To me, it's a sacrifice with absolutely no point to it, relying on scary but absurd counterfactuals which get continually brought up in these types of arguments..
If Britain became a republic, one possibility (one we'd never actually go for) is to also transition into a presidential republic. In that case, a politician like Farage or whoever else could become president. But that situation wouldn't be substantially different from those same politicians becoming PM, nor substantially more likely, so what's even the complaint?
A second possibility would be a ceremonial but popularly elected president, like Ireland. To my knowledge, none of the many countries with that system have ever seen politically irresponsible celebrity presidents, so it's unclear why we would. Luckily, if we want to avoid that, we could have a president who isn't popularly elected, like that of Germany. The governor generals of Canada and Australia also already basically function this way.
But third, and usually left out of the conversation, is that nowhere in the laws of the universe is it written that a republic must have a president as head of state. There's nothing stopping us from merely vesting the monarch's powers into existing institutions. The prerogative powers that are already exercised de facto by the PM could just be formally made powers of the PM or cabinet. The one's we wouldn't want to place directly in the PMs hands for political reasons, or which couldn't be (like the appointment of the PM), could be given to another constitutionally independent figure (the Speaker, say) or to Parliament as a whole.
That's interesting - you're right, there's no reason we should have to have one at all. I feel like we already have quite a concentration of executive power in the UK, and it might not be very advisable to codify that even more - but we're already living with the de facto situation, as you say. An indirectly elected president would at least mean Parliament gets more of a look-in.
Thank you! I think he's been courageous. I could do with a little bit less complaining that British taxpayers aren't paying for his security (given that he doesn't exactly seem to be short of cash). But it's so, so hard to walk away from your family and your upbringing in any circumstances, and I feel like he doesn't get enough credit for having the strength of character to do that. Plus there's a fun story that he once punched Andrew in the face, although Harry has denied it.
Precisely. That is exactly how I see him. Brave and steady. And the one with the most comprehension of what real life is like, and what it is supposed to be like, per your well observed piece above. From afar, I get the impression that Wills is very whiny. Charles was just the intern for so long, and then as soon as he got promoted, he was dx'd with cancer. Two dudes who aren't that compelling in and of themselves, and one who is riding hard on rebellion and giving the middle finger, even though in his autobiography, which I lapped up when I read it, as you point out, he does miss his family, and he is terribly wounded they did things to him that were so petty and self-serving. But he never calls them arses. Anyway, I always enjoy your pieces. Thanks
So, I absolutely agree with this but I think the British royal family is so bound up in ideas of aristocracy, class, and privilege that I find it galling for them to be compared to the unfortunate girl in the cellar. I also do not want a president but I honestly can’t see a good reason why we can’t have a more understated, less expensive monarchy (although, truth be told,I know very little about the expense here. It’s just a gut reaction) free from media intrusion and intense public scrutiny. We’ve made it this way; surely it’s not the only way it could be.
Personally I would be very happy for it to be more understated, and feel like there's no reason for them to have so much money and privilege. (Except that maybe nobody would give up their privacy and autonomy unless the money and privilege was on offer?) But I do wonder whether we (the British public at large) have struck an odd psychological bargain -- that the only way to tolerate the idea of a hereditary monarchy is to beguile ourselves into believing these people are magic and special, which requires the palaces and the ballgowns and the jewellery and the helicopters. I'd be very up for a Dutch-style minimal monarchy, but I wonder whether that wouldn't actually quite quickly be the end of them altogether.
It’s interesting, isn’t it. I just don’t get the magic and special thing and I’d never really considered that to be the way that people who love the monarchy view them, although it does make sense to do so. (Gosh, that’s an unwieldy sentence!) I guess all the finery is integral to the concept of the royal family as a tourist attraction and that definitely ties in with your main point - caged animals in the zoo.
To me, it's a sacrifice with absolutely no point to it, relying on scary but absurd counterfactuals which get continually brought up in these types of arguments..
If Britain became a republic, one possibility (one we'd never actually go for) is to also transition into a presidential republic. In that case, a politician like Farage or whoever else could become president. But that situation wouldn't be substantially different from those same politicians becoming PM, nor substantially more likely, so what's even the complaint?
A second possibility would be a ceremonial but popularly elected president, like Ireland. To my knowledge, none of the many countries with that system have ever seen politically irresponsible celebrity presidents, so it's unclear why we would. Luckily, if we want to avoid that, we could have a president who isn't popularly elected, like that of Germany. The governor generals of Canada and Australia also already basically function this way.
But third, and usually left out of the conversation, is that nowhere in the laws of the universe is it written that a republic must have a president as head of state. There's nothing stopping us from merely vesting the monarch's powers into existing institutions. The prerogative powers that are already exercised de facto by the PM could just be formally made powers of the PM or cabinet. The one's we wouldn't want to place directly in the PMs hands for political reasons, or which couldn't be (like the appointment of the PM), could be given to another constitutionally independent figure (the Speaker, say) or to Parliament as a whole.
That's interesting - you're right, there's no reason we should have to have one at all. I feel like we already have quite a concentration of executive power in the UK, and it might not be very advisable to codify that even more - but we're already living with the de facto situation, as you say. An indirectly elected president would at least mean Parliament gets more of a look-in.
This is just so well written. I think Harry is the hero of the story, with or without his wife.
Thank you! I think he's been courageous. I could do with a little bit less complaining that British taxpayers aren't paying for his security (given that he doesn't exactly seem to be short of cash). But it's so, so hard to walk away from your family and your upbringing in any circumstances, and I feel like he doesn't get enough credit for having the strength of character to do that. Plus there's a fun story that he once punched Andrew in the face, although Harry has denied it.
Precisely. That is exactly how I see him. Brave and steady. And the one with the most comprehension of what real life is like, and what it is supposed to be like, per your well observed piece above. From afar, I get the impression that Wills is very whiny. Charles was just the intern for so long, and then as soon as he got promoted, he was dx'd with cancer. Two dudes who aren't that compelling in and of themselves, and one who is riding hard on rebellion and giving the middle finger, even though in his autobiography, which I lapped up when I read it, as you point out, he does miss his family, and he is terribly wounded they did things to him that were so petty and self-serving. But he never calls them arses. Anyway, I always enjoy your pieces. Thanks
So, I absolutely agree with this but I think the British royal family is so bound up in ideas of aristocracy, class, and privilege that I find it galling for them to be compared to the unfortunate girl in the cellar. I also do not want a president but I honestly can’t see a good reason why we can’t have a more understated, less expensive monarchy (although, truth be told,I know very little about the expense here. It’s just a gut reaction) free from media intrusion and intense public scrutiny. We’ve made it this way; surely it’s not the only way it could be.
Personally I would be very happy for it to be more understated, and feel like there's no reason for them to have so much money and privilege. (Except that maybe nobody would give up their privacy and autonomy unless the money and privilege was on offer?) But I do wonder whether we (the British public at large) have struck an odd psychological bargain -- that the only way to tolerate the idea of a hereditary monarchy is to beguile ourselves into believing these people are magic and special, which requires the palaces and the ballgowns and the jewellery and the helicopters. I'd be very up for a Dutch-style minimal monarchy, but I wonder whether that wouldn't actually quite quickly be the end of them altogether.
It’s interesting, isn’t it. I just don’t get the magic and special thing and I’d never really considered that to be the way that people who love the monarchy view them, although it does make sense to do so. (Gosh, that’s an unwieldy sentence!) I guess all the finery is integral to the concept of the royal family as a tourist attraction and that definitely ties in with your main point - caged animals in the zoo.
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic - maybe we could switch to a 'bicycling monarchy' and it would all be totally fine!
I feel a bit like your swedish flatmate reading this. It is very well written, indeed, but what is it about?