In an article published on September 26th 2006 in The Guardian, Jeremy Paxman quotes this comparison, made almost a century earlier, by the ?mildly republican? Spanish princess Eulalia, when asked what the British people would gain by becoming a Republic:
[...] There is no written constitution, there are no common values between communities that have often been set next to each other in the name of “multiculturalism”, but who often don't share any common ground they can relate to. This communitarism, this lack of a common set of values, myths and Ideals, automatically puts forward the monarchy, as a symbol and institution everyone can relate to. I think this is what the article by Jeremy Paxman most clearly shows: though his logic indicates him that the monarchy has no real reason for existence any more, he feels that its persistence must be explained. But does he explain it right? [...]
[...] As the episode of the State Opening of Parliament shows every year, most of what the monarch does or of what is done is his name is in fact not his own. Each fall, the Queen is required to read out the speech written by the own who is still technically referred to as her Prime minister, lining out the program of her government for the legislature. It is the time of a kind of comedy where she pretends to still wield the executive power in the country. [...]
[...] Thus, we arrive to the point of reversing Paxman's argument. Must the zoo go on because it doesn't really matter, or don't things matter because the zoo goes on? One could argue that, while the British are hearing the lions roar, they are distracted from the wolves nibbling on their social systems. It may be said that the British regime is a very stable one, but doesn't this stability come at the expense of justice? Aren't the British a bit too eager to accept anything as long as they're distracted by the big Circus of Buckingham Palace? [...]
[...] Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris Conférence d'Anglais The Zoo Must Go On Must It ? In an article published on September 26th 2006 in The Guardian, Jeremy Paxman quotes this comparison, made almost a century earlier, by the “mildly republican” Spanish princess Eulalia, when asked what the British people would gain by becoming a Republic: They would gain as little as if, by popular uprising, the citizens of London killed the lions in their zoo. There may have been a time when lions were dangerous in England, but the sight of them in their cages now can only give a pleasant holiday-shudder of awe of which, I think, the nation will not willingly deprive itself. [...]
[...] But who is Parliament? It is not often recalled that indeed, a law can only be passed by the Crown in Parliament. Not only does a Bill have to receive the royal assent, but it also needs to pass the two chambers in which the monarch has to be present, even though not physically, but only symbolically through the presence of the mace, which is ceremoniously carried in at the beginning of each session day. Of course this is just ceremony, and denotes no real power, but doesn't it nevertheless carry a meaning, other than just for the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris Conférence d'Anglais Indeed, the ceremonial that justifies the very existence of the monarchy is not only a show-off or a big entertainment show that, one would think, would be fit for any other country but Britain, where there is enough political scandal, whether real or invented by the tabloids, to keep the population entertained. [...]
avec notre liseuse dédiée !