equanimity.blog

Lessons on Lifting The Game

Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten is likely to be removed from the line of succession. In the past, it was not uncommon for kings and heirs to whore around. His removal demonstrates that there are moral standards expected of modern royalty. It also demonstrates that the UK is an elected hereditary monarchy.

The British Crown is facing some serious challenges. Multiculturalism and history are catching up with it. Fortunately, the heir, Prince William, and his family are as functional and ideal an example of a family unit as could be expected to face these challenges. Nonetheless, it won’t be easy.

The tensions between the past and present in the U.K.’s constitutional monarchy are accumulating. They are cultural, material and religious. When the people see the King embracing Islam, they are understandably conflicted. The distribution of wealth, having become more unequal and extreme over the past half century, also raises questions about the royal family’s personal wealth. The concept of a modern family unit and expectations in personal relationships have changed. What can we reasonably expect of the first family?

Change is nothing new to the English crown and it has proven itself particularly resilient and adaptable. Dr David Starky and Jacob Rees-Mogg discuss them in an interview covering a wide range of issues.

How An Australian Monarchy Would Work

The challenges they discuss provide us here in Australia with excellent opportunities to conceve [sic] of a crown made for the present and for the future. I advocate that we adopt a long, slow and considered public process of reform that can, if chosen, lead to the election our own dynasty in a one-time referendum, or a system of regularly electing a head of state.

Starky and Mogg are critical of how few representatives of the government were at King Charles III’s coronation. In the past, the whole parliament was in attendance. The Crown sits above politics as an impartial symbol of the nation, but it is a part of the political system. In England, the institution of monarchy has always loomed larger than life. In Australia, it would be at an appropriate scale; an integral institution that is symbolic, small, yet beautiful, dignified and regal.

The King of England is an Anglican, the head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. King Charles calls himself ‘Defender of All Faiths’. Prince William is apparently uncomfortable with Christianity in the UK (YouTube). Reconciling this historical element with modern Britain’s ultra-diverse society is very problematic. It will drag the monarchy into a debate over its loyalties.

In Australia, the Sovereign’s religious beliefs would be a private matter, underscoring the separation of Church and State.

Starky and Mogg point out that the welfare state has undermined the royal family’s philanthropy. This problem is borne of their inordinate personal wealth, a vestige of history.

An Australian monarchy would be barred from accumulating wealth to a limit determined by parliament. If a member of the royal family wished to exceed that, they would have to withdraw from the line of succession.

If members of the royal family are not being philanthropic patrons of charities, ‘What will they do with their spare time?’, ask Starky and Mogg. This has already been demonstrated by, for example, Japanese Emperor Hirohito, who was a marine biologist. They can take up any profession or discipline that isn’t political. Deprive them of that and you get the tragedy of Princess Margaret, who was prevented from pursuing a career.

Dr Starky says of the late Queen,

I think her obsession with the Commonwealth was deeply dangerous and paved the way to highly undesirable developments like laying the foundations for claims for reparations.

1:44

I often had the impression that the Queen’s pursuit of the Commonwealth went too far. It felt a bit clingy. Now the organization is so international, it’s meaningless. Countries that had nothing to do with the Empire are joining it. It should be limited to an inner circle of countries that were created from scratch into modern civilizations by Britain and an outer circle of those who have a historical and institutional affinity with Britain.

In Australia, respectable human inclinations of a monarch would be accepted. If a marriage breaks down, it’s regrettable, but it happens. Long lasting, loving marriages are the exception. If a marriage is interracial, it would be accepted. If an heir wants to withdraw from the line of succession, for whatever reason, it would be accepted.

An Aussie Monarchy would be better than the U.K. Crown and better than a President.

(Cover image from screenrant – taylor-zakhar-perez-and-british-prince-from-red-white-and-royal-blue)