For A' That

[poliphilo]

The Divine Right of Kings is an idea that should have died under the axe that divided Charles I in two but for some reason- the innate flunkeyism of the human animal?- it didn't. The biggest believer is the Queen herself. We're told it's because she honestly believes she was given the job by God Himself that she keeps trudging her daily round- with that look on her face- and will never retire. For much of my life the nation has encouraged her in this fantasy. I was in my mid teens before anyone dared draw a caricature of her and- in spite of interim irreverence- we seem to be returning in the twilight of her reign- and mainly thanks to Helen bloody Mirren-  to the old sentimentalism, the old  deference. 

Which I hate. 

And always have done. 

Because it's undignified. Because a man's a man for a' that. Because I refuse to be in awe of a pegtop doll simply because it's  been draped in tinsel and stuck on top of the Christmas tree.  Because monarchy is the lynchpin of a system that's unjust and corrupt and stupid.

Because I'm an anarchist.

And that's why I 'm happy whenever something happens to remind us that the royal family are merely folk- and enjoy blow-jobs and cocaine binges as much as the next man or woman. The Queen herself has always been a figure of  uncompromisingly dull rectitude (yawn) but all round her it's been like the 120 Days of Sodom. Harry is a rakehell, so- in his day- was Charles, so was the Queen's sister Margaret, so was her uncle Edward VIII and her other uncle Prince George (whose death in wartime remains a classified state secret) and so on back to Edward VII who was an infamous whorermonger- and the last royal (before this weekend) to be blackmailed over his sex life. 

I don't know which of them got caught with his (?) trousers down this time. I don't suppose it matters. I just want to thank him.

Comments

[unbleachedbrun.livejournal.com]

History will show that one of the most tragic legacies of the Blair era was the dismantling of the traditional House of Lords. Packing the votes with political crony life peers makes a mockery of bicameral legislation, not to mention the loss of centuries—if not millennia—of good counsel from the peerage.

You will also find that requiring two-thirds majorities in both houses of Parliament will bring modernisation and good government to a standstill.

The U.K. is not like other countries (especially its former colonies!), so pure democratic republicanism will not work there and will not aptly guide the kingdom and its well-entrenched social fabric through the modern world.

[unbleachedbrun.livejournal.com]

Oh, BTW, I read British constitutional law and English legal process at Queen's College, Oxford, so I'm not a totally uninformed American. :-)

[jfs.livejournal.com]

No - but you studied at an institution that is still a bastion of privilege; if more than 50% of the student population at Oxford came from state schools, (and the lecturers were made up from a similar constituency) then perhaps you would have a different perspective than the obviously conservative one you do.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Do you have anything other than opinion to back up your assertations there?

And you miss (deliberately or otherwise) the first part of my suggestion - make the second house representative of the country as a whole rather than being the bastion of hereditary priviledge or the cronies of the party in power.

And make it a job, rather than something that the Lord can choose to turn up to or not if they can fit it in between having lunch at their club or shooting on the glens.

You may feel that it's necessary to tug the fetlock to survive in the 21st century. I do not.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

This would be my recipe for the house of Lords:

1. Ban anyone who has held party political office.
2. Engage an Electoral College of institutions like the Royal Colleges of Physicians / Surgeons, the TUC, the Royal Academy, the law colleges, RIBA, the University Vice-Chencellors, the charitable sector, the CBI, etc. etc. i.e. those who can evaluate expertise in a particular walk of life.
3. Get the Electoral College to nominate their best and brightest members to stand for election.
4. Get these nominations endorsed by the public in a national vote. (The Lords should not have local constituencies, hustings could be held on TV.)
5. Retire the Lords after say, 12 years on a rolling basis so that every 4 years, one third of them come up for re-election.
6. Appoint some officials who can advise the Lords who are not lawyers on points of law.
7. Watch the debates, they would be informed, enlightened, and fascinating.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

*applause*

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's a terrific proposal. I'd vote for it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I yield to no-one in my contempt for Tony Blair.

But I don't see any reason why pure democratic republicanism shouldn't work here. We were after all the first European nation to try and execute a king.

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

Democratic Republicanism isnt working so well here, either. In the US it's more like Despotic Capitalism - at least in recent years.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

BARGE again

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your last paragraph. "Democratic Republicanism will not work there" - why not? And the "well-entrenched social fabric" is gone, my friend. We no longer wear flat caps, curtsey to the Squire, and generally we have forgotten to "know our place". We are quite uppity, in fact. Please stop watching re-runs of "Brideshead Revisited", we are not so different from the US, socially. I have spent enough time there to know that at work, for instance, we Brits are not as deferential as our US colleagues, and we are much more left wing.

now let's all sing the Red Flag...