Constitutional monarchy anyone?

Your one-stop shop for all things royal.

Don’t have all that much time for Charles as a person but the following needs to be considered:

And for all the guardianistas who claim that abolishing the monarchy would somehow give everyone more democracy and equality, just take a look at the freest, most equal and forward-thinking countries on earth: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the UK. What do they all have in common? Answer: they are all constitutional monarchies. Republics on the other hand, well what comes to mind: Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Colombia, … “republic” does not equal “free”.    – M Morton

Absolutely.  Constitutional monarchy is the way to go where the people know the bloodline and accept it.  However, the Welfs, Stewarts and St Claires have a bad track record and look at the state of royalty on the continent.  And here.

These seem better.

Meanwhile, we’re taking up a collection for this homeless couple who apparently have no permanent abode.  You can donate by sending as a waterproof parcel to:

3rd cistern along
Euston Station Men’s Loo
London. NW1 2RT.

And according to Chuckles, the jokes are doing the rounds:

# So Kate Middleton is pregnant. I thought that it was government policy to discourage people who don’t work from having kids.

# Upon hearing the news Harry said to his sister-in-law Kate, “If it’s a girl I think you should name her after my mum, and should it be a boy I think you should name him after my dad.”

“Thanks Harry,” she replied, “I think if we were to have a girl we would like to name her after your mother but if we have a boy I think Wills would rather name him after his dad.”

# Kate Middleton has said if she has a boy she will call him by the most popular British boy’s name at the moment. We look forward to the arrival of baby Mohammed.

9 comments for “Constitutional monarchy anyone?

  1. December 7, 2012 at 13:13

    Here in the lovely Dark Ages Kingdom of Northumbria, we too are expecting a Happy Event. The new addition’s name is likely to be Sheba or some such label..

  2. December 7, 2012 at 13:42

    Oh that’s wonderful – congrats and all that.

  3. james wilson
    December 7, 2012 at 17:41

    You have already abolished the Monarchy. With the Monarchy and the House of Lords having become museum pieces long ago, England lacks both an executive and a bicameral legislature. How is this seen in your circle of the blogosphere?

    To design a new government the American founders poured over boatloads of books and manuscripts which Jefferson dutifully kept sending from France. This included the great thinkers and observers of government over the centuries, but also the regional and county governments of all of Europe over a long period of time and the results of those differences. This informed them that, in addition to the merit of dividing government into three parts, that a unicameral legislature was a great mistake in any system. Franklin, who alone among the founders, had once favored a unicameral legislature (for Pennsylvania) but he was quick to experience what a mistake that was and change it.

    Not that there is any system which can overcome the degradation of universal suffrage, or ever has.

  4. December 7, 2012 at 18:39

    I can’t speak for everyone but many hold the view that if the monarchy is good [an oxymoron?], then within constitutional limits, this might be the best way. Magna Carta is still a very big thing in many people’s minds, even though it was for the barons.

    The notion of the idiots at Westminster being fit to run the country would probably only be defended by a minority these days. They’ve pretty well lost their mandate now.

    The danger is not from monarchy but from oligarchy – EU, UN, CFR types, MIC, using NATO to fight for them. There’s a certain support for a female monarch for the reason that she is less of a monster, though it doesn’t necessarily follow.

    There is deep division over here, James. Even those roughly on our side are divided over elected upper chambers, they still adhere to bicameral though.

  5. December 8, 2012 at 00:21

    James Wilson, the USA effectivly elects a Monarch every 4 or 5 years and he has far more power than our own head of state.
    I like knowing who will be HoS for the forseeable future; once Kate has fulfilled her duty with an heir and a spare that should see us near to the 22nd century.

    If the (very few) republicans had had their way we would currently be lumbered with President for Life John Prescott and his lovey deputy Peter Mandelson.

  6. james wilson
    December 8, 2012 at 02:04

    Yes, Americans have been electing Monarchs since FDR, and now, apparently, Emperors.

    My point is that your Monarchial executive is now a vestigal appendage, and your legislature is in reality unicameral; so you have no executive and the worst possible design for the legislature, unicameral, from which you draw a defacto executive, the PM. What could go wrong?

    I am not extolling the comparitive virtues of American government, for which I have abandoned every hope and illusion.

  7. Amfortas
    December 8, 2012 at 05:51

    Just think what a fine Monarchal system America could have had. In Oz we have a Queen that almost everyone in the world loves; she lives 12000 miles away and rarely ever interferes in what we do. Britain pays for her keep, from what once was her own possessions. She comes for a visit once in a while or sends her kiddies here on hols, and we are happy to see her and them, knowing they will not overstay their welcome.

    America has an elected Emperor. He is a multi-millionaire after just 4 years on a salary of less than 1/2 a mil a year and from a standing start as a ‘community organiser’. Damned fine savings scheme he must have.

  8. james wilson
    December 8, 2012 at 18:08

    I would trade my Queen for yours in a second. That is not an issue. The question I raised was how a system which worked for a long period of time where the Monarch was in fact a powerful branch of government and the House of Lords was an equal branch of the legislature then becomes one which may as well be described solely as the House of Commons.

  9. December 8, 2012 at 19:03

    I was discussing that with someone on the railway platform an hour ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *