Jump to content

Wonderful News!


spook

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is totally wrong that our head of state is an inherited position. I also hate the sycophantic celebrity culture which makes Will & Kate's every grunt grind topless kinkiness and birth pang headline news.

 

It is indefensible in a modern society.

 

It is great that a young couple have had a healthy baby. But to tie this child and its parents to the sovereignty of the country and hence place them in a life both privileged and strait jacketed is wrong.

 

If you want to talk about the outdatedness of inherited positions, privilege and sovereignty, is it really the Royal Family you should be selectively calling out, or should you go a bit further and call out the entire class system, the upper echelons of which are amply represented in the UK Parliament? Constitutional sovereignty does not rest in the Monarch or in Parliament; it rests in a full session of Parliament with the Monarch (i.e. Queen-in-Parliament) giving Royal Assent. If you want to take out the Monarchy from the equation, you still have the House of Lords which is largely filled with inherited aristocrats or establishment people who are themselves primarily from the upper ruling class; and you still have the House of Commons, which is largely filled with lawyers, trade unionists - career politicians. A constitutional arrangement in which sovereignty rests in the establishment would be no less outdated if the monarchy were taken out of the picture. In many ways, I suspect it would be much worse. There is a level of constitutional protection in preserving traditional arrangements. We can talk about the cost of maintaining the Royal Family but surely it's a drop in the ocean compared to maintaining 650 lawyers and career politicians and 790 lords and has-beens. And then there's the British Civil Service and its countless managers and executives. How much of it is really necessary and not just a continuation of a hereditary class system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An apolitical head of state has to be the best of all world's. We should be grateful that we have one.

 

There's no such thing as "apolitical". Everyone and everything is political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A title doesn't have to be inherited to be apolitical.

Very true, but how would a head of state be selected? Voting would implicitly favour candidates that were preferred by majorities and majorities would have political bias one way or a other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope nobody assumed from my earlier post that I'm a monarchist. I was just putting the royal family into a broader societal context. It's inconsistent for people to talk about doing away with the royal family because it's a form of hereditary privilege, and for them to not talk about doing away with the hereditary class system in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive economic benefits from this - just think of all the commemorative teatowel manufacturers and plate painters that will increase their profits and thus tax revenues for the UK.

 

Bit like these:

 

https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6240/6306829373_838d93c214_b.jpg

 

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3529/5707205787_f5e6f8dc28_b.jpg

Bettered only by:-

 

 

http://wuff.me.uk/Christ%20in%20cats/Christ%20in%20cats.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful news. One of the few things the British public generally agree with these days is that the Monarchy is good for Britain.

 

And for those that don't . . . .

 

There's a boat in the morning !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...