What is the monarchy for? It embodies the endlessly interrelated principles of our ancient liberties under the Crown, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate, of the Christian basis of the State, and of the ties binding the Commonwealth.
Since 1952, has the United Kingdom remained, become more, or become less marked by civil liberties, social justice, public Christianity, and Commonwealth ties? The answer to that is only too obvious. It is not the Queen's fault. The monarchy remains the indispensable embodiment of the principles. But it is more than apparent that additional means have become necessary in order to ensure that those principles are given effect.
Let there be seven Viceroys, of whom four would have a veto overturnable only by a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons, five would have a veto overturnable only by a three-quarters majority in the House of Commons, and six would have an absolute veto. They would also perform ceremonial duties and do charity work.
At the start of each Parliament, the seat-taking members of the House of Commons, other than Ministers, would each vote for one candidate from outside that House, with the seven highest scorers elected, with a tie for seventh place settled by a run-off ballot, and with casual vacancies filled by the Speaker in accordance with the original result.
At present, there would be one from each of the Conservatives (other than the Government), Labour, the Liberal Democrats (other than the Government), the DUP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP, or at least from their wider subcultures; there might usefully be a ban on party members or former career politicians as Viceroys.
The DUP constituency would thus be bound to the United Kingdom beyond the de facto State of Ulster. The SNP constituency would be bound to the United Kingdom at all; it is in any case far larger than the number of people who ever indicate any support for independence. Plaid Cymru is not in favour of independence, and this means would go a considerable way to ensuring that its voters never became so. The SDLP's supporters would never really vote on the day for incorporation into a state where they would be charged for visiting the doctor and so on.
But the voice of, for example, the Toryism excluded from the Coalition, also broadly the position of the DUP, would be included. As would that of Welsh rural Radicalism and the Welsh peace tradition, not to say the remains of English and Scottish rural Radicalism through the non-Ministers among the Lib Dems. As would that of the institutionalised union of Irish Catholicism and the old school of British Labourism; again, Labour might, on a very good day, also produce someone much like that. And so on.
That could only be good for civil liberties, social justice, public Christianity, and Commonwealth ties. While the fact that there were seven Viceroys would preclude any sense of an alternative Head of State, with the very title pointing to the continued Headship of the institution and individual embodying the endlessly interrelated principles of our ancient liberties under the Crown, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate, of the Christian basis of the State, and of the ties binding the Commonwealth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love the idea of viceroys, complete with old colonial uniforms topped with ostrich-plumed helmets. Does the Governor of St. Helena still wear one?
ReplyDeleteI especially love the idea of you as such a viceroy, His Excellency David Lindsay, wearing such a uniform complete with such a hat.
Seriously, though, this is a brilliant idea. Is it in Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory? I don't remember reading it in that landmark work.
No, I only thought of it today.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, His Excellency certainly does.
Would this be a division of the House, in which case I can't see how you could exclude ministers, or would it be a secret ballot in which the voters would happen to be those MPs who were not ministers? The second option would be greatly preferable and could produce some whips' nightmares as viceroys, just the way we would want. Peter Hitchens, Neil Clark, Michael Meadowcroft, exactly what we need.
ReplyDeleteAlas, I doubt it. But one of the many advantages of this system would be that it would, seven times over at any given time, present those who called for a German or Irish type of non-executive, ostensibly non-political Presidency with the sort of late-middle-aged, upper-middle-class, white, male, nominally independent but party machine approved figure who would always, always, always be the President of Britain.
ReplyDeleteI'd like the SNP to nominate a Jacobite Episcopalian priest from the northeastern heartland of all three. I have a feeling that he shouldn't be too hard to find if you knew where to look, and that they would know where to look.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the monarchy for? It embodies the endlessly interrelated principles of our ancient liberties under the Crown, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate, of the Christian basis of the State, and of the ties binding the Commonwealth.
ReplyDeleteSince 1952, has the United Kingdom remained, become more, or become less marked by civil liberties, social justice, public Christianity, and Commonwealth ties? The answer to that is only too obvious. It is not the Queen's fault. The monarchy remains the indispensable embodiment of the principles. But it is more than apparent that additional means have become necessary in order to ensure that those principles are given effect.
I would put some of it in more Ango-Protestant terms than that, but you have the right idea: as you know, this monarch is not the senior heir of the House of Stuart, she has the throne on condition that she upholds these things and she swore to do so at the Coronation.
Blame her, don't blame her for the fact that the country now bears no resemblance to the text of her Oath. I think you are letting her off too lightly but that is beside the point. What is obvious is that the monarchy has done nothing for the last 45 or 50 years, the huge majority of the present reign, to defend any of the things the monarch has the throne to defend.
Your idea for an Immortal Seven, no doubt there in you mind as you wrote this, is an interesting one. But why make them Viceroys? They might as well be Co-Presidents, and away with this useless monarchy.