Sorry, we don’t buy the whole monarchy thing.
The divine right of a particular individual to be head of state when they haven’t been elected by us? The automatic right to being handed power and status over a whole nation through an accident of birth, rather than on merit?
It doesn’t make sense to us at all.
The vast majority of civilised, democratic countries who ever had a monarchy have abolished the whole idea of kings and queens, and they’re quite right to have done so.
So what on earth are we doing, in the 21st century, clinging on to the notion of a hugely privileged ‘royal’ family to whom we must pledge allegiance and obedience like 60 million medieval serfs?
That may alienate many people who agree with other ideas and sentiments expressed on this site, but we’re asking a valid question at a time when the vested interests of ‘royals’ and those of a free, democratic citizenship have never been more at odds.
Sure, it’s only a constitutional monarchy – the head of state doesn’t actually give the orders and make decisions for us. We have our wonderful ‘democratic’ government and politicians to do that. Nevertheless, a serious element of power and influence still remains in the monarch’s hands, and the position of any king or queen in this country is reinforced through laws on treason.
According to the BBC’s information page (by no means a legal definition, but a decent layman’s guide), the most important law regarding treason was first passed in England in 1351 and apparently the oldest piece of legislation to be regularly discussed in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The laws have been amended over the centuries since then, notably in Queen Victoria’s time:
“The Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it an offence to deprive or depose the Queen from her established constitutional position – and to publish any writing or printing advocating such change.”
“Successive governments have recognised that there is a case for reviewing what is an extremely antiquated part of the law,” says a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice, but there is evidently always something more pressing to do.
So even now, in 2009, and in a country which prides itself on free speech, it is probably an act of treason even to write this piece because it asks you to re-think the whole notion of having kings and queens…
…and while we’re at it, the princes, dukes, earls, lords, ladies and knights of the realm – all of which have had their status tarnished in the last 100 years by virtue of their poor conduct and that of the whole corrupt system of giving honours to political cronies and party funding donors for often dubious ‘achievements’ or ’services’ to our society.
There has to be a better way to show recognition of those who have done genuine good for us as citizens.
If you look at what kind of company we’re in when it comes to maintaining a monarchy, it’s not much of a club.
From Andorra to Tuvalu, Bhutan to Tonga or Cambodia to Lesotho, many are former colonies who retain a Commonwealth allegiance to our own royals, or a western european monarchy with some ancient connection to our own… and with the notable exceptions of Japan and Spain, hardly at the cutting edge of modernity or achievement as nations (no offence intended!).
We already pay through taxes for several levels of governance and leadership, from local councils to the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the European Parliament.
Add to this the Civil Service, the Armed Forces and the Police and we have a whole host of people to serve and protect us, so why the need for a dysfunctional family of upper-class eccentrics?
They no doubt do a good job for the tourist business, but otherwise serve only to prolongue the existence of a repulsive hierarchy of class and privilege in this country.
