Friday, March 27, 2009

Leave It Alone !

Here Sunder of the Fabian Society makes the case for rationalising the Monarchy. Few that wish to fiddle around with it care about the Monarchy though .Their views would be something of the sort set out by Orwell ..( it keeps them happy let them have it... ) .Their deeply patronising objective is ,to retain the form hollow it out and replace it with a set of contemporary Liberal nostrums for our education and enlightenment .
Now it is obviously an absurdity to talk about rationalising a spiritual symbol of the tribe .Is a Crown and Sceptre rational.? Is the fact of a Queen in this age defensible at all ? Should the Nation`s deepest sacrament , the Coronation , be moved to the South bank and turned into an inclusive multi-cultural day of face paint and dance ? That might be very nice ....

....... but I would prefer they left it alone.


it's either banned or compulsory said...

On Catholicism I'm with the 'don't care' crowd, things have moved on; likewise not-quite-primogeniture. But, if these things are to be changed, it should come from within The Monarchy and perhaps it is surprising that arch trendy Prince Charles has not already broached the subjects.
You cannot 'rationalise' The Monarchy, being King or Queen is not a Job to be bandied about by Equal Opportunity enthusiasts. If they allow themselves to be bullied into further fashionable reforms, 'The Firm' may not last much longer.
I remain Her Majestys' Loyal Subject and decline to recognise my supposed status as 'citizen' of the EU or anywhere else.

Newmania said...

I rather like that approach 'Its either' , it does have to chnage to stay alive but actually rweducing it to the Ministry of Pomp would kill it

Auntie Flo' said...

Opening up the monarchy to Catholics would be highly problematic and divisive.

The Catholic church, bless it, is fundamentally discriminatory, it will not allow its members' children to be brought up in any other religion but catholicism.

So, were we to have a Catholic monarch or consort, the monarchy could only ever he a Catholic one hence forward.

That would hardly be a modernisation or equal access, would it?

My instincts are to tell the nasty little Scotsman to keep his grubby, avaricious mits off of the English monarchy and monarch. We'll be sending him off on the road to the isles soon and do not want his interference in our government or royals meanwhile.

My guess is that William will be the one to modernise the monarchy and that he'll do it brilliantly, just as his dear mother would have done.

Newmania said...

I quite liked Its Either`s idea Flo , things have to change but from whthin would be so much better

Bill Quango MP said...

It really is best not to mess with it.
1} It just doesn't matter to many.
2} The law of unintended consequences will create a huge problem in the future.
3} The quaint, ancient institute of Monarchy does what its supposed to do, at a staggeringly small cost {In PF terms} in a way that British institutions used to operate. Like the House of Lords.
The House is a terrible way to carry out lawmaking, yet, thanks to hundreds of years of tradition, it sort of works.

The NO Catholic thing comes from an age where a Catholic was viewed as the exact equivalent of a Taliban Mulla who believes that suicide bombers are soft and need to do more to demonstrate their beliefs.
Catholics were viewed as a Daily Mailer would view Abu Hamza demanding that Canterbury Cathedral be turned into a Mosque.

Because that is what it was. A religious war. A proper, full on holy war that even turned into a civil war.

Is it OK for, say ..Prince Harry to marry a Moslem lady who wished to bring their children up, worshipping Allah and practising Sharia Law?

That was the reason for the law in the first place. So that this sort of issue could never arise and people could feel a bit of security and stop burning each other.
Fortunately 400 years of severe bloodshed have made it acceptable today to have a Catholic King.

{obviously excluding the views of Rangers fans and Northern Ireland who may have something to say on the issue}

But just don't mess with it. No real benefit accrues and plenty of potential conflict.
The best time to fix something is when its broke..
Is it broke?

*BBC NEWS 27 Jun 2008 ... The Queen and the Royal Family cost each person in the UK 66p in the last financial year.

* BBC licence costs every household £139.50. Say 4 people in a household = £34.85 each.

66p? It really is back of the sofa amounts.

Auntie Flo' said...

There's something very odd going on here, do you not think? Why would the Queen even agree to consider this?

Because someone in the line of succession wants to convert to Catholicism...? In order to bypass the barriers to his second wife becoming Queen? Someone so damn self serving and stupid that he would happily destabilise our country?

Auntie Flo' said...

Alternatively, could this be a warning shot to the bows of the Queen/ Monarchy?

"In extraordinary developments in the UK yesterday the Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King appeared to pour cold water on the government's plan for a further fiscal stimulus by saying it wasn't really possible. The government is already running a major deficit.

However in a truly extraordinary move the Governor was granted an audience with the Queen, who most unusually was prepared to allow a picture of the meeting to be handed to the media. What on earth were they doing? Have her Maj and the Guv lost all confidence in the PM? These are developments unknown in modern times.

Acting Liberal Democrat Party leader Vince cable decribed the move by the Governor - who controls Monetary Policy - as a 'coup d'etait' whilst the Prime Minster was out of the country on yet another foreign tour."

Auntie Flo' said...

"From The TimesMarch 25, 2009

Queen invites Mervyn King, Bank of England Governor, to palace

Valentine Low

In the midst of the economic crisis yesterday, when news about the nation’s finances dominated every news bulletin, the Queen did something she had never done before; she held an audience with the Governor of the Bank of England, at Buckingham Palace,
*for the first time since she came to the throne 57 years ago*.

For half an hour she and Mervyn King were in a room alone as they discussed the state of the economy. No one else was there: no advisers, no officials, no one to take notes of what was said. And no one — not unless Mr King lets indiscretion get the better of him when he comes to write his memoirs — will ever know what they said to each other.

It would not be stretching speculation too far, however, to suggest that the Queen expressed her concerns about the country’s problems and asked Mr King why not enough was done to forestall the effects of the credit crunch. For his part Mr King, who arrived after appearing before the Treasury Select Committee, may have expressed his opinions about Gordon Brown’s handling of the crisis.

This much hardly counts as fanciful guesswork, because the Queen has made her feelings known before. Last November, during a visit to the London School of Economics, she asked why nobody had seen the credit crunch coming.

Professor Luis Garicano, director of research at the LSE’s management department, told her: “At every stage, someone was relying on somebody else and everyone thought they were doing the right thing.”

The Queen called the situation “awful”.

....According to a Palace aide, the audience was one of a regular series of meetings she holds with key officials. “It is part of a general process designed to keep the Queen abreast of a whole range of issues that are relevant. Economic pressures are dominating our daily lives, so it is something very topical, very relevant.

“It is not that it was not important in the past, but the circumstances at the moment are unique,” they added"


Newmania said...

I agree with everyhting you say there BQ but I especially like your first paragraph which is quite the way I tend to see things .

Of course sometimes,sadly , you have to change to stay the same , but otherwise "chnage is bad " .. :)

Newmania said...

Will get back to you Flo , must give son brekkie right now

Little Black Sambo said...

The very existence of the Monarchy is a constant offensive reminder to the "history begins with me" people like Blair and his gang that there is a higher power than them and that they are here only for a season. The Queen lives in a palace, the PM in a terraced house - an excellent symbol. (Is there any truth in the story that President Blair was at one staqe looking for a grander house more commensurate with his self-importance, and was perhaps discouraged by the lack of encouragement his idea received when it was floated?)
(For the same reason we must keep Church schools, as a sign that children do not belong to the State.)

Newmania said...

Thats amazing Flo, could it reaslly be , the is a president for it
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 AND 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.
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.
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......

LBS - I am close to your view , I suspect that is exactly what this is all about

Blog Archive