Experiments in Living --

* a defeat for a generation lost in a world with no taste

Monarchy: Outdated and Offensive?

Not being english, or particularly informed on the actual functional role the monarchy play in government, im working off the assumption that the monarch is constrained by the standard legislation that most heads of state are. feel free to inform me if im wrong, of course, but im woprking off the assumption all the meaningful decisions are taken either by the executive or the houses of parliament in britain.

So when the monarch 'signs into law' a bill, its purpose is mostly symbolic. so, to my mind, the debate here is in reality mostly about the symbolism of the monarchy, and its public perception, two things that are tied up together. the logistics of abolishing the monarchy and replacing it with a head of state, presumably more along the irish model than a french or american one, arent the issue; they can be worked through without particularly huge substantive impacts. the royal prerogative, for instance, could indeed be devolved to parliament or the executive. declarations of war probably deserve to be debated by the peoples representatives.

I'm generally of the opinion that nationalism is an outdated concept thats caught up either with militarism (America, Israel, wherever), past glories (yes i'm looking at you), or communal oppression (Ireland, Algeria). in Britains case, the monarchy is the most potent symbol of an imperialistic past and all the territory that comes with that. thats no longer a true or even fair representation of what Britain is or stands for anymore, unless Britain wants to stand for past glories and nothing else. a democratically-elected Head of State could discharge the same duties without the stigma or negative connotations that the Royalty might carry in some peoples eyes.

Maurice Cotter (Uni. Limerick)