I was recovering from surgery recently in a hospital in Northern England and all of the older proles were referring to Charles as 'muslim-loving Charles' with utter hatred and any mention of the monarchy was met with nonce accusations. My understanding was always that right-leaning English proles were the only demographic with genuine affection for the monarchy outside of Jamaican matriarchs with Diana's face emblazoned on their crockery. Loyalist support for the monarchy is obviously nominal at best given their anti-establishment instincts, hatred of the CoE, identification with Cromwell etc and while I'm not English myself I always assumed that middle class English people (regardless of political orientation) viewed overt support for the royals as being either tacky or a form of lace-curtain pretension.
I understand why a handful of sycophants would back the monarchy to try and extract certain privileges and I can see why some older conservatives would half-heartedly support them purely because they associate calls to abolish the monarchy with some of the vestigial anti-thatcher brands of woke, but I'm honestly struggling to imagine a broad 'class' of supporters.
The absolute dread of an elected President on a four year stint such as Blair, Cameron, Johnson, Brown et al is worth putting up with the current monarchy until something better is available.
A transient President will be a politico, doing nothing more than a quick-fire shot at raking in the goodies whilst there’s still time but a ‘monarch’ has historical ties and therefore generations of ‘skin the game’ of sustaining for perpetuity the family presence.
Personally, I reckon the Vatican has it about right in terms of due process : elect a Pope for life without the grief of aberrant family driven by entitlements and expectations of deference.
I have delved into the history of the current monarchy and there’s nothing much to be proud of there - but - anything’s better tag El Presidente, thanks.
I support a monarchical constitution but not necessarily this monarchy.
If you support a monarchical constitution, but feel that you do not need to support our own monarch - meaning presumably you want a choice - how is this any different to an elected Head of State?
My own view is that the Prime Minister can simply be the Head of State, combining the roles as it is done in the United States. No need for a separate figure.
Someone we can vote out, when we find out the extent of their diddlin'.
your response is very welcome but elicits yet a further problem with the potential role of an elected Head of State undifferentiated from the functional, operational role of a Ministerial portfolio.
Who has the oversight and moderating influence over an elected dictatorship that would be the highest probable effect of a Blair presidency ?
Or - how can Jo and Joe Public “find out the extent of their diddlin’” - if the journo’s you’ve referenced in your article cannot lift the lid on the nefarious deeds of the Inner Circle then what chance has Mr and Mrs Public.
There has to be a chasmic scale separation of powers between a Head of State and the mucky machinations of the Ministerial role - not just for the purposes of honest upstanding policy but also to rein in the perverse, the stupid and the downright idiocy of people like Miliband, Reed, Johnson … oh, the list is endless
At least a lifetime appointment of a Papal figure is probably the nearest we could ever get to having an iconic figure that could tell Starmer, Cameron, Corbyn, Hague “oh FFS grow up”
Mr White - I do not know your politics, but can you see how the current 'check on power' does absolutely nothing to protect you or I from Miliband and his Net Zero madness - whilst it is actively frustrating policies like the Rwanda scheme?
Dear Mr Accuse, likewise I know not of your politics but absolutely agree that the prevailing ‘check on power’ lacks any pretence at ‘working’ and is therefore nowt but a chimera and further evidence of the smoke-and-mirrors of our Parliamentary system backed up endlessly by Judicial Activism being the ill-gotten bastard child of Legal Realism - a pox on them all
I'm ambivalent on the question, it's always seemed like a smaller priority than everything else that needs fixing in our system. Weakening ties to Australia et al has generally seemed the main drawback to me.
I'd be curious to read some more detail on a "Prime Minster as head of state" model - on the face of it there are fragilities. Is the head of state whoever can command a majority in Parliament or the head of the largest faction in Parliament? Would political parties need a constitutional basis, or can they internally depose the head of state according to internal rules at any moment?
I should have elaborated on some of my thoughts on the relevance of the monarchy in the piece (read earlier pieces e.g 'Citizens out of Republicans' for comprehensive Argument). To keep it precise, I think that you will not get rid of the grooming gangs without getting rid of the monarchy. Charles is King of the Commonwealth after all and he won't sit by and let you deport or capital punish lots of his subjects. If you fail to confront their power proactively, they will simply wait until you are vulnerable politically then assert their own constitutional position with the cooperation of leftists (which happened during the Boris constitutional crisis with the application of the lascelles principles).
You raise some interesting constitutional points in the second half of your comment. I would argue that it is already the case that the 'head of state' as most foreign governments understand it, and indeed the Markets, in practice is the Prime Minister anyway. It seems this system is slightly unstable (allowing parties to depose leaders with no constitutional grounding) but more or less works. Much to reflect on...
Thanks for the reply, that is a valid risk and it's indeed necessary to anticipate all aspects of the current system that could stop change happening. I'll have a look at your earlier writing on the topic.
And yes re: the second half, "more or less works" is usually good enough. Utopian systems that try to anticipate every scenario generally have loopholes or become a straitjacket. It might be enough to restrict party leadership votes to MPs only to avoid the head of state being selected by the 50k people who choose to pay a £20 membership fee.
Jacobite/Plantagenet/Wessex Restoration (unsure if there even is a claimant of the last). Probably not mega popular as not much of the population are history nerds/paradox gsg enthusiasts..
Not just making PM Head of State, but combining the offices of PM and King. For your term, you (plus spouse and any children) get the pomp, Palaces and titles of Royalty. On being voted out or retiring you get an earldom and seat in a reformed lords.
A permanent Regency. Minimal change to constitutional structure. Regent of GB becomes another title of the PM much line First Lord of the Treasury etc, passes to his successor on retirement/ losing an election/losing confidence of party.
The only vague claimant for the House of Plantagenet is Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort. I am not sure what his views are, but his wife supported the Greens in 2015, canvassed for Corbyn in 2019, and now supports dear George Galloway. Whilst the politics of a man's spouse do not necessarily reflect his own views, I do believe there is a chance that the Duke of Beaufort likely leans left.
For the House of Wessex, all monarchs descended from Henry II can claim some degree of ancestry from the House of Wessex, so King Chuck has some tenuous claim there. Meanwhile, the current Stuart claimant is Franz von Bayern of the House of Wittelsbach. I am not sure of his politics, but the man is a homosexual who spent some of his childhood in Dachau, so he may lean left as well.
The other advantage is that we can get an updated version of the coinage of Cromwell. The Commonwealth ushered in an interesting period in English coinage that lasted until the end of the reign of George IV. During that time, there was an increase in classical symbolism on English coinage, with the Head of State being depicted wearing a laurel wreath rather than a crown, though there were some coins of Charles II that depicted him with a crown. The reverse of many coins of the Commonwealth also featured the shields of England and Ireland together with a laurel wreath around the outside edge, which is somewhat similar to some of the coinage of the late Roman Empire. For those who wish to ditch the Victorian Medievalism and help move public consciousness away from the communitarian and parochial world view that obsesses with "levelling-up", a change in public symbols to those that embrace the pan-European cultural ancestry of Britain and our legacy as heirs to Rome could be of some minor use.
I think it was David Starkey who put it best when he met the Queen in 2003. As a constitutional historian, and one who understood royal prerogative better than most, he was apparently completely blown away by Elizabeth II’s boundless incuriosity about her antecedents.
He went through her previous Christmas speeches and found they made no reference to any other monarchy or dynastic family outside the Windsors, with the exception of Elizabeth I. The only thing Liz could muster, in commenting on her predecessor’s reign, was that it was a shame, essentially, that Elizabeth I never got to travel.
She at least knew when to shut up in public. Her Lugubrious Dauphin issue can't even do that.
I am a firm believer in the merits of a constitutional monarchy, the only thing stopping us from having a garish Mobutu style 'President' system, but even so Chuck has been as disappointing as I had feared.
I was recovering from surgery recently in a hospital in Northern England and all of the older proles were referring to Charles as 'muslim-loving Charles' with utter hatred and any mention of the monarchy was met with nonce accusations. My understanding was always that right-leaning English proles were the only demographic with genuine affection for the monarchy outside of Jamaican matriarchs with Diana's face emblazoned on their crockery. Loyalist support for the monarchy is obviously nominal at best given their anti-establishment instincts, hatred of the CoE, identification with Cromwell etc and while I'm not English myself I always assumed that middle class English people (regardless of political orientation) viewed overt support for the royals as being either tacky or a form of lace-curtain pretension.
I understand why a handful of sycophants would back the monarchy to try and extract certain privileges and I can see why some older conservatives would half-heartedly support them purely because they associate calls to abolish the monarchy with some of the vestigial anti-thatcher brands of woke, but I'm honestly struggling to imagine a broad 'class' of supporters.
Is it literally just sycophants and pundits?
The absolute dread of an elected President on a four year stint such as Blair, Cameron, Johnson, Brown et al is worth putting up with the current monarchy until something better is available.
A transient President will be a politico, doing nothing more than a quick-fire shot at raking in the goodies whilst there’s still time but a ‘monarch’ has historical ties and therefore generations of ‘skin the game’ of sustaining for perpetuity the family presence.
Personally, I reckon the Vatican has it about right in terms of due process : elect a Pope for life without the grief of aberrant family driven by entitlements and expectations of deference.
I have delved into the history of the current monarchy and there’s nothing much to be proud of there - but - anything’s better tag El Presidente, thanks.
I support a monarchical constitution but not necessarily this monarchy.
But thanks for your insights.
Good afternoon Duncan,
If you support a monarchical constitution, but feel that you do not need to support our own monarch - meaning presumably you want a choice - how is this any different to an elected Head of State?
My own view is that the Prime Minister can simply be the Head of State, combining the roles as it is done in the United States. No need for a separate figure.
Someone we can vote out, when we find out the extent of their diddlin'.
greetings !
your response is very welcome but elicits yet a further problem with the potential role of an elected Head of State undifferentiated from the functional, operational role of a Ministerial portfolio.
Who has the oversight and moderating influence over an elected dictatorship that would be the highest probable effect of a Blair presidency ?
Or - how can Jo and Joe Public “find out the extent of their diddlin’” - if the journo’s you’ve referenced in your article cannot lift the lid on the nefarious deeds of the Inner Circle then what chance has Mr and Mrs Public.
There has to be a chasmic scale separation of powers between a Head of State and the mucky machinations of the Ministerial role - not just for the purposes of honest upstanding policy but also to rein in the perverse, the stupid and the downright idiocy of people like Miliband, Reed, Johnson … oh, the list is endless
At least a lifetime appointment of a Papal figure is probably the nearest we could ever get to having an iconic figure that could tell Starmer, Cameron, Corbyn, Hague “oh FFS grow up”
I hereby nominate David Starkey for the role
Mr White - I do not know your politics, but can you see how the current 'check on power' does absolutely nothing to protect you or I from Miliband and his Net Zero madness - whilst it is actively frustrating policies like the Rwanda scheme?
Dear Mr Accuse, likewise I know not of your politics but absolutely agree that the prevailing ‘check on power’ lacks any pretence at ‘working’ and is therefore nowt but a chimera and further evidence of the smoke-and-mirrors of our Parliamentary system backed up endlessly by Judicial Activism being the ill-gotten bastard child of Legal Realism - a pox on them all
I'm ambivalent on the question, it's always seemed like a smaller priority than everything else that needs fixing in our system. Weakening ties to Australia et al has generally seemed the main drawback to me.
I'd be curious to read some more detail on a "Prime Minster as head of state" model - on the face of it there are fragilities. Is the head of state whoever can command a majority in Parliament or the head of the largest faction in Parliament? Would political parties need a constitutional basis, or can they internally depose the head of state according to internal rules at any moment?
Hello David,
I should have elaborated on some of my thoughts on the relevance of the monarchy in the piece (read earlier pieces e.g 'Citizens out of Republicans' for comprehensive Argument). To keep it precise, I think that you will not get rid of the grooming gangs without getting rid of the monarchy. Charles is King of the Commonwealth after all and he won't sit by and let you deport or capital punish lots of his subjects. If you fail to confront their power proactively, they will simply wait until you are vulnerable politically then assert their own constitutional position with the cooperation of leftists (which happened during the Boris constitutional crisis with the application of the lascelles principles).
You raise some interesting constitutional points in the second half of your comment. I would argue that it is already the case that the 'head of state' as most foreign governments understand it, and indeed the Markets, in practice is the Prime Minister anyway. It seems this system is slightly unstable (allowing parties to depose leaders with no constitutional grounding) but more or less works. Much to reflect on...
Thanks for the reply, that is a valid risk and it's indeed necessary to anticipate all aspects of the current system that could stop change happening. I'll have a look at your earlier writing on the topic.
And yes re: the second half, "more or less works" is usually good enough. Utopian systems that try to anticipate every scenario generally have loopholes or become a straitjacket. It might be enough to restrict party leadership votes to MPs only to avoid the head of state being selected by the 50k people who choose to pay a £20 membership fee.
Some more bespoke options:
Jacobite/Plantagenet/Wessex Restoration (unsure if there even is a claimant of the last). Probably not mega popular as not much of the population are history nerds/paradox gsg enthusiasts..
Not just making PM Head of State, but combining the offices of PM and King. For your term, you (plus spouse and any children) get the pomp, Palaces and titles of Royalty. On being voted out or retiring you get an earldom and seat in a reformed lords.
A permanent Regency. Minimal change to constitutional structure. Regent of GB becomes another title of the PM much line First Lord of the Treasury etc, passes to his successor on retirement/ losing an election/losing confidence of party.
The only vague claimant for the House of Plantagenet is Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort. I am not sure what his views are, but his wife supported the Greens in 2015, canvassed for Corbyn in 2019, and now supports dear George Galloway. Whilst the politics of a man's spouse do not necessarily reflect his own views, I do believe there is a chance that the Duke of Beaufort likely leans left.
For the House of Wessex, all monarchs descended from Henry II can claim some degree of ancestry from the House of Wessex, so King Chuck has some tenuous claim there. Meanwhile, the current Stuart claimant is Franz von Bayern of the House of Wittelsbach. I am not sure of his politics, but the man is a homosexual who spent some of his childhood in Dachau, so he may lean left as well.
Has nobody in this paradox nerd conversation considered a simple Lord Protectorate? Especially if woke Charlie is getting the block.
The other advantage is that we can get an updated version of the coinage of Cromwell. The Commonwealth ushered in an interesting period in English coinage that lasted until the end of the reign of George IV. During that time, there was an increase in classical symbolism on English coinage, with the Head of State being depicted wearing a laurel wreath rather than a crown, though there were some coins of Charles II that depicted him with a crown. The reverse of many coins of the Commonwealth also featured the shields of England and Ireland together with a laurel wreath around the outside edge, which is somewhat similar to some of the coinage of the late Roman Empire. For those who wish to ditch the Victorian Medievalism and help move public consciousness away from the communitarian and parochial world view that obsesses with "levelling-up", a change in public symbols to those that embrace the pan-European cultural ancestry of Britain and our legacy as heirs to Rome could be of some minor use.
Elected king has a pleasingly populist feel whilst allowing continuities. "The Windows have sullied our ancient monarchy - so now, choose your own!"
I think it was David Starkey who put it best when he met the Queen in 2003. As a constitutional historian, and one who understood royal prerogative better than most, he was apparently completely blown away by Elizabeth II’s boundless incuriosity about her antecedents.
He went through her previous Christmas speeches and found they made no reference to any other monarchy or dynastic family outside the Windsors, with the exception of Elizabeth I. The only thing Liz could muster, in commenting on her predecessor’s reign, was that it was a shame, essentially, that Elizabeth I never got to travel.
She at least knew when to shut up in public. Her Lugubrious Dauphin issue can't even do that.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/22/monarchy.television
I am a firm believer in the merits of a constitutional monarchy, the only thing stopping us from having a garish Mobutu style 'President' system, but even so Chuck has been as disappointing as I had feared.