Coronation Chickens

[steepholm]

There are many things about the monarchy that are annoying, but (almost) more annoying still are two of the weak arguments regularly used to justify its existence.

1) "Would you rather have Boris Johnson/Donald Trump as your head of state?"
No, of course not. But the proper comparison is with presidents whose role is essentially ceremonial, thus: "Would you rather have Michael D. Higgins/Frank-Walter Steinmeier/Sergio Mattarella?" To which the answer is "Yes, in a heartbeat." Instituting a ceremonial presidency isn't some impossible, never-achieved circle-squaring political conundrum - they exist today, quietly and unproblematically, in many European countries. They're not only more democractic, they're much cheaper - which leads me to...

2) "The monarchy pays for itself through tourism."
I actually thought this one had died out, but then I heard Piers Morgan using it the other day (I had unwisely clicked on a link). There are two answers.

First, the statement is simply untrue. Yes, many tourists visit Buckingham Palace, etc., but there's no evidence that they do so only because there's occasionally a royal in residence there. Far more visit Versailles, for example, and, indeed, far more tourists go to France than to the UK overall - which, if the presence or absence or a monarch were the only factor in their choice, would suggest a rather sanguinary policy pointer for the UK Tourist Board (to which proponents of this argument seem oddly happy to delegate responsibility for the constitution). But of course, very few people decide which country to visit based on whether they have a monarchy. Even supposing that a few do, the idea that the extra tourist income generated by this eccentric group is enough to pay for the costs of the monarchy is, well, unconvincing.

Second - aren't you ashamed of yourselves? You claim to support the monarchy, and many of you will be pledging allegiance via your TV screens, smartphones and other portable devices to Charles III as your personal liege lord on Saturday, presumably in the belief that his being in the position he finds himself in means that he has been ordained by God, or (if you want a more secular version) by History, Tradition, the Will of the People, or whatever abstraction you find more inspiring. And yet, when asked to justify your position, you can do no better than cite an obviously fallacious argument about tourist income. Even if the argument stood up, wouldn't it reduce the solemnity and dignity of the institution you claim to care about to a mere money-making scheme and the UK to John of Gaunt's "pelting farm"? It's actually rather disgusting.

As you can see, there is something atavistic in my republicanism.

Comments

[oursin]

The monarchy is sitting like a dragon on a collection of artworks that would be a significant attraction to the tourist trade if they were ever generally available to public view.

Among other objections concerning the value of this institution.

[steepholm]

The various palaces and castles too would earn a lot more if they were open to the public. Not that I think it should be a question of maximising returns - but that's the way royalists often choose to frame it, weirdly.

[cmcmck]

Fellow republican here- I blame being a 17th century historian.

I still wonder how we made such a mess of the English Republic.

[maellenkleth]

Maggie Thatcher.


Further deponent sayeth not.

[steepholm]

I hold no brief for Thatcher, but I don't think we can hold her responsible for the fate of the Commonwealth.

[heleninwales]

As I said in a comment on your post on FB, until the whole Brexit debacle, I had fallen for the "But would you want President Thatcher/Blair/Johnson" argument. That's what kept me just about supporting a monarch. The other thing that I believed was the idea that the monarch would stand as the last bulwark against a rogue government. But it turns out that the monarch is just an incredibly expensive rubber stamp and has no actual power to stop the government anything, even things things that are subsequently deemed illegal by the High Court.

As you say, the Irish seem to have got a good system. We just need a few simple rules such as: No one who has held elected government office is eligible to stand and probably a minimum age of, say, 40 to avoid people voting for the latest Love Island winner. (Shades of Boaty McBoatface!). We can then get rid of the family, make them work for their living and open all the palaces to tourists and that really might boost tourist numbers.

[shewhomust]

If there was ever any merit in the 'monarchy as a check on the ambitions of politicians' argument, surely it evaporated when Boris asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament so that he could force through his legislation, and the Queen meekly did as she was told?

[(Anonymous)]

And when monarchs, or more usually their Governor-General stand-ins, do try to stop what they consider rogue governments, it's the Governor-Generals who get into trouble. (See: Canada, 1925; Australia, 1975.)

sometime tourist here

[redbird]

On my first visit to England, I happily spent an afternoon at the Tower of London. That meant looking at some really old buildings (old not just by American standards) and queuing to see the Crown Jewels.

The only place the monarchy was relevant there, despite the name, was one display case. In place of a "foot-washing basin" there was a printed card saying "in use." I happened to be there on Maundy Thursday, a holiday that had never before (or since) been in any way relevant to my life.

When I was in London with cattitude a decade later, what I went back to wasn't the tower, it was the British Museum and the half-price ticket booth in Leicester Square. There is no shortage of things for tourists to do, see, and spend money on, not just in England but in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Re: sometime tourist here

[steepholm]

That was unlucky re. the foot-washing basin! (I've been to the Tower, but not for more than 50 years - which makes me a significant fraction of its age, alarmingly.)

Re: sometime tourist here

[redbird]

This way I know they have a foot-washing basin. As best as I can recall, the objects around it weren't especially interest, artistically. I think it was one of the many items dated 1660.

[flemmings]

My monarchism is atavistic too. (Sings several verses of Tradition.) Which said, a certain down-sizing wouldn't hurt. As long as people aren't expecting a working royal to show up to open their fetes or review their scout troops.

(I would not be a working royal if you paid me. Look at how much Anne does still, and she's my-- creaking arthritic-- age.)

[steepholm]

"I wouldn't be king for a hundred pounds," says Alice! No more would I - and the fact that people are put into that position without any real choice is one of my many objections to the institution, though quite a long way down the list.

[calimac]

I suspect it is people from the US who most often ask mistaken question 1, because here our head of state and head of government are the same office, so many of our people are totally confused about the difference. Not only do many think the head of government is head of state, even more hilariously some think the head of state is head of government. (Sarah Palin thought the Queen ran the country.)

[steepholm]

The mistake is very understandable from Americans, living in a country where the distinction between head of state and head of govement doesn't exist - but I hear it regularly from Brits, too.

[jadelennox]

I feel like there needs to be a better job of showing people what they, personally pay every year because of the monarchy, and yet the monarchy does a bang-up job of hiding the extent of their misbegotten wealth, so it's quite difficult.

In any case, it shouldn't need to be a financial case, people should have a basic philosophical understanding of why the monarchy is indefensible as an institution, even if it cost the state nothing and Andrew had never crimed.

[steepholm]

I agree it shouldn't need to be a financial case, and the fact that people so often have recourse to financial arguments (especially bogus ones) casts the monarchy in quite a tawdry light. If I were a supporter, it would not be on those grounds!

[calimac]

Further thoughts:

1) The "tourism money" defense reminds me of the defense of the expense of the space program (specifically the 1960s moon shot) on the grounds of the useful commercial products it generated. Like Teflon. And Tang. But even to the extent that that's true, isn't going to the Moon a rather overexpensive and roundabout way to generate such a trivial if useful result?

2) Wondering about who could serve as a UK ceremonial president, I note that the foreign ones you list are all retired politicians, so it occurs to me that the Chancellors of Oxford University for the last century or so would have made pretty good ceremonial presidents, as indeed they have in the position they actually held, though as president it should be a term position and not for life.

[steepholm]

I think the space program is a good comparison. There's something quite dishonest about justifying it on those grounds, when we all know that the motivation was quite different. There's both a kind of ideological and imaginative impoverishment about it, too.

[lilliburlero]

I think the Crown is enmeshed in UK consitutional law to an extent that it would require quite a lot of patient work to unpick and replace it, but again, the "aren't you ashamed of yourself?" riposte applies, given that the argument for keeping the monarchy is essentially "can't be arsed doing anything else".

My personal least favourite argument is "they've been trained for this all their lives", to which I think Charles himself stands as adequate response. 75 years of training and he is bad at this.

Ireland's presidency is an odd one - we've had very decent run over the years, which either speaks to a systemic elegance (which isn't entirely visible in the composition of the Oireachtas, God bless it) or blind good luck. Some of our presidents have been better poets than the incumbent, including the ones who weren't poets...