11 Jun 2009
In a classic piece of doublespeak that would have made George Orwell proud our government has stated that secrecy is required to ensure the impartiality of the head of state.
Gordon Brown has won a few muted accolades for his modest new reform agenda announced in the Commons yesterday. What has attracted less attention was his remark that “there will be protection of Royal Family and Cabinet papers as part of strictly limited exemptions” while informing the Commons of his plans to reduce the 30 year rule to a 20 year rule.
The new restrictions will remove all FOI access to documents relating to the royal family, whereas at the present time they are subject to a public interest test. This is a serious challenge to those, like Republic, who want to hold the monarchy to account and challenge their position in our constitution.
There is absolutely no defence for this reversal of FOI laws. The government clearly agrees, as it has resorted to an extraordinary bit of doublespeak to explain the change. In a statement sent to BBC blogger Martin Rosenbaum, the Ministry of Justice said:
To ensure the constitutional position and political impartiality of the Monarchy is not undermined, the relevant exemption in the Freedom of Information Act will be made absolute for information relating to communications with the Royal Household that is less than 20 years’ old. After that point – if the relevant Member of the Royal Family is still alive – then the exemption will continue to apply until five years after their death – on an absolute basis for the Sovereign and the Heir to the Throne, and on a qualified basis for other members of the Royal Family.
So the government believes that impartiality and accountability require secrecy. Of course the opposite is true, impartiality needs openness, transparency and scrutiny – it needs to be demonstrated, to be seen to be done, not just promised.
This move clearly has nothing to do with impartiality, it’s to do with protecting the interests of the Windsors. No doubt a lot of royal lobbying has gone on over the past several months to secure this change.
The big question mark is how far will this exemption extend? Will we not be told how Andrew spends his time and our money in his role with UKTI? Will we not be told how many times Charles writes to ministers in an attempt to influence policy? Will there be a block on knowing if Harry and William are abusing their positions to gain favour in the military? Their finances are already opaque as it is, what chances will there be for full disclosure under the new rules?
It all leaves us with one question in mind: what do they have to hide?
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm and is filed under Constitutional reform, Royal Finances, Standards, freedom of information. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
June 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
This a disgraceful proposal but Brown is in such a weak position that he is susceptible to being ‘leant on’ by any one in authority. This smacks of the palace panicking at the sort of information which Republic is able to get hold of and since Gordon Brown is a control freak, he is probably sympathetic to any attempts to hide information that should be in the public domain. I hope that you are able to publicise this proposal so that it can generate protest it deserves, particularly from this supine lot of Labour MP’s.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Surely he means the APPARENT impartiality of the monarch, and this is paving the way for Charles who wouldn’t know the meaning of impartiality if someone dropped a monstrous carbuncle on his head with ‘IMPARTIAL’ graffittied on the side. There is absolutely NO WAY they should get away with this and it will be a poison and a sickness if they do. They know if we found out the truth about them they wouldn’t last five minutes – ergo they shouldn’t last five minutes. They should pack their bags, take up their worms, and go.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This is an utter disgrace! It appears we would get no information the monarchy didn’t want to divulge. Would we be able to get to the truth if Charles interfered with politics, or promoted his businesses and their produce?
It may be possible to glean information from other sources, but would that be blocked if it concerned a member of the monarchy? If a member of the monarchy was a supporter of the BNP or another facist organisation, would that information be concealed from the public? There is a precedent: the failed monarch, Edward VIII, was eventually, many years after the event, revealed to have been a supporter of Adolf Hitler.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I am a republican from the Netherlands and I can assure you that the same secrecy for “royals” goes for the socalled “royals” here. Indeed, one can ask: What do they have to hide. According to inside information that now and then comes up A LOT. Secret trips paid for by the taxpayers, purchases of country estates in South Africa and Argentine, trips for shoppings with a government airplane not paid for by the socalled “royals” and furthermore a capital that has been estimated by a “royal”site to 250 million euro’s and by far more reliable sources to 6 or 9 billion euro’s.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
This is a disgrace, but it’s not unexpected from Brown, Labour, the Royals and co. It just goes to show that Labour and indeed the Royals not only want to be “Big Brother,” but also are scared of letting the public have any absolute power in our lives and insist on babying us all the time. If only the public wasn’t scared of voting or lobbying the government on the whole, then we could really get some pressure to challenge this fully.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You may be interested in this report from January this year. It explains the background to this decision:
“THE Queen wants royal secrets to be exempt from moves to open up more government papers to public view.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23630935-details/Queen+demands+to+keep+Palace+secrets+for+30+years+15-year+records+release/article.do
Seems the royal lobbying paid off …
June 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Appalling.
The whole lot should go- the govt. is behaving like the Monarchy, they are all only out for what they can get.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
They must not be allowed to continue to cover up. It has nothing to do with impartiality it can only mean that they have something to hide and potentially more serious than the expenses scandal.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Hello Marjory – It looks as if this dreadful Brown and his deferential royal cronies will have their way on this important issue. I have written to Hilary Benn to ask him why this is happening and to ask why he is not objecting. I am sure that his father Tony W-B would have been causing unmerry hell and actively stirring up the royal septic tanks. It stinks!!
June 11th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
If anyone feels that writing to Hilary Benn might help improve or reverse this situation the two emails below will be of interest: boxj@parliament.uk and bennh@parliament.uk Please do not bother with defra.gsi.gove.uk which is rejected.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Should anyone feel that writing to Hilary Benn might help, improve or even alter this dreadful decision, the following email addresses will be of interest. bennh@parliament.uk and boxj@parliament.uk Please do not bother with defra.gsi.gov.uk which is rejected. Haven’t the slightest idea what all this Warning pack above means, with apologies if I have triggered something nasty.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
It was a temporary bug that should now be fixed.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
If the Royals have no power and are absolutely impartial, what could possibly be so controversial about their activities as to require secrecy until 5 years after their deaths?
Unless, of course, they actually use some or all of the discretionary powers -both civil and military- that we are told are merely “theoretical” and never actually used.
Personally, I am sure that the latter is the case.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I spoke to an MP this evening and it’s unclear as to how the government will introduce this change. If it’s through legislation then an amendment will be tabled to challenge this proposal, but it might be done with a statutory instrument, which means no debate in parliament.
Will keep you posted and will be advising members of possible actions as and when we know more.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
It’s just as well that others have expressed what I feel because I am utterly speechless with rage at the audacity of the royals and Brown.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
What ??!!!!!!
How dare the Windsors try to put the blockers on stuff that’s gonna harm them! The secretive, manipulative, dishonest scumbags.
Obviously there is something there that they are worried is going to come out.
And old spineless Glum Bottler Brown laps it up and gives them what they want ! Incredible !!!!! Can’t he just turn round and say NO for f&*ks sake ???? What is his problem ? What does he think the royals will do – send MI6 round one night to kidnap his wife ? (Mind you …. maybe that’s exactly what he’s afraid of).
June 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am
You would think that after hanging on by the skin of his teeth Gordon Brown would listen more than usual, it appears not to be the case. He is obviously determined to repeat mistakes of the past. Why do we need secrecy for what is an internal matter. It is really of no concern for enemies of the state. Why should we the British people be worried about it. Let us be open and honest if government feels a need to hide facts then the electorate should be alarmed. .
June 12th, 2009 at 10:26 am
OUTRAGEOUS!
June 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Maybe Gordon and the Windsors read these blogs?!
On 10th June, I posted:”….include the monarchy under the Freedom Of Information Act (this very same legislation that has done so much for the esteem of the politicians of late).”
Or is the matter of the current MPs’ expenses scandal sufficient to draw a coincidence with exposure of the profligacy or otherwise of this monarchy?
June 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
An FOI request for a secret practice direction on royal wills has taken 18 months so far, and I still have no date for an answer. Is my request one of the reasons why there is a move to restrict FOI in respect of Royal matters?
It came to light in the court case seeking to open the two royal wills that a secret practice direction had been created. (See 28 below)
A freedom of information request has determined the knowledge of this practice direction was so limited that not even the staff at the Court of Appeal knew of this ‘practice direction’.
I applied for this document under Freedom of Information in January 2008 and the application remains ongoing. Initially the Court Service denied there was any such practice direction. I pointed out that the Court of Appeal had confirmed the existence of the document in the judgement (see below), and that the judgement confirmed that the document had been created outside any judicial process, and I argued the document was therefore amenable to freedom of information.
Following 15 months of denial of the existence of the document by the Court Service, notwithstanding responses on my part with evidence that there was such a document, I made a further fresh application direct to the Master of Rolls on 5 March 2009. I made an FOI request for the document exactly as described the Court of Appeal hearing (see below). The response I received denied the existence of the document referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing at which the Lord Chief Justice presided, using the rather odd logic that there was no such practice direction, and implying that therefore the document did not exist.
(quote) I also understand that you then made a freedom of information request and Mr. **** dealt with the same. Following an investigation into the matter he established that there is, in effect, no such practice direction and you were informed accordingly (quote)
I had consistently pointed out that the document I requested was the one referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing, and that I was not concerned for the purposes of the application what the document was called.
To date I have been given no indication of when I might expect a response, and my requests for an indication of a date appear from my perspective to be simply ignored.
I set out below three abstracts from the Court of Appeal judgement, one of which indicates that it is not certain that a hearing in respect of the wills even took place, a second that for me raises the question if there are beneficiaries who have not been advised of their bequests, and a third that sets out some information on the ‘secret’ practice direction.
Abstract Court of Appeal Hearing: [2008] EWCA Civ 56 Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE THORPE
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE DYSON
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Between :
Robert Andrew Brown
Appellant
- and -
(1) The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
(2) The Executors of the Estate of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
(3) HM Attorney General
8. No public hearing took place of the two applications. It is not clear whether any hearing took place at all. Nor is it clear whether or not the former President provided reasons for making the orders. If she did they have not been made public.
28. Before and after the death of Princess Margaret there were discussions between the Palace, Farrers, the Attorney General’s Secretariat, and the Attorney General and the court which reviewed what Mr Hinks described as the practice of sealing royal wills. The Senior District Judge was involved who sought the views of the former President. Ultimately ‘a quite lengthy document’ was agreed that was reviewed and approved by the former President. The process that this contained involved a system of ‘checks and balances’ that was highly confidential. The primary object of the process was to protect the privacy of the Sovereign. Thus when the two applications came before the former President she had an understanding of the background that she would not otherwise have had.
40 The first three issues are interrelated and are of general public importance. Mr Hinks submitted to us that the reason why wills were open to public inspection was to ensure that effect was given to the wishes of the testator. No material was placed before us in support of such a submission other than a decision, over a century old, that supports the proposition, on the face of it a surprising proposition, that an executor owes no duty to inform a legatee of the terms of his legacy – Lewis v Lewis [1904] Ch 656.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The Windsors: world class freeloaders and surrounded by a bunch of ass lickers to defend their privileges. Elizabeth Windsor, emotionally frozen and with the warmth of a prune, shakes Charles hand when a child and he is turfed off to some private and expensive borstal to toughen him up; Philip: prize twat and bigot; Charles: dumps one wife marries Camilla said by her friends to be “the most idle woman in England”; Edward: fails army course but loves high ranks and uniforms which his mummy probvides: Andrew: manages to coincide luxury travel for the good of the people with choice golf locations. Meanwhile, Charles, who seems to have a gift for pompose idiocy decides he does not like a new building by a brilliant architect and has it blocked because his fascist buddies in Saudi Arabia think he is running the country and withdraw the finance. All of the above democratic outages packed is a cosmetic glow by the BBC Royal Propagandist (Correspondent) funded by you and me on pain of being hauled up in court for not paying our licence fee.
Get real. Get democratic. Butt them out.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Well said Broga ! Concerning this wretched licence fee, I am sure the tide is turning over this. A lot more people are refusing to pay this evil tax,which penalizes the unemployed and older people up to the age of 74 who are often on low incomes, not to mention blind people who can usually only hear it . The BBC propagandists try to frighten us at every turn with threats,but the more people who refuse this nonsense will bring it tumbling down. They can’t take us all to court. Its up to us. Why should we pay an arrogantly annually increased tax to watch royal propaganda,and by the way the antics of grossly overpaid presenters,chefs,car experts and whatever. The New Zealanders stopped this nonsense a few years ago,now its our turn!
June 13th, 2009 at 12:39 am
There is no justification for them, none at all. Give it up! Start planning your withdrawal Wind-sirs and do it quick – if Charlieboy becomes king he could be hell-bent on following a previous Charles by one method or another. TIME TO GO.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It is quite obvvious that they do have things they wish to remain hidden from public scrutiny – why else the privacy? The two go hand in hand. The problem I believe, for anyone who wishes to see a Republic, is that a large number of people can not see how unpleasant the royals are, how undeserving they are of their priveleges and how essential it is – for true equality to exist – that we remove them from power. Brown giving them this new privelege doesn’t help, but we need to address how people perceive the class system in this country.
There needs to be a complete reversal in perception – colonisation and control of people is not positive. Being great does not mean creating empires based on murder, pillage and theft etc … Britain wasn’t great when invading countries etc, but Britain was great when it created an NHS etc …After this we need to assure that our children are educated in a postive way, being brought up to feel good about themselves, confident and knowledgeable, compassionate and fair. Most importantly we need to allow them to learn in an environment of openess and spontanaiety, not conditioning and targets. They must have the opportunity to see truth, to investigate and not just regurgitate facts. But for this to happen the environment must be open and exciting. We educate our children from the age of 4-5 – we really should be able to do better.
June 13th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
One major problem, often unappreciated outside the Westminster bubble, is the ignorance of the ordinary people. If you never read a book, immerse yourself in the tabloids, see people like Nick Faldo – or whoever – wetting themselves with delight at being given a title, or an MBE, OBE, BEM (bottom of the range there) then you tend to buy the proppoganda.
I wrote a piece in a local paper a while back about Philip Moutnbatten arriving to inspect some cattle he had sold and paying for the trip with a visit (short) to a local school – official business. The educated – teachers, lecturers, a solicitor and a couple of GPs either phoned or sent emails saying “Well done. Time they were exposed …….”
A carer, who cares for people at home for “£6″ an hour if she is lucky – no travel costs- and that means ricking her back lifting, wiping dribble from their mouths, mopping puke and changing shitty pants (sorry, but this is real life amongst the plebs) was scared. “You are not supposed to say things about them. You will be in trouble.”
And there is the problem to some extent. Democracy so called. The carer, a woman I admire enormously, can barely read and she has one vote – the same as the rest of us who write to this blog and elsewhere. I don’t know the answer but some transparency would be a start.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Too true Lynne, and Broga. Incidentally ,I read in my paper today that one Delia Smith has gladly accepted a CBE or something. I always thought she was a republican ! Can anyone enlighten me about this point ?
June 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
As several others have mentioned, class discrimination in Britain stems directly from the system which allows an unelected head of state and her so called royal family to bathe in media adulation and artificial praise. The idiocy of “celebrities” who go gaga over the offer of some trifling award like an mbe or knighthood only adds to the problem. I have great respect for Bejamin Zephania and others who have turned down these absurd awards and contempt for the Jaggers and McCartneys who accept them.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I have no idea whether Delia Smith is or was a Wishy Washy Republican, but there have been other appalling examples I believe. The one that comes to mind is the acceptance by Claire Rayner of a “gong” from the Queen, as far as I and many others are concerned a dereliction of belief and betrayal of trust. Yet another example of Wishy Washy Republicanism. Far better if they remove themselves completely and leave us to get on with the job, and try to make amends at least by leaving a hefty sum to http://www.Republic after death. If anyone declares themselves to be a Republican and then bows the head before any Monarch let alone an unelected one they should be aware of the enormous permanent harm that such an act can do to those of us working tirelessly to remove this dangerous and damaging institution of governing monarchy.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I was offered a visit to a Buck House garden party once with the incentive, “You will see the Queen and might meet one of the Royal Family.” I was expected to hire a special hat, suit and christ knows what else. Worse, my wife was expected to accompany me – almost funny that one. Anyway, I turned it down. Shock, horror from the assembed gathering. However, there was a line of others just aching to go and one of them did accompanied by his proud wife and admired by his family. This was 20 years ago.
I agree with Peter’s comments about those who turn down these awards. Mick Jagger was regarded as a traitor who sold out by one of the Stones. Can’t remember which one. The great Jack Jones, Trade Union Leader, refused a knighhood while left wing Hugh Scanlon accepted. Roy Hattersley accepted a lordship after railing against the system for years. Of course, you get two soldiers row the Atlantic in the same boat and the officer gets a higher award than the sergeant. None, of course, get close to the titles and ranks deposited like confetti on the Elizabeth Windsor’s relatives, including her sons, one of whom couldn’t complete the army course (Edward) and Harry who was sent home “to protect his men from attracting the attention of the enemy.”
This nonsense really does have to be stopped.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:13 am
We are talking about hypocrisy with a capital “H”, ( one that must not be dropped , apparently !). I think, that having said to” Republic” in the past that they were republicans, these hypocrites should receive a letter from us, asking why they accepted a gong under the circumstances. I think it is only fair that they explain themselves. In the case of people like Scanlon and Gormley, I always thought it was very easy to neutralize “troublemakers ” like them by dangling peerages under their noses. I believe in unions,as long as they have a wider social remit. In the past too many of them have blatantly narrowed their activities to merely fighting for their own members ,without caring about the effect on our wider society, including pensioners etc. Bob Crow was apparently once a communist,but when he realized that communist societies do not have too much nonsense from unions, he quickly changed his tune. I wonder if Bob could be seduced by a peerage. Again, it wouyld be interesting to know about Bob Crow’s attitude to monarchy. The worst case of all, of course, is Jagger, who is incredibly greedy. What good do all those daft songs do for England anyway, apart from making a few greedy people,including hangers on, richer ?Apparently he has been using tax havens, living abroad and supporting Britain,and on top of that expects to have “gongs” These loopholes should close! What it really means is that some people just cannot be trusted.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:16 am
ERRATA : Sorry, mistake correction .About Jagger, I intended to say “not supporting Britain ” , instead of the very untrue ” supporting Britain ! “
June 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The above comments on celebs accepting honours or baubles reminds me of a Private Eye caption photo wth Sean Connery down on bended knee befor the Queen. A speech bubble from Connery asks “Is this a sword I see before me”? Queenie replies “No, it’s a silencer”.
Or let’s take a look at ‘Sir’ Michael Parkinson who made some remarks attacking the British hireditary system on the BBC’s Room 101 some time ago, obviously before he got his title. Or Robbie Coltrane OBE perhaps who I recall saying on a chat show years ago that he’d happily bow before the likes of Muhammad Ali or Marlon Brando but not the royals who he described as “parasites”…!!
Seems like these baubles are a convenient way of shutting certain people up. If you’re good at something then be judged by your peers, the public or a professional body. Having your film win an Oscar or BAFTA for best screenplay or special FX should be enough for a director or screenwriter. Winning one as best actor or actress should also be reward enough. What a potential career boost! An athlete winning gold at the Olympics or the winter or paralympic equivalents should again be reward enough. As should be the positive public feedback, adulation from your peers and generous pay packet if you happen to be ‘Sirs’ Richard Branson, Stelios Haji-Ioannou or James Dyson.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
All these comments are but preaching to the converted.
Republic doesn’t even have a flag we can wave at royal events.
What good is this website really doing?
June 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Good idea Wombat ! We should have a flag.The colours of the Republic organisation are red,dark blue and white.They are patriotic colours. These could perhaps be arranged in horizontal stripes. The stripes do not have to be of the same “thickness” . This could make an attractive flag. Also perhaps we could have a competition to design a flag. Simplicity is the key. Rosettes ,lapel badges,etc are also possible in these colours.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@wombat
“What good is this website really doing?”
Please remember that there is far more to Republic’s website than this blog. There are articles, policy statements, press releases, videos, FAQs and resources – and of course you can register for our e-Bulletin, buy merchandise, sign our petition and become a member.
Republic’s website is the primary source of information on British republicanism and a hub for republican debate.
But we know that a website on its own isn’t going to win the fight for true democracy – it’s actually a very small part of our campaign. Have a look at http://www.republic.org.uk/whatwedo to find out more about the broad range of activities we undertake.
Having a flag is not a huge priority for us at the moment as we tend to concentrate on getting into the media, lobbying politicians and promoting local activism. But if you want to have a go please feel free to send your design to us.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
A blog is just what it is supposed to be, namely a forum to exchange ideas and make suggestions. There is nothing wrong with that. The dissemination of ideas in the past has always been important for causes and pressure groups.Today, we are lucky today to have computer technology to be able to exchange ideas more rapidly through a blog.Think how useful such a blog would have helped movements such as the Suffragettes. Our particular blog is not just for mere “gossip”.It should get a lot of people thinking about the issues involved,and hopefully get more people to sign up to Republic. The blog is only a small part of the Republic organisation.It is also open minded in that it encourages monarchists to put forward their points of view as well. It is not an inward looking “closed shop”.
June 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Oh, so that’s what we need the most, a flag.
Reminds me of Eddie Izzard’s “We’ve got a flag” sketch re: Colonisation.
Oh, and Douglas Adams talking about the Golgafrinchans taking 3 weeks to re-invent the wheel because they couldn’t decide what colour it should be.
It’s good to see that the Monarchists out there have such a healthy sense of perspective, isn’t it?
June 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
This blog does me some good:
1. Catharsis: and I know I often go overboard on my comments.
2. It lets me know that I am not alone in my views.
3. It permits free speech: unlike sections of the BBC with their Royal Propagandist (Correspondent.}
4. And it is read by sections of the Press and possible by some of the Windsor – extended family as I think Liz and her immediate family are a tad sensitive on these issues.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Phil , I am not sure where your support lies, with monarchists or republicans. Your statements seem a bit oblique/dry humour/sarcastic ,whatever. Concerning flags and other visual ,symbolic paraphernalia,they are obviously not of the greatest importance for Republic. However throughout history flags have been powerful symbols of allegiance.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
It think the criticism of Claire Rayner is a bit harsh. I know Claire personally and I can tell you that she is 100% committed to Republic and republicanism.
As a point of information she didn’t go to the palace and bow to the Queen, the OBE was sent in the post. She tells me it’s currently being used to prop up a wobbly table.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Graham: I think my criticism of Claire Rayner was quite mild in view of her deplorable act. You say she took the time and trouble to prop up a wobbly table – bully for her!, but it would have been much better and not at all damaging if she had taken the time and trouble to buy a postal packet – to be signed for – and posted the miserable piece of tin back to where it came from.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I did not know that people could have their awards sent in the post. It is good to know Clare Rayner’s OBE was put to good practical use. However it would be valuable if our monarchy knew that such awards were not really valued, and were used for such things.It would broaden their outlook. I would really like to know,however, the reasons why people who are committed republicans ,want to accept any such award in the first place. As the awards are so directly “tied up ” with royalty, why would republicans wish to have anything to do with them ?, let alone visit the palace and go through all the “razzmattazz”. Is the queen actually aware that some people do not agree with the system,indeed is she aware of the many people who are of a republican turn of mind anyway?,–or is she sheltered from such concepts? In any case it would be fairer to dis-establish an honours system from the monarchy, and have it organized by the British Nation. There is nothing wrong with rewards,but,like Religion, I think that the system should be independent. On another tack,are we aware that there are some royalist websites in existence.I am just starting to explore them.Others might want to do the same.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I also think the criticism of Claire Rayner is a bit hard. She is probably not the first person with Republican sympathies to accept such an ‘honour’, and she probably won’t be the last. However, I would like to hear more about so-called refuseniks.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
We have had some discussion about the flag and also Barry mentions disengaging the honours system from the monarchy. How about disengaging the flag from the monarch? It may be touch and go whether the individual countries of the UK hold together much longer, but if they do, I see no reason why the union jack should not remain as the flag of a republican UK. Like so much else, the monarchy has appropriated the flag as one more symbol of their power and entitlement. Similarly, the National Front tried this game in the 70s, likewise using the flag to gain a spurious legitimacy.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Yes, you could have the word REPUBLIC printed on it, provding you want the Union to survive which I don’t.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Graham! As you know Claire Raynor personally, please tell her that if she sends back the OBE, I’ll buy her a new coffee table. Fair enough?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
This row over the awards system needs to stop,we need to concentrate on the real enemy monarchy. By attacking our own supporters we are missing a chance to pile pressure on the so-called royals. We are also cutting ourselves away from a huge chunk of potential support. We have never in my view had a better chance of making a real impact let us not fluff it now.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Martin. Thanks I am sure there are a number of Republicans who would also contribute to a suitable piece of furniture.. Michael: It is an important issue and “100% Republicans” as Graham refers to them, need to be aware of the damage they do if they go down this wishy washy route, clearly as you point out their actions are responsible for the hoo ha (the divisiveness) that is now being generated. Those of us who are concerned are sending a message loud and clear,act like a Republican in the future and never under any circumstances kow tow before royals or the monarchy. Be assured if this attitude was the norm in Republican circles none of these comments would have been necessary, and we would be discussing other matters.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
William, I think that’s a bit of an over-reaction. I can assure you that in all my time campaigning and debating on this issue the fact that a handful of republicans have in the past accepted honours has never come up. It just isn’t relevant to the case for a republic.
I personally would never accept an honour from the Queen, but each to their own. I don’t think attacking our own supporters is going to further our cause and while I don’t think that Claire having accepted an OBE in 1996 for services to women’s issues and to health issues does our cause any good it also does our cause no harm.
Dave – there’s more on the topic at http://www.republic.org.uk/honours/ including a link to an article about refuseniks. Joan Smith’s interview at http://www.republic.org.uk/tv is also very good on the issue.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Dear William I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. This particular piece of furniture will continue to attack what he thinks is the real real problem, the head of the snake. I wonder how far you will go in attacking people who support the monarchy. Is my postman working for “Royal Mail”, to be considered an enemy. This sort of debate is in my view a gift to the monarchy.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I can understand Michael’s concerns,but I also think that William has a very strong point. It is true,at present,whether we like it or not, that we have to live our daily lives under some symbolic influence of the monarchy. For example when we post a letter we have to use a stamp with the queen’s head on it,( although I have sometimes been tempted to put them on upside down !). If we go to a college,or our relatives do, then we might well end up going to a “royal” college of this,that or the other. ( Although why these places are supposed to deliver a superior education I do not know,unless it is sheer snobbery, because they do not. ) If we are bird fanciers ,we might join the royal society for the protection of birds. The list is endless. I have an idea that a lot of people feel “numbed down ” by the word royal,and do not notice it. In the case of Honours, what I cannot understand is why anyone who calls themselves a Republican would not be sensitive to the royal focus of the system,and therefore would want to have anything to do with it. Of course many people really deserve honours .This is undisputed. A republican might be a 100% republican,but if they accept an honour under the current system of patronage, I would ,very respectfully,of course ,feel entitled to call them a 99% republican ! I do think that we should try to find out about the views of people who claim to be reublicans,and yet accept honours,either by post or by personal acceptance. I think it is an important matter. In a society which is saturated by royal symbolism, I think that republicans should use every opportunity to state a case,and this includes having the courage to resist the honours sytem. This is probably quite a hard thing to do for some !
June 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I thank Barry for his comments but I go back to my original point we are wasting time. The Republican movement as I see it is about moving forward to a modern democracy. I remember when I was younger and about to resign my job on principle. How a much older colleague said to me “It’s OK to scratch your bum but don’t make it bleed”, lesson learned. Time I have spent writing this I could have been complaining to the BBC about their nauseating coverage of the monarchy or the abuse of privilege by air miles.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Reading back through comments made it seems to me that there are some people who want to swap one form of repression for another. The objectives of Republic are for a fair true democracy by getting rid of the monarchy. It does not matter whether a person is 100% Republican or not they have a voice and if that voice is Republican then that is fine by me. Remember one person one vote that is the same for the people some would call wishy washy or the ones called 100% Republican. Please do not loose sight of our objectives.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I think that many people perceive the current honours system as part of the panoply of monarchy and a way of perpetuating the same.
As General Schwarzkopf once said (paraphrase); “Better inside the tent p-ing out than outside the tent p-ing in”. The grace and favour of handing out honours, in main, to celebrities, academics and businessmen serves to underline and underpin the power and presence of the monarchy.
However, I appreciate that many people welcome or at least tolerate the present honours system although I have difficulty in reconciling “true republicanism” with the acceptance of anything that furthers the monarchist cause.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:26 am
It is perfectly possible that a future Republic would have a system for rewarding the good that ordinary citizens do. It would just mean that our elected Head of State would hand them out instead of the current bunch of european rejects.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Michael.
“Bunch of european rejects”
1. “european” should start with a capital letter.
2. You sound like a friend of Nick Griffin
3. A quote from Graham Smith “I routinely receive emails from monarchists, a great many of them resort to personal abuse. It is a sign of having no intelligent argument to make. That is not the case for Republic.”
Oh Michael, not that clever are you?
June 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Bobby I accept your comments, and will choose my words more carefully in future. I am certainly no friend of Nick Griffin.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
On the subject of honours. If they are to be awarded at all they should be awarded to soldiers for valour, police officers for valour and members of the public for service to the local community. They should not be awarded to chat show hosts, pop stars, sports stars and especially not to members of the Windsor family who wear them on their micky-mouse uniforms at the Cenotaph on Armistice Day for instance, thereby, in my view, dishonouring our war dead.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I agree with Bob; it’s time the glamourised fiction and imposture stopped. Nobody, only the dullest, believes that these people have earned any medals, let alone played any sustained or meaningful role in the armed services. Their dynastic notions are seriously in tension with putting themselves at risk – which is why there is a whacking great (undisclosed) bill, for us all to settle, from the forty-six police forces charged with looking after them 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The much-played footage of heroic male Harry hanging on to a machine gun was a complete exercise in virile propaganda. What sort of message it sends out to the rest of the world I shudder to think. What about – Britain is a bellicose nation, which sells arms to anyone who will buy them, carelessly waging war, underpinned by its self-congratulatory aristocracy?
At a time when sanitised recruitment by the armed services, presented as a falsely glamourous exercise, is a dubious issue in schools, the fabulous filmic activities of celebrities such as Harry and William plastered all over the media is undoubtedly doing the job for them. Disgraceful.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I found http://www.republic.org.uk very informative. The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well. http://www.republic.org.uk keep it that way.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was horrified yesterday to hear that horrible little man on BBC news at his most subservient deferential best trying to explain the Windsor’s expenses It made me squirm I suspect many people felt the same, it was a gift to Republicanism. I think that yesterday the reports were so unreal they had the opposite effect to that which was intended. Just think Charles and the BBC working to bring the monarchy down.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
advance cash fast get in loans online payday…
Very usefull. Thanks! advance cash fast get in loans online payday…
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
pay day loan wisconsin…
Very usefull. Thanks! pay day loan wisconsin…
July 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
payday loan advance…
Very usefull. Thanks! payday loan advance…
July 25th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
payday loans without faxing…
Very usefull. Thanks! payday loans without faxing…
July 26th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
payday loans guaranteed no fax…
Very usefull. Thanks! payday loans guaranteed no fax…
July 27th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
porn shemale…
Very usefull. Thanks! porn shemale…
July 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
young asian trannies…
Very usefull. Thanks! young asian trannies…