09 Jul 2010
A common response from my friends to my continual protestations that we need to remove the monarchy is for them to argue that ‘it doesn’t matter’ or that ‘there are more important things to do’. On the face of it these seem like reasonable arguments. Not everyone does care, and arguably there are more urgent, if not necessarily more important, things to do. As I tend to point out, however, this is an argument that can be made about most political issues, and this certainly shouldn’t dissuade republicans from continuing to campaign for a democratically elected head of state.
The fact of the matter is that it does matter that we have a monarchy. Financially, as we are continually being reminded, the monarchy is a burden to the UK, costing us more per taxpayer than a number of perhaps more valued public services. More important, though, than any financial cost, is the symbolic damage caused by having a family at the top of our country that is only given such status by the virtue of birth. Not merit, not hard work; but birth. The fact that they are bowed to by others, and then paid for the privilege, is a blow to all those who work so hard to close the inequality gap in this country. Their place of privilege at the top of the pile is one gap that will never be closed if the status quo remains.
There also exists a democratic cost. The lack of an elected Head of State places the British people in the unenviable position of having someone who is untrained and ill-prepared to execute potentially some of the most important duties within our political system. Additionally, when these duties are enacted, they are done so without any democratic mandate at all. An elected Head of State could more effectively claim to represent the will of the people in such extraordinary circumstances as the MPs expenses scandal or the hung parliament which was returned earlier this year.
So are there more important things to do? Of course, there always are, and such things are always relative. But the beauty of politics is that it aggregates causes and interests and pursues them simultaneously. We needn’t view the pursuit of the abolition of the monarchy as damaging, for example, to the eradication of child poverty. The abolition of the monarchy will mean far more than sending a removal van to Buckingham Palace. It will symbolise the reclaiming of popular sovereignty by the British people, it will open up to every child the possibility of one day being President of this country, it would strike a blow to the palatial living of those who gain privilege by virtue of birth, and it would hopefully act as a catalyst to some other, arguably needed, political reforms. Such arguments need to be at the forefront of republican thinking and campaigning. The sheer injustice that the existence of the monarchy represents must be foregrounded as opposed to often counter-productive points-scoring based on individual scandal and personality. The argument is there for the taking if republicans think big, and eventually do big.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2010 at 4:52 pm and is filed under Case for a republic, Constitutional reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Nice piece, for me the cost issue is peripheral. I realise, though, that money is a concept that everyone understands and so it’s easy to engage the full spectrum of the populous. But, on cost there will always be an an argument for the Monarchy, a justification; an acceptance of the “good” monetary value.
For me it is the silliness of deferring to an old lady, or institution, wearing a crown. Not me. Never.
The problem is that people find it hard to question “authority.” I see it all the time at work. My co-workers allow team leaders and a mangers to talk to them in patronising tones. My co-workers make the tea at break times and pour the team leader a cup, while team leaders see it as beneath them. Why?
Every one of the team leaders and managers at my place speak to ME with respect and professionalism. That is because they know that that is the only way that I will give it back to them. If they ASK me for a continent I will give them the world. If they TELL me to hand it over then they will never receive even the smallest grain of sand.
Until this mindset is broken, the queen, etal, will reign for ever and a day.
July 10th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I agree with your sentiments Rob D but while the establishment use cost as part of the justification for monarchy we ought to at least refute their claims and point out to the populace that there are aspects of the cost of monarchy that are hidden from us and which need to be exposed.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
@ Rob D and Peter Allen,
I agree although I will offer a slightly different angle:-
“Leadership (“Management”) is about getting people to do things because THEY want to to do it.”
I can’t remember where that quotation came from but it’s certainly a good ‘un and a right ‘un.
If you translate that into the leadership created by the current arrangements, there is nothing there that makes me want to do anything because the monarch is our leader.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Surely leadership is the ability to get people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. If they want to do it anyway then no leadership is required.
July 10th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@ Graham
Keep up! Is that not what I said?!
July 10th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
@Martin
Er, no. Unless I’m mis-reading it you said that leadership is “about getting people to do things because THEY want to to do it.” To me that reads as ‘they’ being the ‘people’ in that same sentence. Which is different.
If you meant it’s about getting people to do things because the leader wants them to then yes, we’ve said much the same thing.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I think Martin may have meant that the skill in good leadership is making people believe that they want do something, rather than feeling that they have to.
Or maybe I’m wrong.
Anyway, good leaders inspire, am I inspired by Charlie and co? No.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Check out this link, it explains how to greet and sign off your letter to Liz.
Laughable.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/ContactTheQueen/Overview.aspx
July 10th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
The Queens’ working day…..hahahahahaha
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Morning.aspx
July 10th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
@ Martin/Rob/Graham
I agree with both definitions, but the key point is that we should be able to win the argument on the monarchy (which we could) and then take the people with us based on this. So a bit of both of what was said above, I think (?).
July 10th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
“If you wish to write a formal letter, you can open with ‘Madam’ and close the letter with the form ‘I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant’.
This traditional approach is by no means obligatory. You should feel free to write in whatever style you feel comfortable.”
Rob, I checked out the link you provided link and saw the above also. It is more sad than laughable. No doubt Simon, Bruno and other sycophants are happy to be humble, and obedient servants, but what does this mean exactly?
If one is a member of the British armed forces, the police or politics, then it’s possible to argue you are doing the above. However, MP’s and the police should be serving and making pledges to the people who put put them in power and who pay their wages, not a singular figure!
So how does say, a doctor, teacher, designer or bin man be a ‘humble and obedient servant’? Surey this is shorthand for ‘you know your place so shut up, keep your head bowed and be grateful’!!!
July 11th, 2010 at 12:11 am
@ Graham,
Rob’s got it more or less spot on!
It’s a paradox but in most good management circles it’s very true.
Surely giving people a stake in the country is one part of restoring good leadership.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:23 am
The Queen’s working day? (URL – ibid.)
Given the emphasis in the article, placed around the midday meal, it appears that Her Majesty eats more lunches than a landlord’s labrador.
As Yosser Hughes might have a said: “Gizza job – I can do that!”
July 11th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Well I agree with that, although not sure it’s a paradox.
July 11th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@ Graham
It’s certainly a paradox to many!
But on a serious point, the need that many feel for a monarchy would appear to be based on blind faith rather than applied logic.
I’ve said it before on these pages but I’ll mention the quote from Stafford Cripps (who later took the “King’s Shilling” and became a “Sir”) who said (paraphrased): “All that is required for democracy to succeed in Britain is for the people to be told the truth”.
At the moment, the truth seeps out rather than being on open view for everyone to see.
So, referring to again to Peter’s main article, whilst there may be “more important things” to address, the principle of how these decisions are taken are underpinned by the overall structure that decides HOW we make those decisions and the processes therein.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
From Rob’s link,
“If you wish to write a formal letter, you can open with ‘Madam’ and close the letter with the form ‘I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant’. ”
Excuse me, I pay your way lady, that makes me your boss and you should be my servant.
July 13th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Imatt,
I too looked at the page. The only thing that puzzled and shocked me was this bit..
“This traditional approach is by no means obligatory. You should feel free to write in whatever style you feel comfortable.”
People should follow tradition when writing to the Queen, or atleast show a certain amount of respect. Whilst a single method is not required, there should be a selection of respectful methods and any letter that fails to comply is binned.
I must confess though, whilst i have no objections to the traditional wording, it is not how i would word a letter. Id prefer just to finish with, “your humble and loyal subject” or along those lines. That is a phrase i happily use often.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Simon, you seem to be confusing ‘respect’ for deference and sycophancy. Respect is a two way thing, and it’s also something you should have for yourself as well as for others. You are Elizabeth Windsor’s equal, you have no need to be humble or her ‘loyal subject’. Addressing her just as you would address anyone else would be just fine and respectful… ie. Dear Mrs Windsor, Dear Queen etc… signed off with ‘yours sincerely…’.
The idea that our head of state should bin any letter that doesn’t show deference is clearly absurd.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Graham,
I am not an equal with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, none of us are. She is the most important person in this country and she must be shown the respect she deserves. Everyone else is below her and must know their place and remember it when they address her through a letter.
Its a bit like people here moaning about Andy murray and his play friend bowing before Her Majesty at Wimbledon. You condemned Andy for showing respect to his Queen. This equality nonsense of everyone being equal is just silly. perhaps you should take a look at the respect that gets shown to the American president? That is far more dangerous because he implements policy and has a political agenda.
Loyalty to our monarch means we can show contempt and speak out about the crazy politicians who are destroying our country, without anyone playing the “show respect to the office of the Prime Minister” line as happens in the USA all the time with the office of the presidency and the Commander in Chief.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Well I’ll grant you that Liz Windsor possibly has more sense than you do Simon. US citizens are free to show contempt for the president, and they do it regularly. They do distinguish between the man and the office, which is why they often get so worked up about bad presidents.
No-one is “the most important person” in this country, and the office of monarch certainly isn’t the most important position. If it fell vacant our constitution and our country would barely notice.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Good God! Talk about having no self pride, no self worth and general self loathing. Arguing with sycophantic drivel such as the above is pointless with someone who has so little self respect.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
I’m a bit worried about Simon, at first I thought he was just your average wind up merchant, but now I’m begining to think he’s being serious.
The thing about the President is that he is elected by the people, for the people. An impossibly high ideal to live up to? Well maybe, and most, if not all Presidents of the USA have found this beyond them. But the thing is, when people show repect to the President, they are actually showing respect for the peoples’ representative, that is to say they are showing respect to one another.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Graham Smith
The thing is, Republic does not support the American system, one of the few things ive agreed with many republicans on here is that their system of a single man being both the head of state and head of government is deeply flawed. The trouble is in your desire for us to become a republic, you would rather a deeply flawed republican system than continue our constitutional monarchy which while not perfect has served us well.
Of course many in America do speak out about the actions of their president, but we have seen occasions where the other side question the peoples loyalty to America for disrespecting the president and the office of the President. The fact a president can deeply divide people because of his political agenda, undermines the position of head of state which is meant to be a unifying position that brings the country together. A national symbol, respected by all sides of the political spectrum.
As far as im aware there is just one thing that unites the following parties.. BNP, SNP, DUP, UUP, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP. The one shared policy every single one of these parties have is they support the continuation of the monarchy and Queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
These are radically different parties, one of them does not even support the continuation of the United Kingdom. Yet they all support the monarchy. I am sorry but you do not see such unity in republics often.
I am sorry but that is just not true. The President of the USA is the most important person in the USA, the French president is the most important in France, here in Britain the most important person is Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
This is simple fact, there is no ideology involved here. She is the head of state of our country (and 15 other realms which makes her protection even more important). Prime Ministers come and go, the Queen reigns for life.
If the British army had to defend one person in this country, they would defend Her Majesty, as their oaths clearly state they must. Prime ministers are expendable. We are all mere humble subjects of Her majesty.
iMatt,
I take pride in our country and our Queen. your view of “self pride” maynot be the view of others. Do our soldiers who serve in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have no pride because they remain loyal servants of our Queen?
Rob,
I am very serious. Many people in our country and loyal and worship Her majesty. There is nothing strange about it. Some of you guys just seem to be after something to rebel against wanting some form of utopia where everyone lives in peace and are equal like the song Imagine.. Sorry but it aint how the world works
The Queen has far more support from her people than a President in a republic has. Id rather we not have a politician as head of state. Its like seeing the French president taking the salute from troops in France like he is Napoleon. It just seems very wrong and not something i would be comfortable with. Republic says we could keep trooping the colour. It just would not be right to see some jumped up politician taking the salute.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I used to tell you to carry on being happy in your own servility but I see it’s now more than just servility, it’s self-flagellation too. For God’s sake get off your knees Simon, it’s 2011 not 1611.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Simon is very ill. Ignore him!
The US president is probably the most important decision maker in the USA. However, he can be replaced and will have to make way for another Democrat or Republican successor. If he screws up big time, he can be impeached.
Now, I don’t doubt that Barrack Obama is a smart guy. However, say you have three Americans in the same room, one of them is Barrack Obama, one of them a heart surgeon with 20+ years experience and the other is a man who’s just collapsed to his knees clutching his chest, due to a massive heart attack. Who then becomes the most relevant and important man in the room?
This “the Queen is the most important person in the country” crap says more about the poster than it does about anything else. Talk about writing off 60 million + people. Again, he is so full of self loathing, it oozes out of every pore in his body.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Simon,
“Some of you guys just seem to be after something to rebel against wanting some form of utopia where everyone lives in peace and are equal like the song Imagine.. Sorry but it aint how the world works.”
And where have any of us said this?
Your argument that “The Queen has far more support from her people than a President in a republic has”, is untested and could only be proven with a full national debate and referendum. It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that you know what the majority of people would want after the facts where laid on the table.
July 14th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Bob,
Its actually 2010
I really do not understand why you all have such a problem with being below someone. There is nothing wrong with kneeling or bowing before your Queen.
Is an American soldier that loyally follows his President’s orders into self-flagellation too? or is he doing his duty for his country and commander in chief.
Here the Queen is the commander in chief, are soldiers wrong for being loyal and following the oath they have taken? They give their lives and service for a cause, you guys disrespect them by suggesting it makes them lesser people for following orders. We can not all be equal, i know some here want some form of hippy paradise but the real world aint like that.
The army oath..
Do you wish to mock British soldiers for making such an oath and taking it seriously?
iMatt
probably? lmao. He is the most important. If he dies, someone takes over. But if the Queen dies, someone takes over too.
Hence the saying.. “The king is dead, Long live the King”!
As for the impeached bit, if we are unhappy with the monarchy we are free to support becoming a republic and abolishing it.
The president is still the most important, i think you are getting slightly confused with the importance based on position and a need for something in an individual instance.
If there is a surgeon and he has to choose between saving the US president or a soldier.. he will save the president. The soldier will either sacrifice himself to follow his oath to the president and the constitution, or the surgeon will decide by himself, the senior person in the room must be saved. Thats what i mean when i say someone is the most important person.
Queen Elizabeth II is the most important person in this country. She outranks everyone as Queen of this Kingdom. We aint all equal, claiming we are is silly.
Rob,
elections and polls back up my position.
July 14th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Polls said that Kinnock was on for a landslide in ‘92.
Which elections?
July 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
By the way, yarping on about the U.S President is neither here nor there. The U.S model is but one version of a Republic.
July 14th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
The queen is not the most important person in the country.The smallest and weakest child in the Land is just as important as any king or queen.People’s loved ones are the most important to them,of course. Republicans do not believe in such nonsense as the value of hereditary inequality as personified by kings,queens etc.Also people should not be expected to bow and scrape in front of queens or anyone else,whether they are patriotic or not. Soldiers do not go into battle just because they have taken an oath about a queen.People are not born into the World as equals,we know,as some are handicapped by physical or psychological problems. That is bad enough. To be born into a form of privilege of any sort is completely due to human social factors ,and this can be put right, if the political will exists .
July 14th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Rob
but they did not say he enjoyed about 70% or more public support, they can not be that wrong surely. Recent polls show they are not too far off the overall result, allowing for Margin of errors ur still talking about over 60% support.
6 May 2010 – General election for the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Over 95% of the votes went to political parties who support the continuation of the monarchy.
Less than 4% of the votes went to political parties that support the abolition of the monarchy.
The United States of America is the only Republic on the planet i have some genuine respect for. Their system is sadly deeply flawed and i worry about the path they are going down under this crazy far left President Obama. Some deeply disturbing stuff happening over there, enough to put me off of republicanism even more lmao.
Its true Republic propose another form of system like the Irish one. Sadly Republic does not condemn the American system and say it should not be chosen, theyd rather a dangerous Republican system than our stable constitutional monarchy.
The other problem is i look at other republics and i am not very impressed either. I see flaws in the French one, German one and Irish one.. some of which i have been over before.
Barry,
Rubbish sorry. Even in republics the president is more important than the weakest child. lets be realistic, we aint all equal.. that applies in republics too.
People should be expected to bow to the Queen. There should be no punishment for not doing so, but it should be expected in a civilized society to show respect a person is entitled to.
That wasnt my point. I simply asked if he thinks our soldiers are inferior because they take such an oath and follow it loyally.
Peoples backgrounds will always matter. We can not end that. Many of our politicians have a good background, theres no rule saying that must be the case, but it just happens.
Even in republics this happens.. we just have to accept it.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Saying there are flaws in the German and Irish systems is not an argument against a republic, given that our own monarchical system, as you admit, is riddled with flaws.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Once again this comes down to class warfare, theres an obsession with having a war on class yet it will always exist, we can not all be the same. These sorts of views area heading down the path of socialism and communism.
I liked Sir Winston Churchills quote..
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
And the classic Maggie T’s response to the young Simon Hughes in the house of commons on this whole philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
July 14th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Simon, what are you talking about? What’s class warfare got to do with anything?
July 14th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Graham Smith,
To justify a radical change from our present system there has to be a relatively flawless alternative to change to, it can not be riddled with flaws and huge risks.
One of the flaws in the German system was highlighted perfectly in their election a few weeks ago. All came down to party politics and the Chancellor got the President she wanted. So the head of state of Germany has belonged to her party for decades, she got him the job, hes clearly going to be loyal to her. And the opposition parties who voted for someone else are hardly going to see him as a unifying figure.
Almost every one of Republics concerns (or problems with the monarchy) could be dealt with without full abolition of the monarchy. If that is what the people want, but as i pointed out in my previous comment 95% of people voted for political parties who support the monarchy, less than 4% voted for parties that seek its abolition.
There is clearly now widespread demand for becoming a republic.
The class warfare thing is what this often comes down to, talk of equality etc.
Barry said : “To be born into a form of privilege of any sort is completely due to human social factors ,and this can be put right, if the political will exists ”
That is clearly not just talking about the monarchy, its any form of advantage one may have thanks to their parents. The solution of course is for poor people to have less children, but some may view that as rather controversial.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Firstly, there’s no such rule. Secondly, you say “relatively” flawless. Well a republican constitution is relatively flawless compared to what we have. There are no huge risks with having a republican constitution. So the German system has an element of party politics involved, so what? That’s the system they want, they’re free to change it but it works for them. What’s important to understand is that once the German president is elected he becomes neutral and non-partisan, in the same way our Speaker does.
I’ve answered your point about achieving all the other changes on the other post.
‘Equality’ is not about class war or socialism, it’s about equality of citizenship – everyone being an equal citizen with equal rights to govern themselves and participate in the governing of their society. It’s a basic feature of democratic theory.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
“Over 95% of the votes went to political parties who support the continuation of the monarchy. ”
Surely Simon, even you can see the ridiculousness of this statement. I hardly think a single voter voted for one of these parties because of their stance on the Monarchy. A section on this site explains quite clearly why most(especially mainstream)politicians back the Monarchy. The obvious comeback from you would be to say that that means nobdy is bothered about getting rid.
Well actually it could be said that nobody is bothered about keeping them either. Apathy is no endorsement for continuation.
So the best that can be said about your straw poll is that most people couldn’t care less one way or another about Liz and co.
If you are serious about your figures then I would ask you to find me some quotes from mainstream news sites whereby ordinary voters are citing continuation of the Monarchy as their reason for voting a particular way. If you are trading on your 95% figure then there should plenty to choose from.
The easiest way for you lot to drive a dagger through our hearts is to back our call for at least a referendum. With 95% of the voters behind you, what is there to fear?
July 14th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Just to meander slightly…..
Isn’t it ironic that your beloved Capitalism is currently propped up by huge sweeping Socialist measures…..
July 14th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Couldn’t have put it better myself Rob. Simon, we’re going to be starting up a more specific campaign calling for this issue to be put to the people in a referendum, would you back that campaign?
July 14th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
The army oath..
“I, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me”
The above rather puts into context the claims of “our boys” fighting for “us”. There is not one mention there about the duly elected representatives of the public, there is not one mention of defending our country, way of life, anything. The only thing that the armed forces are sworn to serve is an old woman and her family.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Simon the harsh reality is that if you paid the soldiers zero pounds a year then they would not be fighting and rightly so. I put it to you that by doing what they do they are primarily doing an exciting job while earning a living for themselves and their family. The reason they take an oath (if they do, I don’t know) is because they wouldn’t get the job otherwise. It’s nothing to do with love of thy Queen. We’ve all told little porkys to get the job we want.
And lest we forget, of all professions, the soldier, for entirely legitimate reasons, is taught to obey orders and accept what they are being told. No doubt some do love the Queen, but no doubt some don’t as well.
So, do I, or anyone else, mock them for taking and following this oath? No, they take it to earn a living and they follow it because Generals and Officers are in charge of them; they are their managers.
I have to say though, it’s a shame that after all that service, Soldiers are simply thrown on to the scrap heap. Does thy Queen have no compassion?
July 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am
“I, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors…” Graham M-R
This just epitomizes the anachronistic nonsense of oath swearing. It assumes that all members of the armed forces are godfearing royalists who defer to white Europeans. It takes just one dissenter, who lies or denies his true feelings in order to join up, to invalidate it as a means to any form of rational end.
July 15th, 2010 at 9:49 am
“95% of people voted for political parties who support the monarchy, less than 4% voted for parties that seek its abolition.” Simon
Ridiculous naivity. If this guy, with his risible non-arguments, is the best advocate monarchists can come up with, Republic will steadily grow through ruthlessly arguing cogent points of logical accuracy. I get the impression that the only reason anyone replies to him at all is because of the dearth of other defenders of the present system present on the forum. Most who do appear are ‘hit and run’ merchants.
I have yet to hear a royalist argument which does not involve dire inevitability, blind assumption, unsupported notions of mindless deference, unsupported fears of constructed, terrifying alternatives, uninformed negativity, inaccuracy, myth and ad hominem attacks on those with a republican viewpoint.
Offerings from Simon appear to turn on his own reduced self-worth, notions of a hierarchy of importance, fear of change, pejorative and inaccurate use of the terms ‘liberal’ and ’socialist’. He appears to labour under the false assumption that critical argument consists of constantly re-stating the view that ultra right-wing conservatism is either acceptable to all, or a reliable device for measuring the genuinely-held views of others.
July 15th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Dear Simon, Sorry, but as usual you are the one spouting rubbish. A child cannot rule or run a country ,but as a living member of society it is just as important as any king or queen.Think about it.
Well let’s put it another way then: even the smallest and weakest child in the Land is as VALUABLE as any king or queen. Any child is the most important creature to those who love it . Try telling a child’s nearest and dearest that the queen is more important. A civilised and enlightened society,( which we do not have at present), would do anything but bow in ridiculous obeisance to a king or queeen. We do not have to accept the privileged status that some people are born into at all.It is something that can actually be changed to make a better society . People’s backgrounds can be changed to improve equality. My point was that there are enough inequalities due to physical and mental problems present at birth,which are deemed to be “Acts of God” . Social status and inequalities present at birth augment all other handicaps .These social inequalities are the things that it is within human power to change for the better. To ignore this possibilty is to remain rooted and fixed in pure negativism. I think you perhaps overplay the “Class Warfare ” card. Class distinctions do exist. They have improved somewhat but are still too divisive. It is quite possible for the excesses of class distinction ,as embodied by the monarchy, to be removed . I think it is possible to eventually remove most traces of class division. Obviously any form of inherited advantages in society are not as extreme as those of royalty.This was the crux of my point. Moanarchical inheritance and privilege are EXTREME examples. Perhaps this can apply to forms of aristocracy as well. My complaint is about the DEGREE of privilege some members of society have inherited .To be born royal is more extreme than inheriting a modest family house ,for example. Some people inherit businesses. Sometimes they do well ,sometimes they mess the business up or are just incompetent. I am something of a Leveller in my beliefs. I get your point about the soldiers not being inferior because they have taken an oath.