Read on Twitter
It's also because we have a constitutional monarchy.
The only people we're obliged to show respect to have no real power.
Everyone else is fair game for challenge and for disrespect.
It's different where there's an elected, power-wielding, head of state. https://twitter.com/mattforde/status/1259396290120749056
The only people we're obliged to show respect to have no real power.
Everyone else is fair game for challenge and for disrespect.
It's different where there's an elected, power-wielding, head of state. https://twitter.com/mattforde/status/1259396290120749056
The monarchy also acts as a subtle check on the power of the executive.
As certain powers ought only be wielded by the sovereign, no elected government would dare wield them. But then the monarch doesn't do it either.
So its effect is to put those powers off the table.
As certain powers ought only be wielded by the sovereign, no elected government would dare wield them. But then the monarch doesn't do it either.
So its effect is to put those powers off the table.
Constitutional monarchy also helps make adversarial government - vital to both freedom and effectiveness - possible.
The government can be intensely challenged on every single step it takes by the opposition.
Because this is neither disloyal nor deleterious to stability
The government can be intensely challenged on every single step it takes by the opposition.
Because this is neither disloyal nor deleterious to stability
- both sides are ultimately loyal to the Crown and therefore to the polity.
Hence why it's "Her Majesty's Government" and "Her Majesty's *Loyal* Opposition".
And hence the layout of the House of Commons, both sides facing each other head-on, with little side between them.
Hence why it's "Her Majesty's Government" and "Her Majesty's *Loyal* Opposition".
And hence the layout of the House of Commons, both sides facing each other head-on, with little side between them.
As opposed to the semi-circular, consensus-finding rather than adversarial, layouts we usually find in the chambers of republics.
An ancient monarchy also is a unifying principle in the country, a source of allegiance above the partisan - or ethnic, or religious, etc - fray.
This keeps the community bound together, providing us with identity and inocculating against balkanisation.
This keeps the community bound together, providing us with identity and inocculating against balkanisation.
Royalty is also a check against demagoguery and intense partisanship in that, given we already have political figures to venerate for those inclined to find people to venerate, it's a lot harder for elected politicians to become foci for that instead.
Finally, insofar as the Crown - and the nobility, for that matter - see themselves and their bloodlines as inextricably tied to the land (from the ancient past to the distant future), they are able to take a longer view.
Our social contract is between the living, the dead, and the unborn.
No single generation - or ambitious / power craven government - should be able to prostitute out or dissolve our sacred inheritance for short term gain or their particular idiosyncratic vision.
No single generation - or ambitious / power craven government - should be able to prostitute out or dissolve our sacred inheritance for short term gain or their particular idiosyncratic vision.
A system where the Lords have no real power to enact provisions of their own, nor ultimately quash those proposed by the democratic chamber - but whose input is mandatory, and who have the power of delay - is one where we're never able to forget these obligations.
Turning back to the original photo: can one imagine a US President travelling without an extensive security detail, let alone being confronted like that, let alone so regularly?
There's something beautiful about a democracy under a constitutional monarchy.
It may achieve the republican ideal of liberty as freedom from the domination / arbitrary will of others better than republican government itself.
It may achieve the republican ideal of liberty as freedom from the domination / arbitrary will of others better than republican government itself.
I should elaborate on this tweet.
The point is that our system remains ultimately entirely democratic, whilst also having mechanisms to ensure we don't forget our trans-generational obligations, limit power, and so on. https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1259452394930348032?s=19
The point is that our system remains ultimately entirely democratic, whilst also having mechanisms to ensure we don't forget our trans-generational obligations, limit power, and so on. https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1259452394930348032?s=19
There is also cause to be wary of the view that the state can only be justified via popular sovereignty, as I discussed in this thread: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/935954750478090242?s=19
