Castle Aching

[sem34090]

Ditch Diggers?

[Northroader]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Oliver Cromwell was on the way to establishing dynastic rule, with his son Richard as his successor.

Fancy being in a republic headed by someone known as “Tumbledown Dick”? Still,  I suppose it could still happen.

[Nearholmer]

“And then there were the Levellers, True Levellers, Diggers and other assorted groups...”

 

Who were brewing vats in which a lot of the ideas that crystal used in the late C18th and beyond, a lot of what we might recognise now, were swirling and bubbling about.

 

One thought that has struck me is that this period in England was a bit like recent Pakistan, or perhaps Turkey at some periods, with tension between religious fundamentalists (ours being Puritans) and religious tolerants, being played-out through a nominally secular parliament (but always grounded in the assumptions of the predominant religion), with leadership by a person who, if not a military dictator, always had the army up their sleeve, and defaulted to dynasty as the way of attempting to achieve stability. 
 

It’s probably a very stretched analogy, but I don’t think it’s entirely fanciful.

[Donw]

In many ways we have the best of both worlds. We do have a hereditary Head of State but the Head of State has no real power. The effective Head of State is a prime minister with a solid majority but that is up for grabs within 5 years and we can change things, those in the Prime Minister's constituency can fail to re-elect him/her and they lose all power.  Should some Prime Minister try to cancel future elections and hold on to power. Public opinion would be unlikely to accept this and the civil unrest would be enormous. I think we would first have to replace the Head of State with an elected person other than the PM. Those persons in that role would then need to wrest powers from the PM and parliament before any grab for total power could be made. 

The first step of replacing the Hereditary Head of State might be a possibility if Charles proves to unable to not interfere with political life in the UK. It could lead to public calls to abandon the Monarchy. An elected HoS would claim a 'Mandate' by virtue of being elected something a Hereditary Monarch cannot do since the Devine Right of Kings was curtailed.

 

Don

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

replacing the Hereditary Head of State might be a possibility if Charles proves to unable to not interfere with political life in the UK

I think you need to insert “in an obvious manner” after interfere.
 

If I were PM (and I have always tried to do right and be good, so that I will be kept away from politics), then a Head of State who had been in place since 1952, who sent her first email in the 1970s, and who basically knew, or at least knew of, everybody that I needed to know, would be my first reference for insight if not advice. It strikes me that our current system for Head of State, although not what one would choose if starting from scratch, has some massive advantages in the world of international relationships.

 

I think the Head of State issue is a red herring. The two problems for me are the “Crown Prerogative”, and the unrepresentative second chamber. Remove the former, and replace the latter with party appointments based on PR of votes cast at the General Election...

[brack]

On 02/11/2019 at 14:44, Northroader said:

My son in law always likes to push the boat out with pumpkin carving.

A double unicorn, illusory (the unicorns being created from intangible nothingness), for the 31st of october. Interesting choice.

 

Whilst not a fan of the americanisation of Halloween, it must be said that pumpkins are a far better choice for carving than turnips. I remember carving turnips when I was a kid - lethal and hard work, and then youd end up getting fed the barely edible stuff in some meal afterwards.

[monkeysarefun]

8 hours ago, Donw said:

In many ways we have the best of both worlds. We do have a hereditary Head of State but the Head of State has no real power. The effective Head of State is a prime minister with a solid majority but that is up for grabs within 5 years and we can change things, those in the Prime Minister's constituency can fail to re-elect him/her and they lose all power.  Should some Prime Minister try to cancel future elections and hold on to power. Public opinion would be unlikely to accept this and the civil unrest would be enormous. I think we would first have to replace the Head of State with an elected person other than the PM. Those persons in that role would then need to wrest powers from the PM and parliament before any grab for total power could be made. 

The first step of replacing the Hereditary Head of State might be a possibility if Charles proves to unable to not interfere with political life in the UK. It could lead to public calls to abandon the Monarchy. An elected HoS would claim a 'Mandate' by virtue of being elected something a Hereditary Monarch cannot do since the Devine Right of Kings was curtailed.

 

Don

 

Meanwhile, we in the colonies have the wort of both worlds. We have a head of state who despite us pledging allegiance to and who we let own all our expensive ships and stuff even though we paid  for them (Her Majesties Australian Ship etc), rarely drops in and just to troll us  she knights members of English sporting teams when they beat us,

 

Then there was that small matter of her crony/representative and establishment drunkard, Governor General John  Kerr who one day in 1975 decided to sack our legally elected government. In most other countries fighting would have broken out in the streets and mobs would have stormed parliament or whatever. In contrast here is news coverage of the event..

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by monkeysarefun

[Regularity]

2 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

we in the colonies have the wort of both worlds

Useful for making beer, though... ...not that I am paying attention to any national stereotypes, you understand...

[brianusa]

13 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

You mean an elected Head of State?

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<and we would have been a republic for the past several hundred years. How might that have changed the course of history?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

In history,  there have been too many dictators morphing into presidents as opposed to certain presidents morphing into would be dictators.  This doesn't encourage stability whereas an hereditary monarch is usually prepared for the job.  Even EDV111 knew what was involved but sadly screwed up badly.  The present Queen will be a hard act to follow and whether the current prospect at over 70 with historical baggage, might not be the best choice, but the Rules of Succession will undoubtedly make it happen.   A prior post complains the head of state rarely drops in; both she and her son are getting on and leaving such matters to the younger Royals who are quite well received wherever they go to represent the modern generation. Apparently the Gov Gen didn't do too well!

     Brian.

 

[Donw]

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

I think the Head of State issue is a red herring. The two problems for me are the “Crown Prerogative”, and the unrepresentative second chamber. Remove the former, and replace the latter with party appointments based on PR of votes cast at the General Election...

 

I don't think it is a red herring, the seperation of Head of State and the executive power makes it difficult for someone to seize control.  I believe that MPs could pass a law that made all MPs elected for life. Crown Prerogative might then be rather useful. Also are not the Armed Forces notionally beholden to the crown.  Such factors might be important. It may seem far fetched that anyone would try to assume all control but it has happened in other countries. 

Don

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Oliver Cromwell was on the way to establishing dynastic rule, with his son Richard as his successor.

 

Which of course puts one in mind of Nth Korea where a claimed people's socialist democratic republic is actually ruled by a family that is hereditary monarchy in all but name, maintained in power by an alliance between that family and the armed forces. 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, brianusa said:

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<and we would have been a republic for the past several hundred years. How might that have changed the course of history?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

In history,  there have been too many dictators morphing into presidents as opposed to certain presidents morphing into would be dictators.  This doesn't encourage stability whereas an hereditary monarch is usually prepared for the job.  Even EDV111 knew what was involved but sadly screwed up badly.  The present Queen will be a hard act to follow and whether the current prospect at over 70 with historical baggage, might not be the best choice, but the Rules of Succession will undoubtedly make it happen.   A prior post complains the head of state rarely drops in; both she and her son are getting on and leaving such matters to the younger Royals who are quite well received wherever they go to represent the modern generation. Apparently the Gov Gen didn't do too well!

     Brian.

 

 

The Succession is an interesting point.

Given the example of Edward VIII, who let personal desires* override his duty, our present Queen has decided to set aside any personal considerations and follow the path of duty to the bitter end.  Charles will, in due course, become King, but he might not prolong his reign and hand over to William fairly quickly.

 

Being a mere subject, I'll just wave my little Union Jack and shout "Hurrah!"

 

As for self-aggrandising politicians....

 

 

* Which didn't coincide with then current public mores.

[wagonman]

14 hours ago, Donw said:

I doubt we will be able to come up with the perfect system of government. On the one hand a socialist view where all should be shared equally ignores the lack of a reward for the extra effort put in by some and the lack of effort put in by others with no incentive to do more. 

 

Don

 

You have a very peculiar idea of Socialism. For a more nuanced view look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. By European standards the current Labour Party programme is middle of the road stuff...

 

 

[NCB]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

 

I don't think it is a red herring, the seperation of Head of State and the executive power makes it difficult for someone to seize control.  I believe that MPs could pass a law that made all MPs elected for life. Crown Prerogative might then be rather useful. Also are not the Armed Forces notionally beholden to the crown.  Such factors might be important. It may seem far fetched that anyone would try to assume all control but it has happened in other countries. 

Don

 

I'm sure it has a useful effect in dampening projected coups. As for happening in this country, there was the case of Cecil King's attempt to instigate a coup against the Labour government of the 1960s; the fact that it totally flopped was probably in part due to the strength of the institutions. As a result King was sacked from heading the Mirror group. About the same time the Times, under its editor one William Rees Mogg (cough...) was exploring parallel possibilities, such as installing a government of business-leaders.

[Dave John]

A late night train of thought, I wonder how long I will remain a subject Hroth.  I am now for income tax ( whatever the genes might suggest ) a Scottish taxpayer, though still a UK taxpayer for VAT. For Baccy duty I appear to be Belgian, but perhaps we should keep that to ourselves. 

 

Perhaps my Kelvinbank project will get moved to the continental section of RMweb. 

 

Ok , trains. 

 

There is a delightful short article by Ronnie Cockburn in the TTL this month. I summarise. Describes a train of wagons of wagon components for Bengal sent from Pickerings of Wishaw via Queens dock. A route not advertised on the scenic posters of the Caledonian. The train consisted of 32 wagons ( the wagon numbers are in the article) from the CR, NB, GNR, GWR, GER, LNWR, NER and of all things the LBSCR. 

 

That has cheered me up no end, sod politics, I can build wagons to my hearts content. 

 

 

 

 

[nick_bastable]

the known Puritan Norfolk appears to be raising its head again however I applaud in retrospect some of Cromwell's beliefs and contempt of a self serving parliament  ( sound familiar ?) indeed the ethnic acceptance was enlightened.  

 

However like most members I raise a glass to the loyal toast  and hope the country soon returns to sanity and playing model trains

 

Nick

 

 

[brianusa]

Ah yes -trains, lovely, early last century trains.

    Brian.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

Charles will, in due course, become King, but he might not prolong his reign and hand over to William fairly quickly.

Whilst he could choose to abdicate, ultimately Parliament gets to decide as it can alter the rules of succession, but nobody else can, not even the reigning monarch.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

I don't think it is a red herring, the seperation of Head of State and the executive power makes it difficult for someone to seize control. 

I meant a distraction from the other two issues I mentioned, so I think you have managed to agree with me, as I am arguing for the continuation of the current separation.

The armed forces are under the control of the Government. Allegiance to the Sovereign is declared to make the point that they do as the government of the day commands, but that government may change and there is no allegiance to any political party. As you say, they are “beholden to The Crown”, but in the U.K., “The Crown” refers to the state/nation/government the the Sovereign is Head of. The Head of State has ceremonial and figurative responsibilities, but can do no more.

If MPs were to make their election for life, I don’t think the crown prerogative - which simply means that the Prime Minister can exercise certain powers in the manner of an absolute monarch - would help circumvent that.

[Donw]

43 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

You have a very peculiar idea of Socialism. For a more nuanced view look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. By European standards the current Labour Party programme is middle of the road stuff...

 

 

 

Well I was being simplistic.  Sharing is a key element of socialism and rewards for one's eforts is a key element of capitalism. I think most intelligent people accept that there needs to be a blend of the two. I despise those who claim benefits while working cash in hand and equally those who earn plenty and then avoid paying a fair tax. I have also seen a labour government raise tax levels to an extortionate level and governments refuse to give fair assistance to some suffering through no fault of their own.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

Well, I have Views on these constitutional matters.

 

While I can respect constitutions that are republics, I find the vocal pressure groups who favour making Britain a republic to be misguided. Our evolved system works well in that it provides great stability. The constitutional monarchy is the glue that holds that system together; remove it and a lot of things come unstuck. 

 

Yes, you could replace our constitutional system with something entirely rational and theoretically more democratic. In doing so, you would deny it the essential legitimacy that the evolved system has garnered. I refer to my earlier post on the sources of sovereignty and the importance of collective consent. Once you tear up any established system and seek to replace it you immediately start a free for all.  Look at the history of France from 1789. Yes, I know they've calmed down a lot since then and can generally be relied upon to govern themselves, but it has taken them two monarchies (three if you count De Gaulle), 2 empires and 5 republics to get there. 

 

We put those fundamental issues to bed in 1688. Let's not go there again.

 

As I've observed before, the current antics merely serve to show how robust our constitutional settlement is.  Established norms in the form of conventions have consent and legitimacy. That is precisely why the the executive's pressure on these conventions has attracted opprobrium and constitutional checks and balances have swung into play.  Yes, it's a b8gger's muddle right now, but our political settlement is perfectly capable of weathering the present storms and will doubtless do so.

 

It is not a static thing, and I don't doubt it will evolve as a result of recent events and be stronger for it.

 

God save the Queen!

[RedGemAlchemist]

I'm not getting involved tbh. 

[Nearholmer]

I accidentally started a lot of trouble!

 

My original question was meant to prompt “what if” speculations about the course of history, not advocate a republic.

 

TBH, having started out in my youth as a republican, I can now see the practical virtues of having an hereditary HoS, provided that their powers are exceedingly tightly controlled. What I still do object to is the way that plays into the broader class system, which even now allocates significant amounts of influence within society, if not naked power, and pollutes perceptions of what (who) is important in the world, according to accidents of birth.

 

And, the French might have something to say about our clinging to monarchy - they seem to have lurched forward between successive periods of republican stability, without the need for a monarch. Don’t tell me that their society is class ridden, though - I know that.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[jwealleans]

Apologies if this has been posted before (I don't have long enough left to live to go back through the thread) but I thought this collection of images would appeal to the parish:

 

Pregrouping locomotives

[RedGemAlchemist]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

And, the French might have something to say about our clinging to monarchy - they seem to have lurched forward between successive periods of republican stability, without the need for a monarch. Don’t tell me that their society is class ridden, though - I know that.

Viva le revolutión! 

 

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

Apologies if this has been posted before (I don't have long enough left to live to go back through the thread) but I thought this collection of images would appeal to the parish:

 

Pregrouping locomotives

Thank you for the return to normality, JW. 

These are some phenomenal photos, mate. Good find. That German 6-2-2 is certainly interesting. 

Edited November 4, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist