Too much negative politics! But the good news is the British monarchy lives on!

Negative Politics:

I've rather neglected this blog partly because there's been so much to do and partly because there's been so much politics going on that where does one begin? In my first post I was going to discuss how is it that a Conservative government is happy to have an active member of the Communist party in SAGE (a British Government body)? But, us liberal-minded people are somehow the enemy. That makes no sense at all. Well, until you discover that the Conservative Party is cosying up to Russia and being funded by Russians who are not, in actual fact, communists but fascists invading the Ukraine to rid them of fascists. If that all makes complete sense then we've all been 😴 for decades, politically speaking. The invasion of the Ukraine is a huge talking point as far as politics is concerned, as is leaving the EU. Both raise enormously difficult issues and that's before we look at some Eastern European countries and their worrying anti-LGBT+ trends. The Pandemic throws up the political concern of autocratic rule coming all too easily on the back of a perceived emergency, despite, this time, it being largely an health issue. So there's been far too much political upheaval and concerns since 2016 and they don't seem to be going away any time soon especially since Truss is already threatening to erode human rights. It's the 21st Century or hasn't someone told her yet?

Monarchy:

This leads neatly onto our recent momentous historical occasion and that is the passing of our much loved Queen Elizabeth II and the smooth transfer of the monarchy to her eldest son and heir, Prince Charles now King Charles III. I'm looking forward to his soon-to-be coronation! 

For my part, I would like to see a more active monarch who does have their say and moderate the government's policies whenever necessary. Parliament was set up to moderate a tyrannical monarch. In much the same way, the monarch should moderate a tyrannical government. We do want to know what King Charles III thinks about issues and policies. The monarch is not just a figurehead but a political figure who is taken seriously on the world stage, whether people like it or not. The UK has two heads of state which share power: the Monarch, who is sovereign and who confers sovereignty on Parliament but can also dissolve Parliament and appoint a Prime Minister they prefer; and the Government (although not well-known or lightly used, a British monarch does have some obscure but extensive set of Royal Prerogative Powers, on the understanding that they don't misuse them, e.g. the monarch does not have to go along with the PM's advice). However, it's PM Truss who has to swear allegiance to King Charles III not King Charles III to PM Truss! This tells us quite clearly that the monarch is higher than the Prime Minister! A monarch is roughly on par with a president, for want of a better comparison, who is above their Prime Minister. This is also clear when the government wishes to pass something they need to go to the monarch for Royal Assent, which need not be a given! 

The Danish monarchy, for instance, does not have to give Royal Assent to anything they don't agree with or think is not in keeping with their constitution. They can even dismiss their Prime Minister! And the Danish monarchy is not progressive, the same is true of the Spanish monarchy. Why? It wasn't until 1953 that the Danish monarchy changed a 19th century rule that essentially banned any woman from being a queen who rules in her own right (termed queen regnant) as opposed to a queen who is the wife of a king (queen consort). This was not a modernizing move. It only happened out of convenience when the then king realised that he and his queen consort could no longer try to have a baby boy. His only offspring were three daughters, therefore, his brother would have to be king instead of his eldest daughter. This would have meant that, when the time came in 1972, instead of Queen Margrethe II ascending the throne and becoming colonel-in-chief of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (British Army) it would have been her uncle, Prince Knud. As far as I can remember, it has never been the case in British history that a woman couldn't be an heir to the throne.

Nevertheless, both the Danish and Spanish monarchy still favour the male line, so, for instance, a younger brother will always take precedence over his older sisters, jumping over them to take the crown and be monarch. This is termed male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So the Spanish King's eldest daughter, Leonor, Princess of Asturias, is merely lucky that she doesn't have any younger brothers, otherwise she wouldn't be able to become queen despite being the first born.

However, in the UK, Queen Elizabeth II changed this in The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) so Princess Charlotte (and any other girl born after 28th October 2011) keeps her place in the line of succession. Thus she takes precedence over Prince Louis, her younger brother, so she would become queen if her older brother, Prince George died without children as his heirs. The Act also would allow Princess Charlotte or any other heir to the throne to marry a Roman Catholic although she or other heirs cannot themselves become Catholic. Interestingy, only Roman Catholics are specified possibly because they were excluded before that date.

Hence, the argument that Boris Johnson married a Catholic in Carrie while PM (2021) and so should step down was irrelevant. He himself didn't convert back again to becoming a Catholic, as far as we know. 

As a British citizen, I must acknowledge the monarch and be loyal/have allegiance to him/her. To do otherwise is treason-like in that it's similar to the treason fellony of imagining how to deprive the monarch of his kingship and the concept of High Treason is disloyalty to the Crown. Nevertheless, in practice, the crime of treason is only applied to extreme cases and acts, such as physically harming and plotting against the monarch. The monarchy debate is too framed as merely boiling down to whether you are a Monarchist or not, as though we're discussing a preference for strawberry or lemon cheesecake. The survival of the British monarchy is a wider, complex political issue, not a trivial one or even only a social equality one, because there are many different factors to consider, including general political stability; autocratic and/or military power grabs; and civil or foreign wars. 

Whereas, I do not have to show any allegiance or loyalty to the government. We are all free to, and should, scrutinise the way it runs our country. The government is accountable to the country. If we don't like the way the government is conducting itself we are at liberty to get rid of it. After all, have we not been criticising the Russians for not getting rid of Putin ages ago?

Political Allegiance:

There's always been the problem that Roman Catholics are in two minds, when push comes to shove: support the monarch or the Pope? The Pope is not just some religious leader, he is political because he is a monarch who is a head of state, the Vatican. So there's a conflict of interest. This is not a problem for members of any other faith. For instance, Jews have no such conflict. They will, of course, hold complete allegiance to the monarch, unless he/she be a tyrant, but then no-one is expected to put up with a tyrannical monarch or government. This is why the Prime Minister should not be a Roman Catholic. Indeed, Tony Blair didn't convert to Catholicism until after he was no longer Prime Minister. However, it begs the question: To what extent did Blair hold Catholic views while PM? As a political lobbyist now do his Catholic views influence what he advocates? Catholicism through the back door? Lobbyists can exert a great deal of pressure on MPs. Blair also keeps commenting on what the Labour party should do. Does this mean that Catholic views are favoured within the Labour Party?

In view of this, I would go further and say no-one in the Cabinet or Privy Council should be a Roman Catholic if they are still active Catholic church goers and believe in the infallibility of the Pope seeing him as their leader. Sounds illiberal? Maybe. But not entirely because, when you think about it objectively, the historical concern remains over foreign interference, not just in terms of anonymous political party donors and general attempts to impact on British politics, but also through the Subjects themselves in the UK. There is still the not so hypothetical possibility that, once people have undertaken Catholic Confirmation or Converted (and legitimately in accordance with the complex Catholic procedures), an active Catholic British Subject/Citizen could choose to have an allegiance to and to obey the Pope (in his full capacity as a foreign monarch) over the British King when it comes to political and social matters. And indeed, this usually arises when religious/moral doctrine impacts on social and political decisions e.g. abortion laws. We have seen this recently in the US where the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly Catholic and has overturned Roe v Wade. This problem multiples if that Subject/Citizen is also a politician with powers to impact on policy, laws and our political stability. Bear in mind, that the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England and, therefore, all those close in line to the throne must also be members of the Church of England. Even Meghan Markle was expected to convert to C of E, on marrying Prince Harry in 2018, which she did in March of that year, despite already being a type of Protestant (albeit attending Catholic schools) and despite the previous changes for Catholic spouses in the Succession to the Crown Act. 

Conclusion: A Smooth Transition

Furthermore, the stark truth is that the British monarchy must be protected and maintained because without it there will be immense instability, as Spinoza writes in his TP, especially when considering the dangers of changing from one form of state to another e.g. Monarchy to Republic or vice versa. 

On the death of a monarch, the heir is immediately declared the new king or queen: 'The Queen is dead. Long live the King'. This is to ensure continuity. However, Parliament has to approve the new monarch by statute and, in the case of Charles III, he was proclaimed King on Saturday 10th September when the Accession Council met at St James's Palace. It's vital that there's no break in succession, that there's a smooth transition and that the monarch does not flee the country at any time, leaving the throne vacant which could be a problem because it would give the government too much power to decide the future of the monarchy. 

As we can see from the past few days, a smooth transition from Queen to King has helped enormously. Prince Charles can slip into his mother's shoes very easily, which is not automatic since Spinoza points out how sometimes people don't adjust well when the new monarch is of a different sex to the previous one. But, across the generations, we are already used to seeing Charles doing numerous royal engagements, we have been anticipating him as the future King for decades, and he has vast experience and knowledge of what it means to be a monarch. This is the advantage of an hereditary monarchy. The heir is trained to take over when the time comes! And Charles, as the new monarch, has already taken the reins firmly in hand and will, I'm sure, make an excellent king!