Thought a bit of excessively dotty flooding of the site with Kate baby things was in order yesterday, in keeping with the indigenous nation.
The obvious political question is not so much whether we need a monarchy or not – for a start, that should read “constitutional monarchy” – but whether we should retain the constitutional monarchy we actually have, which is fulfilling its brief in some ways but not in others.
Some of the criticisms can be answered:
1. The groundrents and other excesses. If they weren’t paid to royals, then they’d be paid to private landlords who could charge anything. This way it’s kept under scrutiny.
2. The royals are a useless drain on the taxpayer. They are less a drain on the taxpayer than bureaucratic fatcats even down to a low level, all of whom are on inflated, taxpayer funded sinecures. And whereas the bureaucrats fulfil no ostensible purpose, the royals do work. They’re our ambassadors and another thing – they’re loved by many whereas the bureaucrats are detested. Plus, being under scrutiny 24/7, the royals are not likely to rip off any further than what is laid down, they don’t go for huge pay increases etc.
Someone has to represent the nation in the world and I’d prefer the young royals to MPs swanning around the globe at my expense.
3. The old argument of “the money could be better spent”. This has always been. We shouldn’t have climbed Everest, we shouldn’t have gone to the moon [if we did]. The argument will always be there. I say look at the royals and how they function [now, not decades ago]. Now look at every little leftist dreaming up new ways to waste taxpayers’ money on one ridiculous scheme after another and the hugely damaging, excessive amounts spent on compliance, e.g. with the EU.
The costs of the two just don’t compare and you’re at least getting value from the royals.
4. A “modern” democracy doesn’t need these trappings. You’d rather be in the hands of an Obama, yes? You’d rather have the excesses of Blair or Cameron as the sole arbiters? The people of this land like all this pageantry, this pomp and circumstance – that is clear enough in the outpouring and the way the world was waiting for that baby yesterday. Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, why not use the royals to advantage?
Where the Red Army was the arbiter of prestige and place in the world for Russia, the royals are here.
5. They’re a bunch of bloodsucking lizards. W-e-e-l-l-l, they might be, they might not be. The Queen is certainly a Welf and the Welfs are Middle Temple where Wills and Kate went at the time of the conception, and Middle Temple is Templars and Templars are the Venetians and the Venetians are the original den of evil – there’s a good case to be made there.
The question is weighing that against how much real power they wield in the country, which comes to the next one:
6. The Crown is not the country. This is known by more and more people now. It’s a country within a country and all that money goes to The Firm which goes to the monarchies in general, to the class. The people don’t get a look in. I’d argue that as long as that’s known – which admittedly it’s not, not generally known yet – then there is still a case for a nominal royalty in the sense that it currently exists – what best to do with it?
And again, if it wasn’t them, then who would it be – the CFR? The TLC, IMF, BIS, the Fed? The faceless ones behind the scenes. If these royals really are demons, then what can we do about them? SFA. But we can contain them within the protocols of the past 100 years, in much the same way that the battered and under assault American Constitution still stands as a bulwark. And they do present well in representing us as a nation.
I suppose it comes back to the French Revolution question again. Which was worse – the monarchy as it was or the abject horror of your fate being decided by Citizen’s Committees – the locals down the road in all their unwashedness and bloodthirstiness? It’s an out-of-the-frying-pan situation again and there has been NO time in history where an oligarchy has not taken over and the result has not been far worse, far more excessive.
This is the better-the-devil-you-know argument of course.
7. The Queen is a traitor, signing away the country to the EU. She did but does that not also show she is bound by constitutional constraints? That is, she has to sign what Blair or Cameron put in front of her.
I’m for direct democracy via electronic means such as Yougov uses [the Ivan principle] and if that democracy wants to be rid of the royals, then that’s for a later time to resolve. Meanwhile, methinks it’s better to concentrate on getting rid of the Big 3 in parliament first, by a massive campaign against them, then we can start looking at the outward form of the nation.