On the Queen\’s yacht

Just a little thought.

The Jubilee is this year.

So, err, they should have been thinking about buying a yacht some 3 or 4 years ago, shouldn\’t they?

They do take a certain amount of time to make after all…..

17 comments on “On the Queen\’s yacht

  1. I doubt that would have gone down very well with the Labour government of Gormless Brown who was in power during that particular point in time.

    Tories make much better monarchists.

  2. Politicians don’t do thought. They do (over-)reaction. As long as it can be explained in a sound-bite. Hence their overwhelming success at long-term projects.

    And what Mr Galt said.

  3. There was never any serious intention of building a new Royal Yacht; the ‘leak’ of Gove’s memo was a herring thrown to the walruses of the disgruntled Tory wing of the Conservative Party.

    In passing, it’s astonishing how many soi disant classical liberals and libertarians are actually Tory monarchists in disguise.

    Any claim of hereditary authority is an abomination. If Brenda wants a boat, she’s wealthy enough to buy one herself.

  4. In passing, it’s astonishing how many soi disant classical liberals and libertarians are actually *Tory* monarchists in disguise.

    Excusing your “Tory”, it might just be because we’ve seen how well politicians cope when they get the status of Head of State as well as the power of Head of Government.

    There is actually a good reason why a figurehead Head of State should be overtly free of political allegiance.

  5. Peter: If you double-check, I think you might find Mr Gladstone, a fairly well-known classical liberal, was supportive of the monarchy. Even if the monarch wasn’t always entirely supportive of him: Queen Victoria famously complained that he spoke to her as if he were addressing a public meeting.

  6. On royal authority: the most extreme example of what I was complaining about was the Libertarian Party’s leader arguing that royal authority should be increased. This is also a theme among some of the Freemen loons. It’s true the Royal Assent is no longer in the power of the monarch (last given in person, 1860s, last refused, 1703ish). Unfortunately, it’s also true that Parliament has unlimited power, courtesy of the monarchical tradition. Not only should no monarch exercise absolute power, no institution should either.

    We don’t need a separate Head of State. The Prime Minister and cabinet have become a de facto executive and should be separated out into an actual one so that Parliament can return to exercising a check on the actions of the executive, as opposed to being whipped or bribed into compliance by it.

    And still, the principle of hereditary authority should be anathema to any Liberal. That principle is the basis of monarchy.

  7. Tim said: “So, err, they should have been thinking about buying a yacht some 3 or 4 years ago, shouldn’t they?”

    A Liberty Ship wouldn’t take that long. Anneka Rice could get it done in time too. With the stuttering economies there might be a few boat builders with super yachts to sell cheap if the buyer has gone bust.

    Richard said: “Get her a second-hand one?”

    A make do and mend mentality in keeping with the austerity drive. There might be a damaged repairable ship available in Italy. A bit of filler and a new paint job and away she goes.

    How about a high speed catamaran or an offshore support wessel.

    Sadly this floating casino has been sold. Same for this former RN aircraft carrier. This dive support ship is still available – and it has a submarine with it! I can just see Liz and Phil sneaking off in it to escape the royal correspondents.

  8. I thought there was a perfectly good one in dry dock at this very moment, having her bottom scraped and painted

  9. Peter Risdon,

    We don’t need a separate Head of State. The Prime Minister and cabinet have become a de facto executive and should be separated out into an actual one so that Parliament can return to exercising a check on the actions of the executive, as opposed to being whipped or bribed into compliance by it.

    One of the great lies from politicians is that the monarchy is the defender of the “unwritten constitution”, which in reality translates into the government doing whatever it likes (removing the right to jury trial, raising the period of detention without trial) because the monarchy lacks the legitimacy of an elected representative of the people.

  10. I thought there was a perfectly good one in dry dock at this very moment, having her bottom scraped and painted

    No, unfortunately. She was just becoming, like most old ships, too expensive to keep in working order. The boilers especially, given that it is no longer the propulsion mechanism of choice for any significant %age of shipping.

    Refitting her for diesel propulsion would have been major work and the cost was not seen as reasonable (i.e. justifiable to the media) at the time.

  11. I’m all for donating, if someone will set up a fund. But even if we raise £60m, the state will have to pay for maintenance.

    Why don’t we just give her the Crown estate back, then she could pay for it herself…

  12. Peter Risdon – “Any claim of hereditary authority is an abomination. If Brenda wants a boat, she’s wealthy enough to buy one herself.”

    I see nothing in liberal doctrine (much less common sense) that says hereditary authority is in any way an abomination. After all, property is important to liberals and property is usually inherited. There is nothing odd about extending that principle to politics.

    As for common sense, what matters is what works. The British monarchy works. There is no reason to change it for a system that may be more ideologically sympathetic and may be better in theory, but which more often than not does not work in practice.

    The abomination was removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords and replacing them with non-entities.

  13. Tim Almond – “One of the great lies from politicians is that the monarchy is the defender of the “unwritten constitution”, which in reality translates into the government doing whatever it likes (removing the right to jury trial, raising the period of detention without trial) because the monarchy lacks the legitimacy of an elected representative of the people.”

    You think the system would work better if we had on-going conflicts between an elected President, claiming a democratic mandate, and an elected Parliament with a Prime Minister, also claiming a democratic mandate? By all means, can you explain to me how that would be resolved?

    The monarchy does work as stated. If only because of the close ties between the monarch and the Army – who are theoretically her servants after all. The Prime Minister is extremely limited in his ability to stack the machinery of government with his own favourites a la Hungary at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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