In light of the most recent developments within the royal household, it seems apropos to re-share this article from a few years ago. It was originally written in the wake of QEII’s funeral and the accession to the throne of Charles III.
The points made in the post concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are, in light of yesterday’s events, even more significant. I would only add that his stripped titles do nothing to address the shameful reflection upon our nation that we have lumbered ourselves with by clinging to this outmoded system. I did, however, call this problem back then and the flaws of our outrageous system are now coming home to roost.
There seems to be no sense of irony as we lecture the likes of China and Saudi Arabia on their denials of democracy while we send unelected members of the royal household to create trade deals with them. Members, it turns out, who are now under caution for misconduct in public office. Members, it turns out, whose particular misconduct does not even stretch to his more heinous and now well-established moral misconduct. Members who have had exactly these things published in national newspapers for over 15 years and yet, because of their status, simply had these matters go away. It is ludicrous when you give it a second’s thought that the ‘serious step’ of making him go by his family name rather than his HRH title might have ever been considered a just and reasonable consequence. This tells you just how out of step is the organisation and unbecoming to us the system.
I outline much more in linked post below. There is, no doubt, even more that we could say. But it seems to me, our best chance of ridding ourselves of this heinous albatross has been and gone. Cromwell had the opportunity to free us of all this but – much as I love him – I admit he bottled it.
If the tyranny of the Anglican ascendancy and persecution of dissenters didn’t do it, and the ill behaviour of the Caroline and Georgian monarchs didn’t see to it, and having a Nazi sympathiser in Edward VIII didn’t do anything, I struggle to see anyone being moved by the well-documented sins of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. We’ve had a good 1000 years of trying it and this sort of thing is about the norm! QEII was an aberration.
Just know that if this is the system you actively support, this is the stuff you are an apologist for. Which, I suppose, if we learn anything here it is that we probably then get the system we deserve. I just wish we thought better of ourselves.
My heart is a Roundhead too. My head though is a Cavalier!
I’m mindful of Romans 13. Roman Emperors were probably worse than our royal family even, who I don’t like. I agree that some form of Republicanism would be better. Yet Paul didn’t lead a Spartacist revolt to re-establish the Roman Republic or anything (I know you’re not proposing another civil war either I hasten to add).
I love that John Bunyan (who’d been a Parliamentarian footsoldier in the civil war) became part of a church who had an elder who had been a Cavalier officer!
I know the gospel is divisive between those who accept and reject it, but amongst those who accept it it can unite the likes of Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector, from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I guess I would call myself a pragmatist: I agree Republicanism is better, but God’s given us a bad deal for now which is what we deserve I’m sure, so who am I to campaign against his providence?
I agree we must submit to and not seek to overthrow government. But we live in a democratic system that permits dissent and campaign for change. It is no less a matter of failing to submit than voting for a different party to the one in government. Clearly, as you imply, civil war (imo) would cross the boundary from legitimate dissent to unsubmissive and unbiblical political engagement.
But given it isn’t a matter of non-submission, I think making it known that I would prefer a different system of governance is okay 😊
I agree 🙂
I do not agree. A similar argument is that we abandon the Christian faith because of the bad behaviour of some prominent church leaders. Perhaps there is a case for abolishing the monarchy, but it is not the one made in the article.
Did you read the original article that I was linking to? It doesn’t rest at all on the singular poor behaviour of one person.
But even so, the argument about poor behaviour in the monarchy is that there is no recourse to resolve it. Your analogy to the church only works if the church has no means of removing errant leaders (but it does).
You say, “I struggle to see anyone being moved by the well-documented sins of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.” He has been removed from his roles and his title – obviously some people were so moved. While the church has mechanisms to remove errant church leaders, the monarchy has as well, even if they differ in detail.
Referring again to the monarchy, you note that “our best chance of ridding ourselves of this heinous albatross has been and gone.” Leaving aside the demeaning rhetoric, you follow with other instances which might have removed the monarchy but failed to do so. “If the tyranny of the Anglican ascendancy and persecution of dissenters didn’t do it, etc. etc.”
Let’s remember that persecuted dissenters could become the persecutors when they gained power and establishment status. Examples of tyranny other than Anglican ascendency would do just as well, but then they don’t fit in the anti-monarchical argument. I’m sure I don’t need to give examples.
I think a reasonable case for republicanism can be make, which you do elsewhere. However, your article above must stand on its own feet. Piggybacking republicanism onto personal failures in the monarchy is an argument that can go in all directions.
Finally, “his stripped titles do nothing to address the shameful reflection upon our nation that we have lumbered ourselves with by clinging to this outmoded system”. Yet we don’t argue that church discipline does nothing to address the shameful reflection upon our church. If church discipline is the appropriate remedy, I don’t see why we should reject the remedy applied to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
I feel that double standards are in operation to advance the republican cause bolstered by much inflammatory rhetoric.
When I said about nobody being moved by Andrew, I meant specifically moved towards republicanism. The context makes this clear.
My point pertaining to various other examples I cite that could have led to a republic but never transpired is not in any way undercut by a complete counterfactual citing other potential persecutors. You say ‘I’m sure I don’t need to give examples’ but I really don’t understand your point, so I think you may need to provide some. Are you suggesting that because other forms of governance might be tyrannical we should, therefore, accept a tyrannical monarchy? I am not clear, and certainly don’t find that very compelling if that is what you are saying.
You said ‘your article above must stand on its own feet’. But it specifically isn’t an article in its own right. I am posting an old article that I wrote (perhaps the one in which I made ‘a reasonable case for republicanism’). The little preamble to it is not an article or an argument in its own right. It is specifically preamble to the article I linked to that I actually wanted people to read that you haven’t commented on.
I am unclear on the equivalence you are trying to draw between stripping Andrew of his titles with church discipline. I simply don’t understand how these two things are equivalent, morally or functionally. I don’t understand the comparison you are trying to draw here. You said, ‘If church discipline is the appropriate remedy, I don’t see why we should reject the remedy applied to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’ but I don’t understand how or why this in any way follows or relates? Andrew hasn’t been removed from church membership as a professing believer, so I don’t quite understand how the same “remedy” has been applied in Andrew’s case or how it is remotely the same issue?
You have said there are double standards. In relation to what? You haven’t pointed to anything in which I would apply a standard that I have not applied elsewhere. You will have to help me join the dots.
To answer your question: “Yes.” I don’t like one bit a single thing I’ve heard about Andrew… or his ex-wife. But… he hasn’t actually been found guilty in a court of law. We must uphold the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
I haven’t found him guilty of anything here. However I think the original article I link to is worth reading
I accept your point about Andrew’s faults not moving anyone towards republicanism. I misread you there – apologies.
I will just take you up on one other point, since it is an important one. Edward was removed from his role in the monarchy due to his faults – rightly so. I drew the analogy with errant church members being removed from the church, hopefully followed by repentance and a degree of restoration.
Your response was, “I am unclear on the equivalence you are trying to draw between stripping Andrew of his titles with church discipline. I simply don’t understand how these two things are equivalent, morally or functionally. I don’t understand the comparison you are trying to draw here.”
Surely the equivalence is obvious. Errant behaviour is penalised, organisational reputation is thereby defended, where there are victims they should be vindicated and possibly compensated, leaders must exercise a difficult part of their role and not cover things up, those who knew but did nothing may need to resign. This applies not only to the church and the monarchy, but to businesses, charities, government agencies and other public bodies
Whether Andrew comes under any church discipline remains unclear and may be inconsistent, but the equivalence above is clear enough.
Trust that answers your question about equivalence.
I can see what you are saying. I am not convinced they are at all functionally equivalent, but there we are.