comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 hours, 39 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sense of extended national history is clearly important to many people, and I won't argue that sweeping it away would have no negative consequences. But (as someone who heartily agreed with a poster who claimed my contributions to this have no balance) perhaps you could accept that there is also a flip-side to this. For instance, that there are also people who find the glorious national narrative, forged in empire and god-appointed kings yet sanitised of the realities of subjugation, quite inadequate as a way of accurately reflecting our history or present. Note the boos in Scotland and Wales. Note the barbed comments from former colonial subjects. And the feelings of those of us who see the British political constitution as an outlier in the privileged place aristocracy plays in our legislative structures, etc.
I'm not arguing that we should sweep everything away. But I do think our constitution and monarchy require modernisation that would enable democratic renewal. The former is far more important than the latter in this respect, but I think the symbolic role of the monarchy as it is presently framed is a cultural barrier.
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England, especially Southern England is the culturally dominant region in the UK
It is also the least Celtic and the most Anglo-Saxon/Norman
remember the population history of the British Isles over the past 2000 years
Before the Romans left, Britain was dominated by Celtic peoples
In the first few centuries AD, Germanic Tribes migrated over the Channel and pushed the Celts North and West
After 1066 the ruling elite were Norman
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 hours, 34 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester United vs Manchester City, if you will.
I agree with you Devonshire, it would undoubtedly become political which is actually one the best things about our monarchy, that it is apolitical.
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England, especially Southern England is the culturally dominant region in the UK
It is also the least Celtic and the most Anglo-Saxon/Norman
remember the population history of the British Isles over the past 2000 years
Before the Romans left, Britain was dominated by Celtic peoples
In the first few centuries AD, Germanic Tribes migrated over the Channel and pushed the Celts North and West
After 1066 the ruling elite were Norman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point he is making! Despite all regions having their own diverse cultures, the ones mostly presented to the UK are those of SE England, mostly London if we are being honest.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we could have had a shorter discussion if we'd got to this point sooner: you don't have such a problem with democracy being constrained by entrenched power in the hands of aristocratic and plutocratic elites.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, as I've said multiple times, I'm not coming at this from a binary position of status quo vs Republic with an elected ceremonial head of state, though on balance I would rather work towards the latter. But to answer your question, there are lots of examples of countries with ceremonial presidents where the role is not greatly politicised. Often the candidates emerge from outside politics, reflecting the powerlessness of the role. Obviously, it's a prominent position and therefore there's always critical attention, but that's the case with a monarch as well.
To take a couple of examples, Israel has a very fractious politics but their presidents (though typically coming from inside the political system) tend to provide a contrast by acting as a unifying and uncontroversial figure. In Germany the presidency is not 100% apolitical but the custom dictates that the incumbent suspends party affiliation and doesn't speak about day to day politics. There's been no great controversy or division attached to any of the German presidents of my lifetime.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we could have had a shorter discussion if we'd got to this point sooner: you don't have such a problem with democracy being constrained by entrenched power in the hands of aristocratic and plutocratic elites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I do not feel that we are being constrained by the monarchy. I have quite clearly stated that if I did feel that way (i.e. Fergie example) then I would support change.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, as I've said multiple times, I'm not coming at this from a binary position of status quo vs Republic with an elected ceremonial head of state, though on balance I would rather work towards the latter. But to answer your question, there are lots of examples of countries with ceremonial presidents where the role is not greatly politicised. Often the candidates emerge from outside politics, reflecting the powerlessness of the role. Obviously, it's a prominent position and therefore there's always critical attention, but that's the case with a monarch as well.
To take a couple of examples, Israel has a very fractious politics but their presidents (though typically coming from inside the political system) tend to provide a contrast by acting as a unifying and uncontroversial figure. In Germany the presidency is not 100% apolitical but the custom dictates that the incumbent suspends party affiliation and doesn't speak about day to day politics. There's been no great controversy or division attached to any of the German presidents of my lifetime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To imitate your Cathy Newman style of recent posting:
So you're saying that you prefer your heads of state to be political rather than apolitical?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite the gotcha you think it is. The head of state was held accountable for legal reasons rather than getting into hot water for political actions. This is unthinkable in the UK not because a member of the Royal Family is of better character than an elected commoner, but because our Royal Family benefits from a blanket of legal insulation and media reticence. It came out only years later that the Queen actively lobbied to ensure the Royal estate was exempted from certain new tax laws. Even more recently, it came to light that the UK State assisted Prince Andrew in avoiding facing legal questioning in the States, and no one can deny that the broadcast media have trodden very lightly on that story.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite the gotcha you think it is. The head of state was held accountable for legal reasons rather than getting into hot water for political actions. This is unthinkable in the UK not because a member of the Royal Family is of better character than an elected commoner, but because our Royal Family benefits from a blanket of legal insulation and media reticence. It came out only years later that the Queen actively lobbied to ensure the Royal estate was exempted from certain new tax laws. Even more recently, it came to light that the UK State assisted Prince Andrew in avoiding facing legal questioning in the States, and no one can deny that the broadcast media have trodden very lightly on that story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given that your precise language did not mention political controversy but merely controversy, I think you’ll find that I did GET YOU. Get me?
I’m bored of you now. Have a good day.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That 'vibe' is exactly the same now as it's always been, your either born into it or exlcusively picked to be a part of it,
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is having 'staff' is not the problem for me as such. It's the deference and protocol that gets me. The Queen remained Queen for 70 years purely because she stayed alive that long. It really wouldn't have mattered what kind of job she did. No one would really dare speak out.
Perhaps it shouldn't be that bothered about it really. They have no real effect on my day to day life. However, that could well be the point. I'm not the only one who will feel like that yet we've been told this last fortnight that we should be feeling some great loss.
To imitate your Cathy Newman style of recent posting:
So you're saying that you prefer your heads of state to be political rather than apolitical?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In direct response to your specific point that an elected president inevitably leads to politicisation of the role, I gave two examples of countries where even though the presidency isn't totally apolitical (though primarily ceremonial) the presidency hasn't become a political football.
Again, we could have a more fruitful conversation if you were willing to respond to specifics with specifics rather than move goalposts, as well as recognising that I'm not trying to advocate for a specific extreme change such as immediate abolition, but exploring a range of ideas as to how to reduce the impact of what I regard as an anti-egalitarian constitutional and cultural force.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is having 'staff' is not the problem for me as such. It's the deference and protocol that gets me. The Queen remained Queen for 70 years purely because she stayed alive that long. It really wouldn't have mattered what kind of job she did. No one would really dare speak out.
Perhaps it shouldn't be that bothered about it really. They have no real effect on my day to day life. However, that could well be the point. I'm not the only one who will feel like that yet we've been told this last fortnight that we should be feeling some great loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I totally understand that perspective. The indifference to them. I just think that across the globe there are many people that think fondly of them and look to them as an example of British values (rightly or wrongly but that’s the reality) and they really don’t cause us much harm (if any). The money isn’t an awful lot (if any), the influence on political systemic change that Red Russian is talking about is quite a stretch in my opinion and they don’t go around chopping peoples’ heads off anymore (can’t decide if that’s a good thing or a bad thing now).
I enjoy having the royals and don’t like the idea of a boring presidency and I think in terms of power/influence they are already watered down enough as it is.
It’s like Fergie being a director, I don’t think he’s causing troubles. If he were interfering with every manager and lots of decisions then I’d feel differently.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queens funeral today
Page 17 of 20
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
posted on 21/9/22
400
posted on 21/9/22
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 hours, 39 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sense of extended national history is clearly important to many people, and I won't argue that sweeping it away would have no negative consequences. But (as someone who heartily agreed with a poster who claimed my contributions to this have no balance) perhaps you could accept that there is also a flip-side to this. For instance, that there are also people who find the glorious national narrative, forged in empire and god-appointed kings yet sanitised of the realities of subjugation, quite inadequate as a way of accurately reflecting our history or present. Note the boos in Scotland and Wales. Note the barbed comments from former colonial subjects. And the feelings of those of us who see the British political constitution as an outlier in the privileged place aristocracy plays in our legislative structures, etc.
I'm not arguing that we should sweep everything away. But I do think our constitution and monarchy require modernisation that would enable democratic renewal. The former is far more important than the latter in this respect, but I think the symbolic role of the monarchy as it is presently framed is a cultural barrier.
posted on 21/9/22
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England, especially Southern England is the culturally dominant region in the UK
It is also the least Celtic and the most Anglo-Saxon/Norman
remember the population history of the British Isles over the past 2000 years
Before the Romans left, Britain was dominated by Celtic peoples
In the first few centuries AD, Germanic Tribes migrated over the Channel and pushed the Celts North and West
After 1066 the ruling elite were Norman
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 hours, 34 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester United vs Manchester City, if you will.
I agree with you Devonshire, it would undoubtedly become political which is actually one the best things about our monarchy, that it is apolitical.
posted on 21/9/22
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
posted on 21/9/22
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
posted on 21/9/22
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm always at pains to state this isn't an anti-English stance on my part but for quite a lot of us now the Queen/Monarchy are the ultimate symbols of us knowing our place.
Without labouring the point when there is a list of 'British culture it is mostly English. There's very rarely mention of the cultural events in Wales like the Eisteddfod. I fully understand why England gets most of the spotlight as its by far the biggest of the UK countries. It is a bit annoying though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England, especially Southern England is the culturally dominant region in the UK
It is also the least Celtic and the most Anglo-Saxon/Norman
remember the population history of the British Isles over the past 2000 years
Before the Romans left, Britain was dominated by Celtic peoples
In the first few centuries AD, Germanic Tribes migrated over the Channel and pushed the Celts North and West
After 1066 the ruling elite were Norman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point he is making! Despite all regions having their own diverse cultures, the ones mostly presented to the UK are those of SE England, mostly London if we are being honest.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we could have had a shorter discussion if we'd got to this point sooner: you don't have such a problem with democracy being constrained by entrenched power in the hands of aristocratic and plutocratic elites.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, as I've said multiple times, I'm not coming at this from a binary position of status quo vs Republic with an elected ceremonial head of state, though on balance I would rather work towards the latter. But to answer your question, there are lots of examples of countries with ceremonial presidents where the role is not greatly politicised. Often the candidates emerge from outside politics, reflecting the powerlessness of the role. Obviously, it's a prominent position and therefore there's always critical attention, but that's the case with a monarch as well.
To take a couple of examples, Israel has a very fractious politics but their presidents (though typically coming from inside the political system) tend to provide a contrast by acting as a unifying and uncontroversial figure. In Germany the presidency is not 100% apolitical but the custom dictates that the incumbent suspends party affiliation and doesn't speak about day to day politics. There's been no great controversy or division attached to any of the German presidents of my lifetime.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sadiq, for all of your talk of balance and middle ground, I haven't seen you engage with the point I've repeatedly made: that the alternative to the status quo isn't necessarily tearing down the monarchy, but potentially downsizing and modernising it. Is it not possible to envisage a situation where the institution is a bit less central to our national identity, and projects itself with a little bit less emphasis on centuries-old ritual. (Actually, there have been hints in Charles's past statements that he might be amenable to this.)
To take your United vs City analogy, while I wouldn't want to trade places with City, I do believe we could benefit from emulating their modern thinking and structures, and resist the temptation to complacently coast along on the enduring potency of our history and the dangerous logic of 'this club is unique, and we've always done it this way'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Devonshire, I don’t think the monarchy is as preventative as you do.
It also will come as little surprise to you that I do not think that much reform is needed, as opposed to you.
As I said in a previous post, progressives look for change and conservatives don’t.
If I felt that there were changes needed, like there clearly is in United’s case, then I would support that but I just don’t think that the monarchy is holding us back in that regard.
A slightly better analogy might be if Fergie were still involved in decisions and this was holding us back and the question was ‘should Fergie back off completely to allow a more modern structure’.
The original purpose of the football analogy was about the emotion and pride element of the history of the clubs/country. Your point is that this is perhaps holding us back as a country to evolve politically in a beneficial way to all. I just don’t see it that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we could have had a shorter discussion if we'd got to this point sooner: you don't have such a problem with democracy being constrained by entrenched power in the hands of aristocratic and plutocratic elites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I do not feel that we are being constrained by the monarchy. I have quite clearly stated that if I did feel that way (i.e. Fergie example) then I would support change.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Do you not think that an elected president would eventually become political?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, as I've said multiple times, I'm not coming at this from a binary position of status quo vs Republic with an elected ceremonial head of state, though on balance I would rather work towards the latter. But to answer your question, there are lots of examples of countries with ceremonial presidents where the role is not greatly politicised. Often the candidates emerge from outside politics, reflecting the powerlessness of the role. Obviously, it's a prominent position and therefore there's always critical attention, but that's the case with a monarch as well.
To take a couple of examples, Israel has a very fractious politics but their presidents (though typically coming from inside the political system) tend to provide a contrast by acting as a unifying and uncontroversial figure. In Germany the presidency is not 100% apolitical but the custom dictates that the incumbent suspends party affiliation and doesn't speak about day to day politics. There's been no great controversy or division attached to any of the German presidents of my lifetime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To imitate your Cathy Newman style of recent posting:
So you're saying that you prefer your heads of state to be political rather than apolitical?
posted on 21/9/22
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
posted on 21/9/22
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite the gotcha you think it is. The head of state was held accountable for legal reasons rather than getting into hot water for political actions. This is unthinkable in the UK not because a member of the Royal Family is of better character than an elected commoner, but because our Royal Family benefits from a blanket of legal insulation and media reticence. It came out only years later that the Queen actively lobbied to ensure the Royal estate was exempted from certain new tax laws. Even more recently, it came to light that the UK State assisted Prince Andrew in avoiding facing legal questioning in the States, and no one can deny that the broadcast media have trodden very lightly on that story.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns
You're a very young man Red Russian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite the gotcha you think it is. The head of state was held accountable for legal reasons rather than getting into hot water for political actions. This is unthinkable in the UK not because a member of the Royal Family is of better character than an elected commoner, but because our Royal Family benefits from a blanket of legal insulation and media reticence. It came out only years later that the Queen actively lobbied to ensure the Royal estate was exempted from certain new tax laws. Even more recently, it came to light that the UK State assisted Prince Andrew in avoiding facing legal questioning in the States, and no one can deny that the broadcast media have trodden very lightly on that story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given that your precise language did not mention political controversy but merely controversy, I think you’ll find that I did GET YOU. Get me?
I’m bored of you now. Have a good day.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That 'vibe' is exactly the same now as it's always been, your either born into it or exlcusively picked to be a part of it,
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is having 'staff' is not the problem for me as such. It's the deference and protocol that gets me. The Queen remained Queen for 70 years purely because she stayed alive that long. It really wouldn't have mattered what kind of job she did. No one would really dare speak out.
Perhaps it shouldn't be that bothered about it really. They have no real effect on my day to day life. However, that could well be the point. I'm not the only one who will feel like that yet we've been told this last fortnight that we should be feeling some great loss.
posted on 21/9/22
To imitate your Cathy Newman style of recent posting:
So you're saying that you prefer your heads of state to be political rather than apolitical?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In direct response to your specific point that an elected president inevitably leads to politicisation of the role, I gave two examples of countries where even though the presidency isn't totally apolitical (though primarily ceremonial) the presidency hasn't become a political football.
Again, we could have a more fruitful conversation if you were willing to respond to specifics with specifics rather than move goalposts, as well as recognising that I'm not trying to advocate for a specific extreme change such as immediate abolition, but exploring a range of ideas as to how to reduce the impact of what I regard as an anti-egalitarian constitutional and cultural force.
posted on 21/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
It's been a very interesting discussion above gents.
I'll add that my main issue with monarchy is the fact it suggests that some people are 'better' than others just because of the family they're born into. That, in itself, is a pretty good reason to scrap the monarchy IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think it used to but I don't get that vibe so much these days. Elizabeth in particular whilst extremely well-spoken was very personable publicly and didn't come across as thinking that she was better than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't really comment on how the Queen was as a person as I never met her but if she truly thought she was the same as her subjects she surely wouldn't be waited on hand and foot.
I know you may say that's simplistic but that's how I see it. To be fair to her she never got the chance of a normal life but I'm willing to wager that as time goes on their way of living will seem more and more archaic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I met her once and there isn’t much to say about it as it was hardly a lengthy encounter.
I get your point about all the service, servants, butlers and so on and it will certainly seem more archaic as time goes by. It just doesn’t bother me. I doubt it bothers those that do all those jobs for them either; it’s probably an honour. Whereas you wouldn’t even come close to consider doing those kind of jobs for the royals. Nor would I for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is having 'staff' is not the problem for me as such. It's the deference and protocol that gets me. The Queen remained Queen for 70 years purely because she stayed alive that long. It really wouldn't have mattered what kind of job she did. No one would really dare speak out.
Perhaps it shouldn't be that bothered about it really. They have no real effect on my day to day life. However, that could well be the point. I'm not the only one who will feel like that yet we've been told this last fortnight that we should be feeling some great loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I totally understand that perspective. The indifference to them. I just think that across the globe there are many people that think fondly of them and look to them as an example of British values (rightly or wrongly but that’s the reality) and they really don’t cause us much harm (if any). The money isn’t an awful lot (if any), the influence on political systemic change that Red Russian is talking about is quite a stretch in my opinion and they don’t go around chopping peoples’ heads off anymore (can’t decide if that’s a good thing or a bad thing now).
I enjoy having the royals and don’t like the idea of a boring presidency and I think in terms of power/influence they are already watered down enough as it is.
It’s like Fergie being a director, I don’t think he’s causing troubles. If he were interfering with every manager and lots of decisions then I’d feel differently.
Page 17 of 20
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20