Thursday, March 12, 2020

The Markle Debacle and Why Harry Is Right to Escape the Toils of the Royals

There is nothing in Britain's unwritten constitution to suggest the need for a royal family. All that is required in the way of royalty is a Monarch. On the death of the Monarch, the crown passes to another person in accordance with law as laid down, and from time to time changed, by the British Parliament. Under current law, the monarchy will pass on the death of Queen Elizabeth II, to her eldest son, Charles, and on the death of Charles, to his oldest son William.

There is no Constitutionally or legally determined rule according to which the successors to the British crown must undertake a public role. Except by virtue of other titles or appointments, neither Prince Charles nor his son William have any constitutionally mandated function unless and until they succeed to the throne. Yet today, not only Charles and William but a large number of other relatives of the British monarch, now widely referred to by the ludicrous term "Royals," engage in public activities, publicly funded, as if this were an essential requirement of the British system of government.

In fact, the "Royals" are for the most part an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and a frequent embarrassment, the Queen's son, Prince Andrew, being a prime example. Prince Harry's marriage to a  bitchy minor TV actress with vaulting ambition is a further example, except that Harry and his wife have opted to quite their public role as British "Royals." To that we say Bravo, and good luck. Now let us hear no more about them.

3 comments:

  1. Like many others I’ve just spend the last month watching one bunch of silly Royals quarrelling with another bunch of silly Royals. They are making Britain a laughing stock. Time for a republic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Time for a republic!"

      Could work, but we'd still need a president, or other titular figurehead, to keep the megalomaniacs like Tony Blair out of the palace, parading around with a bunch of guards in fancy dress.

      That's what Canada has, in effect. But our GG's are a colorless lot.

      On the whole I rather like QE II. Maybe because I was taken, at the age of five, with a school party to wave tiny paper flags when Princess Elizabeth visited my home town of Exeter in 1948.

      Delete
    2. But what the Brits must get rid of are these absurdly so-called "senior royals." Complete nonsense, the proof of which is evident in the person's of Harry and Meagan. The Constitution has no place for any such persons. They are mere hangers on of the monarchy and should get a job.

      Delete