Better benign royals than the dross at Westminster

Republicans will growl but there’s not been a time for ages where a constitutional monarchy looks relatively good as an option.

Prince-William-and-Kate-royal-baby-2082355

Despite all the things said about Kate, this couple are generally liked by quite a few in this country and many abroad. And the Danish young royals are also well regarded, to the point that the bushfire victims were lifted by their presence:

729-maryfred-620x349

Not being a genuine royalist, nevertheless I’d still say, if they’re a good royal couple, they do so much to bind a nation together. There’d be many who, at a minimum, would not mind these as the pomp and circumstance figureheads, even as a conservative reviewer of the doings of a Westminster or Capitol Hill.

The trick, of course, is that they need to be good. Few would like to have Charles and Camilla and there is that pesky little matter of the Belgian aristocracy and the lizardry of the black nobility, the Berlusconi excesses etc. No one wants that in charge of them. Plus the current royals here are Welfs in origin and Welfs are the evil muvvers behind the later Templar corruption and have a different master to their purported leader.

All that’s so and I’m not turning my back on democracy – we need to have a say and have it now but I am suggesting that a royal family with, say, a Wills or Frederik could act as a foil where the Lords has been decimated by the lowlifes in the Commons, e.g. Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and shudder – the soon to be Millipede.

Those people are utter ignoramuses. You might say the royals are perpetuating the elite but I’d argue they’re perpetuating at least some sort of professionalism, they have grace and style, they know how to behave [leaving aside Charles’s generation] and I’d vastly prefer to see them at the helm than the clowns up there in Westminster now.

A commenter said the other day that the idea of being subject to a Citizens’ Committee or a Street Committee was not a prospect to relish and that’s right. The idea of the people two doors from me having a say in my life gives me the shudders.

But royals, being that step removed from the everyday, actually give room to move for most of us, as distinct from the interfering politicians who want to rule every aspect of our lives via the treason of handing over to a foreign communist [or communitarian, same thing] power.

If it’s within constitutionality and their role is a revising one, an overseeing, then I’d love the excesses of the clowns who supposedly lead us to be held in check. But a monarch who is a Henry VIII or at the other end, a rubber stamp like QEII is useless for the nation.

The critical word here is “benign”, caring. Readers would immediately point out, given the bottom line with the royals, an elite, that their prime directive is to shore up their power as an elite. Yes but if they act for the nation in so doing and given that there will always be an elite, despite republican ideals, then best a reasonable one which makes life possible.

Every time you think the royals should be disbanded, think of a nation where the highest authority is Barosso, Cameron, Blair, Clegg, Cameron and the “women” – Harman, May, Ashton et al. Think you get my drift.

8 comments for “Better benign royals than the dross at Westminster

  1. mona
    October 27, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Yes you are right, President Bliar war criminal no thanks.

    • Nessimmersion
      October 27, 2013 at 11:31 pm

      An interesting exercise is to comapare the relative chance of a society suffering civil strife and constitutional monarchies.
      Pure republican regimes are much more likely to suffer from a full blown civil war etc.
      A constitutional monarchy is the type of society least likely to have a civil war, obviously that upsets the purists, however the desire to see your descendants survive should impel the more practical amongst us to look at the evidence.

  2. James Strong
    October 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    The major point in favour of a constitutional monarch is that he/she separates the role of Head of State from Head of Government.
    This makes it much easier to openly despise the Head of Government without one’s loyalty to the nation being questioned.
    Of course, having a non-executive President could also be a way to having these roles separated.

  3. October 27, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Combining the two is a juggling trick.

  4. Mudplugger
    October 27, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    A semi-democratic solution would be, on the death of the monarch, to hold an election where all the voters would decide which one of the next generation should succeed to the throne.
    So we would first get a choice between Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. If Charles wins that vote then, on his demise, we would next get a choice between William and Harry – but if Anne had won, our next choice would be between Zara and Peter. And so on. (See what I did there ? Eliminated Andrew and Edward immediately. Inspired guess.)

    This would have the added benefit of keeping each set of siblings ‘in check’ because they would know that they all stand an equal chance of the ‘top job’ eventually, so may moderate their behaviour somewhat.

    I don’t advocate an X-Factor-type election show, but you never know how it might develop.

  5. graham wood
    October 28, 2013 at 10:19 am

    “A constitutional monarchy” “in favour of a constitutional monarch”

    What constitution?
    Without being overly cynical I think it is an established fact that the “constitutional” aspect was thrown to the wolves long ago.
    Our “constitution” is now centered in a place on the European continent called Brussels, and seems to be working very well, though rather fragile and its future uncertain, although I understand its London Branch still functions after a fashion.
    Contrary to Cameron’s fondest hopes it is actually untouchable, unreformable, and entirely unintelligible.
    As for the ‘royals’ its really a case of separate lives. If any one of them, and especially Mrs Windsor, started to invoke something called the British Constitution then you watch TPTB turn very nasty indeed. 🙄

    • October 28, 2013 at 6:24 pm

      Graham, we weren’t referring to something we have – it’s something we might have. A constitution and a CM to go with it.

  6. Furor Teutonicus
    October 28, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    XX Despite all the things said about Kate, XX

    Na…. She is O.K. But last time I saw legs like that, the other ends were attached to a Stork.

Comments are closed.