Printer-friendly version
Author:
Blog About:
I'm not trying to create controversy or seem snarky in my first ever blog. As an American, I don't understand why my English sisters and brothers still have this tradition. Without putting down us 'across the pond' sisters, do most English still want to hold on to the Monarchy? I don't believe anyone still thinks it is ordained of God, or that all the Kings, Queens, Knights, Prince, Princesses, Dukes, Duchesses, etc. are anything special. I will own up to watching live in awe at the wedding of Charles and Diana back in 1981.
I'm truly not trying to be disrespectful in any way. Do most English favor retaining this tradition? :DD
Comments
It's really quite simple
Even i, a former US Marine, a regular American voter, and proud nephew of my Uncle Sam, am an Anglophile. My great, great grandfather left northern Ireland in the 1840's for a good meal. At that time two million starved in the potato famine. They moved to Canada. My grandfather was born there and moved to Saginaw, Michigan in 1872. He married an English emigree and begat my grandfather, hence my dad and me. Thems my begats.
I can't tell you why they drive on the right side of the road, how their education system works, or why they revere their nobility, but it works. In fact they probably can't explain why we vote for obvious crooks like Nixon or Trump. Or why we choose to shoot so many of our fellow citizens.
The British nobility is a focus of national pride. The royal family works toward the betterment of the people. And the coronation is a show like none other.
Ron
Thanks Ron
My paternal grandmother and grandfather both emigrated from England (just north of London) through Canada (my grandfather fought in WWI for Canada) to SE Michigan. My grandfather died before I was born, but my grandmother lived into her 90's but I never knew her English history and to my regret, never heard about her childhood or emigration. :DD
DeeDee
The credit goes
To my spouse, Jeane. She traces her lineage back to 1066. Her love of the past is pure "Jeanneology" when she gets really into it I look over her shoulder and say "I see dead people".
Ron
Constitutional Monarchy
For Americans who trace any lineage back to the British Isles it is worth understanding that the United Kingdom has been a constitutional monarchy since the Stuart Restoration in 1660, seven years before the establishment of the colony of Virginia. That means that since then it has been just for show, but wow, when it comes to a shows, the Brits sure know how to put one on.
So why hang on the idea of a hereditary head of state? Well the simple reason may be that people can get behind a head of state who is apolitical, and if you want a person to be that, who better than somebody who has been raised from birth to serve the nation and disregard politics and the division that goes with it.
Queen Elizabeth set a huge example of this *not to mention all the charities she pushed) and it will be interesting to see if King Charles can resist meddling and prove to be the same personification of national identity.
The Queen (I mean the real one, not Camilla) built the modern role of a modern being behind charitable venture but she also played a huge role in the creation of the Commonwealth of Nations which has been beneficial to developing nations.
As for the cost of "the Show", the sums have been done and the cost is outweighed by the revenues it brings, including my visit to the Tower of London last year. Still, King Charles is renowned for frugality and he has already started by cutting down numbers drawing from Royal purses, starting in Montecito.
Maryanne
Yup
It has often been said that the British Monarch reigns but does not rule.
That means that in theory she/he keeps their mitts out of anything political - at least in public.
In private it may be a very slightly different matter. The PM of the day usually has a private audience with the Monarch every week, during which time the two may or may not talk frankly about the issues of the day. (This assumes that the two get along comfortably.) This is where the Monarch's long experience comes into play: they can speak of what happened in the past and relate it to current difficulties. They can legally only offer opinions but it would be a poor PM who did not take such wisdom into consideration.
That is most of what this is about. The present system offers more stability to a country. Take a note of the most stable countries in Europe and note which of them are monarchies, the answer is most of them. European countries which have got rid of their Kings - I'm thinking of Italy and Greece, mainly - have degenerated into basket cases since. Some of the others are only stable because they have a strong person at the top who acts like a monarch, and when they are gone, there is no succession.
Most of the monachies outside Europe are not constitutional - they are absolute, meaning the King or occasionally Queen actually has executive rule. Think Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Bhutan. Japan is constitutional. (Not an exhaustive list.)
I am always surprised by the number of folk outside the UK who thinks that our Monarch actually has executive powers. The last King that had those was James II.
Penny
I'm not a Monarchist.
Although a huge swathe of the population are, but I would say that we have had some pretty rubbish Prime Ministers over the last couple of decades, and I wouldn't want any of those idiots being the only head of state.
I would argue that that means we need a non political head of state, to keep the climbers of the greasy pile in order.
Now, who would we vote for as a Head of State? Some faded "Celebrity"? A super rich entrepreneur? ( I have heard both Cliff Richard and Richard Branson mentioned in this context) I would certainly have voted for Queen Elizabeth, and those people I know who have met Charles describe him as a "sound bloke"so that will do for me, unless something bad happens.
Lucy xx
"Lately it occurs to me..
what a long strange trip its been."
For 135 Odd Years
The Americans were ruled by the British and might still be if the Parliament and government in that country at the time hadn't been arrogant and pigheaded. Your Canadian neighbours still preferred them to the new system that you founded (at least those of British extraction).
I am no monarchist and I'm sure that Australia will become a republic in the not-too-distant future, but constitutional monarchy does have its good points. At least you know in advance what you are getting and there is minimal change from one monarch to the next, unlike the swings in the USA. The absence of politics in the institution is one of its main attractions. The associated pageantry is possibly icing on the cake for some.
I think we would already be a republic if the Prime Minister who presided over a referendum asking Australians if they wanted to stay as they were or elect our own President hadn't deliberately designed the questions to obfuscate the issue and confuse the electors, thus souring them on the proposal, because most did not want another politician leading the country.
With Elizabeth The Second gone I think the pendulum will swing the other way.
A couple of points
Firstly, I think the the American colonies did the wrong thing. Instead of taking their ball and going home with it, they should have tried to fix the problem at source. Once they did secede the problem was understood at home and got fixed anyway, which meant that we ended up with a much bigger empire than would otherwise have happened. The Americans would still have had their independence but much later, probably as a part of British North America, which would have included Canada.
Secondly, in relation to Australia, I'm wondering why people there think that the only alternative to being ruled by a foreign monarch is to become a republic. Why not have your own King and Queen? 'Borrowing' someone else's royalty was common in Europe in the 19th/20th centuries, after the various upheavals, that is how Greece and Yugoslavia got their heads of state. That way most of your institutions remain as they are and the monarch just replaces your Governor General. You would however retain the stability of a constitutional monarchy.
I'm not sure who you'd choose these days. Just make sure that it isn't going to be anyone political, otherwise you'll end up in the same situation as th US, where politics gets distorted 1 year out of 4 as the next fool tries to get elected.
Maybe Australia missed a trick! In the 80's or 90's, Prince Andrew - before he went bad - and Fergie could have been a good choice for an antipodean King. He would have fitted in well with the Aussie sentiment. That ship has long sailed, however.
Penny
I nominate Joannebarbarella
For Queen of Australia!
She's obviously royalty 'cuz
she hasn't got shit all over her...
~hugs, Naughty Lady Veronica
What borders on stupidity?
Canada and Mexico.
.
She just needs a watery tart . . .
. . . to lob a scimitar at her!
Emma
History matters
The British Monarchy has existed for more than a thousand years. It is a good thing that we have a non-political head of state, but it’s more than that. History is important, and who are we to throw away something that has stood for so long. Most people here are either enthusiastic monarchists, or lukewarm ones who would still fight against removing it. It is a small but noisy minority that want to abolish the institution and they are welcome to their opinions, but I have no problem with heading off those protestors who just wanted to spoil a day that was enjoyed by so many.
No-one would want to go back to the days before we became a constitutional monarchy. We now have a satisfactory compromise which pleases the great majority of Brits, at least to a degree. I’m not a huge fan of Charles personally – he should have had the guts to stand up to “The Firm” over Diana and Camilla and I would have respected him far more if he had done so, but he is generally a good man. My sister met him many times through her job and agrees with that assessment. The late Queen was admired by so many, perhaps our new King can aspire to one day being half as good as she was.
Yes, I watched the Coronation, and also the late Queen’s funeral. No, no bunting or street parties. But that’s fine.
Thank you all
I have come to appreciate my British counterparts through the stories and comments here on BC. I appreciate all of the comments about the monarchy and it is a fascinating history and tradition. I also had a chance to investigate monarchies in general. It's amazing that 15 commonwealth countries call Charles III their King, including Australia under rule of a constitutional monarchy. There are also a handful of absolute monarchies around the world, mostly Arab countries. There is even an elective monarch- The Vatican.
Having grown up in America, I never quite understood the attraction of having a monarch. The pageantry and history has always fascinated me, and as I mentioned, I watched Charles and Diana's wedding back in 1981 along with millions of my countrywomen.
Thank you all once again for sharing your personal thoughts with me. One day I hope to visit Great Britain and experiencing its history and people first hand. :DD
DeeDee
More elective monarchies
Cambodia and Malaysia are also elective monarchies. In each of those two cases the electorate consists of 9 persons. Even smaller than the vatican's of up to 80 (men), almost all of them citizens of other countries.
Then we have the United Arab Republic where the president de facto is reserved for the ruler (monarch) of Abu Dhabi and the premiership for the ruler of Dubai. Each "elective" within their respective royal families
And so on and on. Constitutional law and politics are widely and strangely varying from country to country.
E,g, one country tries to maximize Gross National Happiness.
Symbols
In addition to the comments above, I would add that a key role they play is as a symbol. Symbols greatly assist holding a people (tribe or nation) together, granting a sense of belonging and pride. As a focus of the country and the common-wealth, the royals provide a traditional symbol around with the nation can rally and hold to. This is something Queen Elizabeth understood quite well, and she dedicated herself to maintaining the strength of it as best she could. Her long reign provided great continuity to what it meant to be 'British'.
Think of the power that symbols play: such as all the sports teams (American baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer/football worldwide) and their logos emblazoned on merchandise that their fans heartily embrace - gaining from it a measure of belonging. Flags, national animals, anthems, monuments - all of these do this, sometimes for good and sadly sometimes (horribly) not, but they do have a strong influence to help hold a group psychologically together. In a world undergoing such rapid change, having a traditional symbol to hold on to help keep a society coherent and maintain that sense of togetherness can greatly help folks rally to face real dangers - such as was faced by the British in WWII.
If Charles can continue the nature of the symbol that his mother endeavored to forge it can be a good. If he fails in this task, then its value will degrade and be lost.
Just my thoughts while sipping tea on a Sunday morning anyway. :)
Sipping Tea
Although I do love my coffee in the morning, I usually have Tea in the evening Erisian. I am about to embark on a journey through your 'Light' stories. I'm not sure why I haven't read any yet, but the comments from your latest are compelling. :DD
DeeDee
Hooray!
I hope you enjoy the journey!
And I must greatly thank Kimmie, Emma, and many others for all the wonderful comments and various shout-outs! :)
There's A Clip
From Scotland in a football stadium, where the crowd are singing:-
"Ye can shove yer coronation up yer arse"
45% of Scots voted a few years ago to separate from the UK. My heart was with them but my head said no.
But that was before the suicidal Brexit referendum.
The Value of Monarchy
Of our founding fathers the unifying trait was unbridled optimism.
Our system of government depends on a delicate set of checks and balances between the three bodies of power.
Our founding fathers were not so much anti-monarchists as they were against unchecked monarchs. John Adams often appeared to long for the pomp of a king for our president. He often warned against too much democracy. A complicated person, he also railed against England's system.
Charles is not Elizabeth. In my book infidelity is a high crime. Marriage is a glue for our society. Monarchy seemed like a much better idea a few months ago.
An optimist would say, " Charles deserves his chance." I say. . .if you can't abide your marriage vows, what national identity are you providing?
Our system of government demands a great deal of faith in your fellow man. Things go bad when optimism flickers and cynicism prevails.
Monarchs provide optimism. If they don't, they're probably worthless.
Both the UK and the USA have Original Sin. Both countries carried on slave trade long past the time they knew it to be inhuman. Both amassed great wealth on the back of cruelty. Both still need to atone.
Charles' role in the attacks on Meghan suggests he is not inclined to understand how important this issue us to his subjects. As displayed by his infidelity while married to Diana, Charles appears to be tone deaf.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)