THE UK MONARCHY
27th APRIL 2011
This evening on
THE MORAL MAZE the debate is raised on the basis that
"In a meritocracy, an hereditary ruler makes as much sense as an
hereditary dentist and the monarchy traps us as subjects, enshrines
inequality and that we should have the power to choose our head of
state".
Put simply: is the monarchy compatible with a truly
meritocratic society?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010mrzr
The answer is
yes, for reasons of impeccable logic. Dentists, and all
others who fulfil functions that society finds useful, are selected by
their customers according to a variety of factors. If they are licensed
practitioners of a trade they are rated from the other direction too by
the professional bodies or government regulations that allow them to
practice. None of this actually guarantees their individual performance
and indeed these days what would previously have passed as sensible
appropriate selection criteria runs the risk of being called
discrimination.
In the case of
the Monarch who is head of state, there is no business
or trade that is represented, nor is there any political party. The
country is not seeking the person with the most talents to be head of
state in the case of a constitutional monarchy. It is on the contrary a
question of tasking someone who does NOT represent any one trade,
profession, political party etc. more than any other. The only merits
required are that the monarch should be there with the support of the
majority of the citizenry, regardless of all those aforementioned
factors, and the monarch should be capable and well trained for the
job. The very last quality needed is that of a personal ambition, even
in retirement from politics or commerce, to be head of state.
The only obvious
individuals with these required merits are the products of a
hereditary monarchy and their selection of spouses, subject to all the
constraints and in the least
fortunate circumstances, the abdication or removal of the monarch.
Merit is
therefore the very basis of our Monarchy. It is there by the
wish of the people and by the merit of the monarchy itself. As for
those who say it is not elected, I would say it is elected daily. The
time may come when no member of the Royal Family is prepared to do the
job, or when the British public want a republic. That is certainly not
now.
I shall not
listen to the Moral Maze debate today. Maybe tomorrow.
APRIL
29th
2011
The Moral Maze
panel didn't do too badly as it turns out, Michael Portillo is pretty
strong in the logic department.
Today's wedding
of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is a good example of the
merits of the monarchy. The right stuff came to the fore at every
point. Embarrassment didn't have a chance. There was no pomp, just
genuine participation in a ceremony full of meaning. Studying the
performances in the abbey, where everyone played their appointed role
to perfection, the bride's father takes my prize. Clearly unconcerned
as to whether the cameras or eyes of others were on him he sang the
hymns where some others mouthed them as they looked around. Kate
Middleton is clearly up for the job, very much her father's daughter.
She's there on merit, chosen by her husband and supported by the
country. Which part of the word 'meritocracy' do republicans not
understand?
It's an important task, representing the country not politically but as
a nation, getting to know the leaders and thinkers in other countries
and hosting their official visits to our shores, as well as having very
important access to all our domestic offices, industries and
establishments. They will as time passes become a vital element in
ensuring transparency as well as continuity in our national affairs.
JUNE 10th 2011
THE DUKE AT 90
Nice girl, Fiona Bruce. Well-spoken, as they say in the trade, not
easily ruffled. So when she got brief and to-the-point answers from
Philip to some of the silliest questions imaginable she prattled on
happily to the next one, which in about one in 10 struck gold with the
odd vein of silver in between. I like to think that when media
interviewers ask really stupid questions they do it on behalf of the
viewers they have managed to misinform over the years with respect to
the jobs, status and motives of the people they are now interviewing,
to give them a chance to straighten out (in this case) 70 years of
confusion. In this case she did give HRH the
opportunity to show what he was NOT, and by deduction exactly what he
was: the right man who offered himself for the job, did it superbly for
70 years and has no complaints at all other than, could it be said,
being asked damn fool questions.
To give Bruce a bit more credit, both her introduction and summing up
at the end were intelligent, as she seemed to deny all responsibility
herself not only for the media misrepresentation but for damn fool
questions, which was why I was so surprised that in the interview
itself she persisted with them. It seems there is a formula that
cannot be departed from. I hope this programme has been enlightening.
As the Duke said, it was an inevitability so he decided to make the
best of it. That's what he does.
But even David Attenborough does not
understand the realities of the Monarchy. He said (in this programme)
that it all hinges on the fact that they are 'different from us' and
the 'mystique' must not be destroyed. No, David, they are only
different in the way we are all different. Horses for courses, dear
boy.
It is a job that has to be 'carried off' at a level which includes
mastery of both the surface and the depth of the role, from figurehead
to intelligent mind that can absorb, understand and act as unifying and
catalytic presence wherever called on. The Monarch, the Consort and the
heirs all have a role. Barring abdication, only the Consort or spouse
has a
chance of choosing his or her destiny, when they marry the Monarch. The
moment the nation does not want
the Monarchy, they will retire. That day is certainly not yet in
sight., so they will do the job as long as requested.
JUNE 11th 2011
So what are we to make of Johann Hari's "Spare us the fawning over
Philip"? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-spare-us-the-fawning-over-prince-philip-2295288.html
other than that he has to write something to earn his bread from the
Independent. Prince Philip would certainly agree with him and has no
need of Peter Oborne's support. Nobody gains anything by 'fawning'
(whatever form it takes in this instance), so what is the point of the
article? The fawning we do in this country, it seems to me, is often to
the media and its power over individuals whose lives it can boost to
stardom or shatter to dust in nothing more than its own interest of
power and influence as it fawns in turn to the readers on which it
depends. A vicious circle of fawning from which the Duke in question
adroitly and honourably extricated himself, much to the annoyance of
some. The reason why people might wish to involve senior members of the
Royal Family in their organisations, if they are able to do so, is to
make their work effective. When they are so recognised, it is for the
same reason.
nnnn