Why I am a Royalist
Seems it a popular choice of my generation to be a republican.
But I am staunchly a loyal Royalist:
1. While it is true that the Monarch has some terrifying political power over the Parliament, she knows that to use them means she'll lose them. So as much as we are her subjects, she is our servant.
If we had a President there would be many limits on the ability of Parliament and the People to replace them. Nixon lasted almost two years from the first allegations appeared in the Washington Post until he finally resigned he could have probably stalled for another six months. Clinton went a year from Congress first initiating Impeachment Proceedings to the actual Senate vote. Clinton also pardoned his brother in his last days of office, when no effective means of revoking or punishing him for abuse of his power existed.
2. When you get down to it, a President is just the most popular choice. Even one chosen by a majority is one appointed against the wishes of 45% of the population. By maintaining her dignity and aloofness from our daily lives, and by being actively involved in the community, the Queen and the Royal Family is probably admired by most Republicans.
3. While some see the Monarchy as outdated, Prince Charles wants to "Defender of Faith", not "Defender of the Faith" - that he wants to be an advocate for religious freedom. The requirement that the Monarch be the first born male has been removed so that the first born will ascend to the Throne.
4. We don't pay for the Queen - all we pay for is the upkeep of two Government Buildings, a small staff, expenses related to the duties and the salary for the GG. A President would need a larger staff and would undertake more duties. We do pay for the Queen when she visits us, but if she visited us as a Republic, we still would have to put up the dosh for that, like we do for any other head of state.
5. If we ditch the Head of State that Britain has, Britain might not feel the need to be so loyal. Prince Edward lobbied all the European Countries to vote for Sydney as the Olympic Host City for 2000 (after Manchester lost in a early round). Given the closeness of the vote, that was vital in shoring up support for Australia.
But I am staunchly a loyal Royalist:
1. While it is true that the Monarch has some terrifying political power over the Parliament, she knows that to use them means she'll lose them. So as much as we are her subjects, she is our servant.
If we had a President there would be many limits on the ability of Parliament and the People to replace them. Nixon lasted almost two years from the first allegations appeared in the Washington Post until he finally resigned he could have probably stalled for another six months. Clinton went a year from Congress first initiating Impeachment Proceedings to the actual Senate vote. Clinton also pardoned his brother in his last days of office, when no effective means of revoking or punishing him for abuse of his power existed.
2. When you get down to it, a President is just the most popular choice. Even one chosen by a majority is one appointed against the wishes of 45% of the population. By maintaining her dignity and aloofness from our daily lives, and by being actively involved in the community, the Queen and the Royal Family is probably admired by most Republicans.
3. While some see the Monarchy as outdated, Prince Charles wants to "Defender of Faith", not "Defender of the Faith" - that he wants to be an advocate for religious freedom. The requirement that the Monarch be the first born male has been removed so that the first born will ascend to the Throne.
4. We don't pay for the Queen - all we pay for is the upkeep of two Government Buildings, a small staff, expenses related to the duties and the salary for the GG. A President would need a larger staff and would undertake more duties. We do pay for the Queen when she visits us, but if she visited us as a Republic, we still would have to put up the dosh for that, like we do for any other head of state.
5. If we ditch the Head of State that Britain has, Britain might not feel the need to be so loyal. Prince Edward lobbied all the European Countries to vote for Sydney as the Olympic Host City for 2000 (after Manchester lost in a early round). Given the closeness of the vote, that was vital in shoring up support for Australia.
posted by Michael at
8:35 PM
2 Comments:
I'll write a point-by-point rebuttal of this for you Michael :-)
By
Lewis, at 11:50 AM
And here it is
By
Lewis, at 2:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home