26 Jul 2010
One thing that makes monarchists stand out from republicans is that so often they choose the assertion of what they believe over actually assembling any kind of argument in defence of their beloved institution. They rarely actually counter what we say with anything more persuasive than “because I love the Queen” or “you’re traitors” and so on. When monarchists do stray a bit further into the debate they tend ignore the substantive points made by republicans, choosing instead to focus on superficial questions and indulge in illogical counterpoints.
Just today I received an email from Laura, which simply read:
you should be shot for speaking out about the monarchy. I love the monarchy and I hope it lives on for another thousand years. Being a republic is not as a great as you might think. Long live Queen Elizabeth and you should be shot for speaking out about the monarchy.
Aside from being close to what the police call a ‘malicious communication’ (don’t worry Laura, I won’t report you), this is not un-typical of the sort of nonsense we get from monarchists. I’m not saying all monarchists wish us dead, as Laura seems to, but the style of the ‘argument’ is not dissimilar to a lot of what we see on our website and Facebook page, and what I get in my inbox.
What would be refreshing is if monarchists actually construct an argument, if they actually respond to the substantive points we make as republicans.
Their usual trick is to either keep asserting their beliefs or their devotion, or to ignore the substantive points and instead pick up on the trivial and irrelevant.
So, rather than saying:
I support our Monarchy because it is a Unique British Identity that defines us from any other country in the world, it is the most famous and respected and it makes me feel proud to be British. The Queen is a National treasure and symbol and for us to lose her would be a great shame, I have faith in our Monarch I would fight for Queen and country if I had to do so!
The Monarchy is what this country is about and like I said it defines us from the rest of the world!
Why not explain this assertion, assemble an argument that follows some kind of pattern of reasoning? For example: what sort of identity do you want Britain to have, and does ‘uniqueness’ have some kind of innate virtue or quality that we should cherish? How do we choose one unique form or identity over another? How does any of this reflect on the more serious concerns about democracy and constitutional reform? Why does a very man-made institution such as monarchy inspire ‘faith’? What does your assertion that the monarchy is “what this country is about” say about your view of Britain or your ‘faith’ in the British people?
More to the point, why does a personal assertion of faith have anything to do with the question of constitutional reform?
So lesson one, don’t just keep asserting ‘beliefs’ and ‘faith’. Tell us how this matters or how it leads to a particular conclusion and, more to the point, how it answers the many criticisms of monarchy put forward by republicans.
Secondly, when republicans reply, don’t ignore the substantive points.
All too often assertions are made on this website by monarchists which are then challenged very decisively by republicans. The monarchist response is to ignore the challenge and move on (and, not too much later, repeat the same assertions).
We’ve had a few examples of late: “Its a widely known fact that the Monarch generates a great amount of Tourism”. When asked for evidence? Nothing.
Simon recently tried to get out of the whole constitutional aspect of the argument by suggesting that the question of popular sovereignty over Crown sovereignty was just a matter of words. When that was quite clearly shown not to be the case he moved on, preferring to return to his own assertions.
Another favourite is “90% of people voted for pro-monarchy parties”. When this was quite clearly exposed as a preposterous fallacy by other commenters the response was ignored. The assertion then kept on returning time and again.
So lesson two is quite simple: stick to the argument and respond to the points put to you, even if that makes your argument harder to defend.
Circular arguments and straw man arguments are also quite popular.
The circular argument most commonly deployed is quite simple: “we should support the monarchy because people support the monarchy”. Or, in other words, “republicans are wrong because the polls show support for the monarchy.”
This is a circular argument. Not only is it utterly meaningless it’s not very clever of monarchists either. The logic is that once opinion polls show 50%+1 in favour of a republic the monarchists will have to admit being in the wrong. Of course republicans would be equally guilty of this type of argument if we did insist they support republicanism because we’re in the majority. People have the right to argue the case for anything, regardless of whether they’re supported by 99% or opposed by 99% of the rest of the population. And we all know that there is no link between popular opinion and whether something is actually right or wrong.
The straw man argument is when someone argues against a point which hasn’t actually been made, for the simple expedient reason that it’s easier to knock down. Monarchists like to say “prove that most people want a republic!” As if that’s the basis of our argument. It’s not, and we’ve never said most people want a republic. We also get arguments such as “a republic isn’t going to solve all the problems” or “a president isn’t going to be perfect”. Again, we know that and we don’t claim otherwise. Thankfully we don’t suffer from believing in simplistic notions and quick fixes. We accept that society and politics are complex and inevitably imperfect.
So the final lesson is this: argue the points that are being made, don’t invent your own ‘republican’ arguments that are easier to knock down. And don’t assume you know what the other side is arguing.
Put simply: engage in the substance of the debate. Show us why the monarchy works better and how it serves the country better. Show us, if you can, how the monarchy is in keeping with values and principles that are more virtuous than those of democracy and equality. Develop a clear line of argument rather than wander off into irrelevant territory, baseless assertions, statements of belief or superficial counter arguments.
I have no doubt that the debate would then be a lot more enlightening for us all.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 26th, 2010 at 10:03 am and is filed under monarchist. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 26th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Laura’s email is very reminiscent of the sort of arguments which I remember from kindergarten such as: ‘because your clothes are ugly’ or ‘your haircut looks stupid’.
Trying to discuss the abolition of the monarchy even with ‘normal’ people (as opposed to rabid monarchists) seems to invoke a knee-jerk reaction which in turn prevents rational thought.
It’s a bit like trying to discuss religion, actually.
One of the most frequent first responses is along the lines of “I don’t want President Tony Blair, thank you very much.”
It’s going to be a long, uphill struggle before we get the United Republic of Great Britain, I’m afraid.
July 26th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Very true, Graham. A lot of monarchists believe there should be a monarchy “just because”. Then they start making up things to try and justify it. Tourism (despite the fact there are no figures), cost (a funny one, since they spend ages trying to convince us that it’s “just 66p per person” before proclaiming cost “isn’t an issue” because apparantly the royals are worth every penny), tradition (when in fact most pageantry for the monarchy is a recent invention), foreign relations (nothing an ambassador or President couldn’t do better) … the list is endless.
The point is, there is no real argument for a monarchy other than sentiment. Monarchists want it because they want it. And they’re perfectly happy to ignore any holes in their argument (particularly the question of cost and privilege) and just carry on bleating how great it is.
Meanwhile, the Windsors are laughing at all of them, all the way to the bank!!
July 26th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I wonder if handed a gun, would Laura be prepared to pull the trigger simply because someone has an alternative point of view?
“I have faith in our Monarch I would fight for Queen and country if I had to do so!”
I wonder why so many royalists take the idea and concept of monarchy so personally? That term fighting for QUEEN and country is thankfully on the way out. Not so much the country bit, but the concept of fighting for a Queen (or King).
Just look at when Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now Dave Cameron stand at the dispatch box at every Prime Ministers Question Time. What do thay say when they have a roll call of the unfortunate dead British military personel who’ve died in Afghanistan that week? They say “They died serving their country”, and not “They died fighting for QUEEN and country”. If Laura was ever put in such a position, it would be her own life she’d be fighting for, not that of a monarch far, far away!
When Laura says she “loves” the monarchy, what does she mean? Does she love them as individual persons or collectively? Is it what the royals do at a personal level or what they represent? Saying you love someone you dont know from Adam is somewhat odd if you cannot quantify what this “love” is based on. If you take a Michael Jackson fan for example who says she loves him to bits, what she really means is she loves his music or loves him through his music. Most who claim to love the royals seem to be unable to do the same with the monarchy.
Also, why do so many royalists get so upset and take it as a personal attack upon THEM whenever a republican dares to do something such as call Elizibeth Windsor by her actual name, and not the Queen? If it’s a lack of respect to Mrs Windsor, then why is a personal affront to them? You’d think it was their mother you’d just insulted!
July 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I used to be a monarchist, so I understand how it works.
The reason a lot of people support the monarchy so blindly is down to Palace Propaganda. Whenever you see most things to do with the royals, it’s there in full force. Only the other week I was watching that documentary by ITV following William and Harry on their tour of Africa. It was a very, VERY rose-tinted documentary/interview! At one point it showed the princes riding horses together and quoted that \with their already busy schedules increasing, carefree moments like this are rare for the princes\. What they didn’t mention, however, was that Prince Harry had just had a 5 week jaunt in Botswana cruising on a riverboat with pals – so it wouldn’t seem those moments are so rare after all! (And of course there’s their earlier holidays this year).
This is probably due to the palace calling the shots. They guarantee ITV an interview in return for a rosy portrait of a \hard-working\ Royal Family, which people then swallow. All \official\ royal exposure is positive, and a spin is put on everything. The fact that they receive such positive reviews from big broadcasters such as ITV and especially the fawning BBC contributes to this. The palace controls how much exposure they give the royals, such as interviews, and then makes them a rarity so that when they do happen they can dictate the rules.
They don’t like it when the tabloid press starts digging a little deeper and asking questions about royal finances/ divorces…
July 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
And republicans dont? You believe we are not a democracy simply because the British people choose to maintain our constitutional monarchy. You believe that the people are “not sovereign” if there is a monarchy, yet Spains constitution states the people are sovereign, despite having a monarchy.
this is because support for the monarchy comes naturally for so many people. It is like when you challenge a religious person to try and defend their belief in God and heaven, you wont get any factual reasons which defend their position, and yet billions of people on this planet blindly follow religion.
But it is for people who seek change to justify that change. As we are in the majority and will continue to be for some time, we have no need to make substantive arguments which you guys just dismiss anyway.
I have raised issues before saying how i think becoming a republic will be counter productive, you see that as “dodging the issue” but its Republicans job to make the case for a republic, not simply rubbish the monarchy. Even if people dont have feelings for the monarchy like many of us do, it does not mean they would support becoming a republic which would be a huge and dangerous step for this nation.
Davidke
In a way it is like that yes, but at the end of the day, despite how weak an argument religious people can give to defend their faith and religion.. they still believe. I am not religious, but i can see that having faith helps many people. Having a love for monarchy is a positive thing for many people in our nation.. If it does no serious harm, why make us suffer?
But this sort of response is certainly justified. Many of us do not want any form of politician as head of state. Between 1997-2003 Bliar was very popular, what ever nomination he put forward for president and labour backed would win. So we may not get President Bliar, just someone loyal to him.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Because it is showing clear disrespect to the Queen and her position. All British citizens should show respect to our sovereign, even if they seek abolition. To call her “Mrs Windsor” seeks to undermine her and anger monarchists who are rightly offended.
I cant help but remember that incident discuss here before when the Plaid Assembly member was told to leave the room because she showed such disrespect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8199000/8199372.stm
Oh and speaking of propaganda, did you all see on the news about the Royal familys new flickr account to show lots of photos both new and historic ones. It was very impressive.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishmonarchy
We really are blessed to have such a great monarchy and head of state.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“You believe that the people are “not sovereign” if there is a monarchy, yet Spains constitution states the people are sovereign, despite having a monarchy”
Firstly – what of us? Why do you keep mentioning Spain? or is it that we’re not sovereign here. If the people are sovereign as you claim, why don’t we have the right to choose our head of state?
“this is because support for the monarchy comes naturally for so many people. It is like when you challenge a religious person to try and defend their belief in God and heaven, you wont get any factual reasons which defend their position, and yet billions of people on this planet blindly follow religion”
You’re right in one respect – Monarchy has become a religion. (I think it was Simon Schama who referred to them as “secular deities”, which was how the monarchy was redesigned earlier in the 20th century when support for them was at risk due to the other houses of Europe falling).
However monarchy shouldn’t be a religion – because that could become very dangerous. The difference between a monarchy and an actual religion is that the royals are normal human beings, whereas religions worship actual divine entities. Unless of course, you’re suggesting that royalty is somehow divine … And of course not to mention the fact that people will support the monarchy come what may religiously, i.e. with no logical argument. Hardly fitting for a modern democracy. And dangerous when you consider it means that this blind support for monarchy will excuse them for any injustice they may do. This is already occurring with their murky and opaque finances, and the Freedom of Information Act.
I disagree that everyone should show respect to the Queen, and I think you’ll even find the palace does not insist that she be bowed or curtseyed to. You seem to be implying she is above criticism, which again is very, very undemocratic. And I hardly think calling her “Mrs Windsor” is offensive! Plenty of her subjects are addressed by that prefix and it does them no harm at all.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“Being a republic is not as a great as you might think.”
As Laura seems to have such a long memory, stretching back to the 17th Century no less, please could she give us her expert insight as to why being a Republic is not as great as we might think.
July 26th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Simon
“I cant help but remember that incident discuss here before when the Plaid Assembly member was told to leave the room because she showed such disrespect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8199000/8199372.stm”
That is absolutely disgusting that she was asked to leave. She was right – there was nothing discourteous about it, she did not use a swear word, she simply used an alternative title for the lady in question. Good for her for not being beaten down! How ridiculous in an age of free speech she was not allowed to express herself freely by the – obviously raging monarchist – Presiding Officer. He should not bring his monarchist politics into things like this. He should be free to address Elizabeth as “Her Majesty the Queen” and she should be free to address her as “Mrs Windsor”. Freedom of Speech! Or has the monarchy taken that away now as well?
July 26th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
It’s true that monarchists, when they can’t answer something, leave it and move on. I posted the following on December 15th 2009 and I’m still waiting for Simon to rationalise this away. It was a comparison I made between a pensioner who was exposed as a fraud when he wore unearned campaign medals at the Cenotaph with prince Charles who regularly wears a chest full of meaningless baubles at the same remembrance ceremony. Apparently, according to Simon, there’s a difference between a pensioner wearing unearned campaign medals as an act of remembrance and a royal wearing meaningless medals, none of which are for valour, many of which are for birthdays, and also worn as an act of remembrance for the fallen. Simon described the pensioner as a scammer and accused me of not being able to recognise one when I see one. I think I can recognize a scammer , and prince Charles fits the bill perfectly. This was my post ;
Come on then Simon, when is a scammer not a scammer? Why is it acceptable for members of royalty to parade in front of the cenotaph, at a solemn ceremony of remembrance, whilst bedecked with a chest full of meaningless medals, (as far as sacrifice/valour in combat is concerned) ? What purpose is served by them doing so? Please enlighten me seeing as you say there’s a difference between the royals behaving thus and someone, a mere pensioner, wearing medals that do not belong to him.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
It’s always one rule for us and another for the Royals. Didn’t princes William and Harry also get a “Jubilee medal” from the Queen when they hadn’t even seen any combat? Oh, and how they both have hopped from one area of the Forces to another, William if I’m correct has not only dabbled in “work experience” in a bank, but has been in the Army, Navy and now the airforce. Prince Harry hopped from the Army to the airforce too. And they have the audacity to label themselves as “ordinary soldiers!” Correct me if I’m wrong but ordinary soldiers don’t get 7 weeks’ leave to go to Africa to holiday on riverboats and watch the World Cup!
July 26th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Thank you, Graham. This is a great response inspired by the banality of the monarchists. I think it also serves as a useful key for picking apart monarchists’ arguments, as it’s far too easy to get trapped in those circular and straw-man arguments.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
” To call her “Mrs Windsor” seeks to undermine her and anger monarchists who are rightly offended.”
On the contrary Simon. There is no finer title.
As Paine said all titles are nick names, and all nick names are titles.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Yeah, I’ve heard this before. Monarchist says it’s offensive and disrespectful to call Mrs Windsor ‘Mrs Windsor’. Actually, ‘Mrs’ is considered a respectful title for women in Britain. So, why does a monarchist suddenly think the title that most women consider quite respectful to be disrespectful when applied to Mrs Windsor? The only possible conclusion is that the monarchist does not believe in an egalitarian society. As a republican I criticise the monarchy for promoting an inegalitarian society in more than symbolic ways. This is evidenced through the wrong thinking that an otherwise respectful title becomes disrespectful when applied to a monarch. So, the monarchist has demonstrated the point of the article: monarchists arguments are based on unthinking presumptions rather than reason.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I agree, Gareth. After all, the Prime Minister’s title is “Prime Minister”, but no-one ever objects to calling them Mr Cameron, Mr Brown, or Mr Blair. Her name is Elizabeth Windsor, and she’s a Mrs – it’s common sense really!
July 26th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
@jammydodger
You may have hit the nail on the head there, in terms of the problem with monarchists: “it’s common sense really”.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Also hitting the nail on the head Simon. For republicans “our sovereign” is the people. Therefore we respect everyone equally and without deference or signs of servility to anyone. Therefore we respect ‘our sovereign’ by calling Elizabeth Windsor Mrs Windsor.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
It is because the term “Mrs” equates with millions of ordinary married women in our society,( although there seems to be a growing trend for many women to call themselves M/S whether they are married or not these days ),and royalists want everyone to refer to the queen as “majesty,highness etc etc ” , in order to make her into someone who is not flesh and blood like everyone else. This is the crux of the matter. Funnily enough, although I am a committed republican ,I never even tend to think of the queen as a “Mrs”, only as “the queen “.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Evening Barry.
Funnily enough, although I am a committed republican, I never even tend to think of the queen as a “Mrs”, only as “the queen“.
I don’t think there’s anything strange about that whatsoever. I believe that incessentantly referring to royals by their real names or normal human titles runs the risk of playing into monarchist hands by making the monarchy appear trivial or irrelevant; when at the very heart of our campaign lies the fact that the monarchy is anything but trivial – it is the undemocratic foundation of our constitution and the source of unbridled power for the government.
Right now I just wish some monarchists would come on here and articulately explain all their reasons for supporting the monarchy so I can deconstruct their arguments piece by piece. Oh look, there goes a flying pig!
July 27th, 2010 at 12:16 am
@ Matt: Hovering as you are in the vicinity of airborne swine, you will probably be he first normal person to ever meet a monarchist who can articulate a reasonable argument.
Just don’t hold your breath…
July 27th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
To be quite honest I do think that some monarchists have expressed genuine and reasonable arguments for the monarchy. It just so happens that we ,as republicans disagree with them.By reasoned argument of course, I do not include all the aggressive and nonsensical rantings of some people who either merely abuse , or who just bellow out “God Save The Queen !”etc ,etc,or who put forward plainly daft ideas such as ” the monarchy brings in vast numbers of tourists”, ” we don’t want Tony Blair as president”,or “if it ain’t broke why mend it ?” . The list is quite long actually. Concerning Simon, I do not understand why he persists with coming ” on blog” ,when he must know that he has stated his case ad infinitum,and he will not change his own views and we will not change ours. He does get a hell of a lot of “stick” ,so he must be pretty thick skinned .If he is so confident that we are ” barking up the wrong tree ” ,and are not going to get anywhere, then WHY does he continue with it ? I suspect he actually thoroughly enjoys the blog. It is. a big “Raison d’etre ” for him. SOMETIMES he appears quite erudite,interesting, and well researched,( to my mind at least), but then he does a complete about turn and spouts obvious nonsense. His turn of expression suddenly becomes a bit like my own when my computer does not work properly and I get annoyed. We all know the words he uses
July 27th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Indeed, Barry. But now the Blog seems to have gone quiet again – despite Graham’s cracking article on Australia. Pity.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
We should go on other blogs when this one goes quiet. I’ve been on a couple via articles posted on the Republic Facebook page. I’ve often thought Republic should have some sort of a coordinated blog squad so to speak, ready to go and debunk the monarchist myths where ever they appear, and thereby getting our message out there.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
hi Bob. We do have something like that, called the Urgent Response Network. Problem is we can’t monitor everything. If you’re up for helping coordinate it then we can get more messages out to people.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=370142048888#!/pages/British-Monarchist-League/108881722486196?ref=ts
Give it some welly!
July 28th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I don’t think there’s another single blog I could go on these days without being barracked and heckled. That includes ConservativeHome, and yes even if the monarchy is not the topic of conversation. Some of the trolls on there make Simon look like a world-class debater.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:01 am
@ Barry / Gareth, etc.
I’ve never understood throughout the ages why the royal family traditionally name their offspring after pubs – e.g. Prince of Wales, Duke of Clarence, George IV, Queen Victoria, etc., etc.,!
July 28th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Well done Ash. That site is very interesting and lively. You made some good well informed comments and were a good match for Valerie,Simon ( our “Simon” ?),and the others. I will contribute at some time in the future. However I must confess I do not have all the info at hand that you have. Carry on with the “Welly !”.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Jammy,
I mention Spain as an example because i do not understand the claim that the British people are any “less sovereign” in reality than someone in the USA. So if Spanish people can have a monarchy but also a constitution saying they are sovereign how is that different to the USA?
We can. We have the power to vote for political parties that will abolish the monarchy and establish a republic with a head of state we elect if that is what the people want. The British people overwhelmingly vote for parties who support the monarchy and there for support Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. Many republics dont allow a popular vote, it is simply decided by parliament who should become the president. Are they not democratic? Are the people there less sovereign?
Loyalty to our Queen or the monarchy is not dangerous because they do not implement policies and “govern” the country. Loyalty to a president in a country like the USA is far more problematic, dangerous and concerning.
I dont know if you have seen some of the things ive linked before, but take a look at this.
black militant youth wing showing their support for Obama. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY
children singing a little song before he got elected. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI
Celebs pledging allegiance to their president. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwG5MhVGQ6k ”
Children singing a biased song about healthcare reform to assist the obama agenda on a mainstream (biased) american media channel. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zETuulCDaxQ
These are just a selection. Ive listed more in the past. America is the only republic i have some genuine respect for but what has happened to them in the past few years scares the hell out of me and makes me against becoming a republic even more.
I think all should show respect to our Queen, they should not be punished if they fail to follow the advice but like you point out the palace does not demand it, if they did then it would be more problematic.
I thought it was appropriate and impressive. The woman in question was a trouble maker anyway, the police have had to deal with her b4 in one of her protests outside a British military base where she was campaigning against nuclear weapons.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Bob Wiggin
I honestly have no idea about the policies regarding medals, it is not a subject of interest to me. I doubt the war veterans take offence at members of the royal family who have honorary positions within the military wearing medals. The royal family have strong ties with the British military and rightly so. I would think war veterans would care more about the fact the royal is there to recognise their service and contribution rather than medals the royal is wearing. But i am sure if this is an issue and veterans expressed outrage the palace would quickly ensure a policy change was implemented to avoid causing offence if one is needed.
Matt,
I have given many reasons why i support our monarchy and oppose becoming a republic. All of my concerns are simply dismissed or as mentioned in the article seen as to “ignore the substantive points and instead pick up on the trivial and irrelevant.”
It is not as simple as republicans here make out, there are complications with us becoming a monarchy based on our history and the makeup of the United Kingdom. I do not think my concerns are trivial, they go to the very heart of our United Kingdom.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
My father is a monarchist whilst I am of course a republican, which is excessively irritating for both us and especially myself I feel.
Why? The man is exceedingly intelligent! He can run a multi-million pound business, build an engine from spare parts and design buildings!
yet when it comes to our rare discussions on the Monarchy his arguments are thus: “I like the trooping of the colour” “it’s traditional, I love the pageantry” “I don’t want to be represented or lead by a president” etc…
Yet these are not actually arguments, there’s no reason behind them other than personal taste such as one might prefer one painting over another.
if for one moment I try to give my own counter arguments or reasons as to how our country should be run they are shrugged off, dismissed or eventually, I get the most evil look imaginable…
Monarchists are stubborn to the bone. Fortunately so am I and other republicans.
*the following is completely irrelevant*
I remember some time ago there were rumours that certain laws concerning IP rights on artwork were going to be levelled somewhat, easily allowing someone to practically copy another’s artistic design and produce it themselves for sale.
I was concerned and contacted my MP, Mike Penning about this issue. By return I had a letter straight from the head of arts and culture who happened to be the Duchess of such and such Telling Mike P that his constituent had nothing to be concerned about.
I was happy that these supposed new laws were bogus. But the indignation I felt was almost intolerable! Needless to say I disposed of this letter with relish.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Stuart,
But these are valid points. I love the trooping of the colour, it is a fine British tradition that we would be foolish to lose. And yet the trooping of the colour is so tied in with the monarchy it would be impossible to keep it (as republic suggests). It would offend people on all sides of the debate if trooping the colour was kept. I do not want a politician taking the salute in such a ceremony. It is a perfect symbol of why i would not want a republic. I am very very uneasy about politicians being in such a position. It is like the French president on their national day, he ends up looking like a 21st century Napoleon.
If we are to become a republic, it would have to be an absolute fresh start. All British traditions that have any link with the monarchy would have to go sadly.
Heres a little clip from the Queens Birthday parade in Gibraltar 2009. You can not beat tradition and symbolism with some foreign imported republican system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vXi7KTxrc
These traditions and part of our heritage, they bind us with a past we should be damn proud of. The monarchy itself binds us with our past. The Queen is a living symbol of our nation, a nation that the monarchy helped shape. We can tie up some loose constitutional issues that republicans have concerns about, but why must you people take away our monarchy that so many care about?
July 28th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“I mention Spain as an example because i do not understand the claim that the British people are any “less sovereign” in reality than someone in the USA. So if Spanish people can have a monarchy but also a constitution saying they are sovereign how is that different to the USA?”
You are right in one respect, in that we have the power to elect the Prime Minister. However theoretically at least, the people are not sovereign – hypothetically the Sovereign is sovereign, and receives all the honour that goes with that concept.
“We have the power to vote for political parties that will abolish the monarchy and establish a republic with a head of state we elect if that is what the people want. The British people overwhelmingly vote for parties who support the monarchy and there for support Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state.”
That is a ridiculous claim. That is like saying in a dictatorship “well, the people, if they wanted to, have the power to overthrow the dictator by means of force”, when in practice it is impossible. And actually, there still exists the Treason and Felony Act of 1848 which made it punishable by imprisonment to advocate the abolition of the monarchy, which is proof that for a very long time we did *not* have a say as to whether we wanted a monarchy or not, and the act was legislated when were were apparantly one of the leading democracies of the world. Although the act is no longer enforced, it has shaped Britain culturally throughout the years, and more importantly has never been repealed, something quite significant. So it would seem the will of the British people was bound for a very long time and the monarchy *was* forced upon them. Not only that but that law will have shaped media criticism etc, i.e. that it was forbidden, a lasting legacy until today. Then of course you have the fact that ministers are by convention forbidden to criticise or be in any way irreverent to the monarchy, as exemplified in the Mrs Windsor incident by Ms Woods. The fact that she is “a troublemaker” elsewhere in your opinion has nothing to do with the incident in question. She referred to Elizabeth II as an alternative title, there is nothing wrong with that – she should be free (in this democracy you say we have) to call her by any title (within reason) she wishes.
“Loyalty to our Queen or the monarchy is not dangerous because they do not implement policies and “govern” the country. Loyalty to a president in a country like the USA is far more problematic, dangerous and concerning”.
Both are dangerous and concerning, because nobody should be above criticism. Culturally, this fawning over the monarchy is not harmless, it is encouraging elitism, and has no place in a modern society. The royals get away with a lot of disgusting expenditure, which the MPs got caught over (and they spent much less). What if we started exempting certain MPs because one MP alone “doesn’t have a lot of power”?
July 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“Many republics dont allow a popular vote, it is simply decided by parliament who should become the president. Are they not democratic? Are the people there less sovereign?”
Yes, I’d say they are less sovereign. If my memory serves me correctly that was the reason why Australia opted out of the 1999 referendum to become a republic – because the propsed system was offering simply for Ministers to elect the President. I heard it said a lot of people didn’t vote for it because it was not their idea of a Republic, which I would agree with (it was very similar to the monarchical model). So they went back to the monarchy but still have a desire to be a Republic. Let’s hope this time round they get a proper one!
The same is true of the current election of the Prime Minister, or rather the party, since that is who we elect in Britain. It’s usually overlooked because we vote for the party on the basis of their leader, who usually stays in power until a change of goverment. People felt cheated by Gordon Brown because he had not gone through a general election with himself as leader, when in fact he was occupying a legitimate office as people had voted for the party. This system should change in Britain to avoid it happening again.
So yes, I think the President should be elected by the public.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“theoretically” and “Hypothetically” does not make a big difference to be honest. Its Her Majesty’s Government, the Queen is sovereign, these are all important symbols of our constitutional monarchy that i support. But at the end of the day, if we wanted abolition of the monarchy we all know we would get it. The Queen and her Heirs would not stand in the way of democracy, that is why despite the huge mess the country is in thanks to decades of incompetent government, the Queen has respected the right of the people to decide their government.
Speaking as a loyal subject of Her majesty, i would have liked to see the Queen take a more direct role. I cant help but remember the story from last year about Turks and Caicos islands
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8202339.stm
The government there was incompetent and corrupt, direct rule was implemented, the Queens Governor put in charge to clean up the mess and the constitution suspended. We sadly could have done with some cleaning up in this country i think.
But like i said, the Queen respects the right of the British people to determine which incompetent political party gets to try its hand at destroying our country. Of course this time round, we couldnt even decide that ending up with a coalition government.
All they do is vote, they do not have to take to the streets, they do not have to take up arms to fight in a revolution. If the sovereign attempted to ignore the wishes of the people and our representitives the monarchy would fall. What would they have to gain? If we become a republic peacefully the royal family will still have some money (despite the symbolic act of throwing an old lady out of her home). If we had to become a republic through force, they would lose everything. They aint stupid. That is a benefit of monarchy, our Queen has nothing to gain from trying to “take power” but everything to lose. The opposite is the case with politicians who have a habbit of wanting to hold on to power long after the people have had enough of them. Dont forget the USA only has 2 term limits for presidents because they learned their lesson after FDR
As you rightly point out, people are free to oppose the monarchy. There is no punishment for those mps who violate their oath to the Queen. All that is asked is people show a bit of respect in parliament (u have to respect other members of parliament too) , even if they do campaign for abolition of the monarchy. She can say what she likes outside without punishment.
MPs must know their place, the situation with their expenses is very different. I remember Cameron put it well in one of his speeches long before the election. The public do not expect ministers or MPs to be driven around like members of the Royal Family. We keep the two things apart to ensure that our politicians do not become the “elite”. There is always a group above them, that is the royal family. It gives me comfort knowing that we have such a system.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
1. “I love the trooping of the colour, it is a fine British tradition that we would be foolish to lose. And yet the trooping of the colour is so tied in with the monarchy it would be impossible to keep it (as republic suggests)”.
I’d like keep it in a republic. And it wouldn’t be impossible. The French’s penchant for pageantry hasn’t suffered through them becoming a republic (and their monarchy was much, much older than ours).
“It is like the French president on their national day, he ends up looking like a 21st century Napoleon.”
He doesn’t look like Napoleon – he’s elected. But I thought you;d like him looking like Napolean who was himself a monarch!
“If we are to become a republic, it would have to be an absolute fresh start. All British traditions that have any link with the monarchy would have to go sadly”.
Not true at all – that’s just your way of saying “everything must go” knowing that nobody would want no pageantry at all, an all-or-nothing scare tactic. Pageantry doesn’t have to be monarchical, and you know it! A republic could be anything the people wanted it to be ceremonially. The US has a Presidential Guard, for example.
“Heres a little clip from the Queens Birthday parade in Gibraltar 2009. You can not beat tradition and symbolism with some foreign imported republican system”.
I see … so you think being a Republic is a “foreign” idea? Ridiculous. Whatever happens in this land does not stop it from being British, it is not only the monarchy which is British (in fact for a while they were completely German! The Trooping of the Colour started under his reign, and he was born and bred in Germany). We were a Republic at one stage, and it was a British one at that.
“These traditions and part of our heritage, they bind us with a past we should be damn proud of.”
I agree. So let’s keep them. The monarch doesn’t have to be there to authorise them.
“The monarchy itself binds us with our past”.
How?
“The Queen is a living symbol of our nation”
A symbol of a nation does not have to be a queen
“a nation that the monarchy helped shape”
Along with the actual population and plenty of people who worked harder than the monarchy. But you’re not advocating a mention of them, strangely.
“We can tie up some loose constitutional issues that republicans have concerns about, but why must you people take away our monarchy that so many care about?”
Because hereditary right does not have a place in the modern day world. It’s been abolished in all other walks of society (except the aristocracy), so it’s the last one.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Parliament/Assembly***
Are they still a democracy despite having such a system?
Republic advocates the Irish model (without any concern for implications such a policy would have in Northern Ireland), but what i do not get is why it does not strongly oppose other forms of republic that are deeply flawed, it simply suggests the Irish model. Some here think it would be best to avoid going into detail, like the Australians did, which seems to me an attempt to trick people by not telling them exactly what they will end up with if we became a republic.
See there are different problems with these different republican systems, a directly elected head of state in our country would be very difficult because of the make up of the United Kingdom. 80% of the population is in England and it would be able to decide who wins such an election, this would go down very badly in Scotland and Wales. Alex Salmond at present supports the Queen and the monarchy (hes said he doesnt think there needs to be a referendum on keeping the monarchy even if Scotland becomes a republic). A directly elected head of state is problematic and would be exploited by him.
Also you undermine the position of head of state. They are meant to be a unifying figure and a symbol of the nation, how are we all meant to rally around a president half the country did not vote for. It will come down to what ever party is popular at the time. So between 1997 and 2002 there would have to have been an election for president. Labour was very popular at the time, and who ever they nominated for the weakened position would be supported. People often vote on party lines.
A Republic just would not work here. Its not the right thing for our country.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
That’s clearly absurd Simon. The point is that the detail is for the people to decide and is for serious debate further down the road. The principal point of the campaign is to have a republican constitution and to get rid of the monarchy. Within that goal there are different options about the roles and powers of the president, parliament and executive.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Simon,
So how would it go down in the USA if it became “The President’s Goverment”, “The President’s Treasury”? The President, whilst having more power than the Queen, does only have limited power, he can’t do much without the agreement of the government. His role is similar in some ways – he signs things into legislation and so does the Queen. Naming of things is a powerful thing – it would be better if it was the National Assembly, or the National Treasury. Because naming them something else is implying they belong to someone else.
You then might ask “what’s in a name”, but then I might ask the same question to you regarding the Mrs Windsor incident with the lady at the Welsh Assembly.
“All they do is vote, they do not have to take to the streets, they do not have to take up arms to fight in a revolution. If the sovereign attempted to ignore the wishes of the people and our representitives the monarchy would fall. What would they have to gain? If we become a republic peacefully the royal family will still have some money (despite the symbolic act of throwing an old lady out of her home)”
So how can we even think about voting for a republic when there are so many stumbling blocks in our way? I.e., that everything is biased towards the royal family. If we are still forbidden to even criticise them or scrutinise their finances, you know very well that anything further is impossible. We’re not even allowed to discuss a republic in parliament, can you answer me as to why not?
Spare me the “old lady kicked out of her home”. Firstly I hear the Queen doesn’t like Buckingham Palace, secondly she owns Balmoral and Sandringham so she could go and live at either one of those places, and thirdly she has so much money she could quite easily BUY Buckingham Palace if she wanted to!
We could have just as easily started to say “Don’t kick Gordon Brown out of office, it’d be kicking an old man out of his home”.
“As you rightly point out, people are free to oppose the monarchy. There is no punishment for those mps who violate their oath to the Queen. All that is asked is people show a bit of respect in parliament (u have to respect other members of parliament too)”
You’ve contradicted yourself. You’ve said that MPs are free to oppose the monarchy, but in order to do so must take an oath of allegiance supporting it. Paradoxical, don;t you think?
I have no issue with “respect” as long as it’s across the board. Therefore if the Queen is only going to be called “The Queen” then there should be (a) legislation in place to ensure it, so it does not ride on personal opinion of who is presiding and (b) to call everyone else in government by their official titles, Prime Minister, Chancellor etc. Why should the Queen be a special case?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
“MPs must know their place”
I agree. So should the royals.
, the situation with their expenses is very different.
It really isn’t. Public figures both surreptitiously dipping their hands into the public purse? Some are royal some are not. I don’t see how that matters in the eyes of the law.
“I remember Cameron put it well in one of his speeches long before the election. The public do not expect ministers or MPs to be driven around like members of the Royal Family. We keep the two things apart to ensure that our politicians do not become the “elite”. There is always a group above them, that is the royal family. It gives me comfort knowing that we have such a system”
Well it does not give me or a great many people comfort to know that one family are above the law. In a republic everyone knows their place, i.e. under the law like the rest of society. You’re basically advocating unfair legal leniancy to certain people.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Simon
“Are they still a democracy despite having such a
system?”
Yes, for the most part, but it’s approaching monarchy, which is why I disagree with it. It doesn’t stop the country being democratic on the whole, but the institution of both isn’t.
There is no concrete model for a republic because every country is different, and it is far easier for monarchists to sit back and simply defend what is already there than to suggest what might be.
You also keep mentioning Northern Ireland, which is ironic because around half the population there is currently unhappy with being part of the UK.
“Also you undermine the position of head of state. They are meant to be a unifying figure and a symbol of the nation, how are we all meant to rally around a president half the country did not vote for.”
You get that with any Head of State, or any public figure – it’s a fact of life. Not everyone supports the monarchy – so by your argument why should we have to put up with an institution we didn’t vote for? Actually this is ironic because no-one has voted for the Queen!
You don’t need to be a kingdom to unify a country. France is far more unified than we will ever be, and that’s a republic. Spain is more fragmented than us, and that’s a monarchy, so the argument doesn’t really work.
“A Republic just would not work here. Its not the right thing for our country”
That’s simply not true, and there is living proof of it. Ireland was part of our country, the United Kingdom, until half a century ago and then became a republic. So the process of the UK becoming a republic or republics has in fact already started. And Ireland certainly decided it was the right thing for them!
July 28th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Graham – I’m a member of the urgent response network and of course I would be happy to help coordinate it. To that end I will post any links I come across on the facebook page.
SIMON – “I honestly have no idea about the policies regarding medals, it is not a subject of interest to me. I doubt the war veterans take offence at members of the royal family who have honorary positions within the military wearing medals. The royal family have strong ties with the British military and rightly so.”
Thankyou for finally posting a reply to my question, although you didn’t actually answer it. I asked when is a scammer not a scammer. Why should a man be vilified for turning up at a solemn ceremony of remembrance wearing campaign medals he didn’t earn, and yet another man wearing make-believe tinpot medals is acceptable. Both men are dishonouring the fallen in my book, and I find the actions of both men deeply offensive.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Too true, Bob. It’s the old “Because he’s royal” line, which seems to excuse the royals from any kind of justice. It’s almost quite literally a Get out of Jail Free card.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Dear Simon,
There is basically nothing at all wrong with some aspects of Socialism,including Communism . Unfortunately Russia messed up a wonderful chance to establish a genuine Socialism.There is no reason why an improved attempt should not be made again to establish Socialism in the World. It is a worthy aim. There is nothing at all wrong with a community of people helping each other as well as themselves.Greed is the bugbear ,and it can be controlled if we have the will to do it. The human condition makes us individuals yet part of a wider group of people ,whether we like it or not. The only way forward is through a genuine socialism.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
In my experience in day to day life it is hard to find an out and out monarchist . More likely are people who see the alternatives as being less than appealing based on a nauseating lack of foresight. Usually it’s a view ( can’t call it an argument) based on viewing so and so country got rid of their monarchy and then citing a very narrow view of that country and saying ‘ see look what’s happened to that country’. This ignores the fact if they had had a monarch then the perceived negative thing may well have happened anyway. It is a lazy way to maintain the status quo. I am sure the advocates of slavery could have used the same type of argument as well as justifying withholding votes for women ensuring all children got education etc. .
Anti monarchists should adopt the tactic take a country Japan who have a monarchy ( note until a few years ago a very affluent country) look at the their national debt, losing the 2nd World War hurricanes typhoons whatever – and then have a spurious argument that this country hasn’t done well under the monarchy . As far as I can see when all the pithy smokescreens have been blown away the most honest argument for a monarchy is something like-
• We have had it for a long time
• We don’t want to be like so and so country
• It doesn’t’ cost a lot ( incorrect but let them at least say it)
• They do a lot of good ( incorrect but again let them at least try that one)
• It brings in a lot of tourists ( hmm! show me the evidence )
• I could get a gong ( depends on who you are – terrible argument but at least it is honest)
If your typical monarchist said the above at least they would be honest and show there is no argument for a non elected aristocracy
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
THE QUEEN AND HER FAMILY ARE ORDINARY HUMAN BEINGS THEY CAME IN THE WORLD WITH NOTHING AND WILL LEAVE WITH NOTHING AND IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE THEY WILL ANSWER ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT LIKE WE ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, AFTER ALL WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME SEE WHY WE HAVE TO BOW AND CURTSEY TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING,WHY NOT JUST SHAKE HANDS, WHAT ARE THE ROYAL FAMILY HERE FOR WE HAVE A GOVERMENT WETHER GOOD OR BAD TO TO RUN THE COUNTRY THE QUEEN CANNOT STOP ANYTHING THE GOVERMNENT DOES AND AS FOR TOURISM BRITAIN HAS GOT A LOT MORE GOING FOR IT THAN LONDON, PEOPLE STILL VISIT FRANCE GERMANY AND MANY MORE PLACES WHICH HAVE NO MONARCHY. IT WANTS STOPPING IT SERVES NO PURPOSE AND COSTS THE COUNTRY TO MUCH MONEY THAT COULD BE BETTER SPENT ON PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED IT
August 4th, 2010 at 10:56 am
It’s the condescending monarchist that gets my hackles up, the ones that call us carping republicans who don’t understand. ‘You make the same mistake as most other republicans’ is their opening gambit, followed by nothing but sycophantic blather. I think we understand very well, I only wish they would get off their knees and understand too.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I find it nigh-on impossible to understand how exactly most monarchists could expect to ever actually benefit from sycophancy. Do they think we’re going to try and start a civil war, the only eventuality in which there could exist the potential for their deference to be rewarded? [Perhaps not, but I have met one who says there should be a civil war to root out the republican traitors. How democratic can you get?...]
But be that as it may, although I do often attribute much of the monarchist mindset to a fundamental misunderstanding of the British constitution, even I am forced to conclude there can be nothing to it but that bizarre sycophancy in the case of those die-hard old-school monarchists who claim to hate politicians yet openly advocate a system which gives politicians absolute power, saying it is absolutely right that “the (glorious) Queen acts only on the advice of her (evil) ministers.”
August 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
@ Matt
To answer your question:- Patronage
Cast you mind back to the middle ages and the feudal society that existed then. Since the Norman invasion, the monarch bestowed land upon the aristocracy who, in turn, became landlords.
The folks at the bottom of the chain were obliged to pay rents, tithes and provide manpower to defend the lord and monarch in skirmishes and wars.
The modern day equivalent is a gong and a seat of influence at the high altar – or “selling out” as it was known in the 1970s.
To paraphrase Karl Marx: “Monarchy is the opium of the masses”. Monarchy is used to make people feel better about the real issues of equality, opportunity and discrimination.
Patronage supports this oppression by rewarding the people who keep it in power.
Or, in the words of another Marx (that’s Groucho not Karl): “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others”
August 4th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Hi Matt
“I find it nigh-on impossible to understand how exactly most monarchists could expect to ever actually benefit from sycophancy”
I think it stems from the fact that they have this crazed desire to do it because they believe that the monarchy is so fundamental to this country that it must be defended at all costs, and I mean *all* costs. This generally means putting the Royal Family on a high pedestal apart from the rest of society, and not subjecting them to the same scrutiny or criticism that all other people, from all walks of life, face.
So this could mean giving Elizabeth II her tax breaks, her murky finances, exemption from the Freedom of the Information Act. Or it could mean excusing Prince Phillip’s rude comments. Or Charles’s political lobbying. So they remove any possible sources of critcism by hiding it and pretending it isn’t there. All of this designed to create this image of a “perfect” family who are all hard-working, decent, good-natured, humble, prudent, which of course endears them to the nation and helps create more monarchists. In short, they believe that the monarchy should be seen as perfect and faultless and above everyone else to emphasise this (god-like, if you will).
The sycophancy strengthen this “Them and Us” notion by going over the top with all these fancy titles, insiting on the Royal Highnesses, the Majesties etc, the bowing and the curtseying, and the praising of a royal individual as a genius whatever they do (whilst ignoring what they don’t do well or don’t do at all). Another thing that strengthens it is the incomprehible wealth … no-one really knows but I’d hazard a guess the Queen is one of the richest individuals in the country on her private wealth, and in any case although she doesn’t own Buckingham Palace etc she does on a practical basis (except when it comes to paying for it). So we have this image of a wealthy yet perfect, honest, and humble family created by distorting and hiding the real facts behind them.
Because without sycophancy the image would start to crumble. The monarchists don’t want us to see them as ordinary people because the moment that happens the illusion is shattered and the royals are on their way out. If everybody stopped praising them they would start to see them as Republicans do – a very wealthy family who do very little work squeezing a lot of money out of the state to add to their already enormous family fortune.
I’d guess the ideology that the royals are necessary for this country comes from indoctrination at a young age. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that you always see a lot of schoolchildren on royal visits. The whole institution is built on sentiment rather than logic, so the sycophancy helps fuel it. People like the idea that there is a higher institution like that will save them from all ills in the end, when of course this is never proven and never will be. It’s just all a break from reality!
August 4th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
“I find it nigh-on impossible to understand how exactly most monarchists could expect to ever actually benefit from sycophancy”
Actually, I think that many monarchists DO benefit. At least they think they do.
I have said before that the Windsors act as an emotional crutch for many monarchists in this country. However, it’s more than just that alone.
It seems that many monarchists feel that the only way they can express aany feeling of what they think is good about Britain or how it can be made a beeter place to live in is to centre thier arguments around the Windsors. Perhaps monarchists get an inner glow and a sense of moral superiority. After all how many times do we hear:
“No one else has a monarchy like ours / it makes us unique”
“Americans are jealous of our royals and wish they had them”
“Our royals bring in £millions”
“Republicans are traitors (and should be shot)”
And so on and so on. So not only do most monarchists think the Windsors are better than they are (and as a consequence, anyone else), they perhaps think that being a monarchist in turn makes THEM better than anyone else who happens to have the misfortune to be born French, American, German, Italian, Brazilian or Russian. And of a course a monarchist better than anyone who has the nerve to declare him or herself declare themselves a republican. So as a result, they “benefit” from a sort of reflected glory.
What this does in reality is to stop any rational thought process. Most monarchists on this site usually write what THEY beleive is best as seen from their own narrow viewpoint. So it becomes an I, I, I, me, me , me, I want, I want, I want sort of response.
So even though most monarchists won’t benefit directly, the imagined indirect benefits are sadly enough for many of them.
August 4th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
It’s the placebo effect. It makes them feel safe. They think if we became a republic the whole country would be burning in a state of anarchy, something the Windsors are only to happy to allow them to believe.
I think for a lot of people the Windsors have become the British identity, and you’re right iMatt, they do believe it makes them superior to the Americans/French whoever. It doesn’t stop there though – they believe it’s also superior to other monarchies, which is why they enjoy the fact that ours costs so much (apparantly it gives it more prestige).
It’s a complete placebo, though. They tell themselves it’s the “best thing we’ve got as a country” so that makes it true.
I’ve actually spoken to a number of people of different nationalities and they tend to see the English as stuck-up. So I don’t think the royals are an asset at all.
August 4th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I have always favoured the ‘throw-back approach’, so to Laura i would say (replacing ’shot’ with ‘banished from our land’);
“Mr Dear laura”
“you should be banished from our land for supporting the monarchy. I hate the monarchy and I hope it dies an immediate death. Being a monarchy is not as a great as you might think. Long live democracy and you should be deported for supporting non-democratic institutions”
August 4th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I would just like to point out that the Monarchy is a positive thing for Britain and in particular, the English. English people are a nation, and what constitutes the English as a nation is based on a variety of factors from having our own language, culture and land. But, what also makes the English nation is our common circumstance of birth, which is our cultural historic experience which includes having a Monarch. Let’s not forget that we have adapted to modern times by eliminating the power that the Monarch has. Wiping out the Monarchy in Britain will be removing a key component in what makes the English people a nation.
Besides, there are faults with every single Government worldwide, including both Republics and Monarchies. We could adopt a US-style Government by having a joint Head of State and Head of Government. But, this makes it harder for the President to fulfil is roles as both Head of State and Head of Government accurately and be efficient in both roles.
Well, instead we could adopt a German-style Government by having a President who has ceremonial duties chosen by Parliament. However, this type of Head of State becomes an unrecognised figure head to the rest of the world and is therefore, quite pointless.
Maybe a French-style Government would be a positive move for Britain, by having a Head of State and Head of Government who share power. However, this leads to a weak Government where both the Head of State and Head of Government can lock horns and make it harder to pass legislation.
There are other Governments that we could adopt as well, but they have flaws too. Why can’t we just keep the British-style Government as it is and not change it, why is it that people want to make Britain into something it is not. The British way works for us, and that’s all that matters.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Hi Jaime,
I’m afraid I disagree that the monarchy is a positive asset to this country. It’s often said that England in particular has no culture apart from the monarchy, but I think the monarchy has killed off a lot of our patriotism. To the extent that we celebrate the Queen’s birthday more than St George’s Day, our national day.
You make a valid point in saying no government is perfect, but I don’t think that’s what we’re pretending, and in any case our system with a hereditary monarch is not perfect either.
As far as the monarchy making the English nation goes, I disagree there too, in that being “English” is highly subjective, and there is no set of rules as to what is English and what is not. So whilst some people might see the monarchy as being typically English, others do not. What I mean is that the monarchy is not necessarily inherently English – the French feel no less French for being a Republic. (Monarchy also could have been argued to be typically Irish up until Ireland achieved independence, but they didn’t suffer from getting rid of it).
August 4th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
@jammydodger
I have studied history all my life and I do not believe for one single second that until Ireland’s independence, the Monarchy was a part of ‘being Irish’. Ireland wanted independence from the crown, same with America.
Also, although you might be correct that we celebrate the Queen’s birthday more than we celebrate St Georges Day, you must recognise that we celebrate St Patrick’s Day more than we celebrate the Queen’s birthday. St Patrick, the Saint of Ireland remember.
I think the reason why this country does not celebrate St George’s day is a whole other topic that in this day and age, is largely due to Government inferences and ‘political correctness’. I’m not sure if you remember, but two or three years ago, a St George’s Day parade was going to take place in the West Midlands, but for ‘fears it might offend’ it was banned. However, it went ahead anyway, through private funding and not one single complaint was made (just goes to show how well the government knows the British public and what they find offensive and not)
Anyway, cultural historic experience seems to be England’s common circumstance of birth in terms of what a nation is, and that does include the Monarchy. ‘Being British’ is very different today, than what it was pre-WWII, which explains the huge rise in English patriotism since the 1990’s. Before then, English patriotism wasn’t very big and has only erupted in the last 20 years, probably in a bid to keep a sense of the ‘old British culture’ and not completely embrace ‘New British culture’ and abandon the old one.
Being a Republic is just not the British way. For example, I am not a fan of the Burka and I agree that it is an oppressive symbol, but I do not under any circumstances want it to be banned in Britain. It’s not the British way to ban something like that and tell people what they can and can not wear and why! I do not care/mind if France, Belgium etc ban it, I just care about Britain and would feel deeply ashamed if we was to go down that path. The same thing if we were to remove our Monarchy, who I believe serves no harm and is an important part of our country, history, culture of national pride.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Jaime
In its simplest form we want to keep the ‘British system’ but simply improve on it:
Keep the general set up, but elect the next head of state instead of choosing the son of the current head of state.
Review and redistribute the powers of the head of state, allowing the elected president to exercise some of the powers the Queen cannot exercise.
Limit the powers of parliament and the government by passing sovereignty to the people and enshrining the political system in a written constitution that can only be amended by the people.
It’s simply improving on what we have.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The “British way” is whatever the British want it to be. It used to be the British way to trade in slaves and executive thieves. Thankfully no longer.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
@Graham
But surely if the British WANT to have the Monarchy and keep them in “power” then you should accept that?
Remember that Britain was once a Republic, for a few years, and we decided that it was not for us. And you are missing my point. Having and trading slaves is not what’s part of us being a NATION, but having a Monarchy is.
Our Head of State is always one of the most recognised people in the world, more than any other Head of State, unless the Head of State is also a joint Head of Government, like the US President. I fail to see how having an elected Head of State would be better – i quite like having our Queen being the most recognised, and for her personally, one of the most respected, people in the world.
Sure, an elected Head of State would cheaper, but we would be losing an important part of our history and an important part of our culture.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
@ Jaime
“I have studied history all my life and I do not believe for one single second that until Ireland’s independence, the Monarchy was a part of ‘being Irish’. Ireland wanted independence from the crown, same with America.”
I have also studied history all my life. The point I was making that you were saying “the monarchy has been here for ages and therefore is a part of our culture”, whereas in Ireland the monarchy was present for more than 500 years. Ireland also differed from America in that it was part of the United Kindom, and not just a colony – i.e. it was part of the crown. Just because the monarchy was present in Ireland didn’t prevent it from becoming a successful Republic, and it is the same with Britain.
“Also, although you might be correct that we celebrate the Queen’s birthday more than we celebrate St Georges Day, you must recognise that we celebrate St Patrick’s Day more than we celebrate the Queen’s birthday. St Patrick, the Saint of Ireland remember”
… but that still leaves the fact that the Queen’s birthday is the biggest example of our own patriotism we have, and that we celebrate a republic’s national day more than our own!!
“I think the reason why this country does not celebrate St George’s day is a whole other topic that in this day and age, is largely due to Government inferences and ‘political correctness’….
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it’s because we have a monarchy, and as you’re saying, people think that expressing Englishness has to be done through them, rather than hanging on to our real cultures and traditions.
Anyway, cultural historic experience seems to be England’s common circumstance of birth in terms of what a nation is, and that does include the Monarchy.
I don’t quite understand this bit …you’re saying that England’s history is its identity? And therefore, because monarchy is part of that history it is therefore its identity? I disagree with that if so – as I said before, Ireland had the monarchy for ages and they’ve done pretty well since not having it.
‘Being British’ is very different today, than what it was pre-WWII, which explains the huge rise in English patriotism since the 1990’s. Before then, English patriotism wasn’t very big and has only erupted in the last 20 years, probably in a bid to keep a sense of the ‘old British culture’ and not completely embrace ‘New British culture’ and abandon the old one.
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying again, sorry. In any case, there isn’t any English patriotism anymore (sadly) unless you express it through the monarchy – all our culture has died off. You’re suggesting the monarchy is the last remnant of it, whereas I suggest it is the cause of its demise.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Why? We are also British and we have a right and duty to argue for what we believe in. Societies are not stagnant and unchanging, they continually adapt and change with the passage of time. Free and open debate is what facilitates that process and is very much a part of the “British way”.
Who was the ‘we’ who decided that? It was a small elite who abolished the monarchy, a small elite who rulled during the republic and another small elite who brought the monarchy back. In sofar as the major decisions were concerned it had nothing to do with ‘we’.
So says you. We republicans beg to differ.
We wouldn’t be losing any part of our history, that’s the great thing about history: it never leaves us and it’s there to be made. We’ll make history by abolishing the monarchy and we’ll then have more history to celebrate and remember.
Simple really: the head of state would be accountable and therefore able to exercise reserve powers; the change would be coupled with a new republican constitution that would limit the powers of the executive; we would no longer be subject to the whims and genetic lottery of one family, but would instead be able to choose our own head of state; we can drop all the sycophancy and deference and grow up a bit as a nation, learning a new sense of responsibility for our political affairs.
Basically it’s about three things: 1 – wanting what’s best for Britain, which includes the best possible democracy; 2 – wanting to instill a sense of aspiration into our political and social structures, so every child can grow up knowing they can strive to be whatever they want to be regardless of the family they were born into; 3 – wanting to create a sense of political responsibility within our democratic culture, so when things go wrong we don’t simply blame ‘them’ but seek to resolve things ourselves through the political process.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“Being a Republic is just not the British way … The same thing if we were to remove our Monarchy, who I believe serves no harm and is an important part of our country, history, culture of national pride”
Well, I think it is a British way – we were a Republic once before. At any rate, if we take Britain to be synonymous with “United Kingdom” and you’re saying it wouldn’t be a “United Kingdomish” way, then that’s untrue – because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and became a republic, which just proves that it was something “United Kingdomish” people wanted.
And if you mean British just to be British, then what about the people in Northern Ireland? Are they automatically republicans? You’re generalising too much. What I’m getting at is that you can’t just go around saying “It’s not the British way” because that’s not true – a country decides what is its own “way” – it is highly subjective and you simply can’t affiliate a monarchy to a country by default.
“But surely if the British WANT to have the Monarchy and keep them in “power” then you should accept that?”
I would accept it if the monarchy played fair with us and didn’t attempt to hide their finances and the like, or held a referendum on the matter periodically. But they don’t – we don’t have a choice in the matter, so saying “people want it because it is there” is irrelevant because it’s not like we ever decided!
“Remember that Britain was once a Republic, for a few years, and we decided that it was not for us. And you are missing my point. Having and trading slaves is not what’s part of us being a NATION, but having a Monarchy is.
I’m sorry but that first line is really silly. That is like saying “we had a monarchy under Charles I and decided that was not for us either” (also true). That republic happened hundreds of years ago and was totally different to what most first world countries are today. You do realise it was made law in Victoria’s reign to advocate a republic – they were obviously scared of growing sentiment.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@ jAIME
“Our Head of State is always one of the most recognised people in the world, more than any other Head of State, unless the Head of State is also a joint Head of Government, like the US President. I fail to see how having an elected Head of State would be better – i quite like having our Queen being the most recognised, and for her personally, one of the most respected, people in the world”
It’s ironic you should have picked out the Queen and the U.S. President as globally recognisable. The reason why they both are has nothing to do with being monarchies or republics – it is the fact that they are both Heads of State of the two largest and most prominent English speaking countries. Since virtually everyone learns English worldwide in one of these dialects, it’d be hard not to recognise either of them.
“Sure, an elected Head of State would cheaper, but we would be losing an important part of our history and an important part of our culture”
Firstly the cost isn’t the foremost issue (although the injustice of the Windsor’s murky finances is certainly one of them), and secondly, our history will not change because we lose the Windsors (history will always be history). I don’t think they’re an important part of our culture, although I’d be interested to hear your reasons for thinking they are. You have only to look to France, Ireland or America or Italy and see they are all far more culturally rich than us, and none of them have monarchies.
August 4th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
* correction to my own post
“You do realise it was made *criminal* in Victoria’s reign to advocate a republic – they were obviously scared of growing sentiment.”
Typo there. But yes it was made criminal in Victoria’s reign to advocate a republic. If the Brits wanted monarchy so strongly all along, why did they have to pass a law making opposition to it illegal? (A law which has never been repealed either).
August 4th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I’m not saying our history is in our identity, i’m saying our common circumstance of birth includes our history. For example, the Welsh language is the common circumstance of birth for the Welsh Nation. Religion is the common circumstance of birth for the Jewish nation (not necessarily Israel) etc.
Ireland’s common circumstance of birth had nothing to do with cultural historic experience, it was based primarily on culture and on their language. They fought for independence away from the British crown. They were part of the UK, but not part of Britain and did not see the Monarchy as part of their country or in their country’s future.
Also, we have to look at the wider picture, abolishing the Monarchy will be half the victory for the Republicans in Northern Ireland who seek to put N.Ireland under Irish rule. N.Ireland is British land and the Monarchy is making sure of that, do you agree with that? I do not want to see those 6 counties returned to Ireland as i see it as a footprint of our history. I understand that that may sound quite rude.
Lastly, you could also argue that the British flag has been hijacked by the nazi-BNP and anyone seen waving the flag is typically associated with the BNP. However, when the Queen or other royals are on visits to certain parts of the country, fans gather around and wave the famous Union flag – it must be challenged that the Monarchy is keeping alive the British flag. I know these are far-fetched arguments, but it’s the little things that make one big argument of why the Monarchy should stay in Britain, for many years to come.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
@ Jaime
“I’m not saying our history is in our identity, i’m saying our common circumstance of birth includes our history. For example, the Welsh language is the common circumstance of birth for the Welsh Nation. Religion is the common circumstance of birth for the Jewish nation (not necessarily Israel) etc”
Well … yes, every country has history. But I still think you’re just saying “we should have a monarchy because we’ve always had one”.
“Ireland’s common circumstance of birth had nothing to do with cultural historic experience, it was based primarily on culture and on their language. They fought for independence away from the British crown. They were part of the UK, but not part of Britain and did not see the Monarchy as part of their country or in their country’s future.
Britain and the UK are interchangeable terms sometimes, meaning the sovereign state with its government in London. It’s not really relevant that they’re not Britain because the whole country was (and continues to be) one country – the UK. Scotland and Wales are part of the UK the same as Ireland was. It certainly wasn’t based on their language either – since only 1% of people now speak Irish.
“Also, we have to look at the wider picture, abolishing the Monarchy will be half the victory for the Republicans in Northern Ireland who seek to put N.Ireland under Irish rule. N.Ireland is British land and the Monarchy is making sure of that, do you agree with that? I do not want to see those 6 counties returned to Ireland as i see it as a footprint of our history. I understand that that may sound quite rude”
Obviously I respect your point of view, but whether N. Ireland continues to be part of the UK or not is a matter for the Northern Irish to decide – i.e. democratically! It should have nothing to do with a footprint of history – if the N. Irish want to cede from the UK, they should have the right to do so. If they don’t, they also have the right to remain. Bear in mind that 50% of the population of Northern Ireland are also Republicans so you’re upsetting someone either way!
Also Northern Ireland is not British and never has been – it’s part of the UK but to say it “belongs to Britain” is a tad imperialistic. It constitutes the sovereign state of which Britain is also a part.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
“Lastly, you could also argue that the British flag has been hijacked by the nazi-BNP and anyone seen waving the flag is typically associated with the BNP. However, when the Queen or other royals are on visits to certain parts of the country, fans gather around and wave the famous Union flag – it must be challenged that the Monarchy is keeping alive the British flag. I know these are far-fetched arguments, but it’s the little things that make one big argument of why the Monarchy should stay in Britain, for many years to come”
I agree the BNP uses the national flag for their own use but it doesn’t stop it being used elsewhere – it flies from the top of many public buildings, for example. I really don’t think the monarchy is the best argument for patriotism or “keeping alive the Union Flag” – especially since they have their own Royal Standard. People wave their flags because they’re being patriotic, and sadly these days the only time you see that is for either football or the royals. It comes back to the discussion we were having earlier, where you believe the royals are sustaining patriotism and I believe that they killed it off. In contrast, look how much the French and Americans use their flags …
August 4th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Well not really, as there’s no coherence to the little things that you speak of.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Jaime:
Also, we have to look at the wider picture, abolishing the Monarchy will be half the victory for the Republicans in Northern Ireland who seek to put N.Ireland under Irish rule.
This is incredible. You’re peddling the ridiculous argument of our resident troll AKA Simon, that a British republic would hand victory to those who want Northern Ireland to break away from the Union; yet your frequent references to how the monarchy is a predominantly English as opposed to British institution would, if accurate, expose his suggestion that the abolition of the monarchy would hasten the total break-up of the Union for the folly that it is.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I find it ironic that monarchists think the monarchy holds Britain together, when an entire nation ceded from the UK 50 years ago, and the others have their own devolved assemblies and Scotland is even talking of independence!
When was the last time somewhere ceded from the US? Or France?
August 4th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
“And you are missing my point. Having and trading slaves is not what’s part of us being a NATION, but having a Monarchy is.”
Not quite true. That sounds a lot like like picking what you consider good bits about British history and ignoring the bad.
Britain along with other trading nations profitted from the slave trade. The slave trade helped Britain become the workshop of the world but also reinforced racist and stereotypical views of Africans and Carribeans, some of which sadly exist today. The very fact that many black people in this country (including myself) can trace white ancestors and whites can do the same thing is part of the legacy
of trans Atlantic slavery.
I remember a TV documentary a few years ago about residents of Liverpool and / or Bristol who were launching a campaign to rename various streets named after slave traders. Personally, I’d have left the street names intact as the slave trade hepled make cities like Liverpool and Bristol as well as the rest of Britain in some shape or form, like the monarchy.
However, just because some advocate abolishment of monarchy does not mean that their impact on Britain would or indeed should be airbrushed from history. Just like the slave trade in fact.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
This is the most bizarre argument I’ve ever heard. Basically it says that, good or bad, we should keep the monarchy simply to upset those in Ireland who want rid of it.
So what you’re basically saying is: “we want a bad system of government because people we oppose want a better form of government”. Make any sense at all?
August 4th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
slight typo:
Meant to say – “The very fact that many black people in this country (including myself) can trace white ancestors and whites can trace balck ancestors is part of the legacy of trans Atlantic slavery”.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@ Jaime
I’ve not only studied history I am so old I’m actually part of it!
Technically, Britain has never been a republic. However, England dabbled with it when the monarchy withdrew any sort of co-operation and was forcibly overthrown despite several attempts at mediation. Curiously, the Scots supported the English Parliament in this matter and it was the Scottish rebellion that rattled sabres and started off the discontent in the first place.
The regime that replaced the monarchy in 1642 was hardly democratic in today’s sense of the word. It was largely an bunch of pious aristocrats and land owners enforcing religious zeal – perhaps not that dissimilar to the Taliban today. Universal suffrage was still several hundred years away.
The Restoration came about due to several factors notwithstanding the revocation of practices and laws that were oppressive.
The perceptive rise of English nationalism largely coincides with the rise in Scottish nationalism and the integration into firstly an economic Europe and now a political Europe. However, English nationalism has always been present from the arrival of the first wave of foreigners as far back as the 12th century. Some people today regard English nationalism with suspicion after all, Oswald Moseley consider himself a great patriot and the off-shoot political machinations of bodies like the National Front in the 1970s have raised concerns both within the immigrant and indigenous populations.
With regards to the monarch being the most famous and recognisable person, you are getting confused with celebrity here. John Lennon once controversially claimed (quite accurately, no doubt) that the Beatles were “more famous that Jesus Christ”, but in terms of function, the Beatles and Jesus are poles apart.
Being Head of State is not about winning a popularity contest. It’s about performing a defined role in an accountable, scrutised, mandated and defined manner. None of those aspects apply to a monarchy.
August 7th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“Also, why do so many royalists get so upset and take it as a personal attack upon THEM whenever a republican dares to do something such as call Elizibeth Windsor by her actual name, and not the Queen?”
Probably because it’s simply rather rude not to use somebody’s proper title. Calling the queen “Mrs. Windsor” or whatever on your blog would be like a religious person writing an article attacking Richard Dawkins, and making a point of always calling him “Mr. Dawkins” rather than “Professor Dawkins”. Even if it’s not intended to, it just comes across as rather childish and petty.
August 7th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Being childish & petty would be getting upset about others not recognising those titles.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Well a professor, doctor or general, has earnt those titles. Mrs Winds…sorry, the Queen is only in her positon by an accident of genetics and circumstance.
Besides, why DO monarchist get so personally aggrieved because she (the Queen) is called Mrs Windsor? Why get SO upset on behalf of someone else who they’ve never met, never will meet, never will see (except via TV, the press, or as part of a crowd), and of course someone who they will ever have the chance of knowing even on the most casual basis.
Of course, this could be said about a movie star, singer or footballer. However, at least they produce something that their fans can “grab hold of” as it were, whether it be a sporting performance, an album or a great movie.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
@iMatt
On behalf of Monarchists, I must express my opinions. For Monarchists, we believe the Monarchy is an important part of our country, our history and our culture that just can not be removed, under any circumstances.
For Catholics, removing the Pope from the Catholic Church is just unacceptable and can not, under any circumstances, happen.
Also, insulting the Pope or using an informal name may be seen as offensive to those respective Catholics. I am not exactly offended by you calling HM the Queen, Mrs Windsor but some people might be. If a Catholic was offended by someone calling the Pope, Mr Benedict i’m pretty sure you would not continue with it.
I know a lot of republicans and a lot of Monarchists, and most Monarchists seem to believe, and I am one of them, that Republicans are just envious of the Royal family and so they wish to destroy the Royal family, because if they can’t be Royalty, why should the Royals?
There are many famous celebrities who have gained worldwide fame through means of not their own work. Although the Queen is famous, she is famous in a positive light because of her work that she’s done and because she has taken her role as Queen extremely seriously. She is also one of the most respected people in the world, had she been an evil, monstrous, vindictive cow we would not only be a Republic, but she would be hated.
Also, it’s not as if the Monarch will be Monarch no matter what. King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of the woman he chose to marry and because the British people did not like her. It’s also been challenged that he was forced to abdicate after Australia threatened to abolish the Monarchy if he remained King, even if Wallis did not become Queen. So therefore, it’s more than ‘just birth’ you have a reputation to live up to and you have the people’s hearts to capture if you want respect and the British crown.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
@Jaime
Which says a great deal about you really. This ‘envy’ argument is one of the most vacuous and juvenile of all monarchist arguments. No serious monarchist uses it, only those who can offer no intelligent response to republican claims. It’s the debating equivalent of sticking your tongue out and repeatedly saying we smell.
The Pope’s surname is Ratzinger, and he is often referred to by this name.
Yet in all honesty you have no idea whether or not she’s a pleasant person or a ‘vindictive cow’ as she lives her life in private and in secret. All we see is her public performance on certain set-piece ocassions.
However, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the constitutional issues that shape the republican debate. Come up with some arguments as to how an unelected, unaccountable and constitutionally useless head of state is better than an elected, accountable and useful head of state and we’ll have something to discuss. Explain why you support a system that gives so much power to the government and so little to the people and we can talk.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:16 am
By ignoring it, i take it that you agree with the claim that the Monarch has to earn our respect whilst King/Queen or be forced to step down?
Queen Elizabeth I of England restored our country back to Protestantism, and by flirting with Catholic suitors from all around Catholic Europe, stalled a Catholic invasion. Elizabeth was then able to build England up to eventually defeat the Spanish Armada that came to England.
(above) that is just one tiny piece of our history. My point is, if we no longer had a Monarch, it would be like removing a piece of our history. No one really talks about France during the Monarchy years, their history is from the French Revolution onwards.
Whether the Queen is useless or useful is a matter of opinion. Some people believe the US President is useless, because he is just a puppet, the real President is the people behind the scenes. Again, a matter of opinion.
And is the Queen unelected? Again, a matter of opinion. Most people who vote in elections are usually aware of what they are voting for. By voting for Labour, the Conservatives or even the Lib Dems, you are voting for the continuation of the Monarchy and therefore Queen Elizabeth II as our continued Head of State and Prince Charles as our future Head of State. If unhappy with this, there are political parties that oppose that, the green party most notably – we are a democracy after all.
I support this system because it’s a part of our history and a part of our culture. I do not want to be part of one of those countries who worship a flag and elect, by person of through parliament, someone who will represent my country for a few measly years and then give the job to someone else – it doesn’t exactly say continuity or stability or leave enough time for the world to know who exactly is the representative of Britain.
Now, some lesser arguments. This country is in a lot of hot water and do we really want to add some salts to that water by making the country remove all those signs ‘HM’s Prison etc’; re-printing a load of money; coming up with a new anthem; renaming us as the United Kingdom to the Republic of Great Britain; probably changing our flag etc etc etc. When our country is perfect and our government has more time on its hands, maybe we could discuss the future of our historic and world famous Monarchy.