So, the British Royal Family...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This looks like rather a non-story to me. Don't forget it is about the 1960s, i.e. 60 years ago, when racial prejudice was still very widespread in Britain, there were relatively few members of racial minorities in the country compared to now, and there were no laws yet to curtail it. Furthermore it is about the practice of the court, rather than direct evidence of racism on the part of the monarch.

People change as the times move on. I was fairly anti-homosexual in the 1970s. Now, I'm relaxed about it, because society's norms have shifted and my views have moved with them. It's an easy game to rake over the past and find things that shock by today's standards.

This sounds like a pretty strong argument against appointing a high-level public official to their position for life.

I mean, it sounds like you're saying that they'll end up out of touch and ineffective eventually.

As for getting rid of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?

That's not the only model for a republic, but of course it would be an improvement: you can get rid of a bad head of state without executing them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, the prime minister isn't analogous to a president? If that's the case, why would they need a prime minister at all?

The UK (and Canada) needs a Prime Minister largely for the same reasons that the US needs a House Majority Leader.

... But layer onto that a few extra things:

- Our Senate/House of Lords is much less powerful than yours, so the House of Commons (and its leader) has much more influence over the legislative process.

- the Prime Minister gets to appoint ministers to cabinet positions - analogous to secretaries of executive branch departments in the US - only there are no confirmation hearings.

So all in all, a Prime Minister under this system is as powerful as, if not more powerful than, a President.

 

[exchemist]

My impression is that monied interests control politics in nearly every country, so I don't see that as a criticism unique to the USA. I can tell that the UK is very class-oriented and money is just as powerful there as it is anywhere else.

Your other criticisms of the US government are well-taken, although historically, the basic system has worked adequately without the need for a monarch or royals to provide stability or guidance to the hapless peasants in the lower classes. Of course, no system is perfect, though some might argue that the limitations on the Senate to pass laws would be a virtue more than a flaw.

Originally, the president's powers were designed to be more limited. The power of government itself was also limited, as the original intention was to place more power in the hands of state governments. Our system of checks and balances was designed so that no single individual or faction could gain total control over the entire government.

Another safeguard was to advocate neutrality and refrain from any permanent alliances, as that can also adversely affect the function of a government and further complicate things. That was America's primary failure, in not keeping true to that principle. To be sure, Americans were led to believe there was a lot of instability in the world and that we felt compelled to take action in the belief that our country was in physical, mortal danger. That's why the government became bigger, the military grew, and the president was given greater powers so as to become the "imperial president" and the "leader of the free world."

You're wrong about money. In the first place, what remains of the English class system is not primarily about money: it's about heredity and culture. But the main point is that in most modern democracies, including the UK, there are strict limits on what can be spent by political parties during election campaigns. In the US, there seem to be none, and the result is that the success of political candidates is judged largely by the amount of money they can raise during their campaigns. This would be unthinkable in most countries.

But to return to the Head of State issue, it seems significant to me that, after the two oldest of our modern Republics (The US and France), most of the others have chosen to separate the role of Head of State from leader of the executive branch of government, usually placing the Head of State beyond party politics. There is a reason for that.

 

[exchemist]

This sounds like a pretty strong argument against appointing a high-level public official to their position for life.

I mean, it sounds like you're saying that they'll end up out of touch and ineffective eventually.


That's not the only model for a republic, but of course it would be an improvement: you can get rid of a bad head of state without executing them.

On the contrary, the point I am making is that dredging up practices from 60 years ago tells you very little about how an institution or a person behaves today - and is thus a poor basis for judging them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the contrary, the point I am making is that dredging up practices from 60 years ago tells you very little about how an institution or a person behaves today - and is thus a poor basis for judging them.

Are you reading the same article I am?

[In] 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

It is unclear when the practice ended. Buckingham Palace refused to answer questions about the ban and when it was revoked.

So...

- there's clear documentation that Buckingham Palace definitely had racist hiring practices 53 (not 60) years ago.
- there's no clear evidence on when their hiring practices stopped being racist (though they had hired at least some visible minorities by the 90s).
- Buckingham Palace is still exempt from the law that prohibits racial and sexual discrimination in hiring for other branches of the government.

 

[exchemist]

Are you reading the same article I am?



So...

- there's clear documentation that Buckingham Palace definitely had racist hiring practices 53 (not 60) years ago.
- there's no clear evidence on when their hiring practices stopped being racist (though they had hired at least some visible minorities by the 90s).
- Buckingham Palace is still exempt from the law that prohibits racial and sexual discrimination in hiring for other branches of the government.

Yes. I just don't share your sanctimonious indignation about it, that's all.

 

[Augustus]

So, the prime minister isn't analogous to a president? If that's the case, why would they need a prime minister at all? We have congressional elections every two years, and presidential elections every four years. It's worked well for us for over 200 years.

They didn't used to have a PM, but it evolved that way in the 18th C.

In general, it is useful to have someone in charge who can be held accountable and can provide direction and continuity to some extent. Also they can represent the country in political diplomacy.

The PM is head of government (not directly elected, but usually gained by being leader of the biggest party in parliament), not head of state though, and can generally be replaced with a vote of no confidence in parliament, or if they are replaced as leader of their political party.

The Queen fulfils the ceremonial duties as head of state, and also the 'non-political' aspects of diplomacy - state visits, etc.

It can be useful to have a 'non-political' head of state, and it's probably diplomatically useful to have the tradition and pomp associated with the royal family rather than some "intellectual", celebrity or bland, middle of the road politician as head of state instead.

 

[Stevicus]

They didn't used to have a PM, but it evolved that way in the 18th C.

In general, it is useful to have someone in charge who can be held accountable and can provide direction and continuity to some extent. Also they can represent the country in political diplomacy.

The PM is head of government (not directly elected, but usually gained by being leader of the biggest party in parliament), not head of state though, and can generally be replaced with a vote of no confidence in parliament, or if they are replaced as leader of their political party.

The Queen fulfils the ceremonial duties as head of state, and also the 'non-political' aspects of diplomacy - state visits, etc.

It can be useful to have a 'non-political' head of state, and it's probably diplomatically useful to have the tradition and pomp associated with the royal family rather than some "intellectual", celebrity or bland, middle of the road politician as head of state instead.

It's interesting that you view "head of state" and "head of government" as being separate roles, when in effect, it's essentially the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. I just don't share your sanctimonious indignation about it, that's all.

Not indignation, just frustration.

It's bad enough that my country's head of state is chosen on the basis of nepotism, not merit. It's also bad enough that no head of state in my country's history has ever even lived here, let alone sworn an oath of loyalty to the country they supposedly lead. The fact that they're also racist is just icing on the cake.

 

[Augustus]

It's interesting that you view "head of state" and "head of government" as being separate roles, when in effect, it's essentially the same.

In most countries they are not though.

Head of government is the highest political authority, whereas head of state plays a constitutional, ceremonial and diplomatic role but is not involved in the general running of the country.

In America these are combined into the figure of the President, but most other countries have them split with the head of state either being a constitutional monarch or an elected figurehead with minimal political power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be useful to have a 'non-political' head of state, and it's probably diplomatically useful to have the tradition and pomp associated with the royal family rather than some "intellectual", celebrity or bland, middle of the road politician as head of state instead.

"Some 'intellectual', celebrity or bland, middle of the road politician" would be a good description of the de facto head of state in every Commonwealth Realm except the UK (i.e. all the various Governors-General).

I always find it interesting when Brits use arguments in defense of the monarchy that accidentally throw shade at the system in most of the countries where the Queen is nominally the head of state.

 

[Augustus]

"Some 'intellectual', celebrity or bland, middle of the road politician" would be a good description of the de facto head of state in every Commonwealth Realm except the UK (i.e. all the various Governors-General).

I always find it interesting when Brits use arguments in defense of the monarchy that accidentally throw shade at the system in most of the countries where the Queen is nominally the head of state.

Get your own Queen then and stop freeloading off someone else's.

Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette probably have some spare time these days...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Get your own Queen then and stop freeloading off someone else's.

Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette probably have some spare time these days...

Even better: no queen at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This looks like rather a non-story to me. Don't forget it is about the 1960s, i.e. 60 years ago, when racial prejudice was still very widespread in Britain, there were relatively few members of racial minorities in the country compared to now, and there were no laws yet to curtail it. Furthermore it is about the practice of the court, rather than direct evidence of racism on the part of the monarch.

Did you miss the part of the article where it states that the Queen is basically exempt from those laws that curtail racist employment practices? Not to mention all of the other evience of the Royal family's continued racism FROM the sixties up to now, which kind of diminishes the whole "racism was totally in vogue in the sixties" argument.

People change as the times move on. I was fairly anti-homosexual in the 1970s. Now, I'm relaxed about it, because society's norms have shifted and my views have moved with them. It's an easy game to rake over the past and find things that shock by today's standards.

Except the evidence indicates that the Royal family HASN'T changed.

As for getting rid of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?

Because they would be democratically elected and not be a completely unnecessary drain on our economy.

Are you seriously suggesting a democratically elected head of state is not an improvement to a hereditary monarchy?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Article says nothing about the royal family, just what a member of staff said.

Because, as we all know, the staff of the Royal family are in no way connected to, or take instruction from, the Royal family.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It hasn't, actually. We seem to be witnessing the failure of the US constitutional arrangements. Your senate can barely pass any laws because of the need for a supermajority, your president is so powerful he or she can turn the judiciary, not to mention government agencies, into partisan tools and your political system is so dependent on the power of money that it can be, and has been, bought by moneyed interests.

The UK has its own constitutional problems but the absolute last thing we should want is to copy the USA.

None of which is an argument for why we would want to keep in power a head of state who was not democratically elected. Honestly, I think the argument that "we don't want a president because we don't want to be more like the USA" is insanely weak.

You do realize that there are A LOT of other countries that don't have a monarch as their head of state that AREN'T America, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. I just don't share your sanctimonious indignation about it, that's all.

Because calling out racism on behalf of the supposed head of state of our country is "sanctimonious indignation"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am still continually surprised by the number of people who go to bat to defend the idea of unelected, hereditarily appointed heads of state for life.

I mean... what is wrong with us as a nation that we still defend this facet of our own nation despite how blatantly and obviously wrong it is?

 

[Augustus]

Because, as we all know, the staff of the Royal family are in no way connected to, or take instruction from, the Royal family.

You think the Queen has personally taken charge of all HRM decisions regarding the royal family for the past 60 years?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You think the Queen has personally taken charge of all HRM decisions regarding the royal family for the past 60 years?

I think the household staff of the Queen are beholden to the Queen.

I mean... that's obvious.