First off, on the monarchy generally. I am in full support of the monarchy for a few reasons. I only say that second sentence because one thing I have noticed, is that this debate so often comes down to whether the monarch is good value for money, going down to tourism revenue versus the high expenses incurred. To my mind this is a non arguement let alone the key issue, as the function of the monarch is such that even if you do put a price on it, and find it below what the monarch is currently using money, the answer is to lower the costs rather than remove it completely. Even listening to some pro monarchists, you would think the queen is just a tourist attraction, and Royal properties are simply there to maximise the number of tourist attractions the state can use to milk money out of foreigners. But anyway I always get annoyed wiht people who bemoan a viewpoint without offering their own, so I'll get to the point
.
The main reason the queen seems irrelevant in my opinion is that the function isn't called on in current times, due simply to our very favourable national situation. The most obvious function is to act as a figurehead for the population, both in terms fo representing the country abroad which you really have to be a foreigner to recognise, and by providing inspiring leadership and direction in times of need, which haven't been encountered for some time. The continuity, honourable nature and to an extent the exuberance of the queen cannot be reliably matched by political figures as Tony Blair has shown, the support for him from 1997 to today I think shows well how politicians can deteriorate. And I feel the monarch serves as a personification of Britain, perhaps in the same way as some people have likened the oath to the queen as a oath to the country, and why I regard serving the Queen and serving the country as much the same thing.
The monarch also provides a valuable safety net against extreme political failure which again I think may be overlooked because we haven't experienced that for a long time, perhaps centuries. Democracy isn't entirely reliable, as the rise of Hitler shows. The impartiality and independence of the monarch allows it some power to hold this back; for instance should a Hitler-esque figure somehow get voted in, the monarch retains the power to deny them control of the country, but to appoint a decent (ok then, better
) politician to run things. Even if the devil incarnate does get into power, the fact that the monarch has overall control of the armed forces would limit the damage they could do, in so many countries the military have been the main instrument of internal oppression or external aggression, and this option would not be available in Britain.
Then of course as mentioned there is the traditional and ceremonial aspect which while much more intangible and subjective, does make Britain much richer in terms of national identity, history and to an extent culture. The thing here of course is that this is much more a personal view, so not really something easy or realistic to debate.
Plus, another thing which annoys me about this debate is that it's often over whether Britian wants/needs a monarchy, ignoring the fact that the Queen is the head of state of twelve other countries, and as the head of the commonwealth has a place in forty one others. As such, the place of the monarch in international affairs should be considered, and I do find it annoying how much people ignore the Royal influence outside of the UK, but that's not really for this particular thread.
And now the Roayl oath. If anyone's bothered to read the first bit it's probably easy to guess that I'm more than happy to swear an oath to the monarch
. It does have less value than it used to in my opinion, as by mu understanding it's purpose is so that the monarch and everyone under their control (including the military and the government) have your word that you will trust them, and that they can trust you.
The difficulty is that in times past having someones word actually meant something most of the time, and this is blatantly not the case now in most areas of society. The posts on this thread demonstrate this, the view that "saying a few words means f@#k all anyway" means that the trust is clearly not there, and without true dedication to those words it genuinely becomes nothing. If chivalry and traditional honour was still around then it would be invaluable, but today people are very quick to go against their word when it suits them.
For my part, I do not place much wieght in the oath, as I 'know' that I will serve my monarch and country (I don't usually say Queen and country but only because it's now incredibly cliche'd), and I don't require a formal process for me to do so. However I do recognise that without unrestricted telepathy, noone else can be as sure of me as I am and an oath is a way of guarunteeing them your service, and it is an important symbol that you are prepared to carry out what you are instructed regardless of your political or personal opinion. I'm not sure that makes sense, though I can try and clarify it if anyone's interested
.
Nb: I only put 'know' in inverted commas as that is based entirely on my current state of mind, and of course it is impossible to say that my state of mind and point of view won't change in time. This is obvious, I'm just mentioning it so people don't start accusing me of being an immature ignoramus based on that
.
Oh and as you may have gussed, in a hypothetical monarch versus parliement conflict, I'm sticking with the Queen
.
