THE GUARDIAN HAS sad news to give its readers. The paper decided to test the popularity of the monarchy in this jubilee year; so they commissioned ICM to conduct a poll. Asked by ICM whether they thought Britain would be better off or worse off without a Royal Family - the respondents were unanimous. Those who thought Britain would be worse off numbered 69%, while those who thought Britain would be better off accounted for 22%; with 9% not knowing.
If the republican inclined Guardianistas hoped that things would change once the present popular Queen was out of the way and Prince Charles took the throne, then they face further disappointment. While it is true that 48% believe the crown should pass to William, and 39% to Charles, only 10% believed that we should become a republic and elect our head of state.
Support for the monarchy crosses all party political boundaries and is not confined to elderly Tories. Both the Labour Party and Lib Dem supporters believe in a monarchy.
Even at its lowest ebb, during the period of Princess Diana’ death, support for the monarchy remained at a healthy 48%. But still the republicans believe history to be on their side. They cannot comprehend anything other than the meanest of slights to be given this institution.
They have been pickled in class hatred for generations and cannot contemplate any kind of need for a modern monarchy, bereft of the Divine Right since the Cromwellian constitutional revolution. Modern day republicans have little to offer by way of a system of elected presidents.
The Queen, as head of state, is politically neutral. She cannot and would not wish to take sides between the political parties, if only because to do so would threaten the very foundation of the institution of monarchy. She councils and advises; she is trusted by all prime ministers when they meet her each Tuesday. Unlike a president, the Queen does not have a political axe to grind, and she cannot go to war or have any say in whether the nation should do so or not.
Paradoxically, she is as much a servant of her people as those who have been elected to serve in parliament. We are very lucky as a people to have such a constitutional arrangement that, over centuries, we have managed to broker for ourselves.
IN EUROPE, THEY ALSO BELIEVE in having a presidency. The president of the European Commission for instance, is José Manuel Barroso, who, like the Queen, is unelected and has, arguably, far more power within Europe than our Queen does over any single English county.
Indeed, the European union is replete with such unelected power brokers. This is the EU’s idea of republicanism, and our own republicans would be better deployed in getting to grips with this anomaly in what is after all meant to be a democratic union; before chastising the British monarchy.
The Guardian is pro-republican, as well as Europhilic. The paper believes that this country should have an elected president instead of an unelected monarch; the paper does not exactly remain silent on the democratic abuses that infect the many institutions of the European union at every level; but it does not at the same time press the issue to the same extent that it is happy to do with the institution of the British monarchy.
José Manuel Barroso was in attendance at last week’s meeting of the G8, as the only unelected president on show. He behaved then, as he still behaves, like many a 16th century monarch once did, who, like himself, believed in their own Divine Right to rule.
The Divine Right of unelected politicians to oversee and effectively govern Europe (i.e. the EU Commissioners), have replaced that of kings; and yet the Guardian, that supposedly stands full square against such medievalism remains incoherent on the subject.
WHEN I READ the Guardian on the net, I cannot resist the comments that always follow from their readers. The Guardian reader is a veritable source of amusement for the amateur psychologist (not to say psychiatrist) among those trawling the net.
For instance, after the Guardian published its poll findings into the state of the British monarchy, I must admit that I was as presently surprised by the contributions made, as no doubt were the paper itself.
I was amazed at how sympathetic many comments were toward the monarchy and can only assume that many of them were from readers of conservative papers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.
However, the authentic voice of the Guardianista was heard, and it was epitomised by a contribution from ‘Essextronica’. Essextronica wrote the following: ‘In these difficult times it amazes me that people aren't bothered by the queen bling-blinging it up the Thames in her yacht, rubbing it in or the millions spent on the royal wedding. No instead we cheer them on. I could cope with the concept of a hereditary monarchy if it wasn't for the extreme wealth and privilege and instead they had proper jobs and earned a living like the rest of us.
I agree that most of the population are too thick to understand the issue. On one of her recent visits the BBC interviewed some of the spectators asking them what they liked about the queen and these were clearly not people who were capable of critical thought’.
I agree that most of the population are too thick to understand the issue. On one of her recent visits the BBC interviewed some of the spectators asking them what they liked about the queen and these were clearly not people who were capable of critical thought’.
This lady or gentleman is as arrogant as any aristocrat at the court of the Sun King. Essextronica would no doubt consider his/herself (it reads like a women, so I will use the appropriate pronoun from now on) above the common heard. She condescendingly believes that, ‘…most of the population are too thick to understand the issue’,(let them eat bread).
Essextronica has a high opinion of herself and has a low opinion of those who disagree with her. She believes herself, like many of the Guardian’s ever diminishing readership (it no longer makes a profit) to be gifted with liberal certainty, despite the failure of the eurozone, multiculturalism, comprehensive education, immigration and every single social experiment conducted over the past four decades of this country’s history.
THE BRITISH MONARCHY, HOPEFULLY, is here to stay. The French rid themselves of their monarchy by a liberal use of the guillotine. The German monarchy, like that of the Russian, fell fowl of revolution following the First World War, the former proving more ‘successful’ than the latter.
In Europe after the First World war, the kings departed, leaving the UK untouched by revolution. In Russia tsar Nicholas had overseen a form of Divine Right to rule and pressed such a ‘right’ upon his people goaded on by his wife, who in turn was under the spell of the monk Rasputin.
The British however, had long since found a formula that worked. The Constitutional Monarchy found its place in the lives of the British people via an advisory role; as well as a client role to parliamentary procedure.
We do not need a president to mismanage our lives. A prime minister should prove adequate for such a purpose. Having a monarch as a head of state has proven its worth in this country, and the people recognise this, as the ICM poll proves.
The monarchy in Britain acts as a source of conviction when the politician’s fail them, as they often do. Elections have proven as unreliable as the hereditary principle when choosing a leader.
Democracy is the best and only way forward for a free people. But we in the UK have also benefited from a constitutional monarchy, which provide stability and brings tradition to our nation.
We in the UK are unique throughout the world in the way we govern ourselves as a free people who never fear free speech, or the vile and vindictive probing of republicans
Our constitutional monarchy has proven itself; and will surely continue throughout the generations (if, that is, Charles does not f***-up).
No comments:
Post a Comment