The argument in favour of monarchy: Donald Trump

For one reason or another, we don\’t seem to read much about the House of Windsor these days. Yet while the monarchy keeps a determinedly low profile, America provides the most compelling argument ever advanced for the institution to survive until doomsday.

Its name is Donald Trump. For while venal, egomaniacal and repulsive leaders are the price of democracy, the thought of being saddled with a head of state in whom these are the plus points would send Willie Hamilton\’s ghost to the celestial souvenir store for the full range of Kate \’n\’ Wills crockery.

11 comments on “The argument in favour of monarchy: Donald Trump

  1. Eventually, people are going to advance their thinking beyond primitive tribal systems and realise there is no logical need for a “head of state” to embody the animist spirit-of-the-tribe.

    Appoint an administator. Call them what you like. We call ours “prime minister”. Even if you are a great believer in Govunmint, that is all you need. There is no logical need for a further position to embody the nonexistent soul of the nation.

    “If we abolish the monarchy, we have to have a president”.

    No, no we don’t.

  2. No, we don’t have to have a president. Head of State and Head of Government can be one and the same – many countries manage it.

    But, when the Head of Government is wildly unpopular – Maggie, Blair, Brown – having a less divisive figure as the Head of State can be a welcome thing.

    The Irish and Israeli model isn’t a bad one, if you are a republican. I’m not.

    Tim adds: To be very simplistic about it indeed, I’d rather have an inbred buffoon pinning the VC on chests than I would the sort of politician who would manage to gain the Presidency if it were elective.

  3. Although, Ian, you are correct philosophically, I think that customary international law does require there to be a Head of State – if there isn’t one legally defined in the country, the Head of Government counts.

    The Vienna Convention, for example, specifically mentions (but does not require) them.

  4. @5
    Sorry, don’t agree. One of the fundamentals of a good hanging is that you need a live body to perform it on.

  5. Look the current system works, it actually appears to run at a profit (yes, look at the figures!) so why not just leave the thing alone and spend time fixing what is clearly broken. Like why we accept wildly varying constituency sizes etc? AV is a distraction and will not fix any of the issues we have already identified.

  6. Well, that’s another thing we’re going to have to change then.

    So *who pins the medals on soldiers*? Clue: we don’t want some arsehole politician boosting their credibility and support by doing so…

  7. The greatest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy can summed up in the following three words: “President Peter Mandelson.”

    Yes, Kings and Queens might not be a good thing, but as Churchill is rumoured to have said about democracy, what’s the alternative?

  8. Of course. I for one will be proud to have Brian as Head of State.

    We had one decent, long-reigning monarch in QEII and an important one before her in Vic. But we’ve also had venal, drooling inbreds. As the man said, it’s like having a hereditary mathematician. Occasionally, one will be able to add up.

    However, if people in pac-a-macs want to line The Mall clutching souvenir plastic bags, it would be cruel to stop them. But we really should become a Republic, and find a way to accommodate the bag-clutchers. Parliament evolved as a check to the Monarch; vest the power of the Monarch in Parliament and where is the check? Monarchical power is also unlimited. Political power should be limited by constitution.

    So we do need to become a Republic, albeit one with some pageantry for those who like that sort of thing.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.