An inherited crown was put on trial here, but the decisive fear was not royal power; it was what an elected replacement might unleash. The room’s split was less between monarchists and republicans than between two views of democratic risk.
The floor’s most-respected No case reduced the objection to a roll-call nightmare: “President Mandelson. President Blair, President Cameron, President Johnson, President Khan.” Other No voices defended the monarchy as history and cultural shorthand, arguing that “the UK is known the world over for our Monarchy”, while a more anxious strain pointed across the Atlantic to elected leaders who become “real duffers”.
Yes made the cleaner constitutional argument. Its strongest voice said inheritance was “fundamentally incompatible with the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity”, while another proposed “a single, elected, ceremonial president” rather than a politically empowered executive. The appeal was to equal citizenship; the counter was that popular election could import precisely the politics the monarchy currently keeps at arm’s length.
The sides also talked past each other over what an elected head of state would mean. Some No voters opposed the monarchy in principle but feared populism more, while Yes voters answered the tourism and heritage case with the brisk rejoinder: “Millions of people visit the Palace of Versailles.” The result therefore reflected not a unified defence of royal privilege, but a stronger suspicion of the alternative.
The crown survived because its opponents made the moral case, while its defenders owned the practical fear.
20 Opinions
The theory says yes; but King Charles Vs President Blair. I'll take Charles every time.
Yes. Like PR, there are different models. A ceremonial Head of State like Ireland has would be good. Perhaps if serving in a Cabinet would bar you from standing it would stop the 'Blair,Johnson' objections.
Can you just imagine Jeremy Corbin or Theresa May as President? Unfortunately if we had a Oresident then they would have real political power à la The Orange Man! Quite content to have a Head of State in name only. Big Ears is a joke but thankfully effectively powerless.
I don't believe voting a head of state is a good thing . Royals should stand on own feet though especially after Andrew cover up and ginger the hypocrite coming back
God save the King!
Sadly, the public can be poor judges of character. You only need to look across the pond to see how the Americans have managed to elect some real duffers only to surpass themselves with the latest - TWICE!
Abolishing the monarchy is just the start for people who want us all on the same income, in the same kind of house, forever.
I have fundamental problems with our inherited monarchy, even when our elected Parliament has the power to abolish it should it choose to do so. I have even deeper misgivings about an elected Head of State - which history shows attracts populists who use their electoral mandate to stretch and circumvent moral and legal protections. So no to the status quo, but a former no to an elected head of state. Hope someone has the answer.
President Mandelson. President Blair, President Cameron, President Johnson, President Khan. I rest my case.
The UK is known the world over for our Monarchy. People come here for holidays, just because we have a Monarchy. Many of us complain loudly about us losing our British Culture, how we'll no longer be a Christian country soon, with all the immigrants living here. Yet they are quite happy to remove the biggest part of our history and culture that has been here for centuries.