Posted on 05/29/2018 7:15:04 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Recently, author and speechwriter Don Watson has questioned the impetus for Australia to become a republic. In the April edition of The Monthly, he wrote:
In a world filling with tyrants, Queen Elizabeth and her descendants represent a sort of anti-tyranny.
He goes on to note:
Our democracy works imperfectly well, and it is hard to see how any of its practical imperfections would be remedied by going republican.
In effect, the governor-general, who is appointed by the elected government, acts as a de facto ceremonial head of state, while we maintain the pretence that Elizabeth is the sovereign.
Like Watson, I have come to rather like the absurdity of our constitutional arrangements. By separating the ceremonial and the actual power of government, there is a check on the egomania of politicians, who are not sheltered from the real world to the same extent as are royalty.
At a time of increasing pessimism about the state of politics, it is worth asking whether we in fact need the absurdities of constitutional monarchy to preserve liberal democracy. Even to pose the question is to risk being assailed as reactionary and on the side of privilege.
But we need to distinguish between the pomposities of the extended British royal family, or deference to the Thai monarch, and the real purpose they serve as checks on untrammelled authoritarianism.
In Britain and the old dominions, the royals are more popular than ever. Republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull fights for photo ops with Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle. When I asked a Canadian friend of mine about support for a republic in that country, he said the idea would be laughed off as irrelevant.
The 15 Commonwealth countries including small Caribbean and Pacific island states — seem uninterested in changing the status quo.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconversation.com ...
That’s what Alexander Hamilton advocated, if I remember correctly. Short answer is, no.
Many assume that in this day an age Monarchy is useless, but that is ignorance plain and simple.For instance let us take the example of the United Kingdom.
The monarch is a political referee, not a political player, she is
beholden by virtue of her birth to no one but God, unlike politicians
who owe their souls to the ones who bankrolled them; and there is a lot
of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the
players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start
playing.
It also prevents (as so often happens in America)
political disagreements with current policy becoming viewed as
un-patriotic. In a Constitutional Monarchy one can damn the government
and still cheer the crown.
You should also bear carefully in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else.
This is more than mere theory. King Juan Carlos single-handedly saved democracy in Spain by taking personal command of the Armed Forces and crushing a military coup.
Nor is this the only example. Winston Churchill was convinced that WWII would never have come unless, under American pressure, we had not driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By creating these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones.
Another example is Russia under Nicholas II, which with all the survivals of
feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions
and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system.
Its agriculture was on the level of the USA, with industry rapidly
approaching the West European level. In the USSR there was total
tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its
economy was not viable; agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history.
To those who would abolish the Monarchy....be careful what you wish for.
Ok. Kudos to the author of your essay
Or Mexico. Rejected their monarchy and saw revolution and tyranny.
It is also a solution to the faction problem and our judicial oligarchy
Absolutely NO.
Works well while Elizabeth is Queen, wait until ... Charlie is King.
Long live the Queen.
Well off the top of the head Elizabeth II and whoever’s the monarch of Sweden comes to mind as constitutional monarchs and they both seem pretty useless in stopping what’s going on in their respective countries.
If someone claims a right to reign over you as a monarch, and their name isn’t Jesus..... they should expect violence as an instant response.
“In a world filling with tyrants, Queen Elizabeth and her descendants represent a sort of anti-tyranny.”
Oh yeah? Tell it to Tommy Robinson. The crazy old bat isn’t giving him a royal pardon last I’ve heard. How infantile to wish for a monarch.
Pure drivel. No man has any higher office than any other man. The right of kings has been so soundly proven wrong that for anyone to suggest that a permanent blood line of folks are entitled to any office or position over any other person is evil.
To test this concept, I recommend that folks who hold to this theory of governance find a doctor who has a son or daughter and by virtue of blood relation, trust the offspring to tend to your medical or engineering or financial or.... needs.
I’ll be subject to no one who is not chosen by his peers nor anyone who cannot be lawfully removed from position by his peers. Anything else is tyranny.
With entitlement without merit comes excess and abuse.
A dictator is a dictator, even if defanged in principle.
Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” is the antidote to such childish monarchist thinking. No sane free man should admire or submit to some fat, farting, inbred free-bleeding potentate.
Imagine if America today never had the revolution and had to kowtow to Queen Elizabeth. Laughable.
Every once and a while you have a good Monarch but 99% of the time you get a self serving idiot.
Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the rest. — Winston Churchill.
We saw democracy in Iraq. Exhibit 2 will be democracy in Syria
Elena Kagan is your tyrant, ruling over u
Well off the top of the head Elizabeth II and whoever’s the monarch of Sweden comes to mind as constitutional monarchs and they both seem pretty useless in stopping what’s going on in their respective countries.
********************************************************
Yep. And ask Tommy Robinson if the British Royals are restraining the growing tyranny in the UK.
Yes.
Because the structure of the government is still feudal. Just the means of filling the positions is changed when democracy arrives.
For better governance it is the structure of the government that must change.
And only the US has done that.
Better to simply be off with their heads. These inbred monarchies should have end long, long ago.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
She’s a nice lady, but she’s had to be a nice lady while the men in the family like her son and the next king have lived nutty lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.