Have An Opinion?
Unquestionably. While I am an American and thus you would not typically think of as a natural monarchist, the case for constitutional monarchy is exceptionally sound and I am a strong supporter. It is a system that has stood the test of time and more than deserves respect.As the historian Michael Luckacs noted, "On the surface of the map of the world they represent the last central cluster of decency, those bourgeois monarchs of northwestern Europe. Churchill knew that: for he was a monarchist not out of mere sentiment but because of his deep historical reason. In a fatherless world they are sources of a certain strength and inspiration..."That "certain strength and inspiration" more than proved itself during the Second World War, when the British monarchy stood as a symbol around which people rallied at the UK's darkest hour. In so doing they did not simply save the Britain, they did indeed save the whole of Western civilization.These things are easily taken for granted, particularly in a populist era where the "people" are alleged to be the font of all wisdom and goodness. Monarchy may seem to be an anachronism, but in truth it serves as a politically and socially unifying symbol.Its political neutrality putting the state outside of politics, and thereby giving people of sharply differing political views a point of common reference and identity. Its splendor serving to give something beyond the mundane and the common.Indeed, not for nothing do republics tend to invest so much "pomp and ceremony" in their presidents. Whether it be symbolic heads of state, as in Israel or Germany, or executive heads of government, as in France and the United States.The funny thing in the latter case of the United States being that ceremonies like the State of the Union address or the laying of a Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown being treated with all the gravity and earnestness as any ceremony that a constitutional monarch might ever be engaged in.In the end, it becomes monarchy in all but name. Albeit monarchy that is elective and therefore seemingly incongruous. The American or French president being expected to embody a nation's heritage and history and yet, at the end of the day, is a mere transient and indeed partisan figure.That last point being especially pertinent. The character of the person serving in the office of Head of State then becomes paradoxically more important as such a person can never really much more represent a transient moment in a nation's partisan passions and therefore must ultimately have a limited appeal.There perhaps being no better example that President Trump in the United States. Whatever the merits of his policies, his penchant for pouring salt in the social wounds must mean that his capacity to serve as a unifying Head of State is inherently limited.This is not a problem in constitutional monarchy. To be sure, the character of the monarch is not unimportant, but as one in a long line of heads of state who have presided disinterestedly over the nation, their capacity for being a unifying social force is thereby enhanced.At the end of the day, of course, monarchy must be appropriate to the culture else it cannot work. Still, as Churchill said,"Ministers come and go, but the King remains, always at the center of public affairs... He is the continuous element in the constitution, one of the main safeguards of its democratic character, and the repository of a knowledge of affairs that before long comes to transcend that of any individual statesman...The victorious democracies, in driving out hereditary sovereigns, supposed that they were moving on the path to progress. They have in fact gone further and fared worse. A royal dynasty looking back upon the traditions of the past, and looking forward to a continuity in the future, offers an element of security to the liberty and happiness of nations."
The British queen wasn't a dictator though her ancestors were. I like having a neutral head of state. She's a figurehead. The royal family will disappear one day, but I don't think the British public are ready for an elected head of state
NopeThat's an outdated authoritarian government
Probably not. Considering we are all starting to evolve into a well educated populice.
In England, it's strictly tradition. They have no power, whatsoever. They just like to keep it around because of tradition
Yeah it should, but its not the same as a dictator.
Considering I'm a Lord... I'll say 'yes'
Is it really you? Lord Bangyourhead or the Portland Banglesnatches?Live long milord!
@DanOh2018 It is. bend the knee
"capers before taking a knee* Will the lord be holding any tourneys? I so desire to climb the ladder from random henchman to a position of knightly splendor. My qualifications are, being a crack shot, having once seen a live horse, and writing erotic fan fiction.
No, we are way past that
I am against Monarchies.
No im a republican
Um they do, England.
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.