Always felt that the European Union was a valuable sanity check on the UK’s (and other nations’) erratic politicians. Now that it’s gone (for U.K.), I suspect that many look to the monarch to fulfil a similar role. The monarchy’s connection to the military establishment, though symbolic, probably feeds this perception, however fatuous it may be.
Yes, the crown kinda owns most swans. It dates back to when they were eaten in feasts (no longer). Now its meaningless. It is just a way of saying they are a protected species
Perhaps the monarchy’s irrelevance, in terms of political power, is the secret of its success and the reason to keep it. This is a variation of the ‘continuity’ argument you dislike but there is a virtue in having a locus of authority above the day to day political fray and which generally does good work. Strengthening the role of the second chamber might be a more efficient way forward.
The monarchy is an amazing marketing device. Britain is a small island/country, but the coronation has gained saturation coverage here in the US and all the networks were glued to the event. (And America rarely even notices the rest of the world). These royal events are quite simply a fabulous show. There's nothing like them anywhere, and people around the world love them. That can only help the British brand, surely? One might just as well ask what's the point of, say, the Oscars? (Answer: It helps marketnHollywood and its products). You can't buy this type of publicity. Sorry to be cynical or mercantile, but there it is.
In my one visit to the UK, I stayed with English friends in London. I learned from them and from English readers' comments on the internet that British monarchs are sacrosanct. You can't even criticize their clothes. (I mentioned the Queen's weird helmet-hat at Prince Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales and was answered by glares and harrumphs.) I don't think Brits understand the entirely different mindset of people who live in a republic.
A little exaggerated I think - you overlook the influence Charles can exert in international affairs both as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, especially on issues such as climate change. This will always be in accordance with the wishes of the government of the day, but it’s hard to deny that many foreign government are susceptible to a bit of royal cajoling.
Always felt that the European Union was a valuable sanity check on the UK’s (and other nations’) erratic politicians. Now that it’s gone (for U.K.), I suspect that many look to the monarch to fulfil a similar role. The monarchy’s connection to the military establishment, though symbolic, probably feeds this perception, however fatuous it may be.
Yes, the crown kinda owns most swans. It dates back to when they were eaten in feasts (no longer). Now its meaningless. It is just a way of saying they are a protected species
Perhaps the monarchy’s irrelevance, in terms of political power, is the secret of its success and the reason to keep it. This is a variation of the ‘continuity’ argument you dislike but there is a virtue in having a locus of authority above the day to day political fray and which generally does good work. Strengthening the role of the second chamber might be a more efficient way forward.
Seems like Brits are lost and searching for identity. Maybe Monarchy-fluid would be more appropriate?
The monarchy is an amazing marketing device. Britain is a small island/country, but the coronation has gained saturation coverage here in the US and all the networks were glued to the event. (And America rarely even notices the rest of the world). These royal events are quite simply a fabulous show. There's nothing like them anywhere, and people around the world love them. That can only help the British brand, surely? One might just as well ask what's the point of, say, the Oscars? (Answer: It helps marketnHollywood and its products). You can't buy this type of publicity. Sorry to be cynical or mercantile, but there it is.
In my one visit to the UK, I stayed with English friends in London. I learned from them and from English readers' comments on the internet that British monarchs are sacrosanct. You can't even criticize their clothes. (I mentioned the Queen's weird helmet-hat at Prince Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales and was answered by glares and harrumphs.) I don't think Brits understand the entirely different mindset of people who live in a republic.
A little exaggerated I think - you overlook the influence Charles can exert in international affairs both as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, especially on issues such as climate change. This will always be in accordance with the wishes of the government of the day, but it’s hard to deny that many foreign government are susceptible to a bit of royal cajoling.