
A symbol of British democracy, "The Queen shows us who isn't boss" - dnnrly
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27693589
======
midhir
It's a great article and the insight into the symbolism of the event is
fascinating.

I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament
with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid.

Nevertheless, so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and
inaccessible elite we'll never know if it is indicative of the true state of
affairs, an elaborate coverup or somewhere in-between the two.

Where I come from to question the British Monarchy is not only unpopular, it's
potentially offensive to the section of the community that considers
themselves British. Compounding that, republicanism is a dirty word with
violent connotations. Change is unlikely to come from this particular part of
the world.

Yet with the Irish Republic right down the road we have context on what a
Republic really means. One looks at the picture of President Higgins standing
in line for an ATM [1] and makes a decision right away. It either fills you
with pride or with scorn.

It looks like there's a nascent movement towards Republicanism over in the UK
but it'll be a long time coming.

1:
[https://twitter.com/AwningsIreland/status/448436785220452352...](https://twitter.com/AwningsIreland/status/448436785220452352/photo/1)

~~~
fidotron
The thing is Republicanism won't actually solve the problem you mention, of
the core group of powerful MPs being overwhelmingly representative of the
elite. If anything it will swing things further under their control.

The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards. The true
wealth is in random parts of the aristocracy that owns massive parts of west
London, but again merely turning into a republic is not going to result in
that being redistributed any more palatably than it is today.

It is a dated institution, and it is a bit odd to have people born into such a
thing, but it really isn't that actively harmful, and certainly less harmful
than a headlong rush into a worse alternative when it appears to be slowly
diminishing into irrelevance without the need of any external stimulus.

~~~
midhir
"The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards."

"it really isn't that actively harmful"

How can you be sure?

~~~
pjc50
In the list of "things actively harmful to the UK", bad behaviour and lobbying
by multinational companies and the financial services industry is fairly near
the top, while all the Royals except Charles are smart enough to stay away
from political issues most of the time.

An actual dispute about Royal Assent on a piece of popular legislation would
end in favour of Parliament fairly quickly.

~~~
midhir
Depends on your perspective I guess.

You know about the corporate lobbying. I don't think any of us have the
slightest idea what influence the Royals have over the wonks, men in grey
suits and senior members of the Government.

------
andyjohnson0
The monarchy and the wider UK constitution is like the ultimate legacy system.
Extremely hard to change because it has all grown organically and has
tentacles and interdependencies everywhere. And there's no authoritative
documentation (ie written constitution), just a whole lot of observations
about how it has always worked in the past [1].

Its worth reading about the duties of the "Queen's Remembrancer" [2], who is a
real person right now. All the bizarre stuff about knives and nails and
horseshoes and tablecloths has been going on, year after year, for over 800
years. Like some kind of autonomous system that nobody knows how to shut down
any more.

So I find the British constitution quite fascinating, in the same way that
some really old software from the early sixties but still in use somehow,
would be fascinating. Unless you power the whole thing down (revolution) all
you can really do is change it slowly. I sometimes wonder if thats the point
of it.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Remembrancer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Remembrancer)

~~~
pjc50
That _is_ the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to
have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700.
The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual
imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and
retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the
benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow
power base that would be prone to collapse.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years
before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.

France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.

(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the
fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was
the interregnum.)

~~~
smcl
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when
England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know
it started to take shape.

Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually
mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"

~~~
PeterWhittaker
Act of Union, 1707.

England is what I meant.

From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take
shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.

So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.

England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and
especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence
was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for
the pretty stable time that came later.

England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much
of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.

It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace
whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.

------
pjc50
The mention of the civil war is the cue to where all this comes from. As usual
after a civil war, what emerged was not a democracy but a military
dictatorship. The UK was a Protestant theocracy for a while. This was
sufficiently awful that there was no substantial opposition to the return of
the monarchy after the death of Cromwell; however 20 years later a combination
of desire for parliamentary power and anti-Catholicism resulted in deposing
the monarch and replacing him with a _different_ monarch imported from
Holland, who would be under the control of parliamentarians.

Unpicking the constitutional settlement opens several extremely controversial
cans of worms. For example, the role of religion in the UK; authority over the
armed forces; land ownership reform; the House of Lords; the electoral system
in general; devolution; and the strangeness of the Crown dependencies (channel
islands, Isle of Man, etc).

There _are_ people who are violently loyal to the monarchy, as well as a wide
spread of society who are affectionate towards the Royal Family.

~~~
petercooper
_There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy_

The stress on "are" makes it sound like this would be considered a difficult
to believe position. For my own part as a happy Royalist, if some bizarre and
unfortunate circumstance came down to us being forced into another Royals vs
parliament civil war, I'd be on the Royal side in a heartbeat.

~~~
lquist
As an American with little knowledge of British politics this is a bit
surprising. Do you mind going into the reasons that lead you to be on the
Royal side?

~~~
petercooper
xanderstrike did a really good job of explaining a part of it. The monarch is
our true head of state and the Royal Family our 'family of state', if you
will. For all their problems, the Royal Family provides a real sense of
continuity for Britishness and, to a lesser extent, an important sense of
separateness from politics (usually) and what I consider critical 'reserve
powers' to protect us from potential extraordinary political events (it's hard
to speculate, but I doubt George V would have allowed a Hitler-esque figure to
dismantle the political apparatus of the UK in the way Hitler did in Germany
under von Hindenburg).

I must confess I recognize I am slightly biased as our current monarch is such
a _good_ one. I might not have been so keen on the institution in Richard
III's time ;-) Politicians come and go and prime minsters are lucky to stay
around for 10 years, but Queen Elizabeth II has been the figurehead of my
country for 62 years and has essentially devoted her life in service of it. I
have a lot of respect for her as an individual.

There are a variety of lesser, miscellaneous reasons too. I see no specific
need to change, the Royal Family provides a net profit to the country
financially, having an army allied to the country rather than its current
political system is best, they don't have a significant impact on democratic
procedure in ideal times, they provide a long-term narrative and stability,
and more besides.

------
artumi-richard
I actually feel sad for the lot of them. It's not like they went looking for
fame, it was thrust upon them. I, for one, would hate the continuous travel,
smile, nod, shake hand, smile, move on.

Prince George's future is all laid out, he has zero incentive and zero
opportunity to make something worthwhile by himself. He will never be "just
another one of the team", at least, not for long.

I wouldn't wish Prince George's life for my sons.

~~~
simonh
Just like his useless father who's only contribution to society has been to,
er, pilot a search and rescue helicopter...

~~~
artumi-richard
Oh, I'm not saying he won't contribute, just that his choices are extremely
limited, to a degree I would not want for my son.

Being a part of military actually should be seen as a limitation rather than
William going his own way. Since the soldiers pledge their loyalty to the
crown it is deemed appropriate that a potential future monarch should serve in
the military. They get to choose which bit, and perhaps when, but they
probably never had a choice about joining up. Then the Royals only tend to
spend a couple of years. Harry is the keenest as he joined infantry. But his
fame brought him back from action early because he was a prized target.

Also Wikipedia now says Harry's now in project management: "On 17 January
2014, the Ministry of Defence announced that Harry had completed his
attachment to 3 Regiment Army Air Corps and will take up a staff officer role
at the position of SO3 (Defence Engagement) in HQ London District. His
responsibilities will include helping to co-ordinate significant projects and
commemorative events involving the Army in London."

I would expect this is not what he would have chosen had he been born Harry
Smith.

------
dageshi
"which to this day contains no sailors because they are still in disgrace for
their mutiny at Spithead in 1797. "

Quite Right.

~~~
petewailes
Ironic, as Spithead produced sweeping changes which paved the way for a decent
standard of living and treatment for people at all levels in the Navy. It was,
by any reasonable measure, a good thing.

------
hcho
I see the monarchy as a technical debt from experimenting with government
models. We ended up something similar to a presidency but also left withe a
symbolic head of state.

Because cost of removing the technical debt is bigger than the cost of living
with it, we just ignore it.

~~~
marquis
For what it's worth, the UK government currently makes a healthy profit from
the Royal Family.

[http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-
cost...](http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-cost-of-the-
royal-family-explained/)

In video form:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw)

------
throwaway128973
That's a nice spin in the headline, but a homeless person could equally well
fulfil the requirements.

In reality the Queen is a symbol of the glorious colonial times.

~~~
gadders
Not really. I think the monarchy pre-dates any colonies Britain/England had.

~~~
mikeash
It's still a nostalgic symbol of the days when "the sun never sets on the
British Empire". Nobody is nostalgic for the days when England was a tiny
backwater whose only claim to fame was bothering the French.

~~~
gadders
It's a nostalgic symbol of 2,000+ years of history.

~~~
tragic
It's a nostalgic symbol of the _myth_ of 2,000 years of history. (Although I
think in practical terms the earliest anyone even remotely sensible would date
the history is the Anglo-Saxon colonisation, ~1500 years ago.)

The idea that there is a continuous history even of the English over this time
is utterly risible - let alone the British, 'Britain' as a thing being - as
the GGGGP says - the product of the imperial era more than anything else (act
of union 1707, last Jacobite rising 1745; treaty of Utrecht, which cemented
British supremacy, 1714; rapid colonial expansion thereafter).

The more pressing problem with the monarchy is the 'royal prerogative', which
has the effect of turning 'Call Me Dave' Cameron into a de facto president.

As a believer in the exclusive democratic legitimacy of the legislature, I do
not believe in monarchs - born or elected.

~~~
sbmassey
The history of Britain dates back to the Caesar's half-arsed invasion, surely.
The history of the various British peoples seems pretty continuous from Anglo
Saxon times onwards. I don't understand why citing particular 18th century
treaties is meant to contradict that.

Are you suggesting that you would prefer Cameron as a de jure President?

~~~
gadders
Or even Ed Milliband?

------
andyjohnson0
"The Queen reigns, but she does not rule." \- Walter Bagehot

------
denzil_correa
> The Queen reads a speech that is written by someone else, namely the
> government. They make her repeat excruciating political slogans. Her
> representative in the Palace of Westminster - we aficionados call him Black
> Rod - has the doors of the House of Commons slammed in his face to remind
> the monarch who is boss.

This part is very eloquently captured in the political thriller trilogy by BBC
- "House of Cards" (UK version 1990) [0]. The part I am referring to is the
second part of the trilogy and is titled "To Play the King" aired in 1993 [1].

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_\(UK_TV_series\))
[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King)

------
acheron
You can ask the King of France how well absolute monarchy works out in the
long run.

~~~
pm90
Or the Tzar of Russia ...

------
davedx
Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and
for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must
do.

Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another,
which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and
drunken patriotism as back home. _Peer Netherlands_

~~~
acallaghan
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a
similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place
every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a
function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate
about it can begin.

We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an
article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the
French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.

The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional
flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive
government year.

~~~
dragonwriter
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible
advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical
context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a
different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from
the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the
separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you
divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from
support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the
distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of
chief of state has from the functional head of government.

Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work
anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical
context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons
_shouldn 't_ adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what
benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and
whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means
while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to
sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)

~~~
bernardom
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a
patriot" crap.

The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen
during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and
allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to
do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when
public support is at its lowest.

See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)

~~~
dfc
But you do get haplotype worship.

I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think
it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican,
etc citizens and members of the military _must_ swear or affirm an oath of
allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply
because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately
acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.

Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an
understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the
president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but
about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and
affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a
complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US
oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and
instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and
abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.

[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it
phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.

~~~
bernardom
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their
spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!

I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help
break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I
support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)

I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state.
Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular
election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a
career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for
Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State.
Something like that.

[1]:
[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/)

------
alexvonauspuff
Is there any sovereign who can still rule like king Geoffrey?

~~~
voidlogic
If you are asking if there are monarchs with real power, then yes there are
several. In the middle east you have countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, UAE. There are even several in Europe; Vatican City, Monaco,
Liechtenstein.

You could even argue that the reserve powers of the British monarch are indeed
great, although, if they ever tried to exercise them in there own right there
would probably be a constitutional crisis, and without broad public support
they would not prevail.

~~~
ozda
> You could even argue that the reserve powers of the British monarch are
> indeed great, although, if they ever tried to exercise them in there own
> right there would probably be a constitutional crisis, and without broad
> public support they would not prevail.

And by extension... with broad public support they would prevail and execute
the will of the people in a time of crisis and with the full support of the
military. Which, perversely, effectively places the reserve powers of the
Monarch and the might of the military in the hands of the people at exactly
the time the people would need them.

------
higherpurpose
I don't know about British democracy with David Cameron in power. There's
democracy and then there's "democracy".

~~~
sbuk
It's no different to when Bliar or Brown were in power. Brown never actually
won an election, he took over from Bliar after he stepped down. How's that for
democracy?

~~~
robin_reala
That’s how democracy in Britain works. You vote for a party, not a person. The
party is free to make changes to the internal structure as they see fit.

~~~
MartinMcGirk
Well, not to undermine the gist of your point (which I agree with) but instead
of voting for a party per se, you actually vote for a local Member of
Parliament, who can be a member of a party or not, and is free to switch party
whenever they like as they sees fit.

~~~
robin_reala
Sorry, yes of course! It’s the switching of parties that I always forget is
possible.

------
Killah911
The article reads to me like a crock of shait & a whole lot of naval gazing.
Why is this even on HN? Or perhaps that's my somewhat biased non-british view
of more useless crap left over from ages gone by, that nobody but the Brits
really give a shit about.

~~~
Naga
Well, besides the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of a number of independent
and sovereign countries around the world, I don't think anyone would expect a
non-Brit (or non-Canadian, non-Australian, etc) person to care about the way
we choose to govern ourselves. Also it doesn't really matter to us what you
think about it either.

------
gpvos
Probably due to my setup with NoScript and RequestPolicy, the page kept
reloading. Disabling Javascript for bbc.co.uk enabled it to load without
problem.

~~~
bruceboughton
This comment is the epitome of a Hacker News comment. I expected no less when
coming to read the comments.

------
ibisum
And this is where we get the nickname 'pom' from, which is short for 'pompous'
and usually associated with other appengages, i.e. 'bastard' and so on.

Pomp and ceremony, with little substance, seems to be an essence of many a
puppet state.

~~~
scrumper
The point here is that there is a tremendous amount of substance.

