Constitutional monarchies of the world, rejoice and be glad

[David Banks]

Holywood has just given honours to the movie, the king's speech. No, I did not watch the Oscars.

IF ONE ASSUMES THAT:
a particular family of people shall have the right, maybe a divine right, and certainly the duty and responsibility to lord-it over a country of people, and being given all sorts of honours and deference and money,

THEN IT IS LOGICAL THAT:
a story can be told which promotes such a society.

I have not paid for the privilege of seeing this movie, but I have seen a few ads on TV, which - from memory - include lines like:
- you can call me your majesty
- I am your king
- I have a voice
Bowing and scraping, a movie goer is supposed to think "well, of course that is all true."

Has anyone out there seen the movie and been able to swallow the whole sales pitch ?

[Walter Ego]

Holywood has just given honours to the movie, the king's speech. No, I did not watch the Oscars.

IF ONE ASSUMES THAT:
a particular family of people shall have the right, maybe a divine right, and certainly the duty and responsibility to lord-it over a country of people, and being given all sorts of honours and deference and money,

THEN IT IS LOGICAL THAT:
a story can be told which promotes such a society.

I have not paid for the privilege of seeing this movie, but I have seen a few ads on TV, which - from memory - include lines like:
- you can call me your majesty
- I am your king
- I have a voice
Bowing and scraping, a movie goer is supposed to think "well, of course that is all true."

Has anyone out there seen the movie and been able to swallow the whole sales pitch ?


So, you haven't seen the film.

"Bowing and scraping"

But you feel suitably qualified to judge its content?

How odd.

[John Little]

This thread is not really about the King's Speech I think.

I have seen the film and it is a cracker - well acted and pressing all the right sorts of buttons in the way of human interest.

But this thread is about Monarchy is it not?

We are a constitutional monarchy.

This is a long established and ancient form of government which vests the sovereign power of a country into the person of a King or Queen who has virtually no power to influence the legislative process.

The alternative is to vest sovereignty into a document such as a constitution, or a person, such as a president.

350 years ago or so we had a civil war and got rid of our King. There was then great discussion over years about how the country should be ruled and where sovereignty should be vested. We ended up with a 'Lord Protector'. When he died there were moves to bring about a republic, but that would have involved investing a very ordinary person as greater than all the rest and the Parliament of the day did not wish it.

They chose instead to reintroduce the idea of monarchy, but with its powers shorn. Since the monarch was sovereign but powerless they also invested the office with mystique and respect above the ordinary. Because the monarch, as sovereign, is the physical embodiment of the nation.

I prefer monarchy I think to some ordinary Joe as president. I see no advantage in having sovereignty in a President.

And sovereignty in a Constitution has to be judged all the time in perpetual struggle by a Supreme Court - who are political appointees. I see little advantage in that.

What we have appears to work.

[theone]

David,

Watch the film, then comment on it.

If you want to have a go at the monarchy, do it.

[ginajade]

As far as movies go it was watchable, not really my cup of tea, lol, but the yanks and the toffs will love it.

[John Little]

As far as movies go it was watchable, not really my cup of tea, lol, but the yanks and the toffs will love it.

More than them Gina - it's taken well over $100,000,000 at the box office already.

[ginajade]

and a few oscars too

[George Brims]

I prefer monarchy I think to some ordinary Joe as president. I see no advantage in having sovereignty in a President.
In some republics, the position of President is pretty much the same as the Monarchy in the UK; a ceremonial position, with little function other than signing new laws. An opportunity to have a popular and respected person to represent the country. Einstein for instance was invited to be President of Israel.
Also in some monarchies they periodically hold an election to re-confirm the Monarch - a safeguard against such problems as having "Mad" King George clearly unfit for duty but no way to replace him.

My favourite Monarch is King Juan Carlos of Spain, who helped thwart a right-wing coup, thirty years ago last week. When one of the colonels told him they were going to shoot the members of Parliament, the King told him he had better drive him over there, "So they can shoot me first". Without his support the whole thing fizzled out.

[John Little]

Good story.

My favourite has to be King Albert of the Belgians.

When Germany demanded free passage across his country to invade France Albert replied 'Belgium is not a public thoroughfare'.

[David Banks]

But this thread is about Monarchy is it not?

This is a long established and ancient form of government which vests the sovereign power of a country into the person of a King or Queen who has virtually no power to influence the legislative process.

They chose instead to reintroduce the idea of monarchy, but with its powers shorn. Since the monarch was sovereign but powerless they also invested the office with mystique and respect above the ordinary. Because the monarch, as sovereign, is the physical embodiment of the nation.

I prefer monarchy I think to some ordinary Joe as president. I see no advantage in having sovereignty in a President.

And sovereignty in a Constitution has to be judged all the time in perpetual struggle by a Supreme Court - who are political appointees. I see little advantage in that.

What we have appears to work.

You are correct John, this thread is about monarchy.

You have a well defined argument, but I disagree with your assertion of a monarchy with its powers shorn. There may be a lack of direct power, but there are so many areas where influence is possible that I hardly know where to start - but here goes.

As I recall, the British Prime Minister is required to regularly visit the queen to report on governmental activities. On becoming prime minister, Harold Wilson found out that attending such a meeting without proper preparation was unacceptable. The influence which is exerted in such meetings must be acknowledged even if there is no reporting.

Then there is the Crown Estate, whose board/directors are all appointed by the queen. For example, they recently gave "permission" for a company to use the waters between Stroma and the mainland of Caithness to install tidal power generators.

Further, there is the influence which is wielded in the commonwealth. The positions of Governor General of Canada and, I presume, the Lieutenant Governors of all of the provinces, are approved by the Queen. And, we are to be privileged by a visit from Prince William with his new bride for several days this summer.

The ceremonial aspects of these activities are the only effects to be publicised, but the influence by this single family is tremendous.

It seems to me that an elected president such as they have in Finland would be a more democratic solution.

[John Little]

You are correct John, this thread is about monarchy.

You have a well defined argument, but I disagree with your assertion of a monarchy with its powers shorn. There may be a lack of direct power, but there are so many areas where influence is possible that I hardly know where to start - but here goes.

As I recall, the British Prime Minister is required to regularly visit the queen to report on governmental activities. On becoming prime minister, Harold Wilson found out that attending such a meeting without proper preparation was unacceptable. The influence which is exerted in such meetings must be acknowledged even if there is no reporting.

That is correct - and the monarch is supposed to take his/her duties seriously. Influence is exerted because the monarch has that role; power was exchanged for influence in the 18th century. Someone has to wield influence; who better to do so than someone who has all the riches she could ever want, and all the respect you could ever wish for? Someone who cannot be bought at any price because they already have it all? Someone without ambition for themselves because they occupy the top spot and always will and no-one else can. This is the theory of constitutional monarchy and our Queen is pretty good at it I think.

Then there is the Crown Estate, whose board/directors are all appointed by the queen. For example, they recently gave "permission" for a company to use the waters between Stroma and the mainland of Caithness to install tidal power generators.


Somebody has to 'own' the seabed round the country, inside territorial waters. Even in the US. Traditionally it has been the monarch- that right was not removed in the Revolution of 1688 or the Hanoverian settlement. She appoints the directors but the revenues from crown estates do not go to the monarch. If they did they would be the richest family in the world. Since George I each monarch signs the revenues of the Crown estates over to the Parliament in exchange for a payment out of tax known as the 'Civil list' By all means do away with the Civil list and let the Queen live off the income from crown lands. But we would be the losers, for the revenues from Crown estates exceed the Civil List by many millions. Robert Walpole screwed rather a good deal over the House of Hanover that time.

Further, there is the influence which is wielded in the commonwealth. The positions of Governor General of Canada and, I presume, the Lieutenant Governors of all of the provinces, are approved by the Queen. And, we are to be privileged by a visit from Prince William with his new bride for several days this summer.

Yes - the Queen wields influence and a lot of respect in the Commonwealth - and she gets listened to because of who she is. She represents continuity, and to many people wisdom and matriarchy. She does it well.

The ceremonial aspects of these activities are the only effects to be publicised, but the influence by this single family is tremendous.

It seems to me that an elected president such as they have in Finland would be a more democratic solution.

What is 'more democratic'?

You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as 'democracy'. It's a nebulous concept with many interpretations and variations.

The reality of how countries are run is to do with the use of power and influence and control. How it is done is more or less 'democratic' depending on which form is chosen. Ours is no better nor worse than many others.

[bekisman]

My son and daughter-in-law (Canadian) live in Toronto, and mentioned: The RCMP still swear allegiance to the Queen...

Canada as a constitutional monarchy Her Majesty the Queen of Canada (represented by the Governor General) is the head of State of Canada,

Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws

The sovereignty of the federal and provincial regions is passed on not by the governor general or federal parliament, but through the overreaching Crown itself.

Suppose I'd be jarred off too...

[gleeber]

I'm a monarchist and am grateful for the politics of Britain. Considering human nature and the hullaballoo going on in other countries we do a good job of keeping it together within a democratic system. It wouldn't take an awful lot to tip it though.

[squidge]

I would far rather have queen Elizabeth, King Charles or King William than President Tony Blair, President David Cameron or President Nick Clegg. Ugh Ugh Ugh

[theone]

I would far rather have queen Elizabeth, King Charles or King William than President Tony Blair, President David Cameron or President Nick Clegg. Ugh Ugh Ugh

I would go along with that.

I would never want a politician as head of state. Especially not a party politician.

[Munro]

And there was me thinking the Grand "Banks" referred to an underwater feature off the Canadian coast

[eriba47]

I think the monarchy can't really be taken seriously nowadays. Now, if e Queen had pulled rank on Tony Blair and stopped the country
going to war in Iraq that would be different!

[David Banks]

The reality of how countries are run is to do with the use of power and influence and control. How it is done is more or less 'democratic' depending on which form is chosen. Ours is no better nor worse than many others.

Once upon a time it was called the Crown Lands, but it was expanded to the Crown Estates to include the waters around the country. Why do you accept that everything claimed by the Crown as its property to be automatically the case?

We may be fortunate that the Queen is a good business person and produces a healthy profit from the Estates. I'm also sure that everyone who works for the Crown Estates is extremely thankful to "the Crown," thereby producing another group almost automatically loyal to the Monarchy and its ideals.

What happens in the future if a monarch considers "times are getting tough" and they "need" the profits from the Crown Estates?

Why do you accept that simply "saying" that they own the Crown Estates should make it so? In my view, the Estates should belong to the people of Britain. I wonder how much other property the Crown "owns" through other mechanisms many of us do not even know about? We just go on assuming that everything as it now exists is fair and right.

The monarchy, "the firm" as the Queen reportedly likes to call it to insiders, has been at this game for centuries, and I doubt my feeble arguments from across the ocean will "upset the applecart." Sadly.

As you called it, investing "the office with mystique and respect above the ordinary" is pretty effective.

"Ours is no better nor worse than many others" is a claim for keeping the status quo.

[David Banks]

Sub-title: As king James may have put it: Thou shalt . . . render unto Caesar . . .

I come from a place and a time when 'all the powers that be' gave unquestioning and complete loyalty to the royal family. These 'powers' included the home and extended family, the church and the education system. Even allowing oneself to think otherwise would have been seriously treated.

We do not seem to be able to get away from 'them.' There is the Royal Mail, the Royal Mint, the Royal Bank, the King's Speech (as I have already mentioned), the Royal Wedding, the Royal 'whatever.' Even after the laudable efforts of Pierre Trudeau, we still have their likeness and title all over our money here in Canada.

It was the instilling of the unquestionable nature of the 'rights' of the monarchy that I have found and find most objectionable. In this, I differ from most if not all of my family and forebears in Britain.

I know, I am revolting.

And, I know, "get over it!"

[John Little]

"Why do you accept that simply "saying" that they own the Crown Estates should make it so? In my view, the Estates should belong to the people of Britain. I wonder how much other property the Crown "owns" through other mechanisms many of us do not even know about? We just go on assuming that everything as it now exists is fair and right."

Because if they do not own their property then I do not own mine.

You do not seem to follow through your thinking - if the land that has belonged to the crown since the time of the Conqueror is taken from them, then (A) that's nationalisation and a form of socialism/communism that is regarded probably by the majority of people as outdated.

And (B); the right of property in Britain dates from the right of feudal gift or sale. If the land that 'belonged' to the monarch by right of conquest could be given or sold, then the right of tenure transferred to the person to whom it was gifted or sold.

Deny the right of the monarchy to that land then you also deny their right to gift or sell it.

If that is so then I do not own my house or garden - it belongs to the state.

I think not.

[David Banks]

If that is so then I do not own my house or garden - it belongs to the state.

I think not.

The difference is you paid for your house and garden, John -- you did not just "claim" it.

[John Little]

Paid who?
And who did they pay?

And so on?

By what right did the original seller of this plot sell it on? Where did the right over the land come from?

[John Little]

In the Thames near Gravesend are occasionally found lumps of black rock, which if you crack them open contain iron pyrites. I used to have some found by a friend in the mud by the river side.

The black rock is from Newfoundland. It was brought back to England by a man called Martin Frobisher who had been sent out by a consortium of London merchants to find gold in the New World. Frobisher found fools' gold and dumped it overboard in disgust when he found it was not.

Frobisher claimed much of the land we call 'Canada' in the name of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 1. The land was settled by Europeans and royal governors gifted it and sold it for profit to incomers.

If they did not have the right to do so then all you Canucks should apologise humbly and hand back the land to whom it belongs...for they have as much right to it as Liz II has to the seabed.

Oh and before that Cabot claimed it for Henry V11 in 1497 - but they did not settle so I do not count that...

[David Banks]

Frobisher claimed much of the land we call 'Canada' in the name of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 1. The land was settled by Europeans and royal governors gifted it and sold it for profit to incomers.

If they did not have the right to do so then all you Canucks should apologise humbly and hand back the land to whom it belongs...for they have as much right to it as Liz II has to the seabed.



You are correct.

According to wikipedia, "The majority of all lands in Canada are held by governments (federal and provincial) on behalf of the monarchy and are called Crown Lands."

Maybe we should change the name to Crown Estates to more accurately describe the nature of the holdings.

The difference here is that the 'Lands' are controlled by governments -- who are elected by and responsible to the people of Canada.

[Walter Ego]

You are correct.

According to wikipedia, "The majority of all lands in Canada are held by governments (federal and provincial) on behalf of the monarchy and are called Crown Lands."

Maybe we should change the name to Crown Estates to more accurately describe the nature of the holdings.

The difference here is that the 'Lands' are controlled by governments -- who are elected by and responsible to the people of Canada.

But you are part of a system that ethnically cleansed the natives from large areas of 'Lands' and 'claimed' it as your own.

The fact that this land acquired by force is administrated by a few suits as opposed to a Monarchy makes no different at all. You are profiting and squatting on land wrested (by force in many cases) from the previous owners. Your tenure as as illegitamate as any other in the world.

[Errogie]

Actually, until the recent Feudal Reform Act came in nobody "owned" land in Scotland they possessed an "interest" held on feu from a feudal "superior" who in turn held it from the Queen who in turn got it from God.

This was different from the more absolute title in "fee simple" from south of the border and was one of the quirks of difference between the respective legal systems of Scotland and England. Feu duty was a financial version of an obligation to bear arms or perform some other service for your feudal overlord. Similarly you might need to obtain permission to build another house in your garden or turn a manse into a pub.

In my opinion it is quite wrong for the unelected Crown Estate Commissioners to govern and exercise control over the seabed without any local accountability regardless of who receives the income. All management and planning decisions should be devolved to the local authority if only because it is clearly daft to have to have two different bodies giving a decision on a development such as a fish farm or off shore wind farm which are both likely to involve land based infrastructure and generate an effect upon local poulations.

One related thought is that I am often disapointed that evicted Highlanders perpetuated the same crime upon local populations in Canada whether the French or Mic Macque indians who they chased out of Nova Scotia. Similarly the hollow boast that America is the "land of the free" is so much baloney when you try and walk outside a public Park or off a public road in the States risking a real threat of being shot by some idiot from the NRA. The new arrivals should have had a clean slate but perhaps they came with too much baggage including the sovereign.

[John Little]

Nonetheless, that is where things stand. The monarch is the state made corporeal because he or she is sovereign. The land is not held by a private individual, but by the sovereign with all the weight of that word.

If we take the right to take what belongs to the sovereign away then we give sovereignty to Parliament. That is to say that the Sovereign would no longer be the Queen in Parliament, but Parliament itself.

Such a change would undermine all property rights in favour of Parliament, who by implication and precedent could take ownership of your land.

And worse, it would imply an enormous change in our Constitution.

To me that is not worth it, so let it be.

[David Banks]

Nonetheless, that is where things stand. The monarch is the state made corporeal because he or she is sovereign. The land is not held by a private individual, but by the sovereign with all the weight of that word.

If we take the right to take what belongs to the sovereign away then we give sovereignty to Parliament. That is to say that the Sovereign would no longer be the Queen in Parliament, but Parliament itself.

Such a change would undermine all property rights in favour of Parliament, who by implication and precedent could take ownership of your land.

And worse, it would imply an enormous change in our Constitution.

To me that is not worth it, so let it be.

Your sketch of any 'road ahead' as having many hurdles may well be accurate.

Having never lived in, nor had the desire to live in England, I have no idea of the sentiments there towards the monarchy. Perhaps your representation matches a fair proportion of the population.

My hopes and dreams are with the people of Scotland that, as they progress along the road to true independence, they will find a way to govern themselves free of the trappings of monarchy.

I guess that makes me a Scottish nationalist, and I would like to see such events within my lifetime.

[The Music Monster]

I guess that makes me a Scottish nationalist, and I would like to see such events within my lifetime.

I thought the SNP were in favour of keeping the monarchy??? Don't they just want the right to govern separate to Westminster?? I'm not actually an SNP supporter, but people I know who are tell me that Mr Salmond guys and gals are in favour of HRH.

[David Banks]

I thought the SNP were in favour of keeping the monarchy??? Don't they just want the right to govern separate to Westminster?? I'm not actually an SNP supporter, but people I know who are tell me that Mr Salmond guys and gals are in favour of HRH.

My feelings would be to take one thing at a time.

Wikipedia, such as it is, reports:

"Contrary to the expectations of many outside the party, the SNP is not expressly republican, and its general view is that this is an issue secondary to that of Scottish independence. Many SNP members are republicans, however, and both the party student and youth wings are expressly so."

P.S.: I would not qualify as a student or a youth, but could fit into "the big tent" if I wanted to.

[John Little]

Your sketch of any 'road ahead' as having many hurdles may well be accurate.

Having never lived in, nor had the desire to live in England, I have no idea of the sentiments there towards the monarchy. Perhaps your representation matches a fair proportion of the population.

My hopes and dreams are with the people of Scotland that, as they progress along the road to true independence, they will find a way to govern themselves free of the trappings of monarchy.

I guess that makes me a Scottish nationalist, and I would like to see such events within my lifetime.

I think my points are something like;

1 it's easy to kick the royal family as rich and privileged but they are what they are through long descent and tradition. They own the crown estates on the same basis as we own our land and houses. Stir up the politics of envy of what seems unjustifiable in a tabloid, pander to popular prejudice and it's easy to start folk frothing at the mouth about unwarrantable privilege.

Cheap shot.

and 2 our constitution is unwritten. Sovereign authority must derive from somewhere. Fiddle with the constitution and you get something different - and you may not like it at all. The trappings of monarchy are not to do honour to individuals but to elevate the individual who is the state incarnate. Yet has little political power. Propaganda holds any state together. Look at the fuss and palaver around the US president and you get the sense of what I mean. Where's the difference? Both individuals honoured not in themselves but for what they represent. At least our system has a longer continuity.

As to most people - I don't think they spend a lot of time thinking about it.

[David Banks]

I admit to underestimating the strength of the independence movement in Scotland when I emigrated in 1975. Now I have little doubt that they will achieve their goals.

It will take some time to disentangle the various governmental departments, and relations with Europe. However, at some later date I expect (say) a referendum on the monarchy where an alternative will be clearly developed. The Scottish people are quite capable of having a reasoned discussion without resorting to name calling or 'cheap shots.' I expect the alternatives and their related costs, pros and cons will be debated.

I expect that a well defined alternative to the monarchy will be accepted.

Lang may yer lums reek.

[golach]

I admit to underestimating the strength of the independence movement in Scotland when I emigrated in 1975. Now I have little doubt that they will achieve their goals.

I expect that a well defined alternative to the monarchy will be accepted.

Lang may yer lums reek.

LMAO David, Scotland have as much chance of going independent as Nova Scotia has. Stick to trying to get rid of Stephen Harper in Ottawa first, without supporting wee fat Eck Salmond over here.
What form of alternative to our Monarchy would you colonials suggest?

[David Banks]

Stick to trying to get rid of Stephen Harper in Ottawa first, without supporting wee fat Eck Salmond over here.


Why do you want me to get rid of Stephen Harper?

[gleeber]

I don't think there's any immediate danger of Scotland becoming independant but if it does i'm sure it would keep the monarchy. Ive grown to like the SNP but probably would never vote for them. They keep the other partys on their toes.

[David Banks]

LMAO David, Scotland have as much chance of going independent as Nova Scotia has. Stick to trying to get rid of Stephen Harper in Ottawa first, without supporting wee fat Eck Salmond over here.
What form of alternative to our Monarchy would you colonials suggest?

If anyone is offended by my openness in expressing my opinions as a non-resident, then I apologise.

I simply have not given up the hope that circumstances may allow me to return to Scotland someday, and I have not considered my leaving as a 'divorce.'

[John Little]

I see nothing in what you have said to cause offence to anyone but I think you may be in danger of buying into some tabloid myths. When I spoke of cheap shots I was not meaning you, but pointing out that it is very easy indeed to take a pop at the monarchy.

I confess that I am surprised at this;

"The Scottish people are quite capable of having a reasoned discussion without resorting to name calling or 'cheap shots."

Now that I have doubts about. There are an awfu' lot of them and I would bet you that if you started a forum, set up a debate on any controversial subject you please, and invited comments, that within 20 posts there would be name calling, tears and trolls.

Am I wrong?

[David Banks]

. . . and I would bet you that if you started a forum, set up a debate on any controversial subject you please, and invited comments, that within 20 posts there would be name calling, tears and trolls.

Am I wrong?

There may well be a 'fringe' of opinion as you describe, but we should not let them dominate the debate. One can lead by example, and "call-out" unreasonable comments when they occur.

I recall with some distaste a leader of a small national party in Canada who spoke about cutting taxes, and only cutting taxes, for years and years. Now, I am not against lowering taxes where possible. What I disliked was only telling half of the story - if you cut taxes, them you must make corresponding cuts in government expenditures, but he never mentioned that. He just spoke about giving people more money!

Canadians debated, but eventually saw through his one-sided argument.

[meerkat]

"Within 20 posts there would be name-calling, tears and trolls".

Sadly, yes, but not a particularly Scottish trait. Human nature requires that some are dreamers and thinkers, some are doers, and some feel the need to be totally in charge or totally right. The Ozymandias Syndrome ("Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" is writ large in the story of debate, and where you add the dimension of anonymity, contributors can readily be tempted to go further than they would in face-to-face debate.

The sad thing about the Ozymandias faction is that they appear to have the upper hand. However, history shows that "they waste their sweetness on the desert air", as at the end of Shelley's poem the reassuring sting in the tail tells us what happens to braggarts and shouters......

"Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away......."

[Better Out Than In]

Interesting debate. Ultimately all land has been stolen. In the old days it was done by might - I am sure stronger cave tribes would simply help themselves to better caves. Certainly the clans fought over and stole land for hundreds of years. Nowadays of course there are laws set around whom owns what and this has made us all so civilised. I believe it is still legal to "stake a claim" to unused land in England although this has never been possible in Scotland.

The good news is I know how to solve this in my own small way. If you all were to make me King of Murkle I would set up a small independent estate led by myself as a benign and much loved leader. I would tax the Thursonians and Wickers on the way through and use that to cover my meager but never the less essential crown fees. The beautiful and nubile lassies of Caithness could even vie to become members of my personal (and necessarily small) court.

[David Banks]

Why do you want me to get rid of Stephen Harper?

No need for anyone to answer that question.

I've figured it out all by myself.

[David Banks]

Ultimately all land has been stolen.

The more I have thought about it, this is the best sentence in the entire thread.

Thanks to Better Out Than In.