Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Do you understand what a constitutional monarchy means?

82 replies

ShrikeAttack · 09/03/2021 02:01

Do you?

I'm not sure many people actually understand what it means in terms of the UK and its political system.

I'm pretty sure why thats why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are coming unstuck.

It's a social contract. The Royal Family can't really say or do anything. They are an unelected head of state who have to adhere to the rules, as stated.

They have all the pomp and ceremony, but they never had much choice.

They present the country.

OP posts:
ChameleonClara · 09/03/2021 09:10

People do understand constitutional monarchy, they just don't agree.

GalesThisMorning · 09/03/2021 09:18

Yup. A nominal president or head of state is a fairly easy thing to enact. Also - laws and societal structures have changed quite a lot since the 1200s! Why can't we change them?

I'm n ot being snarky, I generally don't understand. What essential function do they serve? What laws would be impossible to unpick or change? Why would it be so difficult to get rid?

ShrikeAttack · 09/03/2021 09:20

No @ChameleonClara, they are the antithesis of special, that's rather the point.

They are just there, they don't have volition, or choices, and they are rewarded. That's the contract.

They serve us. This is why Meghan is fundamentally confused. Despite the outward appearance, it's a life of duty, the trappings are just that.

OP posts:
Silurian · 09/03/2021 09:27

@ShrikeAttack

Erm, because countries that don't have a monarchy, have president as head of state, and may also have a prime minister. Also much of our law and societal structure and Parliament, from the Magna Carta onwards is predicted on a constitutional monarchy.

Plus the Queen is the Head of State for quite a few Commonwealth countries.

I'm not sure you understand what a constitutional Monarchy actually means Gales.

And the majority of countries that have abolished monarchies in the 20thc have been Commonwealth countries deciding to dispense with the Queen as HoS. It’s hardly either an insuperable problem or a reason to preserve the monarchy.
JustAnotherPoster00 · 09/03/2021 09:28

They serve us.

Nothing like someone born in unimaginable wealth sitting in front of a gold piano telling me as a disabled benefits recipient that austerity has been hard, wasnt a royalist before but at that moment bring on the revolution, and some people on these H&M threads are weird, that very rich lady doesnt give a fuck about you, more to the point she will never have heard of you and wouldnt give a shit if she did, all this weird fawning on MN at the minute and the blatant dismissal of a POC talking about racism, get a grip ffs

ShrikeAttack · 09/03/2021 09:49

If you think I'm fawning you haven't been reading my posts. I have no interest at all in any individual person within the British monarchy. I am more concerned with the structure of my own life. I'm far more privileged than the Queen, I have the choice to lead my life as I choose. I don't see the wealth of the RF to be something to be jealous of at all. It's not even liquid for a start, no member of that family has much choice how that money is used, as Harry has found out.

There's nothing to be envious of.

Of course the Queen doesn't give a fuck about me, bizarre that you think I think she does...

OP posts:
GalesThisMorning · 09/03/2021 09:59

I mean, there's service and then there's service ;-) They are not serving us well. Why not just disband the whole thing and be done with it?

PersimmonTree · 09/03/2021 10:29

One of the problems we have is that the UK has an uncodified constitution formed of multiple documents over many centuries, which leads to confusion and basically not knowing where to start, in order to get rid of what has now become a national embarrassment.

The monarch's position and privileges have evolved over time, based on customs and conventions rather than on a clear, unequivocal statement and representation of Britain and its values, which is what the country desperately needs. Britain is having an identity crisis and needs to redefine itself and stand up for what it believes in.

The lack of clarity and above all, the outrageous Sovereign Immunity and criminal secrecy that shrouds the royals is partly why we get such woolly answers and sentimental claptrap from royalists. Royalists not only do not know what the royals actually do (because nobody does, they make sure of that), but they also cannot give a single valid reason - other than their own liking for ceremony and tradition - as to why the UK, which likes to call itself a democracy, still has what is essentially a secret society as a figurehead, draining millions from the public purse as it has done for centuries.

Waspie · 09/03/2021 10:35

I always understood their role to be career diplomats. Need a head of state's feather's smoothing? Offer him a weekend at Balmoral. Natural disaster in New Zealand? Send a royal over to show that the Commonwealth is important etc.

I think Meghan's fundamental problem was that she didn't realise it was a job with terms and conditions of service. Although the RF really should have made them sign a NDA. I'm sure they will in future. If there is a future.

I used to be a republican (and philosophically still am) but I then saw what having an elected President with immense power did the U.S. and I started feeling rather warmer towards the Queen.

I do think that once she dies we should look more to a Scandi style of relaxed Royal family. And cut it back to just the monarch and the direct heir. Get rid of the hangers on.

Wondermule · 09/03/2021 10:38

You obviously missed this Op

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

PersimmonTree · 09/03/2021 10:42

@Waspie Nobody would want a US-style presidency, but happily that is not the only option.

How about asking the Irish what they think of their President?

Waspie · 09/03/2021 11:02

The monarch is Head of State of not just this country but symbolic head of state of many commonwealth countries. Presumably they get to vote for the new, elected, President too? It's a rabbit hole.

The simplest option is to just cut back the royal family; make the roles defined diplomatic jobs on behalf of the people and government.

Eventually by gradually reducing the roles we can get rid of them altogether and replace with a republic.

I just think that an enormous cull of the whole RF will leave a gigantic hole in the patronage, ribbon cutting, turning up and waving jobs which the RF currently do whereas a phased reduction would be easier to manage.

Silurian · 09/03/2021 11:23

[quote PersimmonTree]@Waspie Nobody would want a US-style presidency, but happily that is not the only option.

How about asking the Irish what they think of their President?[/quote]
I'm Irish. Michael D Higgins enjoys widespread liking and support.

After his first term of office, he was re-elected for a second (and final permitted) term by a landslide. He's from a poor farming background, was the first in his family to go to university, and has had a varied career as an academic, poet, broadcaster, and latterly politician and senator before becoming president. He has done a lot of worthwhile campaigning for human rights. He asked to have his salary cut by 23% in order to bring it into line with the top tier of the civil service, and he's voluntarily handed his ministerial and TD pensions to the state.

I personally don't feel as strongly about him as I did Mary Robinson, who was an extraordinary president, and the first I was eligible to vote for, but he's a warmly-regarded and unifying figure in general. And largely ceremonial the Irish president isn't even nominally the chief executive, that power is invested in the Dáil but has some powers in terms of dissolving parliament, signing bills into law etc.

PersimmonTree · 09/03/2021 11:34

@Silurian I started another thread specifically, and they said similar.

Basically yours are cool, ours are cringe. And so very divisive.

@Waspie: any idiot can cut a ribbon (but there are plenty of local heroes who aren't idiots who can do it too). I just do not understand that argument, sorry.

BasiliskStare · 09/03/2021 14:29

OK - I'll come out here -

I like the Queen - she has done 70 years of service & if I am honest at 90 odd I would prefer to retire

If I had my choice I would prefer Princess Anne to take over from her - but not an option. It is Charles. Let us hope as and when the time comes ( & I hope it is a long time hence ( he channels his mother)

& by then William will have grown up a bit and will do a decent job.

PamDenick · 10/03/2021 00:01

I'm not sure Harry understands a constitutional monarchy.

When he was spluttering, "Bah, I wasn't even allowed to vote!!!" just before the US election, he doesn't seem to have had any history lessons - well, that's the trade off your family took for being allowed to be back on the throne. Does Oprah not realise that either?

Malteser71 · 10/03/2021 00:13

I don’t blame Harry for escaping. As he says, his father and brother cannot.

But it’s abundantly clear that many of his complaints pertain to the constitution rather than individuals.

He thinks Meghan has saved him, he didn’t know he needed saving. She casually dropped in ‘I like rescuing things!’

They both come across as though ‘wise old Meghan’ walked in and noticed it was all a bit weird. She rescued Harry, he has tried to rescue others. ‘We tried to protect them.’

Does is never occur to them that a centuries old monarchy doesn’t need to be rescued?

picklemewalnuts · 10/03/2021 07:36

What frustrates me is they could have got out, lived differently, without all this drama. A gradual cutting down of engagements and they'd have been quietly dropped. They could have lived quietly without any problems at all. It was the attempt to be highly visible but independent that scotched it all.

Carolina24 · 10/03/2021 07:43

There are so many incorrect things stated as facts in this thread alone, it proves people (OP included) truly don’t understand the intricacies of the monarchy.

Silurian · 10/03/2021 12:46

He thinks Meghan has saved him, he didn’t know he needed saving. She casually dropped in ‘I like rescuing things!’

They both come across as though ‘wise old Meghan’ walked in and noticed it was all a bit weird. She rescued Harry, he has tried to rescue others. ‘We tried to protect them.’

Does is never occur to them that a centuries old monarchy doesn’t need to be rescued?

Well, I think that has to be their joint narrative of what happened, otherwise we're left with Meghan complaining about the racism to which she and their then unborn child were subjected while entirely ignoring the fact that Harry was officially reprimanded by his regiment for calling one of his unit 'our little P*ki friend' on video, and calling another a 'raghead', and also attended a 'Colonials and Natives' party, and presumably also William's 'Out of Africa' 21st birthday party.

The narrative has to be that Harry didn't realise the gravity of any of this, or how 'trapped' he was in duties as well as normalised racism, before Meghan rescued him and he 'educated' himself away from the norms of his family and his milieu.

Otherwise Meghan has just wrecked her own life by marrying a titled yobbo who throws around racial slurs and thinks it's fine to dress up in grass skirts or Nazi desert uniforms, because it's all good fun.

PamDenick · 10/03/2021 18:56

Oooh - yes, Harry doesn't come across as super smart, does he?

ByGaslight · 15/03/2021 13:19

Sorry, long post, ignore at will. I wonder how much of the current row about Harry and Meghan is partly about a misunderstanding of the role of the UK monarchy – there seems to be a romantic idea in the U.S. media that they have powers which they don’t, based more on a Disney idea of kings and queens than on reality, and heavily influenced by celebrity culture mythologies of being who you want to be.

As pp have said, the British monarchy now are people whose only job is to embody and represent the British state. They have zero independent power (which is why H & M’s apparent plan to be some sort of independent branch of the monarchy was impossible) – their titles are just made up, no-one can use old titles the nobility had as anything but symbolic decoration any more, you can’t go into a shop and say ‘Serve me first, I’m the Duke of Wotsit’, people would laugh.

I think it’s very desirable to have a symbolic head of state disconnected from the party political system, because you want to be able to freely throw rotten fruit at the current government in power while having someone different do the ceremonial bit. Ideally the appointment of the symbolic head of state would be as free from lobbying and electioneering and financial influences as possible. That’s not enough of a reason to continue with the monarchy though.

Because we have this purely symbolic family as representatives of the British state, and because we live in a (social) media celebrity culture age, what they say, do and appear to believe has become exposed in a new way, whether we like it or not. The days in which the royals could be somehow quietly ‘representative’ seem to have gone – that’s why everyone is so upset on all sides I think, because ‘they’ are ‘us’.

I don’t think the issue with the Meghan and Harry publicity is about H & M ‘personally’, it’s falling into the celebrity culture trap to think the solution is about whether they are personally sincere or ‘right’ or hypocritical or not. It doesn’t matter, any more than it matters what the Queen is ‘really like’. It doesn’t matter whether ‘in real life’ the royals are dull, upper-class old buffers with all the prejudices of their social class or whether M & H are self-indulgent and mistaken.

They are all symbolic and the system is designed like that. So it’s momentously awful to think that any Black British citizen might be looking at the publicity concerning the royals in the last few years and believe at any level that their own state representatives have rejected a family member because of the colour of her and her children’s skin. It doesn’t matter what the individuals in the drama ‘actually think’ (and you will never really find out).

I can’t imagine there is much appetite to depose the 94-year-old Queen, and she has been an important figure in the lives of especially the wartime generations but I don’t know what the supposed next generation of a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy can do to repair things. This is before we consider Andrew or Scottish independence. I don’t see how this family can bear the continuing burden of representation.

I feel for them in a way because it’s a weird life from birth, not like being ordinary wealthy / privileged private citizens and I’d support continuing security for them and a gradual transition but I wonder how long they can continue.

I don’t want their replacement to be some kind of celebrity, though, or ex-politician or corporate grifter. I’d like our heads of state to be polite, ordinary and with a deep appreciation that it’s lovely to get a biscuit with your tea but you shouldn’t expect more.

PamDenick · 17/03/2021 22:17

Perhaps what NO ONE seems to recognise is that the role of the monarch is a FAITH based role as head of the CorE.
Katherine was confirmed shortly before her marriage and Meghan was baptised.
There are an awful lot of church services that the royals have to attend (indeed, the last official outing of the Sussexes was at Westminster Abbey for Commonwealth Service) and the queen appoints archbishops etc.
It has crossed my mind that Meghan might have thought it might have been more Met Gala and less Pews and Hymns..?

PersimmonTree · 18/03/2021 13:09

@PamDenick. With just 14.2% of the UK's population identifying as CofE and weekly UK church attendance for that religion at an all-time low, well below 1 million people per week, what is the point of having such an unrepresentative head of state? Why can't the 40 percent of atheists have their say?

PamDenick · 18/03/2021 17:36

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's fact.

We would need a new National Anthem, "God save our gracious queen…" could be… "Stay sane and healthy unelected head of state…"