No future, no future for you
Reflection — By Cerith Jones on April 21, 2010 7:00 am
The Sex Pistols' iconic 1970s poster. Cerith's piece proves that young anger against the monarchy remains just as potent as it did back then
WITH a general election fast approaching, there is plenty of talk – and talk, rather than action – around constitutional reform. These past few years haven’t been the best for Parliament. There has been a number of scandals, with last year’s expenses revelations showing Westminster in the worst light.
But while reforming both Houses is important, there is still not much – if any – talk about questioning the role of the monarchy. There is an ongoing debate about a fully-elected Upper House, and other articles on WalesHome have talked about devolving the Royal Prerogative to Wales in the form of a Privy Council here. But why not begin by asking whether we still need a queen?
The monarchy is un-elected, yet it still retains the power to invite someone to form a government, to dissolve Parliament (as we have seen recently), and to assent to laws. Monarchists argue that these powers are executed upon the advice of ministers, but we all know that Mrs Windsor (and no, there shall be no apologies for referring to her in this way) could still refuse to assent to any law. She could still – in theory – say no to any Legislative Competence Order from the National Assembly (although, hopefully, we won’t have to deal with those dreadful things for too long).
It looks increasingly likely, of course, that the result of this General Election will be extremely close. Following the launch of Plaid Cymru’s campaign on Ynys Môn and the launch of its manifesto, we all know that Plaid is hoping that the result will be a hung parliament – or a balanced parliament, as we’ve taken to calling it. If, hypothetically (of course, no one knows what will happen on May 6) that is the case, Mrs Windsor may have to get her thinking cap on, because although she will first ask the sitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown if he can form a government, there is of course the strong possibility that he would say no. He may first try to form a coalition government, bringing in members of other parties. One suggestion is that Vince Cable from the Liberal Democrats could become the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in a situation where the Prime Minister cannot form a government, it will be Mrs Windsor’s choice as to whether to call another election or to ask someone else – probably David Cameron – if he can form one instead.
While many people will argue that Mrs Windsor is the embodiment of what it is to be British, she has absolutely no mandate to reign whatsoever. Monarchists will argue that the majority of British people are quite happy for her to remain as queen but, at the end of the day, she has no legitimacy to make such important decisions that could affect Britain for a number of years to come. Her only claimed legitimacy is her bloodline, and in this modern world that is no legitimacy at all. And even if Mrs Windsor was the embodiment of Britain, that certainly doesn’t make her the embodiment of Wales. I can’t think of one ‘British thing’ that she supposedly represents that is relevant to Wales. Quoting Plaid’s first MP and president of 36 years, Gwynfor Evans: “Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness…which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.”
Mrs Windsor and her husband often visit Commonwealth countries where she is also head of state, as well as those she has less connection with, on royal visits; representing the British people’s interests abroad. She also receives visiting heads of state – most recently, the controversial polygamous President Jacob Zuma of South Africa. This coming July, Mrs Windsor and Mr Mountbatten will receive His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in Edinburgh. She represents Britain in foreign countries as supposedly the embodiment of Britain when on state visits abroad and when heads of state visit the UK. But Mrs Windsor is not representative of the average British man or woman. Her life is nothing like ours. She hasn’t had to worry about losing her job, about not being able to afford to put food on the table, about the issues that have troubled the rest of us in recent times.
I have nothing against her as a person. I’ve never met her, but I’m sure she’s a rather nice woman. It is the institution that is the monarchy that I’m dead set against. It is an undemocratic, unelected and hereditary institution which is no longer relevant in 21st century, modern, westernised United Kingdom.
There is another compelling argument against the monarchy: it costs a bomb. Millions of pounds are spent every year on maintaining the royal residences and on transporting Mrs Windsor and her immediate family about the place to carry out their “official duties”. Of course, the counter-argument is that if the monarchy is done away with, the constitutional position of head of state would still have to be filled, and the cost would remain. I accept that, but wouldn’t you rather spend your hard-earned tax on a head of state that you’ve chosen, who you can throw out of office at the end of a pre-set term, someone that’s accountable to you?
Some republicans argue that the Prime Minister could function as head of state as well as head of government, but I see the benefit in separating the two roles. The head of government is, of course, in charge of the administrative day-to-day running of the country, of legislating. The head of state, on the other hand, is in charge of more ceremonial things; signing acts into law, awarding honours (and the current honours system is an article for another day), representing the country. There are clear advantages to having two people fill the separate roles, but it is my view that they should both be elected.
I struggle to see how anyone can be in favour of the monarchy. It’s completely unelected, has no legitimacy or mandate to reign or represent, yet the head of the monarchy still has the power to make some of the most important decisions in the land. I’m a nationalist and a republican who is in favour of independence for Wales, but this isn’t a call for independence. It’s a call for an end to the monarchy. The people of Wales – the people of Britain – deserve a head of state that they’ve chosen, one of their own. It’s time Britain caught up with the rest of the world.
Tags: constitutional reform, monarchy, Plaid Cymru, Queen, republicanism
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
30 Comments
Well written and argued article, Cerith. Well done.
I will raise some counter arguments on this abit later but my first thought is that just because we are living in the technological 21st century doesn’t mean that our human psychology has caught up. I believe and psychological studies have shown that our group mentality is essentially still stuck in a ‘feudal’ mode whereby we need a ‘monarch’ to give us leadership, and societal motivation (structure). Even republics like the US and France are and have been dominated by King/Queen/Emperor-like figures. The Kennedy family is almost a royal bloodline.
More later.
Cerith Jones
Radicalism should be the realm of the young. I wish I had kept my sixth form notebook with society changing essays. As pointed out on the illustration the arguments aren’t new. Nothing much has changed in forty years.
Britain flirted with Republicanism. I’m rather fond of it. I took two of my grandsons to Westminster and stood them in front of the statue of Oliver Cromwell and explained who he was. I would have supported Parliament against Charles I.
Would I do the same against Charles III?
A republican at heart: Probably not. He and his Mum are probably cheaper than the alternative and good for tourism. We know where we are with them and they know where they are with us. The practical relationship is probably not worth disturbing. There are more important things.
Radicalism is fun…keep your notebook and essays…but they could be embarrassing in later years. Perhaps it was a good thing my mother threw mine out.
Congratulations on a well written article.
Da iawn Cerith. Well done Cerith, I agree with nearly 99.9% of what you say, but I am not yet sold on the concept of a Head of State. I think that to have a First Minister is sufficient. If we had a Head of State that performed ambassadorial functions abroad, I would consider it, but I don’t think we necessarily need to do away with the Monarchy to put something else in its place.
I would like to offer alternative advice: never grow out of it. Never let the system and its institutions quench that fire you have. Don’t become a bland Union-Jack waving automaton. You are allowed your own opinion. Always rock the boat. If you disagree with something, say so.
(I’m not against the Monarchy per se, as long as it’s kept in England, as a symbol of England, then they can keep it for all I care. It’s not a Welsh institution though, so we neither need it or want it.)
Len repeats the oft-heard argument that the monarchy is “good for tourism”. I’ve always found this to be a dubious claim, at best: what hard evidence exists to support it? The thousands of tourists milling about outside Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and the Tower hardly ever actually get to SEE the Queen, do they? They get to see the buildings, and the soldiers parading around.
So if we replaced the monarchy with an elected ceremonial president, the thousands of tourists would still get to see the buildings, and the soldiers parading around, wouldn’t they? Plus, we’d have just one, elected person + their partner to support financially for their term of office – and we could jettison the civil list royal family hangers-on, too.
In these financially-straitened times, surely these are just the sorts of ‘efficiencies’ our political parties should be pursuing?
Len seems to be quite patronising to you Cerith. As Al said, keep that radicalism. It makes you who you are. Don’t fight it just because some regressives say that it is naive. There are republics the world over that have successful governments. Wales should be a republic, and we should have the opportunity to free ourselves from the grasp of colonial powers that the queen et al represent.
Like Gez, I’ve always doubted this “good for tourism” argument. What if there were a comparably-sized, similarly affluent and equally well-regarded capital city in northern Europe where there is no monarchy?
Paris is home to around 11 million people while London has a population of around 12 million (if metropolitan areas are included). The French capital produces around a quarter of the country’s GDP while London has the largest city GDP in Europe. But even though it is one of the most important – perhaps the most important – financial centres in the world, it accounts for less – 20% – of the UK economy. England’s largest city has Buckingham Palace while Paris has the Versailles complex nearby.
Paris is the most visited city in the world while London is the second most popular urban destination on Earth. Paris had 27million visitors in 2009, while London attracted 15 million people.
London fell from being the seventh richest city by employee gross earnings in 2008 to 21st last year, and Disneyworld Paris attracted 14.5m visitors in 2009. However, while Paris must be the chief beneficiary, tourism experts maintain that Europe as a whole does well out of the park.
So there you have it. You are about as likely to see a crowned head of state in London as you are in Paris, while the Civil List this year costs £7,900,000. Granted, very basic economics. But how much benefit does Wales derive from any foreign interest in the royal family? It begins to make the Ryder Cup look like a good investment.
We used to argue long and hard about this in my house – I used to be a republican, but no longer. Why? Was it just some atavistic urge reasserting itself as my pimples receded and that I just can’t help playing the villein or was it a playful love of all that ceremony? No not really. I came to like the idea that none of us could have the top job – that the Head of State is a role played out by just one family over generations that we pledge a nominal fealty to appeals because I trust the sheer nonsense of monarchy more than I do yet another elected official with an agenda, with a set of self-interests of who knows what hue. I like the idea that we can only ever aspire to be number 2 – prime minister or first minister. I like the idea that it just keeps our politician’s feet on the ground, that there is this strange ceremonial that reminds the incumbents of their position. Having to elect a head of state would create an unnecessary election at some cost no doubt and, lets face it, would any of us really want the job now with all the media interest and hype and if we did I rather wonder what that would say about us – you just can’t be too careful, there are some pretty power mad people out there who on a popularist platform would do who knows what damage to our democracy. It light of the recent history of our monarchy would you really want to take this on? Nobody really thinks the Queen or Charles will ever want to disturb this extraordinary bargain between the British people and the Royal family. Best leave well alone in my opinion. Better the enemy you know.
Tell you what though, how about we go for G.K Chesterton’s proposal in the Napoleon of Notting Hill (worth a read on this issue) and elect the monarch for life through a simple ballot of all citizens…mind, I would want it to come with the art collection if I won.
I like the monarchy, it’s a quaint old British institution. And you know, strangely lots of people like the Monarchy too.
The “official duties” you mention are more often than not at the invitation of the people. Don’t for a moment think that “one” rises and asks where shall one visit today”. It generally by invitation, not the request of the monarch. So there’s a demand for someone or something.
There’s also a demand abroad, and sometimes we need to have things because we are expected to. I’ve been fortunate enough to travel widely and am confident in my assertion that there are many countries envious of our monarchy. Even the Aussies turned out to show unexpected levels of enthusiasm for the recent visit by one of the princes.
All the above confirms both some internal and external demand, and is clearly evident, unlike your assertion that this is an ” institution which is no longer relevant in 21st century, modern, westernised United Kingdom”. That is a view not a statement of fact and deserves substantiating with quantified research.
Don’t ditch the passion though
Len.
Perhaps not your intention, but you SOUND awfully patronising.
Radicalism is not the refuge of any age, it is of mind. As I get older, I find new ways of expressing and refining radicalism, but ultimately it is about wanting to see change to the status quo. Old people telling me I will grow out of it merely inflames and ignites my own passion.
Cerith is bang on the money about what is wrong with the Monarchy, I think the problem I see is the replacement for it.
I am an agnostic, perhaps dormant republican. While I am actually a member of republic, and would campaign and vote for the abolishment if we had the choice, I suppose I see far more pressing priorities.
I actually think that such is the beginning of the end of what we used to know as the United Kingdom, the future of the monarchy will be better resolved in 20 years – when I think that we will see four near independent states, rather than the UK as we know it.
Alex Salmond is a canny operator, he would not have said that the Queen would remain as Head of State of an indepedent Scotland for some passive reason. Wales, when it gets it referendum on independence, will have to make their own choice on that matter. My concern is that in abolishing the monarchy while wedded to the United Kingdom, Wales might actually be even more entangled and entrenched in that system.
We need the ability to choose as Wales first, before we look to embed a new United Kingdom that may actually be strengthened by replacing a blood monarch with an elected head of state.
I’ve been a republican for as long as I can remember being interested in politics, and certainly for all my adult life. And while I wouldn’t agree with the way Len characterises the journey (and, as Marcus suggests, the way he perhaps unintentionally talks down to Cerith), my own experience at least partially bears out what he has to say. I used to burn with indignity about the existence of a hereditary head of state, the aristocratic disdain they appear to exhibit for the rest of us and their distance from the lives of normal people.
I still would prefer the Royal family was removed from any constitutional role, but now I no longer really care that much. Yes, the Monarch can veto legislation in theory, and invite whichever leader she chooses to form a government. In practice, these amount to very little indeed. There are far greater injustices in the world (and indeed more pressing constitutional reform) and I do not believe that the presence of a Monarchy inculcates in people any kind of unhealthy deference in the people. We may be technically subjects, but in practice and by custom and convention we are citizens who enjoy the full range of rights.
So let’s get rid of the constitutional Monarchy. But let’s do it once we’ve done all the pressing stuff.
Gez Kirby
“good for tourism”
A bit tongue in cheek actually!
If it is the best you can say of it then it ain’t up to much…but it works and there is no immediate compelling reason to dump it…yet.
There might never be a Charles III.
Bethan Jenkins
“patronising to you”
In a way, but an encouraging way.
I shared some of Cerith’s radical enthusiasms and approach when young.
It isn’t that I’m not radical now, its just that time helps to sort the priorities.
The Monarchy is an anachronism but it isn’t the most imporant issue.
I’d probably vote for its abolition but I wouldn’t get over excited about removing it without an urgent reason.
What I’ve said to Cerith is be radical…in a sort of cheering from the touchline way.
Marcus Warner
“As I get older”
It was only the other day you were telling us how young you were!
You make my point differently. I don’t want Cerith, or you for that matter, to lose the radical attitude. And ageing doesn’t have to mean damping down. But it is something that happens to many. A good dose of radicalism when young is a great start, the trick is to keep it going.
Cerith, I’ve probably got fifty-five years on you, so here’s the challenge…keep the radicalism. If you read the True Wales True Devolution Charter (you may not agree with it) but you should be able to recognise the radical nature of its proposals and solutions that I support.
I’ll be the voice of the silent majority on this one and say that I’m not bothered either way whether their becomes an unconstitutional monarchy, the status quo is maintained or their is no monarchy at all.
As a schoolboy i can remember waiting to see the Queen mother after school and her waving….
One of those strange customs, Absolutist Europe has disappeared yet we Brits (or some of us) still feel the monarchy is unique. I doubt if I would wait to see a monarch now but when the Royal car go’s past and one is near St. James palace as I was a couple of weeks back , one cannot help to look to see if one is lucky enough to catch a glimpse of her Majesty (not Mrs. Windsor Gerith)
Buckingham palace has not got the art that Louis XiV ‘s palais du louvre has got, save Leonardo da Vinci book of cartoons , tourist value would not be great
Theirs alot more important stuff for fellas to be bothering their heads over
I am happy to identify with the consistently majoritarian position on the monarchy, both on a UK level and in Wales:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8124065.stm
Every poll I can recall shows Wales as a nation which identifies with and supports the monarchy. As some commentators have suggested, the statistics show that such a position is far less strong amongst younger people.
But the commentators also suggest that feelings of republicanism are something which are put to one side are rejected as one grows older. The latter is certainly true in my case.
My only regret this morning is forgetting to toast the health of HM The Queen when I was enjoying a quiet drink with assorted republicans last night.
“If you read the True Wales True Devolution Charter (you may not agree with it) but you should be able to recognise the radical nature of its proposals and solutions that I support.”
Len, given the ferocity that debate normally starts, perhaps we should not pick up that stick of dynamite
Fair point, but I am 27 years old, 10 years as a political animal. Despite me being less of an anti-capitalist than my youth, I am still a social democrat calling for more powers for Wales. On a range of issues I am probably more radical as I temper my reading, my listening to others with my life experiences of marriage and children.
Adam, I definitely see what you mean, that was my point. To me there are a number of social issues around poverty and other social issues that I find more pressing. The point I would make though is that such change often needs a spark, sometimes even unrelated. Look at something like electoral reform, electing the house of lords – I think expenses has sealed the deal for a good many of the those historical proposals, it was the spark needed, despite it not being directly linked to expenses.
Sometimes we need to use upheaval to our advantage. Given the democratic change we may well see, perhaps the monarchy might get swept up in that.
Daran Hill
You previously commented that we had more in common than might be expected.
Well here is one subject we definitely disagree. I agree with Cerith the youngest commentor. The monarchy is an anachronism. I too remember as a youngester standing on the roadside to wave to the royal cars. I thought, “What’s this all about??” and have been a republican ever since.
However we do agree that it is not the most important subject.
There are other radical solutions that I propose as being more important:*
Fundamentally change the nature of devolution in Wales:
Making it local has also made it more centralised.
I would decentralise it and take decision making to a wider and broader range of people.
I would ensure that every planning application decision making body had immediately local representatives on the panel.
I would prevent any legally qualified person from holding political representative office.
I would set a maximum number of petty administrators being AMs (and MPs). (Elevated councillors, political party employees, Trade Unionist officials, University lecturers and political lobbists…to name but a few)
I would transfer some the Assembly’s functions and powers to the Unitary authorities.
I would elect 25% of AMs each year so there is a rolling accountability of the WAG.
I would require that devolution is only concerned with functionality.
I would institute people’s courts for examining the performance of unelected bureaucrats and quango types.
I would introduce PIN number voting for all of the registered voters direct to the Assembly on important issues. (The Banks can do it, so can the political system.)
The only opposition I will get to the above proposals will not come from Charlie III or his Mum but from the elected elite at the Bay and their baying followers.
Devolution is not an anachronism, but the one we’ve got isn’t very good…Wales deserves better.
Cerith: In all probability there will now be a hue and cry as to how idiotic the proposals are.
All of the Chartist’s original demands are now law, except for annual elections – see my modified version above.
All of the Monster Loony Party’s original Manifesto is now law, except the issue of a single Monopoly Commission.
Radical is fun…and as Screamingly Lord Sutch proved, can also be serious and practical.
* These proposals do not necessarily represent the views of True Wales!
“I would prevent any legally qualified person from holding political representative office.
I would set a maximum number of petty administrators being AMs (and MPs). (Elevated councillors, political party employees, Trade Unionist officials, University lecturers and political lobbists…to name but a few)….”
….I would discriminate against people and bar them from entering democratic elections. Free and Fair elections fail.
Seriously, do you honestly believe that?
This is an interesting but very complicated subject. I agree with some commentators here that this raises issues that are not of immediate concern (for Welsh politics) but do relate to how our society (and nation) is structured in the future and what can motivate younger people, like Cerith, to ‘get involved’.
Idealists passionate about a ’cause’ whether this is republicanism, communism, religion or other ‘ism’ often focus their energies around a single figure or ‘hero’ (cf. Vogler, Jung, Fraser) . These ‘hero’ figures symbolise the ideal in the unconscious. Heroic figures in the past have often been monarchs (in a militaristic sense) but are also ‘leaders’ (revolutionary sense). The idea of ‘electing’ a King or Queen of this type is unworkable – the XFactor way might have some traction but these figures should emerge and then be chosen (or tolerated) by the mass of people as they represent most closely the aspirations and self image of the populace whether this be for conquest or assertion of identity. They should get the best food, mates, palaces, fast cars and helicopters whilst they have the strength and until we need another figure (cf.Fraser).
Therefore, we should cut to the chase and immediately arrange the coronation of King Shane the First, (or King Ryan the First) and send him off to do battle with King Wayne the First.
I am at heart a republican, but abolishing the monarchy is not No1 on my list of constitutional objectives. I could live with the type of monarchy they have in Sweden where it’s the Speaker of Parliament that receives the accreditation of diplomats and acts as head of state in all but name. But in my ideal world the Monarchy would not exist. I’d give them Sandringham and take the rest off them, give them a golden handshake of £10 million and let them go into well deserved retirement. The Queen is genuinely hard working and in her 80s – it’s wrong that she feels morally obliged to continue unto death. It’s also wrong that her descendents have no rights to follow their own ambitions and are tied to the roles and positions given to them by the institution of monarchy.
My model for a democratic head of state is the Irish one, small power but huge moral authority.
My grandfather always said the cost of a republic was a box of bullets, then he proceeded to pull money out of his pocket and say ‘here’s a fiver/tenner towards it’. Never really agreed with the murderous intent but it’s a good example of Marcus’ point that radicalism is not the refuge of any age.
Seems we’re all republicans (apart from Daran). I’ll book the bus to London. Dave – if you would look after the guns?
This would be a good and valid article if it argued against the real problem with the monarchy instead of it simply being a rather personal polemic attacking the Queen herself as being a unelected unrepresented parasite.
Surely the best argument against the institution is the powers that are exercised by the Prime Minister in an almost British type of shogunate. Japanese remedied this with their 1947 Constitution which stripped the Emperor of his “divine status” which was used by unscrupulous politicians and deranged militarists. In the Constitution, the Imperial prerogative was stripped from the Emperor and vested in the people themselves.
This was a sensible suggestion made by Tony Benn (one of his few good ideas), that the powers would taken out of the hands of the Queen and transferred to the speaker. The truth is that if parliament was unable to decide on who heads the government dissolution would have to be the most logical solution, not the the fact that the Queen’s dissolves it – hardly in the same realm of dissolving parliament and ruling by decree is it?
Surely the fact that you have to call her Mrs Windsor shows me that is more important than discussing the the real issues. What powers would President Tony Blair have? Frankly I have never understood the point of popular elected ceremonial presidents and can only name two Irish ones – Eamon De Valera and Mary Robinson. They almost seemed to be political functionaries that no one can remember.
Yes, let’s have a discussion about constitutions – like having one to begin with.
Len, I liked your joke about Mr Oliver Cromwell and democracy. Or should I say his Serene Highness the Lord Protector? The closest Britain came to having a Taliban style regime – cutting hair, chopping down Maypoles and abolishing Christmas.
Britain is already a republic, its a “crowned republic” as HG Wells and Walter Bageot pointed out. More a republic than France with its “Bonapartist” president and the United States (which does at least have a good check system) that have been described as “republican monarchy”.The only time I have seen a republican make a good point was Tony Benn in the 1980s when he wanted to strip the monarchy of the royal prerogative
Marcus Warner
“Seriously, do you honestly believe that?”
The point being we have far to many administrative types in political positions. They are unrepresentative of society. Representative politics no longer represents a cross section of society.
The present arrangement is for a small caucus to select a candidate and that person becomes the ‘people’s representative’ even when that person receives less than 50% pf the vote. Lawyers find it relatively easy to become a constituency candidate.
There is an over abundance of barristers at Westminster. And the Assembly has more than its reasonable share of lawyers. Lawyers can continue to practice and ‘supplement’ their income, or as many do, they use the political payment as the supplement. People in other walks of life often have a reduced income by becoming an elected representative.
As the political parties have created the ‘all female’ list, there is no reason, based on that precedent, not to have a ‘no lawyer’ list.
Yes, I honestly and seriously believe that the number of lawyers should be controlled to allow people more representative of society to represent society.
“It would discriminate against people and bar them from entering democratic elections. Free and Fair elections fail.”
I’ve heard the same argument against the ‘all female’ list.
As it is said, “Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.”
Or can it be the case that male lawyers may not apply but female lawyers can?
That is the situation currently. Now would you believe it! Honestly!
Lyn David Thomas
“My model for a democratic head of state is the Irish one, small power but huge moral authority.”
Sounds about right…but not a lawyer.
I can remember my grandfather punching the air when the news about the Queen Mother’s death came through on the news. He had outlived her.
Nonetheless, the majority view at the moment is to support the monarchy.
I believe in ending it and establishing a Welsh republic, but there are more pressing matters to attend to at the moment. Likewise, the support for a Welsh republic is absent at present. That will have to be built over time and may well take place after an alternative accomodation is found for Wales within a federated UK.
I also believe that if I was not a Welsh nationalist, I would seek a British republic of some kind. Nonetheless, the national dimension is part of the “appeal” so to speak. It makes sense to have Welsh institutions rather than essentially English institutions. I appreciate that in Scotland the position is different, as their monarchy was united/bought out/sold out (depending on your view) rather than murdered.
On both issues – monarchy and Welsh freedom – I am confident that the long-term direction of travel is progressive rather than regressive. But ultimately, the people have to decide. All we can do is make the arguments and make the case. Articles like this are a good contribution.
Duncan: “Seems we’re all republicans (apart from Daran). I’ll book the bus to London. Dave – if you would look after the guns?”
Monarchists are generally hard working people who don’t have time to read and comment on websites. And there’s more of us. And many of us are already properly armed. Bring it on, tank boy
I agree with the point of this article, but Cerith might have mentioned, as might those who disagree with him like Daran, that the monarchy legitimises things like the class system, the aristocracy and the system of inheritance of titles, land, privilege etc. by a small number of people. It by extension legitimises the values attached to those things, and discussion of the personality of the Queen or the Royals, and even their cost to the taxpayer or their human peccadilloes, is basically secondary chatter by comparison with the huge symbolic and practical power that the institution wields over the national consciousness.
Most of this power, and the attendant deference, is, I’d argue, backward and unhealthy and – to a foreigner – oddly pathological and stunted.
A good case for abolishing the monarchy should be accompanied by a reminder of what else would fall away when the monarchy goes. The labour party used to do that very well – starting with Keir Hardie – but then it gave it all up to bring us Blair’s People’s Princess crap and Gordon Brown’s grovelling to Princes.
Thank you, Cerith Jones, for your contribution. I respect your point of view and believe we are the richer for it, and I know that by and large our chief agreement is in a shared view for an independent Wales.
However, I disagree with your assessment of the role of monarchy in a modern society. Moreover, when Wales does achieve independence I would prefer the country to restore its native monarchy, namely the successors and heirs of the Aberffraw legacy. I summed up my position with this post in David Melding’s “The Crown and the Presence of Absence” (13 Feb 2010)
“I agree with the sentiment that sovereignty belongs to the Welsh people, as James D pointed out in the republican response portion of his argument. However, I do not agree that this belief is in any way incompatible with a restored and constitutional monarchy, as was advocated by influential Welsh nationalist Dr. D.J. Davies, and many others.
Dr. D.J. Davies (1893 – 1956), formally a republican, argued in a 1953 article in Y Fanner, and later published in English, that a restored Welsh monarch would engender the affection and allegiance of the Welsh people, serving as a non-partisan focal point for national pride, while political parties debated and formulated policy. Dr. Davies was particularly impressed by the constitutional arrangement of Denmark. Davies advocated the elevation of a Welsh family to the position of Prince of Wales, but firmly believed that the family chosen have a history of contributing and promoting Welsh culture, and that they reside in Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_James_Davies
Siôn Jobbins, a freelance journalist and contributor to Cambrian Magazine, furthered Dr. Davies position in his 2008 article “Why not a Walsh Royal Family” which appeared in a 2008 edition of Cambria Magazine. Jobbins pondered the possibility that perhaps a junior member of the UK royal family be designated as “Prince of Wales”. Jobbins observed “people like the Monarchy, or a monarchy, in any case” and noted that many in Wales invest much interest in the English monarchy. Jobbins echoed Davies sentiments regarding the role of a Welsh monarchy when he wrote that “unless the Welsh cultural community can offer its people pageant, glamour, uniforms, symbols, medals and status and until we shatter the axis of Non-conformist dullness with daft left-wing anti-establishmentism, then who can blame Welsh people for investing their aspirations in the English royal family?”
http://www.sionjobbins.com/
However, I believe we should also canvas the thoughts of the Council of Wales, that assembly of great Welsh men who were the advisors of Llywelyn II the Last when the Prince of Wales was issued a secret message by Edward I Longshanks. Edward offered Llywelyn pardon and great estates in England if he would but denounce for him self and his decedents his throne and commitment to his people, foster his infant daughter, the Princess Gwenllain, to Edward.
The Council of Wales wrote:
“[…] the prince’s Council, if peace is to be made at all, will not countenance any departure from the premise that these cantrefs are a part of the unquestionable holding of the Prince, lying within the bounds within which the prince and his predecessors have held since the time of Camber, son of Brutus.
[…]
Moreover, it is more equitable that the true heirs should hold the said cantrefs, […] than they should be given over to strangers and newcomers, even though they may have been powerful supporters of the king’s cause.
Further, all the tenants of all the cantrefs of Wales declare with one voice that they dare not come to the king’s will, to allow him to dispose of them according to his royal majesty, for these reasons: First, because the lord king has kept neither treaty nor oath nor charter towards their lord prince and themselves from the beginning. Second, because the king’s men have used the most cruel tyranny against ecclesiastical establishments and persons. Third, that they cannot be bound by the offered terms, since they are
liegemen of the prince, who is prepared to hold the said lands of the king by customary service.
As to the demand that the prince shall submit absolutely to the king’s will, we reply that since not one man of the aforesaid cantrefs would dare to submit himself to that will, neither will the community of Wales permit its prince to do so upon such terms.”
-Garth Celyn, Wales, 11 November 1282
http://www.llywelyn.co.uk/6.html
It should be noted that there exists today a legal and recognized descendent, an heir if you would, of the ancient Kings of Wales, through Rhodri the Great, Gruffydd ap Cynan, Owain Gwynedd (the first to use the title “Prince of the Welsh”) and others. The representative lives in Wales, and contributes to Welsh social life. I would recommend this individual as a prospective “Prince of Wales”, who would reside full time in Wales and daily highlight Welsh society and contributions.”
-What is the value in a Welsh constitutional monarchy?
A Welsh monarch would provide a living non-partisan focus of national identity above the far too often divisive political debates and elections. In a Wales with four major parties, a constitutional head of state would transcend election cycles and party bickering in a way that an elective head of state could not. An elective head of state would owe his office to only a portion of the electorate, and therefore could not possibly unify the nation in the same manner as a hereditary monarch could.
I believe a monarchy represents the most fundamental keystone of Western, and indeed all, society, and that is the family. A family represents our past, our present, and our future. I believe that a monarchy simultaneously represents our past, our present, and our future, but on a national level. I believe that there would be a sense of nostalgia and pride in restoring a descendent of the House of Aberffraw to a Welsh monarchy, and a sense of historic justice too
-Why is the hereditary principle for the monarchy important?
Hereditary primogeniture demonstrates a clear, transparent, and predictable line of succession for the office of monarch. Hereditary primogeniture reassures the nation by providing a smooth transition from one head of state to another, without divisive elections and campaigning. Hereditary monarchy allows the nation to witness and participate in the growth and maturity of members of the royal family. Additionally, as the Welsh nation celebrates the social holidays and other social benchmarks that we in society mark time by, the people and the monarch share in the experience together. Hereditary primogeniture has been practiced in Wales since the 6th and 7th centuries, if not earlier, well until the Edwardian Conquest in the late 13th century.
A restored Welsh monarchy would be more streamlined and egalitarian, without the excesses of the imperial UK monarchy. Moreover, a Welsh monarchy would not need to cost any more then an elective presidential office would.
It should be noted that in Scandinavia, Netherlands, and Spain, a progressive, egalitarian, mature society is positively in favor of their monarchy, and there is no threat to their constitutional arrangement. Their monarchs remain highly popular with the people, and the people are greatly interested in their royal families. I want a similar relationship for a Welsh Prince and Princess of Wales and a Welsh Royal Family resident in Wales year round, perhaps in the ‘Villa Cardiff’
As for republics… It should be noted that France is in its Fifth Republic, and Germany is in its Fourth Republic. Moreover, most of the worlds so called republics are in fact dictatorships, which have little to recommend them. Most of the worlds most stable, democratic and free societies are found under the constitutional monarchy framework.
One last comment. To be frank, you turn off more people from your cause when you refer to Queen Elizabeth as “Mrs. Windsor”. The truth is, republican or not, most people believe that she has preformed her responsibilities with grace and dignity which disarms even the most ardent of republicans… many of whom have themselves accepted knighhoods and other honors. I respect the Queen of England, and I wish success to her son the Duke of Cornwall.
But…
I want an independent Wales with its own hereditary constitutional monarch, and his or her royal family, resident in Wales.
In East Berlin in 1951, I was approached by a shabby Geman and asked about the British Crown. I told him that we had a Revolution long before and had taken all the power from the Crown. Now it was a symbolic figurehead for the Nation which enabled he orderly transfer of power between politicians according to the democratically determined will of the people. (I may or may not have added that democracy is a con trick by politicians to get the power of the people into the hands of the politicians). People like MPs and councillors were required to take an oath of loyalty to the crowned head, but the Crown had to take an oath to serve the people so there was not much problem there.
This man was obviously someone’s spy, but whose? An American agent or the other side? I told him that often in the War my father had told me that we must not hate the Germans. Pre-war his best friend had been a German who had disappeared into a concentration camp. It was important to hate the fascists, not the Germans.
A couple of weeks before I left for East Berlin my mother had said to me that Len Wincott should never have been recruited into the Communist Party, he was a Political innocent. For the first three months of my life, my parents had shared their flat with Len who looked after me while they were out working. It was impossible for Len, the enabler of the Invergordon Mutiny, to get a job in Britain. He had eventually been found a job in Russia as doorman at a Soviet Naval Officers’ Club probably through the agency of International Labour Defence. Somehow Len came into that East Berlin conversation, and I told the shabby German what my mother had said.
Later it came out that Len had been incarcerated in a Gulag in 1946, and was not let out for eight years. I now think that shabby man was my father’s German friend seeking information to get Len released from Stalin’s Gulag. How had they made contact across the Iron curtain so that May Thomas could prime me to innocently pass on that message?
You might puzzle out how it was that the mutineer was handed his discharge papers by a chief petty officer in the British Royal Navy with the comment: “You are now entitled to claim the dole,” but was incarcerated for eight years as the result of paranoid suspicion by the USSR.
From a politician’s point of view a big benefit from a professionally well indoctrinated heredity head of state is their willingness to be distractions to the assassins’ bombs and bullets.
It would be better to write a denunciation of the creeps to selection commitees who end up as Members of Parliament. And to discuss how a second House might be selected without getting the same class of creeps to run it. For instance, those hereditary peers who voted against the Poll Tax should still be members in the House of Lords. Those who acted in their own self interest and voted for Poll Tax should be severely penalised losing more than their seats.
But the best answer was preached in about 1887 near Pontypridd when Sam Mainwaring Sr brought socialism and anti-parliamentarianism to our notice.
The British monarchy is just one of those institutions where there is no middle in its regard. Either it is a outdated anachronism that is well past its sell by date and legitimizes a nefarious class system, or it’s a venerated tradition that is above politics and exists for the people to unite around.
From the comments I have read there is no middle ground, no reform. I have made my own concerns plain. Its not the heredity monarchy itself that is the problem, but the power that goes with it. Its the fact that it is not a constitutional monarchy in sense that Spain, Japan and the Scandinavian ones are. It’s a unconstitutional one with powers that reside within the executive (prime minister). Which probably why the main two powers are reluctant to change it.
They would lose too much power? Then there is the issue of native Welsh monarchy suggested by David Llewellyn and Sion Jobbins (which I read in another post was rather disparaged unfairly I thought). That had been suggested by DJ Davies in the 1950s. Using a descendant of the House of Aberthaw. Great, it’s probably some degenerate aristo!There is a third alternative, though. It’s commonly forgotten that the Anglo Saxon monarchy was elective (a principle that has survived in the current set up). Harold Godwinson (of blessed memory) as well as Edgar Atheling were elected by the Witan? Harold had no royal bloodline.
Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England was “elective” within the Wessex family (much like it is elective within the Saud royal family today); just look at the family tree of the house of Wessex (the ruling family before the Normans) and you can discern the pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wessex_family_tree#House_of_Wessex_family_tree
Though it may have been “elective”, it really was more or less hereditary with the expected heir usually the son of the prior monarch unless some unforeseen circumstance interrupted the customary inheritance, then it was usually a family member or someone closely associated with the family. The Witan more or less confirmed the prospective king. Harold Godwinson was himself a member of the Wessex family, his father was an Earl of Wessex and a member of the Wessex nobility.
An elective head-of-state has the disadvantage of devolving into petty smear campaigns between rival political parties during the elective cycles, an all too common feature in Western democracy. Character assignation is the name of the game. Discredit your opponent and his/her manifesto, no matter how well intentioned they are or how good their ideas may be. Even the most enlightened of these professional politicians have something distasteful about them, like the taste of blood in the mouth. They are after their own aggrandisement. Elective heads-of-state are plagued with the double issues of uncertainty in an elective outcome, and the prospect of illegitimacy by a significant portion of the electorate. These are hallmarks of instability, which often descends into chaos rather quickly. Look at all the so-called strong presidential heads-of-state. As I said, most of the worlds so called democratic republics are dictatorships in one form or another.
I like politicians in so much as they are the peoples’ representatives and they should reflect the democratic collective will (with minority interests protected) of the people. I believe it is the right and responsibility for every citizen to get out and vote. But the job of head-of-state, in my view, should be removed from an elective office precisely because it would attract the demagogue and populist, rather then the pure altruistic.
Hereditary monarchy avoids these pitfalls and should instill within the monarch and his/her prospective heirs, a personal mission to reach out to all of the people, to be a non-partisan focal point for national pride. When times of crisis demands it, the monarch may use his reserve powers to help transcend one government into another, using precedent and protocol… much like the Speaker of the House uses his voting authority to follow a predetermined and predictable path known as “Speaker Denison’s rule”.
I very much like the model of Spain. When Wales is independent, I would that the Welsh crown’s roles and responsibilities are similar as enshrined within the Spanish constitution of 1978, which separates the Crown from the Government. The Spanish constitution would also be an excellent template for a prospective English constitution, in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_monarch
In the Spanish constitution, the monarch has all the customary roles of the head of state as one might expect. After elections, the monarch nominates a candidate for presidency of the Spanish government. His nomination is after he has consulted with the Speaker of the Congress and with the leaders of the political parties in Congress, but otherwise it is his personal choice. By unwritten political custom with the force of expectation today, the king’s nominees have all be the leader of the party whose party controls a plurality of seats in Congress. The Congress formally endorses the candidate, who then is appointed by the monarch.
The monarch does not read the president’s prepared speech from the throne… the monarch is his own man in Spain. Once appointed, the president forms his government which effectively governs until the next general election, which can be no longer then four years away.
Just a point of clarity: Dr. DJ Davies of Plaid Cymru recommended a native Welsh family and mentioned the Rhys family of Dinefwr (perhaps unaware of the Aberffraw descendent living in Gwynedd). The Dinefwr family was dynastically junior rivals to the Aberffraw family, and their claims are thus junior to the Aberffraw position. Sion Jobbins pondered the possibility of a junior member of the current UK royal family as starting a new line in Wales, like the Norwegians did in 1905 when they invited a junior member of the Danish royal family to become their king.
According to Burke’s Peerage, the heir of the Aberffraw legacy resides at Ty Mawr, Tywyn, Gwynedd. Attending the University of Wales, he received his Bachelor of Science in 1967, and his Diploma of Education 1968, and entered into the academic field thereafter. Though a scone for the royal house of Wales, he is more or less like any in the academic field.