Who would kiss the Queen's hand?

[Nikolai1]

Interesting times in Britain!  Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong socialist and republican, has suddenly become Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition.  As part of the role he is expeced to join the Privy Council, the Monarch's special panel of advisors, but first he must show his loyalty by kneeling at the Queen's feet and kissing her hand.

 

If he agrees he will be called insincere and a turncoat; if he disagrees he will be called unpatriotic, dogmatic, and perhaps worst in some eyes...impolite to Her Majesty.

 

Can the correct course of action be recommended? I'd like your views.

 

But first, what is a republican? What is a monarchist?

 

The republican is essentially an idealist.  Despite the huge differences in status that we see in society, to the republican all humans are in their essence equal.  The reality fails to match up to the essential truth.  Hierarchies of human worth are a pernicious illusion, the equality of man is the reality.  We must act and behave in the way that ensures the two tally.  The common man msut be raised up, the Monarch must be debased

 

The monarchist, on the other hand, is a realist.  There is no underlying unseen essence.  Things are exactly as they should be.  Hierarchy is a wholly natural and valid phenomenon.  We see it in nature and in all human societies.  The attempt to overcome it is unnatural and contrived and bound to fail.  Idealism is the peculiarly human perversion and is what disturbs the natural order.

 

So we see in the republican and the monarchist two expressions of the ancient dilemma.  Is the perfect order unseen and yet to be realised?  Or is the perfect order already here in things as they are?  Do we need to attain heaven?, or simply surrender, and realise that we are already in it?

 

At the intellectual level it is very difficult to arbitrate between these two positions, when we see them stated so baldly.  Those who can find intellectual justification only do so to the extent that they ignore their basic assumptions.

 

But both are united in one thing: that things aren't quite satisfactory as they are.

 

So what should Jeremy Corbyn do?

 

[Aeran]

Man, you Brits are really weird about class.

 

The obvious answer to me seems to be that he shouldn't kiss her hand if he doesn't want to, and that nothing should happen as a result because the Queen is a symbolic figurehead and tourist attraction with no real meaningful place in 21st century politics.

[Marblehead]

I was going to post but after Aeran's post I no longer feel any need to do so.

[Nikolai1]

Man, you Brits are really weird about class.

 

The obvious answer to me seems to be that he shouldn't kiss her hand if he doesn't want to, and that nothing should happen as a result because the Queen is a symbolic figurehead and tourist attraction with no real meaningful place in 21st century politics.

To call the Queen a mere symbol is already republicanism.  To many she is not a symbol but the living embodiment of sovereign power. She is there at the head of society as legitmately as the Alpha Chimp is at the head of his.  The whole course of history has contrived to put her there.  We dethrone her at our peril!

[Karl]

Ive had this discussion on another forum.

 

We don't have a republic and the political system is clear. It is predicated on the maintenance of the establishment and it's elite classes. Joining a political party-even voting- is directly supporting that system.

 

Revolutionaries often talk of changing the system from the inside, but that will never happen. I remember Kurt Cobain saying that about the music Industry not many years before committing suicide. Change always comes from outside and usually from some totally unexpected place.

 

Corbyn knew what he was getting into when he went from back bencher to candidate for leadership. This half way house behaviour is pretty pathetic. He is opposition leader and as such he needs to get singing along with the national anthem, kneeling before the queen and wearing a red poppy. That's the role he is expected to play.

 

If he doesn't want to do any of that then he needs to stand down and say that he no longer supports this type of system and will continue to fight for its collapse. He won't of course, he isn't authentic or brave.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Karl

[Jetsun]

The Queens family and lineage has lasted and remained while most others have fallen because in their history they had royal magicians, like John Dee and others who secured their position with esoteric methods.

 

But back to the op, I dont think he should kneel, many of the rich people here would go nuts and they own most of the press, but I doubt that many of the regular people would care that much.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Jetsun

[Karl]

The Queens family and lineage has lasted and remained while most others have fallen because in their history they had royal magicians, like John Dee and others who secured their position with esoteric methods.

But back to the op, I dont think he should kneel, many of the rich people here would go nuts and they own most of the press, but I doubt that many of the regular people would care that much.

 

You don't know Britain that well then. The Queen is loved by all the little people. It's a bit like your flag. It's nationalism. Those that voted UKIP and Conservatives are traditionalists. Anti-royalists are in the minority. The Royal family has done a great job of neutrality and that particularly applies to the Queen.

[Jetsun]

You don't know Britain that well then. The Queen is loved by all the little people. It's a bit like your flag. It's nationalism. Those that voted UKIP and Conservatives are traditionalists. Anti-royalists are in the minority. The Royal family has done a great job of neutrality and that particularly applies to the Queen.

Well I live here and the majority of young people I know don't care about the royal family, it's mostly pensioners and public school people I know who are their fans.

 

The royals have done a good job at rebranding themselves though, most of their family showed sympathy for the Nazis not that long ago, but now they are viewed as the pride of the armed forces.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Jetsun

[Aeran]

To call the Queen a mere symbol is already republicanism.  To many she is not a symbol but the living embodiment of sovereign power. She is there at the head of society as legitmately as the Alpha Chimp is at the head of his.  The whole course of history has contrived to put her there.  We dethrone her at our peril!

 

But that's the point, she has no power, sovereign or otherwise, beyond what she wields as a public figure (in the sense of the ability to alter public opinion and so on, much as an actor or singer might do), and even that she rarely uses in any real fashion (and I suspect if she attempted to, she would be a lot less tolerated than she is now). She's a figurehead in the literal sense of the word - kept in place because she serves as a symbol of national identity and as a tourist attraction.

 

Even within the "monarchist" position you outline, in which social hierarchies are accepted as a right and natural part of human nature, the Queen doesn't sit at the top of that hierarchy. Even the PM doesn't. That position belongs to the conglomerate of super-rich businessmen who's money pulls the strings on the top political level.

[Karl]

She represents the establishment. Even amongst those who don't support the Royal family there is a grudging respect for the position the Queen holds. The worry is that getting rid of her might result in a more politicised style of president who becomes more active. At present she is a neutral person.

[Nikolai1]

One thing that all people are agreed on is: that the Queen shouldn't play any real role in policy.  Even David Cameron wouldn't take his respect for the monarch that far.

 

The privy council and the ceremonies that surround admittance to it date back from a time when the Monarch was sovereign in all things, policy especially.  Loyalty was crucial.

 

Is David Cameron being insincere by kneeling before the Queen but refusing to be in anyway subordinate in ruling the country?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl

 

We don't have a republic and the political system is clear. It is predicated on the maintenance of the establishment and it's elite classes.

 

 

He is opposition leader and as such he needs to get singing along with the national anthem, kneeling before the queen and wearing a red poppy. That's the role he is expected to play. 

 

So wat he should do is continue the 'maintenance of the establishment?'

[Karl]

One thing that all people are agreed on is: that the Queen shouldn't play any real role in policy.  Even David Cameron wouldn't take his respect for the monarch that far.

 

The privy council and the ceremonies that surround admittance to it date back from a time when the Monarch was sovereign in all things, policy especially.  Loyalty was crucial.

 

Is David Cameron being insincere by kneeling before the Queen but refusing to be in anyway subordinate in ruling the country?

 

Cameron is a member of the establishment. The entire thing is the exact kind of pomp and ceremony that has been in his life since he was born. Rumour has it that someone in the palace recommended him for the Conservative party. Cameron doesn't really govern the country, he is simply the spokesman for his clan.

[Karl]

Hi Karl

 

 

 

 

 

 

So wat he should do is continue the 'maintenance of the establishment?'

 

That's the role.

[Nikolai1]

That's the role.

So what you're saying is that he must play the role as it should be played.  Just as an actor must speak Hamlet's opinions and not his own?

[Karl]

So what you're saying is that he must play the role as it should be played.  Just as an actor must speak Hamlet's opinions and not his own?

 

Im saying that's the role. It makes no difference what I think he should or shouldn't do, that is what he will have to do.

 

[Nikolai1]

Im saying that's the role. It makes no difference what I think he should or shouldn't do, that is what he will have to do.

There have been many times in British history when British monarchs have been overthrown, improsoned even executed by dissenters.  Not kneeling is a mild gesture in comparison to what has happened.

 

Why wouldn't this happen now? Why wouldn't Corbyn succeed in joining the Privy Council without kneeling?  Why do you say:  'He is opposition leader and as such he needs to get singing along with the national anthem, kneeling before the queen and wearing a red poppy'

[Karl]

There have been many times in British history when British monarchs have been overthrown, improsoned even executed by dissenters.  Not kneeling is a mild gesture in comparison to what has happened.

 

Why wouldn't this happen now? Why wouldn't Corbyn succeed in joining the Privy Council without kneeling?  Why do you say:  'He is opposition leader and as such he needs to get singing along with the national anthem, kneeling before the queen and wearing a red poppy'

 

Because he is representing something greater than the act itself. It's pointless to make these effete little protests. He isn't even supposed to be pushing for a republic and said so in his campaign. 80% of Britain is pro royal and he is representing the people of the country not his own particular views.

[Nikolai1]

 80% of Britain is pro royal and he is representing the people of the country not his own particular views.

So a politician shouldn't act on personal principle, but on what he judges to be already the majority principle.  So he should be a conservative collectivist basically.  Suppress his uniqueness in favur of tradition and consensus.

[Karl]

So a politician shouldn't act on personal principle, but on what he judges to be already the majority principle.  So he should be a conservative collectivist basically.  Suppress his uniqueness in favur of tradition and consensus.

 

Being the opposition leader means he has already accepted all those things.

 

I'm not really arguing with you I'm just stating the facts without personal opinion.

 

If Corbyn wants to wear a blue poppy, see the queen dressed in a track suit, or sing 'won't get fooled again' in church it really doesn't matter. He is acting like a petulant child that thinks that refusing to eat his dinner with a knife and fork is an act of revolution. The entire parliament/black rod/no clapping/right honourable/division lobby thing is entirely about pomp and circumstance. It's theatre for the masses and part of the historical legacy of the civil war, Oliver Cromwells tyrannical reign over a short lived Republic and a balance of power.

 

If he wanted to stand firm and announce his intentions then who can object, but when the economy, defence, health, poverty etc are the things he is supposed to be serious about, what small matter is it to go along with the theatre ?

[Nikolai1]

Being the opposition leader means he has already accepted all those things. I'm not really arguing with you I'm just stating the facts without personal opinion. If Corbyn wants to wear a blue poppy, see the queen dressed in a track suit, or sing 'won't get fooled again' in church it really doesn't matter. He is acting like a petulant child that thinks that refusing to eat his dinner with a knife and fork is an act of revolution. The entire parliament/black rod/no clapping/right honourable/division lobby thing is entirely about pomp and circumstance. It's theatre for the masses and part of the historical legacy of the civil war, Oliver Cromwells tyrannical reign over a short lived Republic and a balance of power. If he wanted to stand firm and announce his intentions then who can object, but when the economy, defence, health, poverty etc are the things he is supposed to be serious about, what small matter is it to go along with the theatre ?

You say that Corbyn, along with all politicians are already collectivist conservatives because only that breed engages with it all.  But time has shown constant change with regards to the monarch's powers.  This change hasn't happened by some Act of God.  Individual politicians with individual values have been the agents for it.

 

Or perhaps you don't agree?  

[Karl]

You say that Corbyn, along with all politicians are already collectivist conservatives because only that breed engages with it all. But time has shown constant change with regards to the monarch's powers. This change hasn't happened by some Act of God. Individual politicians with individual values have been the agents for it.

 

Or perhaps you don't agree?

I don't think you are getting this at all.

 

"A politician is a creature that sits on the fence and has both ears on the ground"

 

If he doesn't wish to make labour electable and just act as pure opposition then-if the party and its supporters want it-they can go that way. There is no reason for him to attend the cenotaph, or become a member of the privy council-but Cameron will simply select someone else from labour to serve in his stead and you can bet your bottom dollar there are a host of Labour MPs that are hoping Corbyn doesn't become a member.

 

He can try and take his party, supporters and the electorate any way he wants to, this his choice, but in the end, doing that kind of thing I would say isn't Corbyn.

 

There are always members of his party, the press, the Government, the electorate ready to depose him. He is supposed to offer a credible alternative that holds the Governments feet to the fire. It's his own party that will decide when they don't want to go with his ideology. Long before the electorate throw labour away, his party will have thrown him away.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

i think your perhaps arguing what he should pragamtically do.

 

i've been wondering what he should do on principle.

[Karl]

i think your perhaps arguing what he should pragamtically do.

 

i've been wondering what he should do on principle.

 

Front bench politicians are all about pragmatism. You are going to be terribly disappointed if you think anything else and if you actually got a principled politician I suspect you might wish something else.

 

Become an An- Cap Nikolai, there is zero chance of disappointment and you can watch the show with as pure entertainment-without attachment :-)

[Nikolai1]

I think like you that there'll be lots of conservatism in Corbyn, despite his surface socialism.  I've never met a socialist where this isn't the case.

 

And yes, like you say...if he was truly anti-monarchist he probably wouldn't be seeking power for himself.  There is very little difference between the King and the Chairman (of the Mao variety).