The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Monday, October 09, 2006
Monarchy is democratic, just not in an elected kind of way
The idea that some people have that monarchy is undemocratic and is based solely on hereditary principles conveniently ignores the three-hundred year old supremacy of Parliament on both those scores. Absolute hereditary power based on devine theory first died with Magna Carta way back in 1215, and although it experienced a later resurgence, particularly with the Stuart kings, who sought to re-establish the doctrine by importing it from Scotland during the 17th century, the beheading of Charles I by the Rump Parliament in 1649; the parliamentary coup d’etat that forcibly deposed James II in 1688; the English Bill of Rights the year after; and the Act of Settlement governing succession law since 1701; British sovereigns have served at the pleasure of the people more than themselves, a fact that was most recently reinforced in practice by all Westminster parliaments during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII in 1936.
Yes yes, the Queen is not elected, but technically neither is anyone else under our model of government. It is not a contradiction of principle to understand that virtually no position of authority is directly elected in the British parliamentary system of democracy. The queen's representatives certainly are not, nor are her advisors in the Privy Council; our judges are not elected, not the officers of parliament, not the house speakers, nor even the cabinet and the prime minister who heads it. We do not vote for ministers of the crown; we do not choose which members will be assigned the tasks of government. The prime minister is not a president - we do not directly elect him or her into office; rather, he owes his position to the confidence of Cabinet, of the House of Commons and of the Queen-in-Parliament. All we elect are MPs, that body of men and women whose collective wisdom and judgment it is to determine all of the above on our behalf.
And yes, that even goes for the Queen herself. Her Majesty’s accession to the throne may have been automatic, but only because of an Act of Parliament that permitted it, and subsequently only because she was democratically confirmed on other legislative occasions, such as when Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing her as sovereign, or when Australia held a referendum in 1999, in which the people overwhelmingly endorsed her in a national plebiscite. The old dictum that “the Queen reigns but doesn’t rule” is technically incorrect – the Queen reigns and rules, but only with the advice and consent of Parliament.
So to Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson's proposal that Parliament, and not the PM, should choose the Governor General, I find myself in complete agreement. It is absurd that the GG should be de facto appointed by a lower constitutional authority. The GG is for Parliament to decide, just as we entrust Parliament to decide everything else. But it would be heretical to the whole fabric of our political culture if the GG were elected, just as it would if any other position of power independently stood for election. That would be perfidious to the whole parliamentary system.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:48 p.m. | LINKS |
The idea that some people have that monarchy is undemocratic and is based solely on hereditary principles conveniently ignores the three-hundred year old supremacy of Parliament on both those scores. Absolute hereditary power based on devine theory first died with Magna Carta way back in 1215, and although it experienced a later resurgence, particularly with the Stuart kings, who sought to re-establish the doctrine by importing it from Scotland during the 17th century, the beheading of Charles I by the Rump Parliament in 1649; the parliamentary coup d’etat that forcibly deposed James II in 1688; the English Bill of Rights the year after; and the Act of Settlement governing succession law since 1701; British sovereigns have served at the pleasure of the people more than themselves, a fact that was most recently reinforced in practice by all Westminster parliaments during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII in 1936. Yes yes, the Queen is not elected, but technically neither is anyone else under our model of government. It is not a contradiction of principle to understand that virtually no position of authority is directly elected in the British parliamentary system of democracy. The queen's representatives certainly are not, nor are her advisors in the Privy Council; our judges are not elected, not the officers of parliament, not the house speakers, nor even the cabinet and the prime minister who heads it. We do not vote for ministers of the crown; we do not choose which members will be assigned the tasks of government. The prime minister is not a president - we do not directly elect him or her into office; rather, he owes his position to the confidence of Cabinet, of the House of Commons and of the Queen-in-Parliament. All we elect are MPs, that body of men and women whose collective wisdom and judgment it is to determine all of the above on our behalf.
And yes, that even goes for the Queen herself. Her Majesty’s accession to the throne may have been automatic, but only because of an Act of Parliament that permitted it, and subsequently only because she was democratically confirmed on other legislative occasions, such as when Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing her as sovereign, or when Australia held a referendum in 1999, in which the people overwhelmingly endorsed her in a national plebiscite. The old dictum that “the Queen reigns but doesn’t rule” is technically incorrect – the Queen reigns and rules, but only with the advice and consent of Parliament.
So to Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson's proposal that Parliament, and not the PM, should choose the Governor General, I find myself in complete agreement. It is absurd that the GG should be de facto appointed by a lower constitutional authority. The GG is for Parliament to decide, just as we entrust Parliament to decide everything else. But it would be heretical to the whole fabric of our political culture if the GG were elected, just as it would if any other position of power independently stood for election. That would be perfidious to the whole parliamentary system.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:48 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
