Coronation Chickens
There are many things about the monarchy that are annoying, but (almost) more annoying still are two of the weak arguments regularly used to justify its existence.
1) "Would you rather have Boris Johnson/Donald Trump as your head of state?"
No, of course not. But the proper comparison is with presidents whose role is essentially ceremonial, thus: "Would you rather have Michael D. Higgins/Frank-Walter Steinmeier/Sergio Mattarella?" To which the answer is "Yes, in a heartbeat." Instituting a ceremonial presidency isn't some impossible, never-achieved circle-squaring political conundrum - they exist today, quietly and unproblematically, in many European countries. They're not only more democractic, they're much cheaper - which leads me to...
2) "The monarchy pays for itself through tourism."
I actually thought this one had died out, but then I heard Piers Morgan using it the other day (I had unwisely clicked on a link). There are two answers.
First, the statement is simply untrue. Yes, many tourists visit Buckingham Palace, etc., but there's no evidence that they do so only because there's occasionally a royal in residence there. Far more visit Versailles, for example, and, indeed, far more tourists go to France than to the UK overall - which, if the presence or absence or a monarch were the only factor in their choice, would suggest a rather sanguinary policy pointer for the UK Tourist Board (to which proponents of this argument seem oddly happy to delegate responsibility for the constitution). But of course, very few people decide which country to visit based on whether they have a monarchy. Even supposing that a few do, the idea that the extra tourist income generated by this eccentric group is enough to pay for the costs of the monarchy is, well, unconvincing.
Second - aren't you ashamed of yourselves? You claim to support the monarchy, and many of you will be pledging allegiance via your TV screens, smartphones and other portable devices to Charles III as your personal liege lord on Saturday, presumably in the belief that his being in the position he finds himself in means that he has been ordained by God, or (if you want a more secular version) by History, Tradition, the Will of the People, or whatever abstraction you find more inspiring. And yet, when asked to justify your position, you can do no better than cite an obviously fallacious argument about tourist income. Even if the argument stood up, wouldn't it reduce the solemnity and dignity of the institution you claim to care about to a mere money-making scheme and the UK to John of Gaunt's "pelting farm"? It's actually rather disgusting.
As you can see, there is something atavistic in my republicanism.
1) "Would you rather have Boris Johnson/Donald Trump as your head of state?"
No, of course not. But the proper comparison is with presidents whose role is essentially ceremonial, thus: "Would you rather have Michael D. Higgins/Frank-Walter Steinmeier/Sergio Mattarella?" To which the answer is "Yes, in a heartbeat." Instituting a ceremonial presidency isn't some impossible, never-achieved circle-squaring political conundrum - they exist today, quietly and unproblematically, in many European countries. They're not only more democractic, they're much cheaper - which leads me to...
2) "The monarchy pays for itself through tourism."
I actually thought this one had died out, but then I heard Piers Morgan using it the other day (I had unwisely clicked on a link). There are two answers.
First, the statement is simply untrue. Yes, many tourists visit Buckingham Palace, etc., but there's no evidence that they do so only because there's occasionally a royal in residence there. Far more visit Versailles, for example, and, indeed, far more tourists go to France than to the UK overall - which, if the presence or absence or a monarch were the only factor in their choice, would suggest a rather sanguinary policy pointer for the UK Tourist Board (to which proponents of this argument seem oddly happy to delegate responsibility for the constitution). But of course, very few people decide which country to visit based on whether they have a monarchy. Even supposing that a few do, the idea that the extra tourist income generated by this eccentric group is enough to pay for the costs of the monarchy is, well, unconvincing.
Second - aren't you ashamed of yourselves? You claim to support the monarchy, and many of you will be pledging allegiance via your TV screens, smartphones and other portable devices to Charles III as your personal liege lord on Saturday, presumably in the belief that his being in the position he finds himself in means that he has been ordained by God, or (if you want a more secular version) by History, Tradition, the Will of the People, or whatever abstraction you find more inspiring. And yet, when asked to justify your position, you can do no better than cite an obviously fallacious argument about tourist income. Even if the argument stood up, wouldn't it reduce the solemnity and dignity of the institution you claim to care about to a mere money-making scheme and the UK to John of Gaunt's "pelting farm"? It's actually rather disgusting.
As you can see, there is something atavistic in my republicanism.