I posted this Tweet last night:
Let's be honest: stand back and appraise this rationally and it's bonkers pic.twitter.com/gyZAWjnQwp
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) May 8, 2023
On reflection, I think I understated my case.
We spent £250 million to let this lot play in the dressing up box. And that does not include the cost of an unnecessary bank holiday.
But that is not the worst of it. That worst bit is that we are meant to suspend our disbelief and think that these people, as deeply flawed and vulnerable as the rest of us are, do somehow enjoy a special right to govern.
What is more, we are expected to accept that in their name our government may act without the consent of parliament using what is called ‘the royal prerogative'.
And now we are not allowed to protest about that.
I admit to preferring the idea of grown up government to this fairytale fantasy come nightmare where the supposed best is used to abuse us all using what are now called ‘Henry VIII' powers, where the addition of a king's name apparently permits ministers to rule by decree.
There is widespread consent that the UK does not work now unless, that is, you are one of a small and wealthy elite. Royalty symbolises that elite. But they do more than that. They permit authoritarian government. And they permit government by fairy tale where clearly false narratives - like growth can last forever or that increasing the price of money will solve inflation imported from other countries - can be accepted even though they are very obviously harmful. The demand that we accept a fiction at the very heart of government permits widespread government by falsehood, in other words.
There are many reasons to support constitutional reform that would embrace a republic. This is one of them, I suggest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You’re protesting online about this.
I’ve grumbled about their private property privileges during office chat
And recently protested with placards from the pavement – no amps mind.
All permitted.
So your claim that we are not allowed to protest isn’t quite what you imply.
Why are you choosing to ignore events this weekend under new laws?
The last thing John any movement for change needs is an argument amongst itself as to who is doing more or whatever than the other. It’s recipe for disaster.
So just keep doing what you are doing and let Richard do what he is doing – alright? That’s how things might change eh? Hmmm?
And good for you that you weren’t carted off by the police.
Yet.
£250 million : That would be wages for 5,000 nurses for one year.
But the gov has no money, unless it is to piss at a bunch of royal half wits.
Tells you all you need to know.
That said, Uk peasants get what they deserve. The article by Harris in the G’ had an interesting video embedded – showing simpering Uk serfs, my god, they would drinks royal piss if it was offered to them – pathetic stuff – the end result of a lifetime of being brainwashed, good grief the country is in a dire state.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/07/tories-royals-natural-rulers-out-of-touch
Yes, it is bonkers – even as an 11 year old I thought it was bonkers. (The Queen visited my school and I declined to attend…. and, to be fair, the school respected my position).
However, this is not an issue over which to “draw a line in the sand” – health, environment, economic policy are. Whilst the popularity of Royalty is in decline very few are strongly “anti” and if we focus on this issue it is a gift to The Right as we are labelled “unpatriotic”.
I also think constitutional reform (PR, not FPTP in particular) is important and I fear that it will just descend into a “Republic v Monarchy” debate which we will lose.
Finally, on the protest legislation. I deplore it, too…. but, again, I fear that it is getting conflated with the Republic/Monarchy issue. I would rather fight it on the right to protest a “life and death” issue (environment, health, economics etc.) rather than this.
So, in conclusion – I agree with you…. but there are bigger fish to fry – or at least different battlefields on which to make a stand.
But they form part of a whole at the end of the day
“In a republic worthy of its name to publish one’s thoughts is the natural right of the citizen. One can use his pen as his voice; it should not be forbidden to write than to speak; and offenses committed with his pen must be punished like offenses committed with the word: such as the law in England, a monarchical country, but where men are more free than elsewhere, because they are more enlightened.”
Well times have truly changed.
I am a member of republic and I have some leaflets to distribute which I am trying to pluck up the courage to post around my neighbourhood. I nearly did it on Saturday, but I was honestly afraid of the anger I would attract from the very militant royalists that seem to be around a lot of places in our country.
We made an effort to get away camping this weekend, but even when staying in a field, we ended up getting invited to a coronation event. The propaganda being put out on TV was nauseating.
I think the problem with republicanism in general perhaps is that we don’t attach enough importance to the democracy element of it. We are not “anti-monarchy” we are in fact “pro-democracy.” I believe strongly in promoting the ability of the people to choose their own rulers. Monarchy in its current form prevents that. As such, being pro-monarchy is the same as being anti-democratic.
Those most pro-monarchy should be called out more on those anti democratic credentials, and we should have more debates on the merits of democratic institutions. It’s really nothing to do with Charles, or William, or Harry, or any of the rest of them.
“What is more, we are expected to accept that in their name our government may act without the consent of parliament using what is called ‘the royal prerogative'”.
Ah, ‘the royal prerogative’; now that is the essence of the matter. The Crown conveniently provides a layer of dense fog, a show, a display that Bagehot called the “dignified” part of the Constitution (well, not entirely dignified either before of after the Victorian effort to present a picture of high respectability, but the Show Goes On); with the sole purpose “to excite and preserve the reverence of the population” (Bagehot, ‘The English Constitution’, 1867). The “efficient” element of the Constitution was to be found elsewhere; a distinction that still retains some broad utility, at least helping to focus our attention on where the peculiar, decisive powers of the Crown prerogative now really reside.
Follow the money: the House of Commons (then Cabinet, PM or whomsoever commands the Commons majority), rose to preside over all through the House of Commons command of all functioning Crown and Government money power. The Crown prerogative now resides somewhere vague and elusive, behind a metaphysical presence described as ‘the Crown in Parliament’, that you will not be able to identify anywhere or in anything specific, but appears in these ingenious processes through which Government is exercised through Orders in Council, Privy Council ; or even more elusively shadowy processes you never see, perhaps will never know were exercised, and detect only in retrospect: if you can discern the consequences of decisions made.