This is not a constitution, it is headwear.
No, not a member of the fascistic Republican Party.
I refer to the original meaning of, republicanism, the political ideology that emphasizes the importance of a system of government in which political power is held by the people via their elected representatives rather than a dynastic monarch and inherited aristocracy.
I’m an American ex-pat living in the idyllic English countryside and it is a wonderful place to live. I love the idea of being the outsider and viewing the local culture as if a silent anthropologist.
This week the village high streets are all decorated with red, white and blue bunting and Union Flags with the local schools, community centers and media really trying their hardest to gin up the spirit of national patriotism. It’s all fun and games and I like BBQ and fireworks but something strange has happened.
I am thinking that all the years of patriotic indoctrination in American public elementary schools finally kicked in.
Members of the public watching the coronation on television will swear aloud their allegiance to the monarch in a “chorus of millions of voices” to be known as the “Homage of the People”.
“I swear that I will pay true allegiance to your majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God”
www.theguardian.com/...
You would think that this debate was long over with the American, French and Russian Revolutions but for historical reasons, not in the United Kingdom.
I know people say the UK is a “constitutional monarchy” in which the King serves as the ceremonial head of the state while the day-to-day governing is carried out by an elected Parliament and the role is just ceremonial.
You may want to imagine that… however, in reality the King has massive influence over the politics of nation. He cannot issue decrees or anything that remotely resembles an edict but he does have political power.
The royals have power and influence and seek to exercise it at every opportuity. It may not be in the form of formal constitutional power – most of that these days is exercised by the prime minister (another problem with the monarchy). The power the royals have is that of access and secrecy, the opportunity to influence behind closed doors and beyond any meaningful public scrutiny.
www.theguardian.com/...
So what does the King actually do besides own very large sums of undisclosed assets and lands that is exempt from taxation?
Well, following the annual State Opening of Parliament ceremony, King Charles III is required to open Parliament in person, and deliver the King's Speech (akin to the American State of the Union).
He ceremonially appoints prime ministers, and members to the House of Lords (that’s another story) and will holds regular private meetings with the Prime Minister, usually weekly on a Wednesday.
The monarch also acts as the head of the Privy Council, which usually meets once a month. This is the oldest form of legislative assembly that is still functioning in the UK. They are responsible for a number of executive responsibilities and King Charles' presence is needed as during each meeting, the Council obtains the King’s formal approval to orders which have already been discussed and approved by ministers.
He will also have to approve proclamations through Council – which are formal notices cover issues such as the summoning of a new Parliament, creating coinage and choosing the dates of certain bank holidays.
By the way, there is absolutely no separation between Church and State. The supreme governor of the Church of England has been the British monarch since the split with the Pope in 1534.
So, the idea that the King is a simple figurehead without political power is not true.
Mr. Charles Windsor may be a very nice guy with liberal and progressive ideas on the environment and social justice but he is still the head of an unelected and hereditary institution that is based on privilege rather than merit.
It is an outdated and undemocratic system that is incompatible with modern values of equality and fairness. The monarchy is not accountable to the people and is not subject to democratic scrutiny. Members of the royal family are not elected or appointed based on their qualifications, but rather by birthright.
The monarchy is expensive to maintain, with the royal family receiving millions of pounds in public funding each year. Money could be better spent on public services.
The monarchy represents a system of inherited privilege and class hierarchy, which is seen as incompatible with modern values of equality and fairness. The existence of the monarchy perpetuates social divisions and reinforces the idea that some people are born more deserving than others. The royal family does not reflect the diversity of modern British society and contrasts with a country that prides itself on its multiculturalism and inclusivity.
Anyway, I had to vent this week.
