Some random, unconnected, rambling and possibly incoherent
thoughts ..
- I'm
interested (partly to my own surprise) partly because, as a political history nerd, I've come to believe that Constitutional Monarchy is a 'pretty good' democratic arrangement much of the time; providing that certain unwritten rules are followed. Among these are that the incumbent Monarch, at least, should be seen to be above politics and of personal integrity; not, eg, as recently in Spain, although it's worth remembering that the same King was, decades ago, a 'democratic hero' through his role in frustrating an armed Francoist
coup. Obviously, family members may be less 'under control', ... but with consequences (which they should embrace) if they seem or are seen to lapse from high standards (legal, societal or ethical), such as in the Netherlands a few decades ago. I also believe the derived Vice-Regal functions in some of the Dominions (eg Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors in Canada) can be useful for them. In general, the UK and Dominion examples have worked and still work 'pretty well'.
- It does not follow, of course, that the UK model of Monarchy is the only nor necessarily best model. The Dutch or Scandinavian models work 'pretty well' for them, too, most of the time. And, of course, the 'non-political President' (eg, as in Germany or Republic of Ireland), can also work 'pretty well'; although it has the risk that a 'widely admired non-political' citizen can later be discovered to have 'feet of clay' (eg, Kurt Waldheim in Austria). For this reason, while I would not necessarily welcome as President a former prominent politician such as a former PM (none of the UK ones cited, usually by their detractors, as 'straw men' in this context has, AFAIK, ever expressed any wish for such a role), I would equally be wary of a non-political 'national treasure' figure about whom an unsavoury past might appear after their inauguration (David Attenborough or Judi Denchunlikely, but 'President Jimmy Savile' ?
). In any case, the 'non-political Head of State' appeals to me more than does the 'political President', both in principle and in light of some recent examples among our friends and Allies.
- I am embarrassed to realise that my inclination to 'take sides' in the present turmoil, if sides must be taken, seems to be correlate with my personal dislike (for other reasons) of those individuals and media who have 'taken one side', leading me to be disposed to take the other. I realise this is somewhat irrational
- any outsider reading all of the postings in this thread without any prior knowledge of our common interest might still be able to make a good guess about our prevailing demographic: mostly older, white, UK resident, British since birth, now relatively prosperous, men. Comments posted in a Forum hosting a very different demographic might well be very different. This does not make any in either any less valid, of course.