The morality of monarchy.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I believe that the entire argument over Lizzie's visit missed the point. Leave aside the centuries of Anglo-Irish conflict, leave aside the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and focus simply on the immorality of a monarchy. Is it right that our state should welcome and shower praise upon individuals simply because of their luck in being born into the right family? And I'm not speaking specifically about Britain, I'd also include the heads of state of Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain etc in this category. Should we encourage and dignify these feudal remnants?

looksee

Any state has the freedom to elect, or not elect, their head of state. If a state chooses a head of state by a raffle, or by heredity, or by vote, or any other means, that is their business. If we want to deal with the state we accept their head of state as their representative, regardless of how they were chosen (or not).

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

By acknowledging people who base their right to rule on birth-right, are we not encouraging elitism? What particularly annoys me is the ridiculous special treatment given to monarchs in comparison with other foreign dignitaries. Why should an individual be referred to as 'Your Majesty' based solely on their family background? And I read articles in the papers criticizing Christy Cooney for touching the Queen- is this Ancient Rome? Can the monarchs not be touched by the common folk now? I simply find this attitude of groveling before the remnants of the medieval era to be quite embarrassing.

drkpower

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I believe that the entire argument over Lizzie's visit missed the point. Leave aside the centuries of Anglo-Irish conflict, leave aside the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and focus simply on the immorality of a monarchy. Is it right that our state should welcome and shower praise upon individuals simply because of their luck in being born into the right family? And I'm not speaking specifically about Britain, I'd also include the heads of state of Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain etc in this category. Should we encourage and dignify these feudal remnants? .

How do you suggest we, as a State, respond?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

drkpower wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well it isn't really feasible to just ignore these individuals so I really can't suggest any action, but I'm really surprised that more people don't have any objection to the notion of an hereditary head-of-state.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Imagine how silly it would be if Douglas Hyde's descendants continued to hold office as ceremonial figureheads and held ownership over large areas of land, and were entitled to enormous sources of income by the state based solely on their ancestry. In fact the situation in the monarchies around the world is even more ridiculous as the monarchs are descended from tyrants who held power by force for centuries and then somehow managed to hold on to office when the majority of the civilized world moved towards republicanism.

When Prince Albert II of Monaco visited Ireland in April, I don't think many people even knew he was here. Compare that to the welcome given to the democratically elected President Obama.

I knew he was, as he visited my home county. And I felt the groveling before him by local politicians to be idiotic.

Tradition. Just as the Pope is referred to as 'His Holiness.'

Can't say I have much time for that particular institution either, nor would I ever refer to him by that title. In any event I feel that referring to individuals by titles in an effort to elevate them above others is idiotic, which is one of the main issues I have with the judiciary in this country. I even hate when somebody refers to a government minister as 'Minister' rather than calling them by their name.

drkpower

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Well it isn't really feasible to just ignore these individuals so I really can't suggest any action, but I'm really surprised that more people don't have any objection to the notion of an hereditary head-of-state. .

Im sure most/many Irish people have an objection to it, given that most/many Irish people are happy not to have a monarchy. However, we dont get to choose other people's systems of government, so we dont go around objecting to their heads of state. Im sure there are many nations who believe our system of local government is deeply undemocratic (and they might be right), but they dont go around objecting when our political figures visit them.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Can't say I have much time for that particular institution either, nor would I ever refer to him by that title. In any event I feel that referring to individuals by titles in an effort to elevate them above others is idiotic, which is one of the main issues I have with the judiciary in this country. I even hate when somebody refers to a government minister as 'Minister' rather than calling them by their name.

Seems it is any form of authority you have a problem with, regardless of whether the individual got there on merit or not.

Fight the Power!:D

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

drkpower wrote: »

Seems it is any form of authority you have a problem with, regardless of whether the individual got there on merit or not.

Fight the Power!:D

I've no problem respecting valid authority but I do have a problem with judges asking to be addressed as 'Lord'.

drkpower

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I've no problem respecting valid authority but I do have a problem with judges asking to be addressed as 'Lord'.

What is valid authority?
And do any Irish judges ask to be addressed as 'Lord'?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

drkpower wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Valid authority is authority vested in someone by the democratic will of the people which can also be revoked by their will. Which doesn't entirely fit judges, but at least they don't inherit their positions. And yes they did for most of the history of the state and possibly still do (I think it may have been changed quite recently).

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not quite, but thats a question for another day.

After centuries of disputation, revolution, and bloodshed, many countries reached the not entirely unreasonable compromise of constitutional monarchism. They retained their monarch as head of state, while having the governance of the country carried out by a democratically elected parliament. Such arrangements enjoy widespread support even today; the majority of people in the UK support the idea of a royal family.

I'm quite aware that it enjoys the support of most British people. However I'd hope that Britain would in future move forward, towards a genuinely democratic system which does not recognize ancestry as a valid claim to a position (Finally abolishing the House of Lords would also be a necessary step in this).

To be fair, I can imagine that members of Offaly County Council might have been a tad intimidated by meeting the president of the United States.

Probably. He is the elected head of the most powerful nation on earth. As opposed to Albert who rules over a small city on the coast of France and inherited the job from his father.

So, your issue is with titles in general, rather than with inherited titles?

Not quite, and I'm sorry for bringing the thread off topic with barely related ramblings. I have a problem with people using titles to try and elevate themselves or others above other people. However a government minister is at the end of the day a government minister, and although I'd prefer to address him by his name, I'd still realize he's part of an elected government as many problems with the current government and our current electoral system as I have. Elizabeth Windsor however is not an elected figure and is merely the descendant of a long line of contemptible characters.

drkpower

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

And yes they did for most of the history of the state and possibly still do (I think it may have been changed quite recently).

Judges havent been called 'Lord' in this country for years!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Valid authority is authority vested in someone by the democratic will of the people which can also be revoked by their will. Which doesn't entirely fit judges, but at least they don't inherit their positions.

There are plenty of 'positions of authority' that are not 'vested in someone by the democratic will of the people which can also be revoked by their will'.

Im not sure you are thinking much of this through!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have already stated that judges don't quite fit my ideal definition and I have many problems with the current legal system in Ireland as I believe it gives an enormous amount of power to an unelected elite. My own father is a former garda but despite this I find it difficult to respect an organization who enforce so many laws I disagree with. As for parish priests, well I'm an atheist and I'd give them the same respect and courtesy I'd give anybody else, but I don't see them as having any authority over my life.

I actually don't have a negative view of Elizabeth herself, she seems to be a decent enough person. However the disgusting record of ancestors shows that the Windsor family can have no claim to power based on ancestral merit (Nor would they if they had an untainted record of benevolent rule).

looksee

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I have already stated that judges don't quite fit my ideal definition and I have many problems with the current legal system in Ireland as I believe it gives an enormous amount of power to an unelected elite. My own father is a former garda but despite this I find it difficult to respect an organization who enforce so many laws I disagree with. As for parish priests, well I'm an atheist and I'd give them the same respect and courtesy I'd give anybody else, but I don't see them as having any authority over my life.

Thats ok, I suppose the gardai can manage without your respect. It won't stop them arresting you if you break the law - even if its one of the laws you don't agree with. The gardai only apply the law, they don't make it. If all the laws that an odd individual didn't approve of were removed, there would not be many left.

I actually don't have a negative view of Elizabeth herself, she seems to be a decent enough person. However the disgusting record of ancestors shows that the Windsor family can have no claim to power based on ancestral merit (Nor would they if they had an untainted record of benevolent rule).

You are not a subject of Elizabeth II so why are you so bothered? If Ireland refused to engage with any country that had any customs or laws we (who exactly?) did not entirely approve of we would not have many friends around the world.

The royal family in Britain has no real power at all - the British have in fact done what you are demanding, they have removed all authority from the royal family, while retaining them as a symbolic and decorative tourist attraction and ambassadors for the country.

You might as well argue that every building built before independence should be demolished as it was built with the labour of serfs (castles, round towers etc) or by foreign tyrants (all Dublin's Georgian buildings for example) or with the sweat and tithes of the peasantry (all the churches and cathedrals).

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I've no problem respecting valid authority but I do have a problem with judges asking to be addressed as 'Lord'.

When was the last time a judge asked someone to do that? The correct manner to address a judge in this country is 'Judge'/ the Irish equivalent or by reference to 'the Court'. That's the way it is lad down in the rules and regulations. A judge will not ask you to address him/her as 'Lord'.

'My Lord' is generally an optional form of address used by barristers known to the judge in question as a mark of respect from one seasoned professional to another.

Your problem has been solved. One of them anyway.

Manach

Given the difficultly in removing judges, as per the constitution, it is highly unlikely an moves would be made to stop calling them Lord.
I would say that implementors of the current constitution shared the OP's distrust of titles, as per Article 40.2 which requires Government permission before a citizen can gain one.

Ms.Odgeynist

Make no mistake, if it was not in our best interest to welcome the Queen then we would not have. If it was in our best interest to disrespect her, our officials would not refer to her as Your Majesty.
The cynics really confuse me on this one.
Whether you believe in monarchy or not, it benefits our country to be seen embracing it. Period.

southsiderosie

I think the role of the monarchy has changed in a lot of societies. The history of the monarchy in Spain is generally dreadful, but Juan Carlos played a central role in not only the transition to democracy, but in maintaining it. This despite the fact that by all accounts he enjoyed a close personal relationship with Franco. It will be interesting to see, however, if the monarchies in the UK and Spain can survive the passing of the current Queen and King.

Personally I can't say that I am a fan of monarchies, but I can see how they may be institutionally important in some national contexts. And I would expect that any head of state be addressed with their appropriate titles, whether that is "Your highness" or "Mr./Madame President". That is a basic diplomatic courtesy. Non-subjects are not required to curtsey or bow or any such nonsense, so I don't really see what the problem is.

prinz

Why stop at objecting to monarchy, why not object to the morality of the American electoral college system, or the manner of electing the French president?

CDfm

What about elites.

Enda Kenny inherited his Dail seat from his Dad Henry - a junior minister in 1973's Coalition.

Henry was a local football hero.

Look at the family seats in the dail and we seem to be ruled by a small cabal of families -not at all to disimilar to the Barons of the middle ages except they dont fight wars -the fight elections.

They are still drawn from a small elite.

Niles

I have to agree with the OP on some points. It's hardly democratic for one family to be head of a state simply because that's the way it has always been. Sure they mightn't have that much real power, but then again neither does our president, yet that position is still democratically elected. In theory any child born in this country (regardless of religion) has the potential to become head of state. The same can't be said for British citizens. I don't believe the Hilton comparison is a valid one, there are plenty of rich families in the world but in this case we are talking about one that is head of a country for no other reason than tradition. Ultimately it is an issue for the British people to decide of course.

I don't personally have much against Elizabeth Windsor as a person, nor do I have anything against the British people; it just seems silly that "tradition" can pervade over a more democratic system.

CDfm wrote: »

What about elites.

Enda Kenny inherited his Dail seat from his Dad Henry - a junior minister in 1973's Coalition.

A valid point, but ultimately the public had a say as to whether or not he retained that seat in the long term.

looksee

The Brits happen to like tradition. I'm sure it they were interested enough to look this way they could find traditions that baffle them, but if they did, they would likely say 'strange, but if that's what they want to do, that's up to them'.

Look at the number of traditions tied into the Church in Ireland. Ok, a great deal of the power of the Church has been diluted, but it is still there, and still has an influence in spite of its less than wholesome history of late.

In fact there is a very close parallel. Total power invested in a very small number of people, a history of corruption, but also a overwhelmingly loyal following. In spite of everything both organisations have done some good, if only by offering leadership for society. Both organisations have been rendered toothless in practical terms, but they are still there with a loyal following. Brits enjoy a good royal wedding, the Irish get married in Church even if they haven't been in one for years.

But whatever about all these arguments, I really can't see how the choice of head of state of the neighbouring island is of any concern to Irish citizens.