tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post41924180121817627..comments2023-10-16T11:28:03.544+00:00Comments on Anomaly UK: Thoughts on the Diamond JubileeAnomaly UKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-69755707719123575632012-06-04T00:10:44.787+00:002012-06-04T00:10:44.787+00:00Actually, the English King did not rule because he...Actually, the English King did not rule because he had an army. Throughout most of English history he had no army, no constabulary, no traffic wardens, no prison guards and no social workers, except for clergy, and very little in the way of a civil service. Armies were assembled on an ad hoc basis, mostly kept abroad, and then immediately demobilised: a standing army would have been a danger to the Monarchy. Elizabeth Tudor was terrified when the Earl of Essex appeared unexpectedly in her palace of Nonsuch: she calmed him down through tact, charm and cunning, but she would have been totally at his mercy. Henry VIII could have been overthrown by the Pilgrimage of Grace: but he got his nobility to parley with them, separate them from their leaders, and disperse. <br /><br />Charles I made the mistake of annoying the Fenlanders by trying to reclaim their marches: this is what did for him. This is the one good thing about kings as against parliaments: they can't afford to piss anyone off, and in the main they try not to.<br /><br />The King ruled largely because he was the richest man in the country: he would remain such by not wasting money on armies. When there was another rich man, as with the Earl/Duke of Lancaster, he could afford to overthrow the king, which he did to Richard II. It also helped that communications were poor. Punishments for sedition were draconian.<br /><br />French history is much the same. A single nutter in a rural town could, by gathering followers around him, advance on a city like Paris and take it over. Even today, it is reckoned that Manchester United supporters could, if they acted in concert, take over a country like Belgium. The mould was broken by the King of Prussia. He was able to introduce freedom of speech: his subjects could slander him as they chose, because his army was fully in control.<br /><br />Chang Kai-shek lasted 20 years (1928-1948) as a sort of ruler of China, but spent the whole time fighting warlords, the Communists or the Japanese. His dynasty lingered on in Taiwan because the USA paid it to: Castro similarly was Russian funded. The vaunted millennia of Japanese Imperial rule are a laughable fiction. Contending warlords prevailed, and then in 1868 imposed a figurehead Emperor from an ancient family which had never hitherto had any power. None of these are examples of the McGinnean politics-free paradigm.A Nonny Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824713232073772433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-60976316121948851962012-06-04T00:07:40.344+00:002012-06-04T00:07:40.344+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.A Nonny Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824713232073772433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-84076314743254347412012-06-03T19:51:09.095+00:002012-06-03T19:51:09.095+00:00On the other comments, I'm not quite sure what...On the other comments, I'm not quite sure what they're directed at, since the basis of the monarchist arguments are not made in the post above. Examples where I gone beyond an overly simplistic "Monarchy = stability" argument are <a href="http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2011/03/actually-existing-monarchy.html" rel="nofollow">Actually Existing Monarchy</a> and <a href="http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-over-mighty-subjects.html" rel="nofollow">On Over-Mighty Subjects</a><br /><br />The claim "A monarchy is simply a dictatorship with a different kind of P.R." is very interesting though. I agree completely. But so what? P.R. is absolutely fundamental to government. The reason why Monarchy is preferable to Dictatorship is that it has P.R. which is less easily transferable to a rival.<br /><br />Yes, hereditary legitimacy broke down seriously for the entire 15th Century, and that was a bad thing. <br /><br />In fact, Spandrell's point is linked: whether or not the Queen has an army is a matter of whether people believe she has. On paper, she does, but right now, Cameron has greater legitimacy. The Monarchy does not need to gain more legitimacy, they just need the democratic institutions to lose the legitimacy they have. And that could happen.<br /><br />(Even today, it's not so clear-cut. I think back in the 1960s or 1970s, Britain might well have become a republic if the government had complete confidence that the Army would break its oath. But I might be misjudging the times).Anomaly UKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-67722793271613238122012-06-03T17:52:46.221+00:002012-06-03T17:52:46.221+00:00bloodyshovel: An army. Next objection?bloodyshovel: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#Oath_of_allegiance" rel="nofollow">An army</a>. Next objection?Anomaly UKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-23079272564617586022012-06-03T17:47:42.204+00:002012-06-03T17:47:42.204+00:00fidel castro: 1959-2011, 52 years. (the exact date...fidel castro: 1959-2011, 52 years. (the exact dates we should use for him are a bit fuzzy, but he pretty clearly beat 45 years.)<br /><br />kim il-sung: 1948-1994, 45 years.<br /><br />chiang kai-shek: 1928-1975, 46 years. (we tend not to think of him as a dictator, but afaict he was one.)<br /><br />and there have of course been dozens of monarchs with individual reigns over 45 years, and dynasties into the centuries (and millennia, if you take japan's claims seriously).Aaron Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05334056755840192313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-83774357684571331942012-06-03T05:46:29.657+00:002012-06-03T05:46:29.657+00:00An elective government with quinquennial parliamen...An elective government with quinquennial parliaments can on occasion last for 15 years. A dictatorship can last twice, but never three times as long. Usually though, the damage that it does is 10 times as great as that done by elective governments in the same period. A monarchy is simply a dictatorship with a different kind of P.R.<br /><br />For example: <br />Saddam Hussein seized power 1968<br />he was overthrown & his sons Uday and Qusay killed 2003<br />and hanged 2006. Dynasty lasted 35 years.<br /><br />James VI of Scotland becomes I of England 1603;<br />civil war starts 1642; Royalists defeated 1646;<br />Charles Stuart beheaded 1649. Dynasty lasted 43 years.<br /><br />Muammar Ghaddafi's group of Officers seize power 1969;<br />Ghaddafi killed 2011. Dynasty lasted 42 years.<br /><br />But Ghaddafi was the champion dictator of the whole world, kept in position by an unusual windfall of oil. 42 years is still short of 3*15 though.<br /><br />Where I think you are going wrong is in believing a false historiography in which actual political régime change is disguised as the centuries long continuation of hereditary absolute monarchy. For example, Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was that his mother's grandfather was an illegitimate son of Edward III's third surviving son. In other words he was a fairly average member of the nobility (in the way that David Cameron is a descendant of George III). His method of asserting continuity was to marry a high ranking female in the legitimate succession and make sure that anyone else with a plausible claim was disappeared, beheaded, imprisoned in the tower, exiled or in terror of their life. This is politics at its worse, not monarchy.<br /><br />A much simplfied description of the course of English Politics since 1066 would be as follows:-<br /><br />Curthose v Beauclerc<br />Blois v Anjou<br />King v Barons<br />Anjou v Montfort<br />King v Lancaster<br />Lancaster v York<br />King v Pilgrimage<br />Tudor v Gray (Catholic v Protestant)<br />Tudor v Stuart<br />Cromwell v Stuart<br />Stuart v Orange<br />Hanover v Stuart<br />King v Regent (Whig v Tory)<br />(Liberal v Conservative)<br />(Conservative v Labour)<br /><br />Brackets indicated that the centre of the conflict has moved way from the monarchy. It's just one long civil war, interspersed with plotting (politics). The great advantage of introducing parliamentary elections is that the civil war has now been replaced by the sham war which is the election campaign: the jockeying for power remains.A Nonny Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824713232073772433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-43971339024059899372012-06-03T01:58:16.703+00:002012-06-03T01:58:16.703+00:00Singapore seems to be a decent counter-example to ...Singapore seems to be a decent counter-example to North Korea--the Lees, father and son, look like the start of a fairly effective crypto-monarchy.Aaron Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05334056755840192313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-46981684702549839122012-06-02T14:44:23.156+00:002012-06-02T14:44:23.156+00:00Kings ruled because they have an army. That's ...Kings ruled because they have an army. That's the basis of their power, and not the consent of the governed or some post-facto rationalisation.<br /><br />They don't have an army now. And I don't see how they would get one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com