Does Monarchy Matter?

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4 (2):215-224 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The constitutional history of America, France and Britain, as well as monolithic organizations past and present, shows that human beings cleave to single rule - that we tend to develop quasi-royal dynasties, from Livia and Augustus to Bill and Hilary Clinton. Monarchy is not quaint; it is universal. Nevertheless, it is most surprising that there is still a monarchy in Britain. This essay asks, ‘Does the monarchy matter... to the British?’ and answers ‘Yes: it did by its presence and does still by its absence’. Its abolition would involve reconstructing both the Constitution and a British sense of identity

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,621

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Universal Monarchy and the Liberties of Europe: David Hume‘s Critique of an English Whig Doctrine.John Robertson - 1993 - In Nicholas Phillipson, Quentin Skinner, Barber Beaumont Professor of the Humanities Quentin Skinner & James Tully, Political Discourse in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas Carlyle and kingship.Alexander Jordan - forthcoming - History of European Ideas.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-07

Downloads
19 (#1,180,786)

6 months
2 (#1,362,696)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references