The Queen At 80

[poliphilo]

I want an English republic. (I didn't say "I'm a Republican" for fear of misunderstanding.)

The Guardian has at least two big essays this morning on how us English Republicans must seize the moment and start preparing for an English Republic now the Queen has turned 80.

But I'm afraid we've missed our chance. We should have struck in the 90s. The monarchy had reached an all-time low. Diana Spencer (alive and dead) was our standard bearer.

And now the Queen is entering the autumn of her reign. Like Victoria before her, she's become the Grandmother of the Nation.

Inertia takes over. Establishing an English Republic would mean reworking the Constitution from top to bottom. I can't see any Prime Minister having the heart for it.

Especially since removing the monarch means an end to the Royal prerogative, which gives the Prime Minister of the day quasi-regal powers, including the right to declare war without putting it to a parliamentary vote.

So we're almost certainly stuck with the Windsors for the forseeable future.

The Queen could last another 20 years, which means that Charles, if he lives that long, will be over 70 when he succeeds and Grandfather of the Nation from day one.

The only thing that could turn everything around is a big royal scandal. And I wouldn't put it past Charles or either of his two boys to supply us with one.

Comments

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the timing. I tend to think that the public has come around to a grudging respect for Charles.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think the British public has come to view Charles as a silly old duffer, but basically harmless. It still takes a stretch of the imagination to picture him with the crown of stae on his head.

[ex-kharin447.livejournal.com]

"a silly old duffer, but basically harmless"

An incorrect view of course, given that he has remorselessly used his position to advance views on a variety of subjects he has neither the right nor the knowledge to speak on.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't disagree.

And his treatment of his first wife was infamous.

Genuinely ignorant and curious

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

he has remorselessly used his position to advance views on a variety of subjects he has neither the right nor the knowledge to speak on.

Can you give me a couple of examples of ways/times/situations where Charles has done that? You're talking to a U.S. reader who's not all that savvy about what her own political leaders have to say.

Re: Genuinely ignorant and curious

[ex-kharin447.livejournal.com]

Charles apparently sees himself as a 'dissident' and regularly pronounces on subjects like GM crops, farming, education and foreign policy (e.g. boycottong a banquet at the Chinese Embassy in 1999 out of respect for Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama - and encouraging the leaking of this fact) as well as apparently bombarding ministers with letters on subjects like the Iraq war and nanotechnology. More details at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/22/nchar22.xml

Bear in mind that a constitutional monarchy only works by the monarch abstaining from such entanglements. You cannot be a unifying figurehead and be partisan at the same time.

Re: Genuinely ignorant and curious

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That makes plenty of sense. (And my God, he is so *old*. I guess I haven't taken a good look at him in a while.)