Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   Nathan Vadeboncoeur

   PhD Candidate (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   As a Canadian, I support the monarchy AND I agree with you that Canadian society should not underwrite a Diamond Jubilee IF this will create any suffering among our people(s). However, while seven million dollars is a lot of money when viewed on it's own it works out to about twenty cents per Canadian. Debates about government policy aside, I think we should all look into ourselves and see how much we can do for and give to our communities to make them better places. If twenty cents each is all it takes to raise seven million for a Diamond Jubilee we should use this as an impetus to make a sacrifice of our own, even if it is just few dollars, and give this to hard working charities.

   1. Permalink

      

      Cameron Perks

      Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)

      Nathan i'm curious as to why you still support the monarchy, as an Australian I can't look forward enough tot he day we become a republic. The Monarch is now arbitrary, commonwealth money going towards a diamond jubilee makes me frustrated. Why would you support a system that forces you to pay for something like this?

      1. Permalink

         

         Nathan Vadeboncoeur

         PhD Candidate (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

         While there are certainly expenses associated with supporting a monarch, I support these for several reasons:

         -I believe the economic and political advantages to being a member of the Commonwealth outweigh what we pay to fund events such as Jubilees.

         -The monarchy is a part of our history and culture and although Victorian and post-Victorian British imperialism resulted in a lot of horrible things, it also provided us with stability and helped our country develop into a stable democracy. I think it's important to acknowledge this.

         -I think the price tag of changing to a Republic would cost a lot more than picking up the tab for the occasional celebratory event of official visit.

         1. Permalink

            

            Jean-Paul Gagnon

            (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

            Dear Nathan (if I may), thank you for your valuable comments. With your permission, I would like to address two points that you have made. (As a disclaimer, I am a democratic theorist and will be picking at two substantive arguments in our particular discourse).

            Je suis partiellement Canadien, mais j'ai aucune idée de quoi sa veut dire [apologies for my poor French!]. To be Canadian, or Australian, or US-American, or Turkish for example is subjective. The use of 'our' is most often a problematic…

            show full comment

            Dear Nathan (if I may), thank you for your valuable comments. With your permission, I would like to address two points that you have made. (As a disclaimer, I am a democratic theorist and will be picking at two substantive arguments in our particular discourse).

            Je suis partiellement Canadien, mais j'ai aucune idée de quoi sa veut dire [apologies for my poor French!]. To be Canadian, or Australian, or US-American, or Turkish for example is subjective. The use of 'our' is most often a problematic pronoun. For many individuals that come from French immigrant families of the early 17th century (such as those communities in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Manitoba) the Queen has little importance. For many indigenous peoples, like the Wendat, Cree or Ojibwe, both imperial France and Britain are affronts. And to numerous intergenerational immigrants from the past century that have come from places outside of Britain, the Queen is often lamented as being something silly and not necessary. (Look especially at British Columbia's history with wonderful Japanese immigrants. To many, the Queen, like the Emperor, has no bearing. As a side not, the story of Japanese immigrants, especially during the 2nd European War, is painful and still needs redressing. Many owners of successful businesses were robbed of their property for nothing other than having had parents or grandparents that immigrated from Japan. These families should get their property back or should be compensated based on the projected value of their properties today).

            Your argument that the British Monarchy provided stability for Canada and that it helped the country develop into a 'stable democracy' is problematic. First, the Monarchies of France and England were invaders. They are the ones that created massive instability (however that is defined) throughout much of Canada. There were also many different forms of indigenous democracies which existed in Canada prior to European invasion that were erased by the British Monarchy. Finally, what indeed is a stable democracy? Given the serious problems all tiers of government in Canada have, especially the political engineering at the federal level, can Canada be considered a shining example of democracy and attribute this solely to a Monarchy which had actually opposed 'democratic' reforms for centuries? My argument is that it was the plurality of individuals in Canadian time and space which created 'stability' and called for 'actual' democracy (however that is defined) and not a British Monarch.

            I do hope that you read my comments in a friendly voice as that is how I would have spoken them. I would also encourage you to respond to Dr. Ross MacKenzie's comment as fleshing out the possibility of a Commonwealth without royalty is nothing short of intriguing.

            To end, I indeed may be a bit too conciliatory but I don't think there is anything wrong with people who wish to celebrate an aspect of their own subjective cultures - like partying for the Queen or wanting to throw a massive celebration if ever the Maple Leafs win a cup in the next century (haha). Just as long as we recognize parochiality and keep these matters in perspective: the British Monarchy is deeply problematic for many (especially in the UK - look simply to many self-identified Cornish, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and post-monarchist Brits who want to move on) and we need to appreciate that celebrations might bring pain to others. But by discussing the desire to party for the British Queen and opening the dialogue for how much is palatable for the wider public, we can all get closer to a satisfying deal.

            1. Permalink

               

               Andrew Hack

               Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

               Jean-Paul - perhaps you are also forgetting that the British did export some democracy. A little idea that perhaps taxes should only be raised by elected individuals.

               While not perfect, it took some time for the ideas to develop. Most of the issues you raised were a sign of the times. It is just that we have a better understanding now.

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Jean-Paul Gagnon

                  (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

                  Dear Andrew (if I may),

                  I am not convinced that no taxation without representation is a solely British creation. That argument in its varied forms has been consistent throughout a number of cultures. Many powerful families in 'Chinese' history were weary of giving in to anything even their local representatives 'raised' as they may have felt it was not within their interests to do so. Even many today are trying to skirt taxation because they feel that they are not represented. Frankly, I and most…

                  show full comment

                  Dear Andrew (if I may),

                  I am not convinced that no taxation without representation is a solely British creation. That argument in its varied forms has been consistent throughout a number of cultures. Many powerful families in 'Chinese' history were weary of giving in to anything even their local representatives 'raised' as they may have felt it was not within their interests to do so. Even many today are trying to skirt taxation because they feel that they are not represented. Frankly, I and most others have little to no idea where every penny of our taxes go. The British exported one predominant style of democracy - not democracy itself. And I don't pigeon-hole anyone. I try to view plurality at the level of individuality and how these complex endogenous and exogenous identities form as bodies aggregate.

                  While I am only guessing to which ideas you are referring, many of these ideas (like political equality, fair communication, freedom of speech, etc) were also known to certain indigenous peoples prior to British dominance. There are many goods in different styles of democracy - but we must remember the British did not invent democracy nor did the Greek. What we needed (and still need) was a dialogue between democracies and not the dominance of one over all others.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     Andrew Hack

                     Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

                     Hi Jean-Paul,

                     I was referring to the conflicts brought about by the British Empire. I see little point at blaming anyone for what has since become ancient history.

                     There have been many steps in evolving democratic theory from the ancient Greeks through to the founding of the US. I'd argue that the creation of the Magna Carta was the biggest milestone in that development. It was more than simply people being skeptical of those that tax them but setting in law the principle of restricting the…

                     show full comment

                     Hi Jean-Paul,

                     I was referring to the conflicts brought about by the British Empire. I see little point at blaming anyone for what has since become ancient history.

                     There have been many steps in evolving democratic theory from the ancient Greeks through to the founding of the US. I'd argue that the creation of the Magna Carta was the biggest milestone in that development. It was more than simply people being skeptical of those that tax them but setting in law the principle of restricting the power of the rulers. Keeping in mind that at the time nations in the rest of the developed world (Europe) had essentially no such limitation of power on their Kings and Queens.

                     It is thought of as being the most important part of the development of constitutional law and its principles were founded in the greatest constitution; that of the US. That is what Britain exported.

                     Consider how many Monarch governments have fallen over the years and yet Britain still retains its Monarchy. This is because as it stands currently, British Monarchy has limited power and does not exercise what power and responsibility it has arbitrarily. (They leave that for the ruddy Parliament to do...)

                     While people may think sod it why should she get something for simply being born of the right parents, I am skeptical of the alternatives. As I have stated, the US was founded upon the greatest-ever written constitution and yet somehow the Presidents of the Republic (with a little help from Congress) have turned that into a State that is currently inflicting on many the very horrors you accused of previous Monarchs. Only this time one cannot argue that it is due to a deficit in current understanding.

                     Democracy is a nice idea but one only needs to control a majority in order to resume total control. This is not difficult to achieve with enough PR and propaganda. The best means of limiting the power of the government has proven to be through constitutional law, although it is far from foolproof. That is what Britain exported.

                     I appreciate the friendly discussion in these comments.

                     Cheers,

                     Andrew

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Jean-Paul Gagnon

                        (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

                        Andrew, there is a lot of reading that I recommend for you to undertake. 'The Secret History of Democracy' edited by Benjamin Isakhan and Steven Stockwell. 'The Future of Representative Democracy' edited by Sonia Alonso, John Keane and Wolfgang Merkel. 'The Life and Death of Democracy' by John Keane. 'Democracy', 2nd edition, by Albert Weale. And well, the list goes on.

                        There are numerous and fundamental errors in the logic of your reply. The U.S. Constitution is not 'the greatest-ever written…

                        show full comment

                        Andrew, there is a lot of reading that I recommend for you to undertake. 'The Secret History of Democracy' edited by Benjamin Isakhan and Steven Stockwell. 'The Future of Representative Democracy' edited by Sonia Alonso, John Keane and Wolfgang Merkel. 'The Life and Death of Democracy' by John Keane. 'Democracy', 2nd edition, by Albert Weale. And well, the list goes on.

                        There are numerous and fundamental errors in the logic of your reply. The U.S. Constitution is not 'the greatest-ever written' constitution - I am very curious to know what objective refereed literature would spout that. In fact, there is a burgeoning literature critiquing that constitution and indeed most others.

                        Also, 'democracy' is not a defined concept. It is nebulous - no one actually knows what it really means. We are still trying to discover that.

                        The Magna Carta, although an important occurrence for parts of Europe, was by no means the only such occurrence for the globe. There have been other instances in other histories where rulers were held to account by a law imposed by other power-holders. To be sure, the Magna Carta was not a 'democratic' document: it was written, promoted, and upheld by elites.

                        Also, I and presumably others here are not arguing that a presidency or current 'democracy' is flawless. But comparing a functioning government to what is now a symbolic form of government does not make logical sense. If we made an anachronistic comparison, many of today's governments are strikingly better - if not shockingly better - than the British Monarchy of the mid 19th century.

                        Lastly, the results of empire are not 'ancient history'. Their effects are still being felt today across many pluralities in this world. It is anachronistic to blame living people for the mistakes of their ancestors - and that is not what we are here doing. I am saying that the Monarchy as a symbol has much to answer for and should not be touted so vociferously at the expense of others.

                        To end, I encourage that you read at least those works and others. It would take at least a jam-packed full year course to go through what I am trying to relate here or quite possibly more than that. It's all very cutting edge stuff - for the most part, democratic theory has been undergoing drastic renewal just in the last few years. It contests the standard parochial narrative of democracy from which it appears your comment is wholly derived.

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           Andrew Hack

                           Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

                           Hi Jean-Paul,

                           Thanks for your comments.

                           Unfortunately Uni starts shortly and doing full-time study and full-time work limits my personal interest reading time. I will have to put your reading list on the back-burner for the time being. :(

                           I thought you would read between the lines and take my assertion about the US constitution as 'strong opinion'. :P Granted of course, I have not read many. I should note that there are parts of the Iranian constitution that I find very intriguing, such…

                           show full comment

                           Hi Jean-Paul,

                           Thanks for your comments.

                           Unfortunately Uni starts shortly and doing full-time study and full-time work limits my personal interest reading time. I will have to put your reading list on the back-burner for the time being. :(

                           I thought you would read between the lines and take my assertion about the US constitution as 'strong opinion'. :P Granted of course, I have not read many. I should note that there are parts of the Iranian constitution that I find very intriguing, such as how it forbids the use of a debt-based monetary system. While they do this for religious reasons it is interesting to note that the early founders understood the problems of the paper money system, the checks they tried to put in place have not stood up to the times as the US is one of the worst instigators of debt-based money systems. But I digress...

                           I'm not suggesting the Magna Carta was the only occurrence but it was a pivotal piece of influence the US constitution and many constitutions written since have been influenced by the US (such as ours here in Australia). It was an important step forward.

                           My frustration is with people who are so concerned about the democratic legitimacy of the Monarchy. I understand the principles but if they want to be principled about democratic legitimacy I see far more issues with politicians who are elected by popular vote but who push policies against those who are in the minority. I am usually in this minority!

                           If British 'post-Monarchists' are concerned about the democratic legitimacy of the Monarchy I think that point is mooted by issues of democratic legitimacy of the European Union (where contempt for democracy is institutional). (The irony of Greece having a Brussels-imposed technocracy is overwhelming) And on a similar issue, how about other Supra-national governments such as the UN.

                           I'll take your point on the symbolism of the Monarchy. Perhaps not you but others in this comments thread seemed to be making it more personal.

                           I hope that you'll appreciate that most of us don't have time to undertake a jam-packed full-time course on the history and progress of democratic theory. Regardless, I think most of us should be able to understand the basic principles and converse on those constructively without.

                           Cheers,

                           Andrew

            2. Permalink

               

               Andrew Hack

               Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

               The problem is a lot easier if you try to view people as individuals rather than pigeon-hole people into specific categories based on race or culture. Blaming the current Monarchs for problems caused by running an Empire by their predecessors is a bit much.

               How about sparing a thought for those being displaced by the current empire of the US? Whereby the 'democratic' governments of the US, Canada, UK and Australia are helping.

            3. Permalink

               

               Nathan Vadeboncoeur

               PhD Candidate (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

               Dear Jean-Paul,

               Thanks for taking the time to address my comment. I did take your feedback as friendly. Here is my response:

               Je suis moitiié franco-Canadien and the other half fifth-generation Icelandic-Canadian and yet I still support the Monarchy as a part of my past via my identity as a member of Canadian society. While I agree with your claim that "many" non-English immigrants, indigenous peoples, etc. think the monarchy is silly I am curious how much that "many" counts among them. By…

               show full comment

               Dear Jean-Paul,

               Thanks for taking the time to address my comment. I did take your feedback as friendly. Here is my response:

               Je suis moitiié franco-Canadien and the other half fifth-generation Icelandic-Canadian and yet I still support the Monarchy as a part of my past via my identity as a member of Canadian society. While I agree with your claim that "many" non-English immigrants, indigenous peoples, etc. think the monarchy is silly I am curious how much that "many" counts among them. By this I do not mean to marginalize these groups, but rather I wonder if there is really enough unity of opinion among them to be able to make a defensible assertion that such views characterize the segments of society in question, and that they are more unifying than other, more pressing, issues.

               I agree with you that Canadian society is pluralistic and federal policy ought to be sensitive to the concerns of a diverse country. On the same hand, I am anxious about what, exactly, a federal state that tried to make everyone happy would look like. Would we compromise ourselves to the point of having traditions and policies that are neither offensive or exciting? Would removing some traditions cause as much offense as keeping them around?

               My comments regarding the stability that England provided Canada were in no way meant to overlook the turmoil that such an invading force caused First Nations peoples. However, this force did invade, and I wonder if our institutions would have developed as quickly and been as stable had we either been an independent country earlier on. While the historical plight of First Nations people in Canada is remarkable, the atrocities committed against First Peoples in the United States by their independent and less stable government are on a different level.

               I think part of being Canadian is celebrating our diversity. I'm happy to pay to support the monarchy, francphone culture, First Peoples cultures, and anything that Canadians take pride in. I think allowing us to celebrate our mosaic of cultures is one of the things that makes Canada a great place to live. While we won't always agree on what we spend public money celebrating I think we ought to continue to use public funds for cultural activities. Let's just make sure that it's spread in a representative way so we can each feel recognized in our own ways.

2. Permalink

   

   Ross MacKenzie

   (Lecturer in Health Studies at Macquarie University)

   Gagnon's article raises many of the key reasons why Commonwealth countries should not be paying for the latest royal celebrations by highlighting the Canadian example, although it might have been worth a mention of Quebec's particular antipathy. I think, though, he may be too conciliatory - quite simply the British monarchy is an anachronistic institution that impedes a much needed debate on fundamental constitutional change in the UK.

   Arguments about the monarchy being a unifying force in Britain are simply not borne out; ostensible benefits to tourism, commerce etc. are similarly unsubstantiated; and there is not reason why the Commonwealth would not continue as a treaty organisation under renewed terms decided upon by elected leaders.

   The monarchy is past its use-by date, and it’s time that nations like Canada and Australia stop bankrolling it with taxpayers’ money.

   1. Permalink

      

      Jean-Paul Gagnon

      (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

      Hi Ross (if I may),

      It does help to stake out a challenging position - but I still feel 'better' with a conciliatory approach. Many friends and colleagues are 'Monarchy Aficionados' and follow these matters closely. To me, that seems a bit ridiculous (I would rather not bankroll these follies) but this is part of their social passion. Who am I to say that such is wrong?

      However, you do raise a couple of points that I have been mulling over for some time now as well as some new points I had…

      show full comment

      Hi Ross (if I may),

      It does help to stake out a challenging position - but I still feel 'better' with a conciliatory approach. Many friends and colleagues are 'Monarchy Aficionados' and follow these matters closely. To me, that seems a bit ridiculous (I would rather not bankroll these follies) but this is part of their social passion. Who am I to say that such is wrong?

      However, you do raise a couple of points that I have been mulling over for some time now as well as some new points I had not previously considered. With your permission, I would be honoured to open up this dialogue a bit.

      There have really not been any independent studies of the British Monarchy's benefits to commerce? I find that very surprising. I wonder if the public cost of the Monarchy outweighs the profits it generates.

      Your point about the unifying effect in Britain is striking and exciting! I really had not considered self-identified Brits as being post-monarchist and wanting to move past the artificially construed importances of 'royalty'. If possible, could you please share some common arguments from British post-monarchism? (Indeed, this may be a very good topic for us to write a paper on, possibly even a book. Not sure if the literature has addressed British Post-Monarchism).

      Could you please flesh out a few core arguments for UK constitutional change and how this is impeded by the British Monarchy?

      Also thank you for pointing out my neglect of Quebec. I tried to make up for that shortcoming in my reply to Nathan (once more if I may).

      Finally, how do you see the UK, Canada and Australia transcending the monarchy. In your vision, what does that mean?

3. Permalink

   

   Michael Burrows

   Mr (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Shame, shame, shame - here we go again, Phil & Liz (plus entourage) on ANOTHER taxpayer funded junket.

   They only recently left; and like other visits: again showing short arms and deep pockets.

   Some role model/s, lead by example; and pay your own way: like everybody else in these troubled times.

   In fact, why not have her un-decree Australia as one of her own and let history show further healing enacted; from the atrocities committed by the Empire.

   1. Permalink

      

      Andrew Hack

      Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

      Do you get that upset about politicians and bureaucrats going on taxpayer funded junkets?

      1. Permalink

         

         Michael Burrows

         Mr (logged in via email @gmail.com)

         Now that you mention it, yes.

         In fact, I have not seen results/benefits from one of our politicians or bureaucrats travelling abroad on these junkets with family, friends, wives and or mistresses.

         eg In the year 2000, MP 'x' went to country a....b....and/or c at a cost of $ (usually tens if not hundreds of thousands) and here are the benefits to the taxpayer 1 - 12 years down the track. This is not reported, yet seems to be somehow justified every year by successive governments.

         Understandably…

         show full comment

         Now that you mention it, yes.

         In fact, I have not seen results/benefits from one of our politicians or bureaucrats travelling abroad on these junkets with family, friends, wives and or mistresses.

         eg In the year 2000, MP 'x' went to country a....b....and/or c at a cost of $ (usually tens if not hundreds of thousands) and here are the benefits to the taxpayer 1 - 12 years down the track. This is not reported, yet seems to be somehow justified every year by successive governments.

         Understandably other or foreign governments feather each others ' nests at the expense of those they purport to represent; keeping the swings and roundabouts in motion - surely a lot are there for the ride.

         eg Or who went where, at what cost; promoting the likes of Firepower to say the Russians under the then Howard government - hahaha - should probably cry not mock laughter.

         The line between the haves and the have-nots, widens with ridiculous ease at times.

         Back on topic, I'm sure Charlie and the boys could stage a cook raffle or the like so that their families aren't seen as scabs, parasites, freeloaders, moochers, spongers,....etc - a spade is not a shovel and shall be named thus!

         The monarchists can and should enjoy the pomp the ceremony of this 'wank' but maybe they could also foot the bill.

         1. Permalink

            

            Andrew Hack

            Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

            Glad you have shown some consistency then! :)

            I think history speaks for itself in that the best rulers are those who rule the least. Therefore the current Monarchy in all its present impotency is far better than vesting that power in a President of a Republic especially if the last two US Presidents are anything to go by!!!

      2. Permalink

         

         Cameron Perks

         Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)

         i know i do :P

4. Permalink

   

   Andrew Hack

   Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Sure, I think there are some legitimate arguments there.

   But if you really want some consistency, you have to extend that further to politicians, bureaucrats and governments who spend people's money and carry out things in their name despite them never having been voted by those people.

   Sure, governments and some politicians may have been voted by SOME people, but not every individual. SOME people support the Royals and many would have supported them back when they were building empires and carrying out atrocities.

   What is occurring in the middle east is an atrocity by my book. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I do not want to vote for any politician who is in support of these yet those who make it in are almost all in favour. The cost of this, plus the cost of ALL the other terrible, harmful, wasteful government projects I do not support more than trumps the costs associated to running the Monarchy.

   1. Permalink

      

      Andrew Hack

      Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)

      For those anti-Royalists, Dan Hannan puts some things into perspective for us:

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100135167/may-she-defend-our-laws-and-ever-give-us-cause/

5. Permalink

   

   Michel Syna Rahme

   (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   'there is nothing sillier than following the lives of individuals that parade themselves as royalty'

   I've never been invited to a birthday party or someones anniversary that I have been required to pay for! So strange! A nice old woman I am sure the Qeen is - but so is my Grandmother - is the nation going to shout her a party?

   My dear mother has been doing some research into our English heritage, and all she goes on about is how we are related to 'Patterdale' this, 'Guillaume le Conquérant' that..... as an Australian I say to my dear Mum, I respect history and its process but I do not care because the Royal Family and the remnants of this Feudal system needs to be abolished. Wake up!

6. Permalink

   

   Anthony Kaye

   Retired Vet. Surgeon (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   If any C'Wealth country gets rid of the Monarch as Head of State-fine. Jamaica is probably on its way. But as Oz has found, what do you replace her with?. Because Monarchy is out of favour these days, the system is very cheap to run. She increasingly pays for running it out of her own pocket-not that she can't afford it!. Other C'wealth countries get her as Head of State very cheaply indeed.
   One thing you can be certain of-a Presidency, with whatever powers it might have, would soon become expensive. Other politicos would regard a President as "one of us", and fund the system almost on the nod-after all, they would all aspire to the job, wouldn't they?.
   It's almost certain that in the very long run the Monarch will end up being H.of S. in the UK alone- everyone else will go their way. We never will. Our folk memories of the old killjoy puritan Cromwell are are still too vivid!

   1. Permalink

      

      Jean-Paul Gagnon

      (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

      Haha, well said Anthony (if I may). I really like your quip about Cromwell - how he seems to never go out of fashion in most English rhetoric is beyond me. Perhaps it's a testament to how disliked his politics were and still are!

      I would think that we would not need to replace the Queen if she were asked to remove herself from HoS status. Could the Prime Minister or the administration itself not collectively fill this role? I'm wondering if that would be a viability? What do you think?

7. Permalink

   

   Anthony Kaye

   Retired Vet. Surgeon (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   Well , Jean-Paul, as far as other states go she- or her father- has already been sent packing as HoS by India, Pakistan, S. Africa, etc. They send her the necessary paperwork, she signs it, and she's gone. In the utterly unimaginable event of the U.K. turning against her, the Commons could pass a Bill in the morning, the Lords ratify it in the afternoon, and she would sign it without demur in the evening and be out the country by midnight.. If they expropriated her great personal wealth she would…

   show full comment

   Well , Jean-Paul, as far as other states go she- or her father- has already been sent packing as HoS by India, Pakistan, S. Africa, etc. They send her the necessary paperwork, she signs it, and she's gone. In the utterly unimaginable event of the U.K. turning against her, the Commons could pass a Bill in the morning, the Lords ratify it in the afternoon, and she would sign it without demur in the evening and be out the country by midnight.. If they expropriated her great personal wealth she would sign that too.-it's over 300 years since a Monarch simply refused to sign a Bill.
   It's not going to happen, of course. We love the world's longest-running soap-opera, 1200 years and counting, that's been given a new lease of life by colour TV.
   As far as cost goes there can be little doubt that the Monarchy with its castles, palaces, etc are a tremendous but unquantifiable draw to foreign tourists. Without it we'd just be a drizzly, grey, cold country with undistinguished scenery.
   I heard -on the BBC, so it must be true!- that, much to my surprise, the German Presidency costs more to maintain than our Monarchy, and who goes out of their way on a visit to Germany to look at the Bellevue Palace, his official- but empty-residence?

8. Permalink

   

   Joshua McDonnell

   (logged in via LinkedIn)

   I don't like to be harsh, but this article left a lot to be desired.

   Firstly, if Australia had a president, have you contemplated how much that would cost us? If we pay $6 million every 60 years for our head of state, I think we, in the Commonwealth, are getting away rather economically.

   Secondly, we should decide whether whether and how much our government should pay? Should we also put that question up regarding foreign aid? Governments make choices about where to spend their money all…

   show full comment

   I don't like to be harsh, but this article left a lot to be desired.

   Firstly, if Australia had a president, have you contemplated how much that would cost us? If we pay $6 million every 60 years for our head of state, I think we, in the Commonwealth, are getting away rather economically.

   Secondly, we should decide whether whether and how much our government should pay? Should we also put that question up regarding foreign aid? Governments make choices about where to spend their money all the time. On many occasions I do not agree. Should I sent them a letter and tell them to with hold my 2 cents? I apologise if I sound harsh, but your suggestion appeared to lack forethought.

   Thirdly, when will the British (or, as is popular, the English) be able to lift their burden of guilt? Have you considered some of the more positive adjectives that could be used to describe the legacy that Her Royal Highness (the Canadian and Australian Queen, not just the English Queen) represents - instead of bloodshed and tyranny? There were events that the English can feel guilty of, and that also means me and most Canadians - we were the ones who came abroad to do the colonising after all (at home, the British were often more humanitarian than the people who carved out our countries). It is hard for people to allow it to be said, but the British were the best of the colonisers. If not the British Empire, would you have preferred the Spanish? The Italians, Germans and French? The British at least brought governance, law and infrastructure. But they were also more liberal that there continental counterparts. They had competitive politics, some democracy, freedom of speech that gave rise to authors, inventors, scientists, activists: The British enforced all countries to stop the anti-slave trade. When will the British get just an ounce of credit? Why are the British always slandered but the Spanish are loved?

   That turned into a rant, sorry.

   1. Permalink

      

      Jean-Paul Gagnon

      (Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)

      Hi Joshua (if I may), thanks for your message. I shall try to address your points in order. First, I did not suggest replacing a monarchy with a presidency. Indeed, I am not convinced that a country actually requires a Head of State: is a prime minister OR president not enough?

      On the second point, I would kindly like to offer a salvo. My argument does not lack foresight: it is a normative point commonly made throughout much of the political philosophy literature. There is a widespread desire…

      show full comment

      Hi Joshua (if I may), thanks for your message. I shall try to address your points in order. First, I did not suggest replacing a monarchy with a presidency. Indeed, I am not convinced that a country actually requires a Head of State: is a prime minister OR president not enough?

      On the second point, I would kindly like to offer a salvo. My argument does not lack foresight: it is a normative point commonly made throughout much of the political philosophy literature. There is a widespread desire for greater inclusiveness by the plural public into many governance matters: one of them being budgeting and a significant part of that is aid and military spending. Although this typically happens at the local level - and quite well in certain mainland Chinese polities, there is no lack of technology or method for doing the same on a regular basis at the elite level of politics. I hope you understand that we cannot write all that we would like in these short articles and because of that I am certain that there will most often be matters that leave the reader wanting. Perhaps that's why we need to start a conversation (apologies for the pun, haha).

      On the third point, to be fair, if you gave my article another read I think you would see that it is very conciliatory. I don't deny the British people had accomplished good deeds. Nor do I praise other monarchy's in the world: I'm equally suspicious of all characters who consider themselves to be 'royalty' (however that is defined). I also do not, nor want to, place retrospective guilt on anyone. That would be anachronistic and illogical. What I am saying is that we all need to work together and not state that 'Her Highness' is the Queen of Canada and Australia: that is not true for many peoples. It is also an illegitimate claim as it was never convincingly decided through various democratic procedures.

      Look, as you said, it is difficult for people to 'measure' colonialism and it's not something I would want to do. Each regime was brutal. And to be fair many of these brutal regimes 'brought' their own styles of governance which still plague post-colonial countries today. I have a paper coming out with the Journal of African Legal Studies on that point. One example is German Tanganyika. When the British took power therein, there had already been established a 'German' system of governance designed to try to 'keep the peace' (more like suppress opposition) after the Maji Maji Rebellion.

      There is some parochialism as your reply builds up heat. The British were not the inventors of competitive politics, freedom of speech, and were certainly not the only ones to create societies conducive to producing wonderful thinkers. For example, many Arabic societies between circa the 7th century and 15th century CE produced a number of brilliant mathematicians, architects, poets, and philosophers. Sadly, a majority of the English speaking world is still ignorant of these geniuses. And there are a great deal of many instances where the British and other European peoples made significant and unique contributions to humanity as a whole: these are typically known and often celebrated. The British were also not the only ones to enforce anti-slavery practices but were one of the first to profit from the horrifying practice.

      Finally, I think the British like many other people get lots of credit for many of the wonderful accomplishments made through their own time and space. I'm not sure who are 'loving' the Spanish or other monarchies. Certainly not I.

      I'd like to end with a question for you, one that I would very much like for you to answer. Do you think it's 'right' to have a select few individuals that are wealthier than the vast majority in this world ask for handouts from publics that put tax money forward for possibly other things like health care or the further development of public transportation? I believe the 'royal' family is holidaying on a private island as I write this response. Is that necessary when many in the UK suffer from poverty? It's an ethical discussion and one I think the monarchy is losing.

      1. Permalink

         

         Joshua McDonnell

         (logged in via LinkedIn)

         Thank you for your reply Jean Paul, I really appreciate it.

         I also apologise if I got a little parochial (I didn't intend to be impolite - its great that we can all have a 'conversation'). I am actually quite a liberal person and I absolutely believe in cosmopolitanism, but I find that amongst liberal people there are precious few monarchists. (I also want to clarify that I am very much in favour of foreign aid).

         Sorry in advance for the length of this reply.

         I think we would need a head…

         show full comment

         Thank you for your reply Jean Paul, I really appreciate it.

         I also apologise if I got a little parochial (I didn't intend to be impolite - its great that we can all have a 'conversation'). I am actually quite a liberal person and I absolutely believe in cosmopolitanism, but I find that amongst liberal people there are precious few monarchists. (I also want to clarify that I am very much in favour of foreign aid).

         Sorry in advance for the length of this reply.

         I think we would need a head of state. If we only need the head of state once a century, it is worthwhile: In 1975 the Australian Prime Minister was removed from office by the Governor General.

         Actually, herein lies a good reason for retaining the monarchy. I appreciate your valid point about equality, about not having one family that is privileged. These are important and liberal principles, but I think that too often principles can blind us to practice. Australia has been running quite well with the Queen and the GG. It is also tempting to say that in cases of constitutional crises, a ‘foreign’ head of state may actually be a good thing (I say HRH is the Australian Queen because she, legally/constitutionally, is the Australian Queen). The Queen is not going to use politics to gain favour with the Australian public; she is not going to compete for attention and authority. She would not get away with that in the modern world, where countries are watching other countries, and are particularly sceptical of monarchies, and where the principle of non-interference has been replaced by the responsibility to protect. It is almost as if we are more caring of foreigners that we are of people in our own countries (given partisan politics) – and we are definitely more objective.

         The fact that royal families are there for life (but have no real power) could actually be a positive. They have no reason to play populist politics, they have no reason to be power hungry or go crazy with the fame like so many pop stars, who never know when their 15 minutes will be up. Moreover, because they are hereditary, we expect more of them. They are well educated, they attempt to hold themselves with the necessary regal dignity. We are so sceptical of them that they wouldn’t dare do anything politically antagonistic. Would it also be too subjective of me to say that we could do with a bit of regal dignity in today’s world?

         Back on subject, I don’t think it is wise to simply ignore the fact that 7 of the top ten countries on the 2010 UN Human Development Index are constitutional monarchies (and two of the others are former British Colonies). We do ignore figures like that, but should we? After all, we think we know what ingredients it takes to affect good governance – separation of powers, etc., but we aren’t very good at achieving it where it doesn’t exist. Why do we ignore this statistic? In the very least it says that there is perhaps nothing better in existence; if it ain’t broke, as the saying goes.

         But we look to principle. And we would be willing to sacrifice our stability, our presence at the top of the UN Human Development index, for principle? In saying that, don’t think we should stand still, but I don’t think the monarchy is holding us back. I think that believing we aren’t a proper country unless we have an ‘Australian’ head of state just shows a lack of self-confidence. But, I don’t like the fiction that is that ‘nation-state’, anyway.

         I am also an avid history fan. It seems that we always think we, in the present, are at the apogee of human development. But history humbles us. If the monarchy can give us a link to the past, it might just help us to be a little more humble.

         Greater participation in governance is positive. I agree, it is perhaps far too large a topic to cover. I am beginning to see value in the idea that we should mobilise though organisations (NGOs and unions), as I see that perhaps the reason that democratic politics (the world over) has degenerated so far in recent years is that we have left these channels of mobilisation behind. Individual, direct democracy requires good education and media, and I fear for the state of both of those at the present time. Poll watching and populist politics may be popular, but that is not what a representative system was designed for – we elect MPs to make the decisions they believe are in the public good. That isn’t to say that there aren’t improvements we can make – so proposals are positive.

         I don’t presume that the British were the only society with personal freedoms and political competition, etc. But these conditions did allow the mobilisation of liberal dispositions that stopped the slave trade. It was a country with different opinions – conservative and liberal if you will – and where different opinions held sway and power at different times. What I mean is that from at least the late 18th Century, they were similar to us: their monarch was not absolute like in some other states. That is why it still exists.

         I don’t mind if there are wealthier people than I. In the case of the royal family, I have a strong feeling that they don’t actually cost Australians anything at all (except for their royal visits). I also think that the British get a really good deal. Their importance for tourism should not be undervalued – and the pomp needs to be genuine otherwise, it would just be Disneyland (it would probably be worthwhile if Australia had a castle actually – if you have the cow, you may as well milk it – that’s not a pretty analogy I know). I saw the YouTube video that was posted in another reply, and it appears that the UK gets an extremely good deal from the Crown property rents also.

         I sincerely apologise about the length. Good luck with the research - its an important area.

         Josh

         1. Permalink

            

            Joshua McDonnell

            (logged in via LinkedIn)

            Actually, I can't see where I found the You Tube video I mentioned. Here it is (it's entertaining): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=PL87DB3F7E8107A4AE&index=8&feature=plcp