Pity he didn’t think of this before:
What is the future role for the head of state in whatever the UK might become? That is a question that needs to be asked. And at the same time the question as to who might have that role, and why, needs to be addressed. The assumption that it should be a royal seems, to me, to be naive.
As for the reason we do have a Royal someone, somewhere, has to pin the VC on people. And we’d prefer Chuckie or President Spud?
We could have a head of state elected by the people….
Or we could have a head of state elected by a few hundred people (like the US does) – and end up with someone like Trump.
Or we could have the PM as head of state.
The advantage of the royals is that they are a tourist draw. Not sure BoJo would generate the same kind of tourism or licensing money.
“The assumption it should be a Royal .[is] a naive one.”
You’re the naive one Richard to believe anyone assumes head of state must be Royal. There’s incumbents advantage for sure in that we’re not talking tinkering with the constitution here we’re talking setting fire to it. Its the undesirable effects on everyone of such an action which is why the monarchy is supported as much as it is.
It is beyond the wit of man to design an institution as successful as a constitutional monarchy along the lines of the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, and so on.
As Hayek teaches, the best stuff tends to emerge from human action not human design.
I’ve long thought the better question, and it’s one which to be fair to the esteemed former professor of political economy he does seem to be groping towards, is: why do we have a head of state?
The best answer I can come up with is that the HoS is held in some way to be the manifestation of the country through which the government acts. So the government may (will) be a bunch of crooks voted into office by whichever other bunch of crooks thought they’d do best out of it, but we can at least all be civilised with each other by pretending that the thievery and banditry all being done in the name of us all, whilst hoping that our bunch of crooks gets voted in next time.
How soon before a Harry-Meghan sex tape is ‘accidentally’ released?
The Monarchy has a constitutional role, clearly defined, and not just Head of State but Head of Government which is why it is called Her Majesty’s Government.
Most Executive Power is devolved, but some powers are reserved to the Monarch. By tradition the reserved powers are not exercised unilaterally by the Monarch but constitutionally, legally, they could be. Armed forces, police, judiciary are responsible and ‘loyal’ to the Crown.
All the levers of State are invested in the Crown, the Monarch, not for the power it gives them but because of the power it denies others. It is why Membership of tte EU, after Maastricht, was considered by some to be Treason as some power was transferred from the Crown, to Brussels.
What the role ‘is to become’ – if it were to be changed – if the Monarch were to become purely ceremonial for example, what would happen to, who would get, the constitutional role?
It would require the UK to have an entirely new written constitution. That would be a major undertaking, and to what benefit?
Problem with that analysis, John B, is that the last time I can recall Brenda exercising any reserve powers was in relation to Gough Whitlam and it seems clear she determined not to repeat that mistake.
That was 45 years ago. She’s not going to change course now. Will Chuckles try it?
It seems to me we are left only with the ceremonial, as a fig leaf for something or other.
I mean, Chesterton’s fence and all that. I am willing to be persuaded …
How many royals does one country actually need? You seem to have quite a lot.
Would Canada buy a couple of them?
@Lud
Indeed, you could have an organisation/institution as “head of state”, or a collective of people rather than a single individual, as is technically the case in Switzerland.
I know Murphy is a Republican, we get that. However, if you are going to write something along the lines of “This example shows the entire institution is in crisis and here’s my deeply profound analysis” you might like to try provifing some, well, actual analysis!!!
But what’s the point of it, Mr Ears?
I mean to say, if we’re to have a HoS then I can see that some bland, game old gal in a hat then her occiputally challenged son are improvements on slimy nabobs and sinecurists. It may even be that a committee of dishwater-dull bureaucrats is better than slimy nabobs and s.
But until we understand why we have it, it’s difficult to defend what we have other than with reference to inertia. And if we cannot defend it, then eventually we’ll get Blair or Patten or Mandelson, or Wee Willie, or Swansong or one of those others constantly wafted upwards on clouds of failure and public opprobrium.
TD, come off it. Have you heard of Saudi Arabia?
@Lud
I have wondered what the practical difficulties would be getting Parliament itself to be Head of State and Fount of Honour, though the former may be impractical and the latter, well, comical. I fear ultimately you still need a fleshy humanoid blob to at least represent the role in corporeal form, a mere organisation being unable to do the required pinning of medals or laying of wreaths or cutting of ribbons. The Speaker of the HoC might be a decent “representative” of Parliament, but may well not be a decent character themselves…
I think a better question is: whither the Great Tuber? I mean it is not clear what function he performs other than being a foil for Tim. It is reasonable to ask whether one Spud rather than zero Spuds is not supernumerary.
Seemed odd that they went on holiday in Canada then when they came back to London popped into the Canadian embassy or high commission to say thanks rather than doing something in Canada.
TD: We’ve got too many royals because of two things: the current monarch has been there forever, and once a royal always a royal. If we had the Japanese system the only royals would be monarch, monarch’s spouse, and monarch’s children, and anybody marrying a commoner instantly ceases to be a royal, and when you cease to be monarch’s child ‘cos the monarchy has passed on, you also cease to be royal.
New Nickname for Meghan – Woko Ono.
Flubber: nice one.
@Mr Lud
I wish Brenda would exercise monarch’s reserve powers more frequently. Aus was a good call imo
@jgh
Yep. See December photo of Queen and her three heirs: Charles, William and George
Have we ever had a Monarch with three heirs before?
Pcar,
Yes, there’s a picture floating about with showing Victoria and her heirs and they all looked bloody miserable.
Pcar,
That photo, why does it look odd? Photo-shopped, over-processed?
I’ve spoken before of my belief that “The Dismissal” aka the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis was not actually an action on Brenda’s part, but simply a miscommunication on the Sir John Kerr and palace officials.
Sir John Kerr had the power, responsibility and constitutional authority to dismiss Gough Whitlam’s government, the only problem was that he couldn’t use that authority without tarnishing Brenda and making Australia seem as little more than a colonial outpost.
The communications between the palace and Sir John Kerr relating to the Dismissal have been sealed until at least 2027 and Brenda retains a veto on their release even after that time, which, given that we’re talking about an event 45 years ago is “surprising” and why I suggest that the actual problem was a failure to communicate between the palace and Sir John Kerr rather than Brenda directly wielding the dagger into Gough Whitlam’s back.
My theory is that the Palace never really understood the nature of Sir John Kerr’s problem and just advised Sir John Kerr to “use his best judgement”, but rather than Sir John Kerr interpreting this as “try and avoid any confrontation that will damage Brenda”, Sir John Kerr interpreted this is “do whatever is necessary” (i.e. his actual job as defined rather than practised).
Maybe when Brenda finally pops her clogs and were landed with Chuckles Buggerlugs III as King we will actually find out. I’ll be very surprised if Brenda was involved in anything other than a passive role, this whole debacle has always smacked more of incompetence than conspiracy.
“Or we could have a head of state elected by a few hundred people (like the US does) – and end up with someone like Trump.”
Eat a turd, Martin.
“I know Murphy is a Republican, we get that.”
Since his other passport is for a republic why doesn’t he fuck off and live there, rather than interfering with our one?
The best response to the abolition of the monarchy in the UK is “So, you’d prefer President Tony Blair rather than Her Mag?”
Christ on a bike, even Chuckles Buggerlugs III is preferable to President Tony Blair.
“Or we could have a head of state elected by a few hundred people (like the US does) – and end up with someone like Trump.”
Eat a turd, Martin.
Also Martin, you’re showing you have the intelligence of a turd.
Could be that Harry is in the running for most stupid Royal of them all… Easily beating Charles 1 and Edward 8
In fairness Diogenes, when he was born he was the spare then. Since William has already given birth to three children the succession is secured for a good half century, so it doesn’t really matter what Prince Harry does at this point.
Everybody knew that getting married to a woke American celebrity divorcee was going to be a train wreck, I just don’t think they expected it to all happen so fast. Brenda and the rest of the flunkies at the palace seem to have been caught off guard by it.
Edward Lud,
“But what’s the point of it, Mr Ears?
I mean to say, if we’re to have a HoS then I can see that some bland, game old gal in a hat then her occiputally challenged son are improvements on slimy nabobs and sinecurists. It may even be that a committee of dishwater-dull bureaucrats is better than slimy nabobs and s.”
I think, for starters, we have to be honest. When politicians talk about her effect on the nation, it’s basically bollocks. She has zero real power. She isn’t going to stop Corbyn being PM if he’s elected, nor was she ever going to get involved in the weeds of Brexit. Every power of monarch has been made into a protocol. I suppose if a government tried to suspect democracy, she might get involved. I don’t know.
Essentially, she’s part of the diplomacy and ceremony bit of government. We invite a world leader to come to the UK, the Queen puts on a banquet at the palace. She visits people in hospital after a rail crash. She hands out the medals. And I think it basically works, because she has no party link, no past in business. She represents the whole nation, rather than part of it.
There’s the old line that the last five kings in the world will be the king of spades, clubs, diamonds, hearts and England.
As long as William and Kate insist on them all travelling on the same plane together we’re going to need a spare. Probably useful to have him living quietly in Canada, just in case.
Argh. Corrected
Charles, William, George
Have we ever had a Monarch with three generations of heirs before?
PS Brenda order William to stop flying on same aircraft as George, we don’t want King Harry The Woke BleedingHeart
@John Galt
It was obvious from wedding preps
Over on Arrse “…how long will it last” thread, I said 2-3 years. I’ve also said Brenda should have made him Governor of South Georgia and sent there with no support
NAFF ORF HARRY
I thought the Russians were looking for a new tsar as titular head so that Putin can go on running the country. At least Harry is related.
Have we ever had a Monarch with three generations of heirs before?
Yes
@Chriis
Thanks