There’s nothing democratic about the royal family. They are the descendants of a thug who defeated another thug to become the despot of these Isles. If that was all there was to them, I would be the first in the queue to get rid of them.
The greatest invention in the history of the world is not the wheel, or fire, or the scientific method: it’s democracy and the rule of law. What’s wonderful about democracy is he principle it establishes, that everyone, no matter their colour or creed, is of equal worth. That each person has the same number of votes: just one. With that principle comes equality before the law and an aspiration that everyone, no matter their background, should have the chance to fulfil their dreams.
Our democracy is a work in progress. We have an electoral system where not every vote is of equal value, where media tycoons have too much power and where money talks. But it’s a whole lot better than what went before.
Equality under the law is a work in progress too. Too often, justice belongs to those who can afford expensive lawyers. As we’ve seen in the Leveson enquiry, if you are an ordinary person, without access to those lawyers, powerful media groups can trample all over you. But the very fact the Leveson enquiry has been established is a triumph of democracy over those media groups.
Maybe we’ll never finish this journey, maybe we’ll always be fighting, step by step, towards a better democracy. But, for all its flaws, that painful, slow, progress to democracy is something to celebrate.
Some bemoan that glacial progress from the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest, through Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Great Reform Act, and extensions of voting to women and to all adults above 18. Maybe a revolution would have been quicker, but maybe not. Too many revolutions carried out in the name of democracy have torn down the laws that went before and replaced them with something worse.
Our history has been far from bloodless, but much of the progress has been achieved, not through violence, but lawful change brought about by the will of the people. That’s something to celebrate.
And we have a symbol to celebrate that history. The descendent of despots like William the Conqueror and Henry VIII is a constitutional monarch. The monarchy is a symbol without power, an enthusiastic champion for democracy and the rule of law whose liberal views would cause those tyrants to turn in their graves.
* George Kendall is the acting chair of the Social Democrat Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Johnson on Planet Z?
Mystery Surrounds How Cow Made Its Way Into Market Harborough Tennis Club
No change in this week's council by-elections
Nominative determinism - A marketer's dream
Temporary Traffic Order - Seafield Road
My tweets
Laurence Cox
Jason Connor
Sam Barratt
Thomas Prince
24 Comments
Have I missed something?
Why are you a royalist? Because this monarchy is better, from a liberal democratic sense, than previous monarchies?
Because something undemocratic acts as a good symbol under which we can celebrate the march of democracy?
whu?
George, I don’t think you’re a royalist.
I think you’re a monarchist. While people tend to use them as synonyms, they’re not. I’m a monarchist, but certainly not a royalist. I couldn’t care less what the family get up to as long as the head is competent and doing the job properly.
@Frew
Because celebrating our history, especially the history of democracy, is worth doing. And a constitutional monarch is a great way to do it.
As long as it doesn’t have powers, the monarchy is a symbol of how peaceful, lawful protest has evolved what was a dictatorship into a democracy. I think symbols and celebrations like that are important. But, of course, others do not.
@MatGB
I hadn’t thought of the distinction, but you’re probably right 😉
George, with respect I don’t think you even attempt to make any case for a monarchy until the last paragraph and a half, when you seem to imply the monarchy represents centuries of democratic reform.
I’m no historian, but your examples of reform all seem to be in spite of monarchy, not because of it. The King was forced to sign the magna carta against his will, the Great Reform Act was delayed by a string of unwilling monarchs standing in the way, and a leading player in the suffragette movement killed herself by running into the King’s horse in protest at not having a vote! It’s a good bet that the other reforms you mention were opposed by monarchs too (others may be able to help out with this). The monarchy has resisted reform throughout history, so I am perplexed at how it can possibly be considered a symbol of it and take credit for the brilliance of great British reformers. Am I also missing something here?
And as for “an enthusiastic champion for democracy and the rule of law”?! As well as having never stood for election, the present monarch caused the collapse of a high profile court case when she suddenly ‘remembered’ there wasn’t any need for a trial after all!
Your argument seems to rest quite strongly on the fact the British monarch no longer heinously slaughters their own subjects. As far as I’m concerned that’s the absolute bare minimum I expect from my head of state.
“The monarchy is a symbol without power, an enthusiastic champion for democracy…”
I literally don’t see how that is possible. Also, if you truly see the monarchy as a “symbol without power” then why hold onto such a symbol? I feel these are all part of a series of weak justifications for an institution that people somehow still feel sentimental for. We REALLY need to move on.
@ William Summers; by the time the Great Reform Act, and certainly Universal Suffrage came about, the monarchy was already a passive bystander to what was going on in Parliament. The last monarch remotely effective in politics was William IV. And even then, he was interfering on behalf of his Prime Minister by threatening the Tory opposition with the creation of as many new Whig peers as would have been necessary to force reforms through the upper house. If only he’d thought to abolish the place, but never mind.
The reason why I don’t support the abolition of the monarchy is because I frankly don’t see the point. Any presidency we could create would have to replicate the office of the present monarch in all respects or completely break the country’s constitutional settlement. All we would really be achieving is the introduction of partisan sentiment into a symbol that is supposed to be politically neutral.
@ Joshua Dixon
The point of the symbol without power is for there to be a figurehead of the nation existing independent of partisan divisions. For example, ermember how the accusation ‘unpatriotic’ used to get thrown about in the United States if a commentator opposed the policies of the Bush administration? In a system with an apolitical head of state, that charge carries little if any sting. Elected or not, we really should retain that feature of our system. No throwing babies out with the bathwater.
My favoured solution would be to go with some sort of indirectly elected position, secret ballots, no campaigning, nominations on a postcard to Westminster Palace in the event of the successor being rejected by a free vote in parliament, that sort of thing.
I have to agree with Frew and William Summers, you gave us no reason as to why the Monarchy should exist, but reasons why the Monarchy shouldn’t.
Its not so much that they are descended from despots but the fact they should so easily turn into one seeing as the only thing holding back the Monarch is convention and not the law in the form of a constitution.
The Monarchy is a not a symbol of democracy, in this country or any other country due to the fact they are unelected and have generally resisted democratic change throughout the years as William Summers has pointed out.
At the end you say “Our history has been far from bloodless, but much of the progress has been achieved, not through violence, but lawful change brought about by the will of the people. That’s something to celebrate.”
Indeed, it has been lawful change but its been by the “will of the people” not through the Monarchy. If the will of the people can create this democracy, flawed as it is, then surely the “will of the people” can choose a worthy successor.
“the monarchy is a symbol of how peaceful, lawful protest has evolved what was a dictatorship into a democracy”
A stranger view of the last thousand years of British history it would be harder to find.
Have to say George, you are one of my favourite bloggers on this site. But I must disagree with your assessment here. You claim, without justification, that it is a good thing to have a symbol. Perhaps. But I don’t believe that symbol needs to be chosen by the hereditary principle alone. And I would also say that the institution is currently enjoying the benefits of what may be it’s best incarnation, HM Queen Elizabeth (if there was a referendum to get rid of this Queen, I would vote against it). But I am of the opinion, and many monarchists share my hunch, that successors may not enjoy the same warm regards as Elizabeth II.
Quite happy to call myself a monarchist, no one has demonstrated that any other system would bring a better outcome, but not sure I’d say I was a royalist.
As a liberal I’m against having a monarchy.It sums up the way positions and power are ‘inherited’ in the ‘establishment’. Let them keep their titles & even their state property … but get them out of anything to do with our Government. Lifes too short for this show to go as part of Government in a 21st Century world.
and another thing!!! This defence of the monarchy is in my opinion another sign of Liberals becoming conservatives……….. then not long after comes the big ‘C’. Where have all the Radicals gone?????Where have all those who want a real democracy gone????????? Perhaps like me they now dispair & no longer members……
Sorry for the rant – Angry Liberal.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
I didn’t expect what I wrote to be wildly popular, especially with republicans. Nor did I expect to change anyone’s mind. But I wanted an alternative point of view to be more fully expressed. I know I’m not the only one who values history, tradition, and celebrating the better sides of British history. But many who feel that, are reluctant to openly say so.
I’m a pretty sorry kind of monarchist. I watched barely any of Charles and Diana’s, and William and Kate’s weddings. I don’t buy souvenirs, and I cringe at much of the coverage. But I’d be very sorry to see the institution go.
The usual arguments for keeping the monarchy – “don’t fix something that isn’t broken”, “benefits for the tourist trade”, and “the disadvantages of the alternatives” – may make some intellectual sense, but they aren’t why I’d want to keep it.
It’s unfashionable to say so, but I think symbols and links to our history are important. In a sense, it’s a kind of ritual, and it feeds a need within ourselves to connect with the past, to provide continuity. If tradition feeds destructive feelings and attitudes, then of course it should be changed or removed. But where it’s linked with good things, a visual reminder of the past, and reinforcing aspects of our identity that deserve strengthening, then it’s a very good thing.
I suspect that the reason a lot of people strongly oppose the monarchy is that, for them, it reinforces bad traditions. Some people prefer revolutionary change rather than gradual evolution. Some feel it perpetuates the class system. And, if that’s how they feel, I can understand the passion of their opposition.
But I have opposite, and more positive, feelings for the institution. For me, and perhaps only for me, what is valuable is how closely tied the institution is with the gradual development of democracy and the rule of law.
@Greenfield No need to be so angry. Liberalism has a strong tradition of welcoming different views. This isn’t a party issue, monarchists and republicans have long been equally welcome in the party, and long may that continue. LibDemVoice has followed that tradition by publishing articles from both the monarchist and republican camps.
@mpg Thanks for the kind words. You’re right, of course, that Charles will have a tougher time than Elizabeth. He’s been pretty unwise at times, I think partly because he’s struggled to cope with major (and good) changes in society and the institution of the monarchy. But I think the institution will survive, in particular because I think William and Kate appear to understand better than Charles did what they should, and shouldn’t, say and do.
@William Summers Your comment seems to imply that the only virtues that Elizabeth has are that she no longer heinously slaughters her own subjects. If that’s how you feel, that eloquently demonstrates the gulf between how the two of us regard her.
@Joshua Dixon With issues like this, I think emotion rather than logic probably is more important in determining our attitude to the monarchy. But i think that’s as true of opponents as it is of supporters. And, it probably governs our attitudes to a lot more things than we would readily admit, or are even aware of.
George Kendall
Like others here I read what you say carefully as you always make a reasoned argument
However, also as others have said I cannot agree with you on this point.
The current Queen is a model of a constitutional monarch and I doubt many would advocate replacing her. Saying that, however, her most of her respect is built on a sense of longevity and stability
You read some nonsense about her being the best diplomat and political figure in the world today. I think that is difficult to know but she has clearly not upset many people in the last 60 years.
The problem with a hereditary monarchy though is you have to separate the incumbent from the role. Not every monarch has been neither been as good as Elizabeth on the diplomacy front nor as an example to the country at large. There have also been monarchs who have not taken such a back seat.
On that last point we have also to say that in many respects the UK is still a pretty young democracy. Universal suffrage only came about in 1928 and until 1918 a large number of men were also excluded from voting. Since there have only been 4 monarchs during this period it is difficult to say that the British monarchy is well suited to our current way of life, Even in that time you have had the controversy around the calling of the 51 election and the abdication crisis. All this was sorted out behind closed doors and little obvious to the public. We have also seen the debacle of 1992 and the death of Diana where the popular mood changed somewhat.
The problem to me is twofold – firstly I am sure that the Royal Family exerts an influence that we are not aware of and secondly the future monarchs cannot always be assured to be as competent as Brenda. I have read posts on other sites where members of the Armed Forces state that in the face of a showdown between the monarch and politicians then they would take the side of the monarch – rather worrying, especially with the rumors that abound about the treatment of Wilson in the 70s.
The link below looks at the popular support for the monarchy in 2011 before all this jubilee hype began. Although people are in favor some of the results are interesting and suggest that public opinion is fickle. Being a republican is an active position as is being a true monarchist,; most people, however, I imagine are passive supporters as they are happy with Brenda but may not be so keen on those that follow – time will tell.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons
If the monarchy is to exist just as a titular HoS then at least we need to change our National Anthem and remove all requirements for giving an oath of allegiance to the monarch. The allegiance should be to the country and not an individual.
God Save the Queen is an issue if you don’t believe in a God and don’t accept the idea of monarchy
“The allegiance should be to the country and not an individual”. Allegiance to an individual works well provided the individual is worthy of respect – time will tell if the Queen’s successors are worthy, but at least we’re not likely to get Prince Andrew or Edward. Allegiance to a country is nebulous and hasn’t worked out well in every country (think Fatherland or Mother Russia).
As for God saving the Queen, since most Brits don’t know and don’t care whether there’s a God or not this phrase is just a harmless tradition to most of us. In typical British pragmatism the many embarrassing verses of our national anthem (crushing the Scots etc) are simply forgotten today.
Old Codger Chris
I think you will still find most continental Europeans claiming allegiance to their country, as well as the US which is a strong example of this. I absolutely refuse to defer to anyone in this country just by virtue of their birthparents, especially when one of those was a rabid right-winger like ‘the Nation’s Favourite Granny’. Even when people apply for citizenship they have to take an oath of allegiance tot the monarch as an individual (as well as a pledge to the country) – why do we still need the first? Not to mention MPs – I could not, in all conscience, take a pledge of allegiance to the Queen and her successors.
I don’t do God, full stop and anyway I don’t actually care if God saves the Queen or not, I would rather he focused on me, my friends and family. I reserve the right to refuse to stand when this dirge is played as it does not mention the country or people at all
Removing the monarchy is not a short term reality but why not make the oath to uphold democracy in the UK as a first start?
Sometimes, in a thread I’ve started, and feel I’ve come away with a better understanding than when I started. I think that’s the case here.
My own feelings towards the celebrations of the monarchy are, as I’ve said, a little ambivalent. I have always disliked grating sycophancy, I have no interest in frocks, and find long ceremonies a little tedious. Yes … I do take joy in the joy of others during celebrations of the monarchy.
What I say above about a celebration of democracy and the rule of law is true, to a degree. But, on reflection, I think my pro-monarchist feelings are broader than that. I think it’s that I like the positive and dislike the cynical. I like the fact that millions of British people are celebrating their Britishness.
And I think republicanism has an image problem. If I were to do a word or phrase association with republicanism, I suspect the following words might be associated with it: cynicism, bitterness, anger, and ashamed to by British.
Maybe that’s entirely unfair, but it is how republicans come over. People who, when they think of the country, think of the repression in the British Empire, racism that was widespread in all parts of society until quite recently, that at some stages in history, we were the leading slave-traders. I think most British people have the opposite associations: that, from the early 19th century, Britain led the fight against slavery, that we fought fascism and have become a much more tolerant society, that countries that used to be part of the British Empire want to keep that link via the Commonwealth.
I think, for most people, the reason why the monarchy is popular is that it provides a focal point to celebrate our countries history. And that makes it positive, optimistic, fun. Whereas Republicanism comes over as wanting to deny our history, as wishing we were like some other country.
Even if we have a monarch who is far less popular that Elizabeth, I think republicanism will struggle unless if can present itself as being more pro-British.
(By the way, thanks for the positive words, Bazzasc. really appreciated)
George,
Personally, I’m pro-that-which-our-country-does-right and anti-that-which-it-does-wrong. Just as I am with other countries. The thought of being “pro-British” per se makes me feel as queasy as any other form of nationalist or ethnic tribalism. I’m British because this is where I was born. It’s a matter of pure happenstance and thus has no business being a source of pride or of shame, or any baring on how I view the highs and lows of its history. I feel exactly the same about my Scottishness, and my Europeaness, and my Northern Hemisphericality (!), as I do for that matter about my eye colour and my inside-leg measurement.
There’s nothing cynical or bitter about that, I just don’t see myself as the property of the culture I happened to be born into, but rather as a voluntary and autonomous participant.
And without that irrational, emotional attachment to the culture, the monarchy ceases to have any meaning and can be seen for what it is – an absurdity.
@Ivan
There’s nothing wrong in you essentially being neutral in your attitude to your country. It’s a rational approach. In some ways, it’s an admirable approach. At one stage, it’s the approach I tried to take.
But I don’t think it would be fair to condemn anyone who takes a different approach.
I love my family. Intellectually, I know that they, as humans beings, may be no better or worse than others; but I think it’s good for me to have an emotional commitment to them, and to feel a sense of pride in them.
But I shouldn’t be nepotistic, even were my family to put strong pressure on me to be so. That would be wrong and corrupt.
Similarly, if love of country is affection and a celebration, I think it’s fine, and indeed healthy. But if it’s prejudiced against people from other countries, it’s bad.
If using the monarchy to celebrate our country is just that, a celebration; then I think it’s a good thing, as long as it is celebrating the good things; and doesn’t take the view, my country, right or wrong.
You’re free to take a different approach. But I think if republicans describe an emotional attachment to your country as an absurdity, it is not going to win many supporters to the republican cause.
George,
I didn’t describe emotional attachment to your country as an absurdity, I described the concept of monarchy as an absurdity. It’s simply a more obvious absurdity in the absence of any sentimental nationalistic feelings. I happen to quite like this country. On balance it’s a nice place to live. I’m fond of much that’s here. But that fondness doesn’t make me blind to the things that are wrong with it, and in my view the monarchy is such a thing, being in principle ethically, socially and democratically unjustifiable, and in practice (and much more importantly) both the foundation and pinnacle of our odious and stubbornly resilient class system.
You’re right that we republicans have a hard sell on our hands, but I’m not totally pessimistic. However broad support for the royals may be I don’t think it’s particularly deep – it’s simply not an issue that most people think about enough to want to stray from the “default” view, which is the one presented to us by our largely unrepresentative media, in particular our vomit-inducingly obsequious state broadcaster, But that sort of shallow support is vulnerable to events. Something like one of the dominions going republican, or Scottish independence (mark my words, whatever Salmond is saying right now to avoid scaring the horses, in the event of a “yes” vote Scotland will be a republic within its first parliament), or a royal scandal of some sort, or the ascendance of Charlie to the throne when his mum dies, and all royal bets are off, I reckon.
@George Kendall
I think you’re right the republicanism does have an image problem. I also think you are right that republicanism can seem to wish to suppress history and revel in cynicism. Point. But I would argue monarchism has a problem with history too, specifically it is pathologically fixated with it.
I would class myself as only mildly republican, but one thing that really upsets me about the monarchy is the fact that, because of the hereditary principle, it can never truly represent the Britain of today. I once did a post in the members forum asking if Prince William would have been permitted to marry a British Indian woman and still be in line for the throne, for example. I was amazed how many monarchists accepted the fact that that would be unlikely to be permitted. If we chose the Head of State, by election, every generation, we could have national symbol that truly reflects who we are today: an elected Head of State, a ceremonial figurehead of the nation, who could reflect the positivity of progress.
I am glad that George Kendall makes the following clear:
“No need to be so angry. Liberalism has a strong tradition of welcoming different views. This isn’t a party issue, monarchists and republicans have long been equally welcome in the party, and long may that continue”.
I accept the initial idea that social progress without revolution is the best and most ideal way for a nation to develop and that retaining the Queen (the monarchy) also has the constructive effect of maintaining an historical thread that the people of this nation can relate to – something they possess.
George, I like you, and respect your view much of the time, but I believe you are very, very wrong here. There is little that is ‘constitutional’ about the monarchy. The present monarch APPEARS to have been fairly benign, at least in public. But we have no way of knowing about her private role behind the scenes, because she steadfastly refuses all scrutiny. We also have no way of knowing what use future monarchs will make of their privileged position. Within living memory we have had to effectively depose a monarch who may well have been a Nazi sympathiser.
As for preserving tradition and history, the most honourable British tradition of all is a radical tradition: the tradition of questioning traditions. Innovation and reform are just as crucial in British history as the monarchy. We should celebrate that. Magna carta, the Glorious revolution, the Great Reform Act. A Democratic Lords, and a Vote for a Republic will be a continuation of this tradition, not it’s abrogation.
And your view that republicans are ashamed to be British is frankly outrageous! For the record, I am happy to be British (and English, East Anglian, and European, for that matter). I would invite you to take a look at republic.org.uk and point out anything you find which confirms that prejudice.
Arguably, in fact, it is your view which runs counter to our party constitution: “[we…] oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality”.
@mpg “I once did a post in the members forum asking if Prince William would have been permitted to marry a British Indian woman and still be in line for the throne, for example. I was amazed how many monarchists accepted the fact that that would be unlikely to be permitted.”
For me, that would be a wonderful symbol, and I suspect it would challenge a lot of people’s attitudes to other races.
I agree there would be controversy, and that’s bad. But to be honest I think it still causes controversy in a lot of British families if the son or daughter chooses to marry outside their race.
But things have changed very quickly in the past twenty years. I remember a letter to the newspaper that complained that it was unthinkable that Princess Diana would shake the hands of someone suffering from Aids. Without a year or two she had.
If the heir to the throne did want to marry, say a British Indian, I think the monarchy would adapt remarkably quickly. And, before long, everyone would be wondering how it could have been controversial. Depressingly, I think having a Prime Minister of Indian extraction is far less likely.
@Terry
My apologies if I’ve offended.
I wasn’t meaning to say that Republicans *are* ashamed to be British. But I think this is the impression many people may have.
To be honest, I just don’t know enough Republicans to really know what they think. And I suspect they are just as diverse as any other group in the country. Some will want to change from monarchy for religious reasons, or because of personal antipathy to the Royals, or for reasons of political principle. I do wonder, however, if some of the people who comment on the web are motivated more by winding up the Monarchists. On a personal level, I also know some very mildly spoken amenable republicans, who are a million miles away from cynicism.
I think your point about the radical tradition of the UK is interesting. In the UK, some prefer gradualist change, some rapid wholesale change. Both groups are present in the Liberal Democrats. I tend to be more of a gradualist, in that I think the fastest way to achieve progress can often be to compromise, rather than aim for major change and achieve none. Of course, that isn’t always be true. Sometimes radical change is the only way to get change to happen at all.
I think a gradualist step-by-step approach is also more likely to bring a consensus with you, rather than provoke confrontation. Maybe partly that’s why I’m a monarchist (if of a rather ambivalent sort).