlie

“The royal families of Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium helped to maintain unity of purpose amongst an occupied people.”

The King of the Belgians, Leopold III, was a collaborationist who undermined the elected government by ignoring them and ordering an armistice on his own authority. He installed an illegal Fascist Quisling Government and presided over the Nazification of his country including the deportation of 65,000 Belgian jews – 40,000 of whom went to their deaths.
At the Liberation he was suspended from his functions immediately and then deposed by the outraged sovereign people. Monarchy only survived in Belgium thanks to the refusal of neo-Nazi Flemish politicians to agree to its abolition.

Not fighting against the Nazis isn’t something to be praised.

And the usual red herring is something along the lines of “Would you prefer Neil Kinnock or Tony Blair?”

Would I would prefer is to see the back of the current royals which are floating on an expensive charade. School children lined up and handed flags to wave to the Queen. The Royal route and venues in Australia changed because of lack of interest and desperate attempts to find enough people to play in the pantomime. Australians shown television pictures of a young Queen and then amazed to discover that the Queen is neither young nor surrounded by enthusiastic crowds: these came from another age.

The Royal family are not harmless pantomime figures. Prince Charles makes silly comments on architecture about which he seems to know little. He wants homeopathy and other dotty New Age nonsense provided on the NHS. He is listened to by those who know little better because he is assumed to have authority or knowledge. None of them have the knowledge or bottle to appear on a genuine probing television programme or before a Parliamentary committe to justify themselves.

They, whether they know it or not, are the greatest victims, trapped in this fantasy land. Bite the bullet; sweep the Augean Stables and release them and us from this nonsense.

The Republic of Ireland model of a republic is one I’m very familiar with and favour. They have a written constitution, amendable by referendum, and a president elected by universal popular suffrage who carries out largely ceremonial and certain constitutional functions. The present president, Mary McAleese, wasn’t even born in the Republic but In Belfast in Northern Ireland and there have been both Roman Catholic and Protestant presidents. They have a Senate and Dail (Assembly) chamber and the Taoiseach (Chief/Prime Minister) is Head of Government. There is no established church and the president has no formal link with any church.

Perhaps the epoch we are in makes a climatic analogy apt and Evan Harris seeks incremental weathering by shifts of sun and rain of an old rock that now obstructs the path of progress in a new landscape; whereby a fissure becomes a crack, a crack a fragment and one day that is left is dust.

Personally, I think geological tinkering is irrelevant. There is are are tectonic shifts that are now completely unstoppable.

1. Long term political and economic stability has hitherto fostered Britains pretige and place in the world and even after the decline of empire and of manufacturing industry, the nation had sufficient kudos to remain an international hub for banking and financial services. This continuity demanded that the ancient and familiar institutions of Britain remained in place so that the merchants and governments of the world could feel secure in depositing their gold and stocks and trading through the city. The monarchy has has a cushy ride on the back of this efficacious need to preserve the quaint, the quirky and the archaic.

3. The epoch framing, historical nature of the present global recession will see us all emerge into a changed world. We already know that Britain’s place at the table will be different.
In the modernisation, with the emergence of India, China, Brazil and Russia there will be no place for the measured sentimentality that has enabled the monarchy to survive for so long.

4. Britain is n ow unmistakebly a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religion society. It is frankly delusional for Charled Windsor to talk about being a protector of all faiths. There are others that talk in a similar way who although well medicated and receive care in the community, do not receive in benefits what he does. Seriously, I cannot think of any educated, thinking population buying into such egotisical claptrap.

The fear that we would lose by abolishing the Monarchy in extraordinary. Didn’t Blair, and he was not alone, use the Royal Prerogative to push through all kinds of ploys regarding the Iraq invasion which avoid debate, never mind scrutiny, by Parliament.

And how does the expenses of the Royal Family, special trains and recently that obscene yacht, the Royal Flight etc measure up in these tough times. As for Charles Windsor and his Green credentials – puleese!

@Charlie

“There is a good argument that if Germany and Austria had become constitutional monarchies after WW1, it would have prevented the rise of the Nazis”

Sorry to keep going on, Charlie, but just a minute!
Kaiser Wilhelm was an admirer of Hitler, honoured to have a Nazi Guard of Honour at his exiled home in Holland for the last year of his life after the Occupation and was accorded a State Funeral by Hitler in 1941.
Crown Prince Wilhelm joined the Na

Once again, Charlie: You wrote: “There is a good argument that if Germany and Austria had become constitutional monarchies after WW1, it would have prevented the rise of the Nazis”

Sorry to keep going on, Charlie, but just a minute!

The ex-Kaiser Wilhelm was an admirer of Hitler, grateful to have a Nazi Guard of Honour at his exiled home in Holland for the last year of his life after the Occupation and was accorded a State Funeral by Hitler in 1941.
Crown Prince Wilhelm deferred to Hitler as extreme Right Wing candidate for President against Hindenburg in 1932, joined the Nazi Party and for two crucial years gave Hitler and other leading Nazis photo-opportunities with him to attract Royalist support to their cause.
He only retreated from such when his closest political advisor was nevertheless murdered by the Nazis in June 1934.
He never spoke against the Nazis, however -not even after the WW2- but just fell silent.
But his eldest son volunteered for Military Service in 1939 and was killed fighting for Hitler in France in 1940.

So much for the German Hohenzollern Imperial family.

It is true that the Austrian hapsburgs were anti-Nazi but as Auistria was absorbed by Germany and not the other way round, I don’t really see what point you are trying to make about that.

55. geradmulholland. Hitler would have needed to remove a constitutional monarch to take all the powers needed to become an absolute dictator. The Bavarian catholic aristocracy would have probably resisted more effecctively if there had been a constitutional monarch. The destruction of the catholic aristocracy of southern Germany and Austro – Hungarian Empire was the last body who could have effectively opposed Hitler; by 1933 the social democrats had been destroyed . As I said before, social democrats are often the best at opposing communists and conservatives the best at opposing fascists. From 1933, what was important was to stop Hitler starting another World war. Both communists and fascists/Nazis wish to impose their will on a nation and change it to their wishes, without opposition. A constitutional monarchy can be very effective at providing a bulwark against fascism

With regard to the many cultures and faiths in this country , Britain is a predominantly ( 90%)Celtic/Viking/Anglo-Saxon / Norman nation with a Christian background which is tolerant of other faiths and cultures. A jewish person once said ” Britain is the only country in which I can vote Conservative without worrying about the sound of jackboots”. A very successful Hindu businessman praised the tolerance of this country as has such Mulsim business men as Sir Gulam Noon. Sir Andrew Sacks, Chief Rabbi and Archbishop Sentenu are good examples of the tolerance of this country and both have said we ought to be more proud of our traditions. Therefore, Charles taking about being “Defender of Faith” is an idea which should be discussed.

In France, in the election before last the presidential race was between Chiraq and fascist , Le Pen. The left of centre parties were utterly useless.

A constitutional monarchy can act as a bulwark against extremism, particularly where the threat is from the right.

No Govt will abolish the monarchy with consulting the public via a referendum. There is no mandate from the population. The republicans are a minority. Hence, the fascist language of the above, who want to see their views imposed. As I said earlier there is little moral defence of a monarchy in modern times. However, there is a pragmatic one when it comes to our democratic system, which has worked well, despite the actions of corrupt politicians such as Tony Blair. The primary defence is to maintain our traditions, in a way that keeps our identity, harms nobody, yet benefits us from trade and tourism.

“Britain is n ow unmistakebly a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religion society”

Its typical, dare I say it, racist nonsense from the Left to think that immigrants to the UK don’t want to continue our cultural and political traditions or even to use them as a tool to destroy our identity and culture

It always makes me smile when I hear the pro Monarchy people claim that they got us through the war, and the dear old Queen mother went down the East End and looked the working class in the eye, and all that old bollocks.

In fact, there is good reason to believe that when Hess came to the UK in 1940 to meet senior landed gentry in the Tory party, a deal was being thrashed out for a peace settlement in which Britain would have peace with Germany, and in exchange Churchill would be removed from office and replaced by a good old Tory aristocrat, and the Queen mother would have stayed on willingly with her husband as a sort of Vichy Royal family.

We will never know for sure because when they opened the cabinet papers a few years ago, much of it had mysteriously vanished, and had been removed to the Royal archives at Windsor where they will never see the light of day. Thankfully Churchill put a stop to what ever dodgy deal was being constructed.

Sally. The dear old queen mother had a car and flight standing by to get her and her husband safely to one of the colonies should danger threaten. They appeared after the bombing and she did the usual simpering that she had already perfected. As for enduring the “hardships with her people” she and the rest of them lived high on the hog from the royal estates. They are the most successful freeloaders of the century.

Meanwhile, her weak and Nazi sympathasising brother-in-law had to be pushed into a non job in the Bahamas (as governor, I think) and to get him out of they way. I think Churchill put most of the pressure on that one. But why should a hopeless misfit like that be given a job as Governor. He should probably have stood trial for treason.

I felt some sympathy for Mrs Simpson in the end. She stuck by her weak and traitorous husband and for some reason remained unforgiven by the Queen Mum who had such elevated ideas – utter fantasy of course – about her royal status. Princess Margaret was regarded as “The Guest from Hell” when she visited her “friends.” What example do these promiscuous, ill educated, promise breaking, wasters set? How dare they set themselves up as exemplars to the rest of us; superior in what sense?

With a global economy in meltdown; the planet being wrecked environmentally; and an increasing rage from the peasantry, I think Gordon Brown needs to wake up. We do not want them; they do know good; their fancy sress are titles are an affront. How much more clear has this to be made. Tinkering won’t help. The geological analogy fits the bill – dispose of the rock that blocks the stream. Give them a pension, a council house each and boot them out. It can’t be all that difficult.

59. Sally . Noone is claiming the British monarch ensured our survival. What is frightening is how few people were willing to resist Hitler from 1929 onwards in this country. Up til 1935, The Labour Party resisted re -armament along with many conservatives.

“Noone is claiming the British monarch ensured our survival.”

Oh yes there are people who claim this. Maybe not on here ,but I have heard them, the usual Royal brown noses.

What I don’t understand is why, if we are going to have non political head of state, why do people always assume that the person has to be a politician or former politician? They always trot out this crap about President Thatcher or President Blair.

But the Royal Family is supposed to be non political (of course that is rubbish) but if they are going to be non political, you can anyone you like. At least we could choose.

Thanks Sally. Yes and my parents remembered and hated her (the Queen’s Mother’s) sickly condescending hand waiving and candy floss smile as she stood in their bombed out street and then went back to the luxury of her bomb-roof shelter deep, deep under Buckingham Palace.My father recalls someone telling her to bugger off, but you won’t see or hear that in any of the British sycophantic media ever! It was common knowledge also that she and all the privileged royals were living off the scarce but suddenly available fat of the land while the rest of the people had to make do with scraps. My relations assured me from inside knowledge that there was no shortage of food for the royals at the palace. Furthermore it was known that should there have been an invasion by Hitler, the royals would have been taken poste haste by a military aircraft or submarine to the safe shores of Canada while the rest of us faced the music. No I have absolutely no time for these royal scavengers and damn them all for eternity. Damn the Queen’s Mother and damn Elizabeth Battenberg as well not forgetting her children and their children. Damn them all.Incidentally why are there no images of a Gin bottle – Betting slips or Pounds Sterling on the recent statue of the Queen’s mother in Trafalger Square. A non-event that not many people attended except of course the outrageous sycophants and royal brown noses – perhaps at long last the gullible public have got wise to the biggest con of all time and seen through the propagandist flim flam.About time too. William.

Fellow Traveller: Because it is a progressive step in the right direction – not the best or ideal way – outright abolition is needed, but the alternative would create that chink in the door that would be opened wide quite soon leading to a long overdue Republic and real citizenship – not the fake example we have to put up with at present.

“With a global economy in meltdown; the planet being wrecked environmentally; and an increasing rage from the peasantry, I think Gordon Brown needs to wake up. We do not want them; they do know good; their fancy sress are titles are an affront. How much more clear has this to be made. Tinkering won’t help. The geological analogy fits the bill – dispose of the rock that blocks the stream. Give them a pension, a council house each and boot them out. It can’t be all that difficult.”

You are contradicting yourself, dear boy. Its exactly the major issues, some of which you mention, that need solutions or at least action, and not timewasting on the monarchy. There is no popular support for amending the monarchy.

As for an increasing rage from the peasantry. I’m afraid, protesting middle-class students are not peasants. The rage from us peasants will be directed at Labour next year, when they face wipe-out.

Chavscum. Thank you for taking the trouble to comment on my little rant. I fear you are losing the debate here. The Royals are are the scummy free loading froth on Society. I admit I am tinged will a little bias after a close friend was unfortuneate enough to have an arm sliced off defending “Queen and Country.” Some of us thought that at least one of the Royals was prepared to put himeself in the path of danger – Harry Windsor. Nope, Harry scarpered and legged it for the night clubs to fight photographers.

And please don’t mention fatty Andrew Windsor and his Falklands “adventure”. He was never in any danger.

As for William Windsor? He managed to fly a helicopter in an amazingly short time – they are actually extremely difficult to fly as another of my helicopter flying friends tells me – and all Willie Windsor was pick up some kudus, play about and land the thing at great public expense to impress one of his girl friends.

They, the Royals, are on the way out. And they are being torpedoed by the Internet and freedom of speech. The Brits were the only people in Europe not allowed to read about Nazi Eddie and his Mistress before WW11. And the Royals managed with some success to block Kitty Kelley’s expose of their antics. I think it was Kitty Kelley who described The Queen Mum falling face forward into a bowl of trifle blind drunk. Di, married to Charles Windsor as a human brood mare, hated Queen Mum and her basilisk stare.

Clearly you are winning the debate, when you won’t find anyone prepared to squabble in the gutter of tabloid gossip. I think you are a little obsessed and you need to get some healthy hobbies.

God save the Queen.

Oh come on Chavascum, please do not venture into the dreadful boring, irrational and much travelled “traditional” and blinkered road of muck and mire prescribed by the toe-ragg the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail – the latter so scared of Republic it ran screaming to mother and refused to accept an advertisement extolling the virtues of Republicanism! After reading your prior postings I wan’t quite sure whether you were a Monarchy Freak or not, now with your absurd God Save the Queen rant clearly you are, and by association in favour of a cob-webbed and anchronistic institution that should have been fed to the dogs ages ago. Republic UK is doing a great job in getting the truth about these sponging scroundrels into the British public domain – freely available in Europe – but with a British media in thrall to the Queen and her lot it is very, very much an uphill task. Proportionately, the expenditure in getting the views of Republic across are roughly one pound sterling for every thirty three that the Monarchists spend. But times they are a changing and we are in urgent need of an appropriate people orientated national anthem. Moreover why not GOD SAVE THE PEOPLE old chap? William.

PS.All is made crystal for doubting irrational monarchy freaks in my book Monarchy:Politics of Tyranny & Denial. Good luck.William.

Chavscum. Steady on, Chavscum. This ad hominem stuff does not constitute a debate. Why are you becoming so upset with me? A knee jerk slavishness from Daily Mail readers in twin sets and cheap pearls towards Elizabeth Windsor is their problem. The Daily Mail, by the way, (I assume you are a reader, which I am not) has a contemptible record of pro nazi sympathesy before WW2. Chavscum, I know this is tough for you but you really cannot live in a fantasy land of the Women’s Institute, pictures of a sour faced Elizabeth Windsor on the wall and all those sly giggles at the racist comments of Philip. Liz is certainly one of the worst mothers with her ghastly frodeur, even to Charles Windsor. As a small boy, Charles was packed off by his emotionally frozen mum, to a hell on earth public school that he could never cope with. Guess what, she shook hands with him as he left.

As for Phil he was on the make from the start. Advised by Mountbatten. They are sanctimonious, creepy hypocrites: preaching family values and behavious like lecherous rabbits.

What is the matter with you, Chav? You can do better than this?

Come on , let’s show a bit of respect here! Charlie is not just “Charles Windsor”, but “His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland”!

And according to their website at http://www.royal.gov.uk, his surname when he needs one is Mountbatten-Windsor.

It’s a useful site – teaches us how to bow and curtsy when meeting one of the Royle Family, and instructs us to end a letter to Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, “I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant”. Now that’s clever. As an honest republican celt, I could never end a letter like that, so I can’t write to her!

Just occasionally I wonder if Charles Windsor thinks that he might have overdone the titles by just a touch. He also styles himself Prince of Wales and he and, when it suits them, they are off up to Scotland dressed in kilts.

Wouldn’t you think that even someone surrounded by flatterers and sycophants might think that he is just overdoing it a little. His ass licking servants admit that he musn’t be contradicted as a distinguished medical researcher discovered when he dared to raise the issue of homeopathy.

Charles response to those with whom disagrees is to turn his back on them.

Very true Michael and Broga,Michael you forgot the letters SA after his name. And yes he does turn his back on those he doesn’t agree with Broga – the most recent a Professor -with about half a dozen PHDs after his name who raised a pertinent point about his – the Princes idiotic and clearly refutable ‘scientific’ beliefs . However as one of Charlie’s arse lickers was heard to say: “you don’t question or argue with the Prince”! Of course thw world knows why. Many of us are trying to get this royal “visionary” ha, ha, to engage in open live debate, but he realises full well that he would be literally laughed out of the studio. In the meantime, why not have a look at the website http://www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk a marvellous satire on him and the rest of the royal spongers. It’s a really good and clever critique of the monarchy and I am sure will make you laugh. The Balmoral estate is just one feature that will probably appeal to your sense of humour Michael.

http://www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk and http://www.royal.gov.uk together say it all! Many thanks, William, nice to laugh out loud at them occasionally.

For educational and research purposes the following are required please. Does anyone know of an agency that might have photographic copies of Lord Porchester & the Queen together? Either those taken in the 1950’s,60’s or 1970’s. They allegedly do exist but after numerous enquires by me and my team, it looks very much as if they have been removed from the public domain. Not only mysterious but rather sad what!

William/Michael. Many thanks. I look forward to reading the links this week end. I am familiar with at least one episode involving Charles Windsor and his megalomania. A colleague, of scientific distinction himself, (FRS for a start) was invited “into the presence of His Royal Highness.” He was briefed at length on how he must behave and amognst all the twaddle he was told that HRH does not except to be contradicted; speak when spoken to; after being introduced and you are favoured with a brief word you may refer to HRH as “Sir” should he ask you a question or two. The flunkey involved had obviously bought into this bullshit to such as extent that he was close to slavering with delight and being able to give the briefing.

Charles indeed does turn away at any suggestion that there could possible be any contradiction of his many off the wall ideas. The fact that the man or woman putting them may be a Nobel Prize winner, someone who has broken new ground in medical reserach has no effect on this royal clown.

I was at Wembley on Weds; 90,000 singing God Save the Queen. Marvellous.

Charlie – ” Hitler would have needed to remove a constitutional monarch to take all the powers needed to become an absolute dictator. The Bavarian catholic aristocracy would have probably resisted more effecctively if there had been a constitutional monarch. The destruction of the catholic aristocracy of southern Germany and Austro – Hungarian Empire was the last body who could have effectively opposed Hitler”.

Can I recommend that you read a recent book “High Society in the Third Reich by Fabrice d’Almeida” which demonstrates, inter alia, that “if princes had constituted a profession, ‘they would have rivalled physicians as the most Nazified in the Third Reich (doctors’ membership peaked in 1937 at 43 per cent)’ ” and that by 1938, 20% of senior SS Officers were members of noble families.

Chavscum 90,000 singing GOD SAVE OUR TEAM clearly shows that unlike you not everyone is a Monarchy freak!!! I have been there and sung in support of our “gracious team”, “long to reign over us” many times but you in your saturated traditionalist and blinkered view choose to ignore this fact. Sporting match organisers who are governed by the Governmental/Monarchical status quo, invariably have a lead singer now to emphasise and conjure up support for a failing institution, now commonly recognised as an un-elected prejudiced and self supporting and self perpetuating political party at the centre of British governance – in other words the un-elected Political Party – Monarchy UK or MUK in its acronym form. You may not remember,but our idiotic and unrepresentative National Anthem – that Scotland and Wales have rejected by the way – was not played in cinemas at the end of a film years ago because the audience just got up and left! No deferential standing to attention or silly salutes. Moreover, there are very many in our society who would much rather sing the current German national anthem and consequently show rejection in a very bold manner of the “Windsors” teutonic roots – if you find that hard to swallow look on the internet old chap.However,it is clear that in your irrational inflexible concrete mind you prefer to remain a servile and deferential subject – condone an un-elected individual as a Head-of-State – accept that a privileged and pampered individual can decide whether or not to pay tax, – actually she didn’t pay a penny for at least three decades – whereas you and your nearest and dearest do not have that choice, not very democratic is it?- surely you do not approve of a Monarch undemocratically halting a Court case as well because it might be damaging to one of her children!!!!!!!!! – you sing the praises of a dreadful person who is an absolutist and above the law of the land – and by association condone the imposition of Heriditary Privilege. And yet if it was suggested that Blair, Brown or Cameron’s family members when they came of age be voted into the position of Heriditary PM you would hypocritically raise your hands in horror and disgust. Furthermore you presumably encourage women and young girls to demean themselves by curtseying before a mediocrity – and deny any of YOUR CHILDREN from ever having the right to become Head-of-State – and condone religious discrimination, as witnessed by the outmoded law of succession where marriage under certain unforgiveable and malicious circumstances is denied to a Catholic.The Monarchy is as I have stated in my book Monarchy:Politics of Tyranny & Denial just that – a tyranny that denies the British people the right to citizenship and a People’s Republic. You are certainly not a democrat but an odd Monarchical Absolutist who wishes the royal spongers in our midst to continue denying the people their natural right. How strange? To denude yourself into believing that a few people singing the National Anthem as YOU want it to be sung, is indicative of support for a defunct and anachronistic absolutism is a delusion. Don’t go on harming yourself old chap – your health may suffer because of it.

Chavscum, you really do need some sort of help as your slavish, knee jerk, sycophancy – apparently based on some kind of delusion about this family of freeloaders – is troubling to a kindly person such as myself. What are you up to, old boy? What quality have these mediocritries and constitional inadequates have that so attracts you? Do you really approve of witless nonentities sitting in the best seats, stopping the traffic to reach a match and then watching with the kind of frozen and patronising hauteur that should outrage rather than lead to praise.

The grisly aspect of this is that none of these twats have any interest in the game they are patronising. Get a grip, for gawd’s sake, there is a limit to the amount of pity even someone as generously disposed as myself can conjure up. Or at least offer some reasons or evidence for your chants of how wonderful they are. The Hitler masses chanted Seig Heil and your chants of God Save the Queen have an unfortuneate similarity.