This is Daniel Hannan’s post on the DT staff blogs.
The past three days must have been miserable for republicans. They have watched vast crowds cheering the institution they oppose because of an event which, strictly speaking, has nothing whatever to do with the pros and cons of monarchy. Yet to say as much is to invite accusations of scorning young love, mocking your country and despising its people.
“A princely marriage,” wrote Bagehot, “is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind.” It is none the less incidental to the question of whether the head of state should be elected.
When you strip away the fripperies, the groupthink and the inertia, there are two solid arguments for the Crown. First, it secures the authority of the government and thus elevates the rule of law. In the United Kingdom, as in every country, there are fierce arguments about what political leaders ought to do; but these are arguments within the rules, not about the rules. Even those Britons who might ideally prefer a different system rarely challenge the legitimacy of the constitutional settlement agreed by our fathers 322 years ago. In consequence, we have been spared the discontents, revolutions, coups and dictatorships of less happier lands.
The second argument, however, is the clincher: the monarchy enjoys overwhelming public support. Over at Next Left, the day after the wedding, Sunder Katwala posted a rather sweet blog about why he was no longer a republican. He pointed out that the case for an elected head of state must rest on democratic principles; yet the clear preference of most British people is for the current system. As I never tire of pointing out, the voters, in a democracy, are never wrong. They might be irrational, inconsistent, infuriating; but not wrong.
Boadicea's Chariot 
So, Sheona, you give us four paragraphs of cut and paste, no link to the quoted article, and no original contribution from you to explain why you have chosen to copy Telegraph material into the Chariot.
Perhaps you might like to explain in a comment.
If Charioteers wish to comment on Hannan’s post, they may do so here –
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100085797/how-wretched-to-be-a-republican-at-a-time-like-this/
Sheona’s comments may also be read at that address.
What an unpleasant hectoring tone in the above comment!
We let you do it Christina. Pot and kettle?
Not really Christina. There has been a lot of criticism here about an anti-monarchy cut and paste post with no personal input and with no link to the source of the material.
While I understand that feelings run high on the side of the monarchy, I’ve found it a little sad that some have not understood that republicans might feel just as passionately about their cause.
Not to put to fine a point on it, I think that much of the ‘debate’ has been conducted with far too emotion and spurious arguments – most especially about the way the ‘arguments’ have been presented – on both sides.
Sheona, I must admit, I find it strange that you have resorted to what I see as ‘point’ scoring – I have always admired the cool way you approach all problems… but perhaps I am reading too much into this post?
I am a monarchist. Perhaps it is based out of a romantic view, something shaped by observing the failures of republican governance in two countries with two different political structures, but it is view I will support. For better or worse, a monarchy will stay politically neutral and provide a sort of stability which a democratic republic never could. A monarchy is also able to perform more functions, state, official, and charity, than a presidential office ever could. The notion that a constitutional monarchy is outdated also would not stand up well to scrutiny when one considers that Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway — four of the most modern, advanced, liberal societies on earth, all have monarchs. In each case, a monarch is vastly more recognised than the German president. I do not, however, wish to turn this into a battle. That I see enough every day in the USA with a president who is increasingly hated, but with a keen sense of campaign strategy and an opposition seemingly desperate to self-destruct.
Sheona – and your opinion or point of view is?
Blimey, I got to page four of comments and realised how lucky we are in the chariot. Heaven forbid we get as childish, humourless, one-eyed, boring and dull as that lot!
I found Mr Hannan’s post late last night and thought he spoke about the monarchy better than I ever could. This is the comment I didn’t add because I was so pleased to have got the whole thing up, I just pressed “Publish”.
I do realise that republicans feel just as strongly about their point of view. But if the statistics are correct, they are in a fairly small minority. As DH said, the view of the majority should prevail in a democracy, however wrong-headed its opponents may find it.
So far, I have not been persuaded by any arguments presented that the UK would do better as a republic. We have tried it once and then came the Restoration. I’ve lived in the USA and in France with their presidential systems and have seen the stalemate that can ensue when the president is of one party and the legislature is of the opposition. That cannot do the country any good. And if that means the the Republic of the UK should have simply a figurehead president, then we might as well stick with HM.
Sheona – fair enough! Although I did like the comment about the democracy that put in Hitler power in Germany not being very correct, but that is a polarised view and I don’t have enough knowledge to know how right that is.
I have to say I don’t feel wretched though – see my comment on no-one does it better.
I don’t have an alternative yet, but I’m working on it! Meanwhile I shall happily stay in the minority….not as small as you or the aforementioned author may think! (in my non fact based opinion that isn’t SJC!)
😀
Yes, cuprum, you’re right about the democratic election of Hitler. If you study the period, you’ll see that he and his backers went about it very cleverly. Germany was in a bad way, what with reparations and the collapse of the world economy. There was a lot of hunger and poverty. So when a leader came along promising, and delivering, new jobs and a raising of German morale he was very popular. One then sees the gradual eroding of liberties, particularly for the Jews, but always with the same rise in national morale and standard of living. The Treaty of Versailles had really damaged the nation’s belief in itself and Hitler restored it. Of course a book like Hans Fallada’s “Alone in Berlin” shows how the erosion of liberties was then extended to all Germans who didn’t join the Nazi party, but by then the democratically elected Hitler had done away with democracy.
Sheona: the role of coalition politics in Germany also played a role in Hitler’s rise, the rude Alpaca on the Telegraph pointed that out, unless I have it confused.
“rude Alpaca” on DT? Who’s that, Christopher?
Sheona #10
Isn’t that how most democracies are undermined? Popular support – the erosion of liberties – silence by those who are not affected – finally tyranny.
It is exactly what the Muslims are doing in the UK – and being pretty successful at it, too.
Sheona: when the Telegraph changed their servers for the umpteenth time they did not let me use any variant of my old name so I simply changed it to “finsternis”, darkness, and use a picture of an alpaca as my avatar. It’s a subversive image, believe it or not. A slang term for an alpaca is “grass mud horse”, which, if the tones are changed slightly, means “eff off”. It’s only there to express my displeasure at the way the site is run.
Boadicea: Hitler did not gain a majority, the mainstream parties simply thought that he was more pliable than the Communists so they allowed a coalition to be formed with him in it. He simply threw everyone else out within a year.
I think the problems for Germany started with the particularly harsh reparations inflicted, thanks to the very vindictive French, by the Treaty of Versailles. I was horrified to read that the French actually paraded their most seriously wounded soldiers (grands mutiles de guerre) in front of those statesmen participating in the discussions. Did they really think no other army had equally badly maimed survivors?
Sheona: do the French ever think that any other country exists? While I have a great deal of respect for French culture and language and find the country itself to be beautiful, I have very little time for the political aspect of it.