Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Monarchies and Republics

I was thinking more about the relative merits of monarchies and republics and it seems to me that there is some force in the argument that monarchies, set within a democracy, have a great deal going for them: the nation is just about guaranteed a leader who will be well educated and who knows how to behave in an international setting. They might not always be the brightest or the most morally upright but monarchs are bound to a duty to which they are born; whereas every President has clawed his way to the top in the thirst for power and prestige. I know which I prefer. Moreover, having a monarchy means that the UK will never end up with some ghastly screwball as a head of state: President Mandelson or First Lady "Our Cherry" Blair.


  1. "Moreover, having a monarchy means that the UK will never end up with some ghastly screwball as a head of state..."

    Oh, what about the "Defender of Faiths [sic]?" The list of idiotic things that Prince Chuck has said and/or believes is exceeded only by his father's verbal blunderings. Perhaps you are assuming Chuck will never be crowned?

  2. We all make mistakes. His biggest were in handling the love triangle, involving his then wife and the then Mrs P-B; or was it it some other geometrical pattern, bearing in mind his then wife's own rampant behaviour with some very unsuitable men? Moreover, George IV and Queen Caroline made an even bigger and even more public mess of their marriage. I think that proposing that he be 'Defender of Faiths' was well-meant but misconceived because the UK is, practically, a secular society, and the constitution of the state should, probably, reflect that fact by disestablishing the pathetic Church of England and leaving it at that. There is far too much nonsense talked about the PoW not becoming King, all flowing from that idiotic television interview that the Princess gave. Whether the Church of England remain established or not, it is still God's Will whether the PoW be King.