Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






I. Find out the following.

1. What is the state system in the United Kingdom today? Name its typical features.

2. Why do you think the Monarchy still keeps afloat in the UK?

3. Despite the fact that the Monarchy remains alive, its position is somewhat shaky. What causes dissatisfaction of the British at the existing social order?

4. How can you account for the title of the text?

As history shows monarchies nee to continuously reform themselves if they are to survive. Max de Lotbiniere looks at the British Royal Family's effort to adapt to changing world


Arguments about the Monarchy are as old as the institution itself. But this summer, critics who have been calling for reform were taken by surprise. The Queen, it was revealed, has been asking some searching questions about her role, and the future of Royal institutions.

A door was opened on the secretive world of the Queen's private affairs when it was confirmed that she was meeting with family members and officials to discuss the long-term future of the Monarchy. The group, which includes the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and some of their top-ranking advisers, is known as the "Way Ahead" committee, and it is looking at ways to ensure the Monarchy remains in tune with the modern world.

According to the Political Editor of the Sun newspaper, Trevor Kavanagh, who first revealed details about the group, it is the Queen who has recognised the need for change. "She set up the committee four years ago," he said. "They meet every six months, and she, at the age of 70, is being given the credit for looking into the future and seeing that the Royal Family does have to change to take account of changing times."

Buckingham Palace has not revealed all the details about the group's discussions, but it is clear that the Queen is considering changing some of the Monarchy's more ancient rules.

One proposal is to end the primogeniture law, which means that the title of Monarch passes to sons rather than daughters. The present Queen only inherited the title because there were no male heirs.

The ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics is also reported to have come under scrutiny. Under the present law, which is 295 years old, a Royal cannot be crowned if he or she is married to a Catholic. William Oddie, a Catholic theologian, is one of those who is pleased that the Queen is considering changing this law.

"I think this will be greatly welcomed. In practical terms, it's obviously not something that affects very many Catholics, but it is just a kind of niggling piece of hurtfulness that remains from the past and I think Catholics will be glad to see it go."

But even though many people in Britain regard the ban on marriage to Catholics as outdated and unnecessary, changing the law would be very controversial. Catholic parents are obliged to bring up their children as Catholics, so, in theory, this would mean that a Catholic could succeed to the throne. This would be in conflict with the Monarch's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The latest meeting of the Way Ahead committee was held last September at Balmoral, the Queen's summer residence in Scotland. The meeting was attended by all the Queen's children, and it was the first since the divorces of Prince and Princess of Wales and the Duke and Duchess of York



According to the BBC's Court Correspondent, Jenny Bond, these recent talks focused on practical matters. "They want to get on with what they say is the business of monarchy, rather than the 'soap opera' that they see in the media."

One issue under discussion, according to press reports was the Monarchy's public image. The Royal Family agrees that it must end the damaging series of recent scandals in the British press. The latest focus of that media attention is Prince Charles' relationship with his long-time friend, Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Now that Charles is free to marry again, there is speculation that he will propose to Camilla. But this could further damage the reputation of the Monarchy.

When Charles becomes King, he will take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. (He will not have direct control over its affairs but he will be expected to set a good exam­ple). Many Anglicans are worried about Charles' suitability for this role and they think that a second marriage would set a bad example.

One way of avoiding a difficult situation like this would be by changing the relationship between the Monarchy and the Church of England. But the Royal family has said that it is not considering such a fundamental move.

Instead, it was reported that Charles had given assurances to the Queen, at the Balmoral meeting, that he would not marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, and that he will keep their relationship discreet.

In the meantime, the Way Ahead group win continue to look at other aspects of how the Monarchy works. But big changes are not expected soon. It is clear that these meetings are part of an evolutionary, not revolu­tionary process of change and reform. The British Monarchy has, throughout history, been very good at adapting to circum­stances. It has survived wars, political and social turmoil, and ups and downs in its popularity. The fact that the Way Ahead group exists proves mat the Queen, at least, still has a leader's instinct for survival.


WORD STUDY

II. Make sure you understand the following words and expressions:


- the "Way Ahead" committee

- the primogeniture law

- a niggling piece of hurtfulness

- to remain in tune with

- top-ranking advisers

- Court Correspondent

- scandals; to talk scandal; scandalous means

- the Anglicans / the Roman Catholics


 

 

III. Match the words on the left with their definitions in the right-hand column:

1. an heir to crown 2. a theologian 3. controversial 4. to keep discreet 5. to propose to 6. to inherit 7. searching 8. secretive 9. turmoil a) a person who has studied religion, religious ideas and beliefs b) to receive (property, a title) left by someone who has died c) to be careful and sensible esp. in what one chooses not to say; careful to avoid causing difficulty or discomfort, d) to place a crown solemnly on the head of a person as a sign of royal power or of victory e) hidden from other people f) a person who has a legal right to receive (he property or title of another person,( an older member of the same family), when that person dies g) to make an offer of (marriage h) sharp and thorough i) a state of confusion, excitement, and trouble j) causing much argument or disagreement

IV. Fill in the gaps with the prepositions:

1. According to Trevor Kavanagh, the Political Editor of the Sun newspaper, the "Way Ahead" committee was set ..... 4 years ago.

2. One proposal is to eradicate the ban ..... heirs ..... the throne.

3. The fact that the "Way Ahead" group exists proves that the Queen has a leader's instinct ..... survival. . '

4...... the present law, a Royal cannot be crowned if he or she is married ..... a Catholic.

5. When Charles becomes King, he will take .......the role of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

6. Catholic parents are obliged to bring up their children as Catholics, so this would mean that a Catholic could succeed ..... the throne.

 

COMPREHENSION

V. Enumerate the basic changes of some of the Monarchy's ancient rules and say how expedient they are, how they will change the Monarchy.

 

VI. Describe the relationship between the Monarchy and the Church of England.

 

VII. What do you know about the relationship between the Royal Family and the Press. Draw the Monarchy's public image.

 

FOLLOW -UP

In groups and pairs discuss:

Do you flunk there's a future for the Monarchy in the UK? Why yes/no? If yes, how do you see it?

 

Read the following articles, make a list of the prerogatives of the royalties. What is the attitude of the British to them?

How the royal prerogative became a red herring Alan Watkins

15 April 2001

 


There is an old Carmarthenshire saying: "Be very careful what you say to a man with a beard offering free flagons of Buckley's bitter." Of course, it loses something in translation. That is only to be expected. But the drift is clear enough. I do not know whether the former Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones's ancestors came from that county. Evidently the saying did not become part of her own mental equipment. No doubt she was a silly woman. But what she said to The News of the Worlds do-it-yourself sheikh was neither particularly shocking nor particularly original. You can read much the same thing in The Daily Mail every day. There is no constitutional crisis. There is not even a more limited monarchical crisis. Minor members of the Royal Family - notably the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke and Princess Michael of Kent -have long exploited their connections in their constant endeavour to raise ready cash. In any case, what kind of business did the Queen and those famous advisers of hers think the former Miss Rhys-Jones was engaged in?It is somewhere between journalism and estate agency. It is a murky world, whose swirling fogs are scarcely dispersed by the existence of the Institute of Public Relations, a body set up in an attempt to persuade the public that the business is somehow on a par with the great Victorian professions which had been brought together in institutes.

And yet, though it was much ado about nothing, and there is no crisis, a national unease has been revealed, not only about the Royal Family - their foolishness, their apparently ever-growing numbers, their appetites for big houses and large stuns of money - but also about the monarchy as an institution. We have even had a revival of the debate about whether the Queen's prerogative powers should be taken away from her and given to someone else.

 

The Earl and Countess on their wedding day

 

It was inaugurated by Mr Tony Benn m the early 1980s, at the high tide of Bennery. Naturally no one took it very seriously at the time: "another of Wedgie's crazy ideas," was the general view. Today the representatives of respectable opinion, such as the Labour backbenches' own resident expert Mr Tony Wright, have admitted that there may be something in Mr Benn's views after all. Several other constitutional experts - a curious group whose qualifications are not always obvious at first sight - have been popping up on our television screens throughout the week. Let us have a look al the arguments. The Queen has numerous personal prerogatives. Though she is in theory the fount of all honour, most gongs arrive on the recommendation of ministers who, rather as the compilers of Wio's Who do, rely on discreet little committees to put up names. I can believe that the Queen not only appoints but chooses Knights of the Gaiter: many are former prime ministers of hers. I am less ready to credit her personal selection of members of the Order of Merit. She has never been known for her literary, scientific or philosophical interests. Why should she be? A few figures such as Lord Jenkins apart, I doubt whether she had ever heard of most members of the Order before appointing them, any more than the newspapers had. The other prerogatives are more important. They have all been taken over by the Government or by ministers -though not all ministerial powers are prerogative powers. There is a High-Tory-tomfool view, sometimes surfacing in The Daily Telegraph and spilling over into The Spectator, to the effect that Her Majesty possesses numerous prerogatives which she does not choose to use or uses on the quiet. This is baloney, wishful thinking. If the Queen tried to declare war off her own bat, she would rightly be forced to abdicate. The prerogatives to declare war and to ratify treaties are exercised by the Government. Sometimes the Government has limited its own powers and, for political reasons, transferred them to Parliament. This happened over European treaties. In 1978 the Callaghan government wanted to get its Bill on European elections through the Commons without too much trouble. To assist its progress, a provision was included requiring parliamentary approval for the ratification of any European treaty. This was to cause grave inconvenience to the Major administration over the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. The government press officers gave out that the treaty could still be ratified under the prerogative. This was incorrect. In the end, the treaty was approved in the Commons by a cigarette paper. Accordingly, what people are now talking about is not so much removing powers from the Queen as from her ministers, notably the Prune Minister, and transferring them somewhere else. There are several possible beneficiaries: an individual such as the Speaker, a quango, the Commons or both the Commons and the Lords. It would be perfectly simple to have an Act restricting the life of a Parliament to four or five years. But it would still be necessary to set up a. safety net to catch a political crisis which required a premature dissolution. It would not be enough to specify merely that an election would happen when and if the Government lost a vote of confidence in the House. All sorts of other things could easily happen. In these circumstances the power to ask for a dissolution could revert to the Prime Minister or could be granted to one of those individuals or institutions just specified.

The monarch has not refused a single dissolution since the Reform Bill of 1832. The prerogative to choose a Prime Minister used to be more important. The young Queen's first crisis occurred in 1957, when she had to choose between R A Butler and Harold Macmillan. Lords Salisbury and Kilmuir polled the Cabinet and proposed Macmillan. So also did Winston Churchill, who forced his views on the Queen; or, rather, his private secretary, Mr Anthony Montague Browne, forced them on her. Mr Browne tells us that the old boy felt left out of various comings and goings. So he asked Sir Michael Adeane, the Queen's private secretary, to summon Churchill. Adeane grumbled, saying this was no way to run a sweetshop, but complied reluctantly. Churchill said to Butler afterwards: "I went for the older man, old cock."

In 1964 Macmillan fiddled the succession for Alec Douglas-Home over Butler. Iain Macleod's view was that the Queen had no alternative but to accept Macmillan's nomination; my own is that she allowed herself to be rushed and should have waited longer. Either way, such a crisis is unlikely to recur now that (he Conservatives have democratised themselves. John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher in 1990 without the slightest constitutional trouble; just as James Callaghan had succeeded Harold Wilson in 1976.

The truth is that the discussion of the Queen's prerogative powers is a way of lending respectability to a wish to cut her and her family down to size in more mundane areas. The prerogative powers are exercised by ministers, as they have been for some time. It may be that they ought to be transferred somewhere else. But why, in that case, should those ministerial powers which do not derive from the prerogative not be treated in exactly the same way? To this the new radicals have no answer that I can see.



Date: 2015-12-24; view: 1051


<== previous page | next page ==>
The future of the monarchy | Republicans owe Sophie a debt of thanks
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.009 sec.)