Sunday, 24 January 2010

Young prince does not a monarchy make

As attractive as the young Prince William is, [and he's a good looking guy (though I suspect he will have as much hair as Edward by the time he is 30)], good looks do not a monarchy make.
Inherent in the monarchical system is a basic injustice: you shall have power not by virtue of your ability, but by virtue of your birth.
So let's get over this.
If we are to be seriously regarded as nation in Century 21 then let's get real about the fact that monarch is not for us.
This is not about "if it ain't broke don't fix it", this is about let's do what is appropriate for today not 200 years ago

6 comments:

radical royalist said...

Let me change your assertion a little bit: you shall have power not by virtue of your ability, but by virtue of your millions, your party affiliation, your media power ...

It is simply against all experience that republics get the best (wo)man for the top job.

I do prefer an independent head of state, and nothing gives more independence than the accident of birth.

God save the Queen of Australia!

stephen clark said...

It's an interesting comment that you make with which I do not entirely disagree...that is in regard to the influence of money and those who support you.

But if the independence of the so-called "accident of birth" is the best you can come up with then God help us.

I have just seen, incidentally, "Invictus" which is about Mandela. Sometimes (though not necessarily without pain and suffering/injustice and wrong even the worst countries get it right.

radical royalist said...

The case of Nelson Mandela is very interesting.

Did you know that he belongs to the Xhosa Royal Family?

In 2007 his grandson, Mandla Mandela, was installed as head of the Mvezo Traditional Council by the King of the AbaThembu, Zwelibanzi Dalindyebo, one of six kings of the Xhosa people, at the village of Mvezo in the Eastern Cape.

Nelson Mandela's father, Henry, was stripped of his right to become a chief in the early 1900s after he defied a local magistrate. The anti-apartheid fighter decided to become a lawyer and take on the white racist regime rather than take up the traditional role of tribal chief.

Mandla Mandela's father, Makgatho, Nelson Mandela's last surviving son, died in 2005 of AIDS-related complications.
"This is really Nelson's position but because of his advanced age it was decided that the honour would be bestowed on his successor," said Patekile Holomisa, head of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa.

The ceremony, known as ubeko or anointment, took place at the Mvezo Great Place, the seat of the Mandela house.

Mandla Mandela was installed as an inkosi or chief of the council and introduced to ancestral spirits, which play an important role in traditional African religion and customs.

"He is the link between the king, the ancestors and his people," Mr Holomisa said.

This information was first published by The Daily Telegraph and re-printed by , Melbourne.

stephen clark said...

Could I suggest that it is patronising, and even offensive to attempt to maintain that Mandela became President of South Africa because of some innate chacteristic caused by "accident of birth".
It's pretty clear he was voted into office.
It's pretty clear he was a citizen of the country of which he was elected President.
Neither Charles nor William Windsor are even eleigible to be elected to Senate.
I wouldn't essentially have a problem with either of them renouncing their citizenship of another country, becoming Australian citizens, and then subjecting themselves to an election (either directly or by thye Parliament). If they were then elected our Head of State I suppose they would have to do.
But they have no right to be such.

radical royalist said...

I will not bother you for very long, let me add only this:
The Queen has no passport
http://radicalroyalist.blogspot.com/2008/04/her-majesty-world-citizen-one-of.html
therefore she is - legally - not British. Once she is in Australia, she is Australian, because she is the sovereign of this country.

One could argue, that by gaining nearly 55 p.c. of the votes in the 1999 referendum, the Australian people approved the Queen - and her heirs and successors. She was voted into her position, just like a president.

stephen clark said...

An interesting, but I would suggest incorrect, statement about the Queen's citizenship of Australia.
I guess this is a Constitutional Law matter which would need to be tested.
She does not, for example, stop being the constitutional ruler of the UK simply because she steps on to the Australian shore
To suggest that the 1999 referendum voted her in is just arrant nonsense. It was a referendum about a poor style of republic...not about a choice of leader.