07 Jun 2011
On Saturday 25th June we’ll be protesting outside Buckingham palace to highlight the continued waste of public money being spent on the monarchy.
Details of the protest are on the website, it will start at 1pm.
In the days prior to the protest we’ll be releasing our latest figures on the total cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer. We’ll also be challenging the deal that’s being negotiated with by the government to replace the civil list and grants-in-aid with a percentage of Crown Estate revenue, a deal that could see the palace take many millions of pounds more from the taxpayer.
You can register your attendance at the protest by sending an email to protest@republic.org.uk.
UPDATE
We’re getting a lot of interest via email. We also have just set up this Facebook event page.
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 at 3:02 pm and is filed under Republic & Campaigns, Royal Finances.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
June 7th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I can’t make it down to London, but I do wish all the people who do go there and legitimately protest all the best.
I am very interested to know how the protest will be tackled, by the powers-that-be. I am also interested in how it will be reported, if at all.
Say hello to the Queen for me!
June 7th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
24 June is a Friday
Saturday is 25 June?
June 7th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Speaking as a Royalist I’m wondering whether I ought to say nothing and just let you get on with it, but in the spirit of friendly relations between rivals I can’t help but think that you’ll probably be shooting yourselves in the foot. Realistically, you’re not going to get large numbers of people – my guess is probably somewhere around the same number as that Rally Against Debt or whatever it was called that Toby Young said he’d turn up to but didn’t. The comparisons with the crowds that turned out for the Royal Wedding are not going to be flattering. I have a couple of causes I feel quite strongly about – I loathe compulsory metrication, for example. But I’d never dream of organising a ‘national’ protest against it without a very good reason to believe that lots of people beyond the usual suspects/nutters with dandruff would turn up. I’d probably concentrate my efforts in ways that don’t highlight my side’s deficiencies in a very public way. Maybe your turnout will surprise me and I’ll eat my words, but somehow I doubt it.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Warwick, your predictions of turnout are likely to be correct. images of their previous unlawful protest outside Buckingham palace is available…
http://www.republic.org.uk/press/demo2.jpg
However we are told that support for republic has doubled in recent months, so perhaps the turnout will be double that one.
Im concerned about if the protest is going to be a lawful one this time round, i attempted to find out earlier on facebook but was censored a couple of times. Its always a shame when there is a small protest group that turns up at an important landmark and start scaring away the tourists.
When it comes to comparisons of Republic and the Monarchy. I believe these two videos are very appropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5m2BtH4E3Y < The Royalists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpmL-0mXG_E < The Republicans
(PS – I posted a comment before which included all 8 images, however that post vanished saying awaiting moderation, i think because i included too many links so i have posted again without all the links, so that previous post may be deleted thanks)
June 7th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Unlawful protest? Since when is it unlawful to protest peacefully in this country against an unelect head of state? Maybe you would like such protests to be unlawful. If so, you’ve illustrated your desire for even less democracy.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“Im concerned about if the protest is going to be a lawful one this time round”
Why is the bigot Simon so concerned with Republic’s activities? He takes an extremely unhealthy interset in an organisation he wishes to be disbanded.
According to Simon ANY protest or demo should in theory be banned lest it upsets tourist. Of course, being the extremist authoritairan, conformist, sycophant he clearly is, he’d no doubt welcome such a move.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Jeremy – Her Majesty does not set the laws regarding where protests can and can not take place, the Parliament, Government and executive agencies may though.
According to Republic their last protest was unlawful..
“Republican activists today defied a ban on protesting outside Buckingham Palace / Police officers chose to let the protest go ahead, despite rules which outlaw demonstrations outside the palace.” – Republic Press release.
The fact this is being held on a Saturday when there will be many tourists is deeply concerning.
iMatt, this organisation seeks to destroy an institution i care very much about so i take a keen interest in all of its activities. This protest is planned for a saturday, which means there will be huge numbers of tourists there. I am genuinely concerned about if this protest will cause serious problems for the police. It could incite others in the area if they hear and see lots of abuse being chanted towards the monarchy.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
“iMatt, this organisation seeks to destroy an institution i care very much about so i take a keen interest in all of its activities”
And yet not ONCE has the bigot Simon given a single reason as to WHY he cares about this institution. Other than some odd unrequented ‘love’ for Liz Windsor.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
@ Simon
So now you’re calling protest abuse? In one sweeping broad sentence you’ve just about undermined every single democratic protest throughout history. Quite an acheivement.
The Suffragettes must have had their work cut out for them with such bigots of the time.
June 7th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“Why is the bigot Simon so concerned with Republic’s activities? He takes an extremely unhealthy interset in an organisation he wishes to be disbanded.
According to Simon ANY protest or demo should in theory be banned lest it upsets tourist. Of course, being the extremist authoritairan, conformist, sycophant he clearly is, he’d no doubt welcome such a move.”
Why is hatred and bitchiness so endemic on this forum?
There are some seemingly lovely people around here, but they really do appear to be in the minority…
Anyway, on topic: Would it not be better to base the protest around the lack of democracy inherent with an inherited head of state?
Graham has repeatedly (and, imo, quite rightly) said “Saving money is not and never has been a central plank of our campaign.”
June 7th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
iMatt – I have on many occasions in my time here stated reasons why i support our constitutional monarchy over a republican alternative, however if i go into detail again that would certainly be going off topic so id best not.
Jeremy – certain chanting is abuse yes. Sorry but we have a parliamentary democracy and it is important element of a democratic society that we also have the rule of law. There are plenty of places Republic may hold their protests around the country, but to do it in a place where there is a ban on protesting and where 10,000s of tourists will be as this is on a Saturday is a serious issue.
It is parliament that is responsible for royal finances and making changes to it, parliament square or elsewhere near our parliament would be far more appropriate. But again, there is a major zone in Westminster where protesting and assemblies require permission from the police.
This event is merely a media stunt, causing problems for the police if they act but also causing problems for the police if they do not act. This on top of the recent press releases attacking the police by Republic.
Sigh.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
@Simon: Media stunt 1. Try the recent wedding of Kate and William Windsor and the hype and the refusal of the BBC to divulge the amount of license fee money it squandered on this celebrity wedding.
Media stunt 2. The coming bore-in of Liz Windsor’s 60 years of doing very little apart from reading speeches written for her, waving at crowds and giving her trade mark grimace (smile), and being mother to one of the more dysfunctional families in what she apparently regards as her kingdom.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Just in the interest of balance, Mr Broga, but do the BBC divulge the cost of any of their programs? I’m not 100% sure but I thought it was their company policy not to do that for any of their content.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I’m always amused by the fragility of tourists in Simon’s mind’s eye. Tourists are made of bone china it seems, and are in danger of shattering into tiny pieces if confronted with republican demonstrators. They can handle plane travel it seems, but the sight of someone holding a placard or proffering a leaflet may make them spontaneously combust.
What is all the more bizarre about Simon’s terrified tourists is that most of them come from republics. Far from being hostile to tourists, we republicans are paying tribute to their system of government. Why on earth should visitors to this country feel terrified by people for campaigning for a non hereditary head of state? Which most countries on earth already enjoy…
I realise that Simon feels that it is important whip up fears of general disorder and confusion, but he doesn’t have much to work with in my opinion.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Broga – That was a national occasion in which millions joined in and celebrated. Considering what a success the occasion was, the \hype\ was lived up to easily.
The BBC dont usually disclose figures of their programming.This of course does not just relate to monarchy, id love to know how much they spent on covering the US election, but if i asked i suspect i would get the same FOI rejection back.
On Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee, that again will be an important national celebration. She has dedicated her life to the service of her people, and has served with dignity and grace throughout those decades of change and remains hugely popular with the British people. So we will rightly wish to honour her for the jubilee, but also it is a chance to celebrate Britain. Diamond jubilees are not a regular thing so it will be time for all the bunting to come out again and celebrate a part of what shapes our British identity.. the Monarchy.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Yet more of the same old tired baseless claims from our resident monarchist. As always, not a shred of evidence to back any of it up.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Eccles, Simon IS a bigot. Just trawl back through his posts and look at his anti-Irish comments for example, not to mention attcking other groups.
He IS a sycophant. He has metioned on many occasions he LOVES the Queen. His comments are 100% fawning.
He IS an authoritarian. He has said so himself!
Sorry, but with the likes of Simon, the only way to respond is to be blunt!
June 7th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Well, I read Simon’s post and it seemed pretty civil. I read your post and it seemed pretty dickish.
Whether he is a bigot, sycophant, authoritarian etc are subjective calls. They are also entirely irrelevant to his post.
I can’t really think of many situations in life where being insulting is a constructive course of action to take.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
So if someone calls THEMSELVES authoritarian, that’s subjective is it? Again, I suggest you read through his past posts!
June 7th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
cbrunstrom – Im sorry but when people go on holiday or for a day out most tend not to want to find themselves in the middle of a political protest that may or may not be having interactions with the police.
Jeremy – What part of what i said do you want evidence to?
iMatt – I have not made anti Irish comments, i am a unionist and want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom and i have a problem with those who wish to have northern Ireland leave our country and join another, especially those who would in any way use violence.
My other comments relating to Ireland, has been regarding the Irish presidential system which republic proposes for this country, which ive criticised and the potential problems if we become a republic with it aiding Irish republicans. If i was anti Irish surely id want Northern Ireland to leave the UK?
Although i must say the recent visit by Her Majesty to the Republic and the very warm welcome she received gave me very positive feelings to the Republic of Ireland. I even said “Long live the Republic of Ireland”, which i think may have been a first for me.
If wanting the police to strongly enforce public order laws and preventing rioting/unlawful protests makes me an authoritarian then yes i hold my hands up and plead guilty to that.
June 7th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
iMatt. We must not forget that Eccles is a staunch republican, but likes to comment on how everyone addresses each other. He is clearly not trying to derail the thread or anything, by supporting Simon the fetishistic, arch-monarchist and by posting snappy distinctions in favour of monarchists, whilst terming some posts from his fellow republicans as ‘dickish’. We must show him that republicans are as polite as all monarchists and then the thread may proceed.
We must await his thoughts on the demonstration at the palace, which he no doubt hopes will be a great success.
June 7th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Simon,
Are you actually saying that political protests should never take place in major world cities (London, Paris, New York etc) on the unproven basis that tourists might be distressed?
To be honest, as a tourist, I’d be more worried about visiting a city that never saw any public demonstrations. They’re the cities where you ought to feel nervous. Beijing is a city where visitors never espy political demonstrators I understand…
June 7th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Broga: “@Simon: Media stunt 1. Try the recent wedding of Kate and William Windsor and the hype and the refusal of the BBC to divulge the amount of license fee money it squandered on this celebrity wedding.”
What an unbalanced comment Mr Broga! Why should the BBC divulge the cost of any of their programs IF their company policy is not to do that for any of their content?
They obviously know best, even if they are a publicly-funded but seemingly opaque organisation as far as enlighterning those who pay them is concerned. All you are required to do is to pay your licence fee and stop asking questions. So stop trying to make a case for republicanism based on that premise…it’s all perfectly explainable…
June 7th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
cbrunstrom – There are many places in London where protest is appropriate, there are also some areas where it is not appropriate. No one is suggesting you should not be able to protest at all, im simply saying i hope it is in line with the laws and rules set down by our parliament, government and executive agencies of the government.
Causing a scene outside Buckingham Palace for media attention is problematic. All i would like is for Republic to accept the views of the police and other authorities. If they say a protest is perfectly acceptable outside the palace on a busy Saturday then so be it, although do not count the police not acting as giving acceptance, it would likely simply be them wanting to prevent any violence by moving on the protest.
June 7th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Simon – ‘causing a scene for media attention’ is what protests are about. The police know us and have seen our previous protests, they’ve indicated they have no cause for concern.
June 7th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Thanks for the reply Graham, you say “, they’ve indicated they have no cause for concern.” So they have approved the protest to take place? If that is the case then of course the protest is perfectly fine and legitimate. A couple of policeman on duty the last time you held the event not stepping in isnt quite the same though.
Last time we discussed this you mentioned the Royal Parks Agency being responsible for the ban, have they lifted such a ban?
June 7th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
“…when people go on holiday or for a day out most tend not to want to find themselves in the middle of a political protest that may or may not be having interactions with the police..” Simon.
We must stop this potentially violent protest immediately. Those who disagree with the status quo are radicals. Those who protest or who deliberately go into areas where they are forbidden, are very naughty and are akin to terrorists. Officers from The Royal Matrix will arrive and will pretend to be authoritarian figures, whilst republicans will acquire the status of small children and will be told off in front of millions of quaking tourists. Just remember that we are in the minority and minorities are never right.
Most people do not give a hoot about free speech and want the police “…to strongly enforce public order laws and preventing rioting/unlawful protests.”
People should stay terrified of this sort of thing. If that fails there’s always the next pandemic.
June 7th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Simon,
“There are many places in London where protest is appropriate”
And where is a more appropriate place to protest against the monarchy than in front of Buckingham Palace – exactly? There does seem to be a sort of logic to it. Where would you prefer? The London Transport Museum? The Oval cricket ground?
When people protested against apartheid, they tended to congregate in front of the South African embassy. Was that inappropriate also?
June 7th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Parliament sets the funding for the monarchy and it is parliament that intends to reform the system mentioned in Republic post. There for Parliament would seem appropriate. Rather than causing disruption near Buckingham palace.
June 7th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@Simon,
I want you to plot a graph, x,y coordinates axis, representing Republic progress, and time; you’d admit your concerns are now intensifying. This campaign is actually going out and protesting at the palace grounds, enough to cause you concerns. I think republic is knocking at your door, my friend.
You’d admit the campaign is no longer an academic chat phenomenon. At this rate, Britain will be holding Presidential general elections in 5 years, okay maybe 10.
June 7th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
“We must stop this potentially violent protest immediately. Those who disagree with the status quo are radicals. Those who protest or who deliberately go into areas where they are forbidden, are very naughty and are akin to terrorists. Officers from The Royal Matrix will arrive and will pretend to be authoritarian figures, whilst republicans will acquire the status of small children and will be told off in front of millions of quaking tourists. Just remember that we are in the minority and minorities are never right.”
Hmmm; a little bit of satire! I like it!
But I get the serious point here too. Protest is the backbone, nay even in the spirit of democracy. I believe we must protest in any way we can if something is wrong or undemocratic, and the worshipping of the royal family is wrong. Some people have even made the royals into gods, untouchable deities who can do or say no wrong. This stance of course is patently absurd; we are not living in the 8th century but the 21st. It’s time we put this deference and worship to bed, and consign it to history where it rightfully belongs.
The disproportionate heavy-handed response against republicans and those who protest against monarchy proves to me how ruffled the establishment are and how scared they are about dissent; you can see that monarchy and all the hoo-ha about is really a house of cards, or an institution that doesn’t bear any real kind of scrutiny, which of course is why some high-powered sycophants decided to exempt them from the FoI act. Again, if they haven’t got anything to hide, why are they then hiding behind this act?
June 7th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Graham, in the second comment on this page, Jennifer Jaynes correctly states that the 24th of June is a Friday, not a Saturday. So which is it, Friday the 24th, or Saturday the 25th?
June 7th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
eclub1 – Im sorry but after watching these scenes ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5m2BtH4E3Y ) the other week i think republic are a long way off accomplishing their goal. lets see how the Diamond jubilee goes shall we? Specially look at 7 minutes into that video. If ever that is Republic group advancing towards Buckingham palace rather than Royalists, i admit i will be extremely worried.
I have seen that republicans appears to be becoming more radical and yes that is of concern, it is not necessarily a good thing for republic and a bad thing for the monarchy though. The more radical things become the more isolated they are.
T. Hughes – The police ensured an important national event passed off peacefully, i was very glad that was the case. 100s of republicans went to Republics street parties, very few arrests were made of other individuals who were intending on causing trouble or had means to cause trouble in a prohibited area. I wish the police took the same zero tolerance approach to public order policing more often
Richard – it is definitely the Saturday, on the 25th. They corrected the news post earlier, but did not correct this one.
http://www.republic.org.uk/Get%20Involved/Protest%20at%20the%20palace/index.php
June 7th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Thanks, Simon. For me to have to rely on you to give me the correct date…. well, let’s just say that it brought a slightly embarrassed smile to my face….
June 7th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Best Wishes As i live Thousands of Miles away I sadly wont be there.It is for the good of the country.
June 7th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Phaedra, I love how you always turn everything into an ‘us vs them’ battle. I’m quite happy to speak out against any injustice or speak up for anyone I think is wronged whether or not they agree with me on any particular issue.
I notice you only like to attack people you perceive as monarchists and defend those you think of as republicans regardless of which side is in the right/wrong in a given circumstance. I find this tribalistic approach to be pretty much the same attitude that leads to racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. But it is not up to me to try to make you a better person.
As for my thoughts on the demonstration, I gave them already. I shall paste them below in case you missed:
“Would it not be better to base the protest around the lack of democracy inherent with an inherited head of state?
Graham has repeatedly (and, imo, quite rightly) said “Saving money is not and never has been a central plank of our campaign.”
June 8th, 2011 at 8:25 am
“Phaedra, I love how you always turn everything into an ‘us vs them’ battle. I’m quite happy to speak out against any injustice or speak up for anyone I think is wronged whether or not they agree with me on any particular issue.” Eccles.
Yes of course, you are absolutely right. This is not a battle or even an unequal struggle. David is not attempting to slay Goliath here, in any way. We are on equal footing with the current monarchical system and do not need to display any form of solidarity whatsoever. Dissent between ourselves will never be exploited by our adversaries, because they understand that we are polite and are likely to disagree, whilst continually policing ourselves visibly.
We should give credit to the super-monarchists who appear on this forum because they are emblematize the sort of person we need to convince. We should interact far more with the wholly reasonable British Monarchy League even if it means insulting each other on a public forum. This shows that we are dealing with the massive injustices inherent within our own position and is an example to others.
Accepting, for example, some of Simon Wright’s views, such as police zero-tolerance towards those displaying dissent, involving the armed forces and imprisoning republican traitors, (Republic Facebook blog) shows that we are keen to participate in a meaningful dialectic. We must do all in our power to remove ourselves from the list of republican enemies of the state he says he is compiling, together with video clips, for the day of reckoning. We need not worry about persuading the default mass of fellow citizens who, amazingly do not appear here in droves – because they will naturally follow, when extremist monarchists finally understand our case.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Sorry you are wasting your time. You cannot even get the figures right on the page “Royal finances”. Members of parilement are the ones who want to change the deal not the monach. Go prostest outside the Houses of Parilment instead. Also the change in the deal is perfectly legal and there is nothing wrong with it. I would also like to piont out has anyone said they will get the full some of money?NO. Laslty I would also like to say,the Crown Estate income is not taxpayers money.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:06 am
We need to restate the principle that crown estates income is not the personal property of the Windsor family. The crown is an expression of sovereignty and such income proceeds to the Queen in her capacity as sovereign. When we have a republic, Elizabeth (or Charles) will no longer be sovereign, will no longer wear a crown, and will have no claim on this revenue. The people will be sovereign and the income will therefore be appropriated for public use.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:19 am
If we dont have a monarch then there is no piont in keeping the Estate together. I am sure if the monarch is abloished then the goverments in Scotland and Wales and N.I will want the lands in there countries that are part of the Estate to return to them to benfit them rather then the whole UK. You would then also have to divide up the lands or at least look into the fact that it is said the winsors have added lands etc to the Estate and therefore some of it does belong to them.
Even with what cbrunstrom is saying , while we have a monarch this change in funding is allowed, whether you agree with it or not1
June 8th, 2011 at 9:41 am
“…while we have a monarch this change in funding is allowed, whether you agree with it or not1″ Adam.
Thank goodness we live in a country of restrictions, applications, licences and permissions, where things are allowed whether we all like it or not and where much is not allowed because we cannot be trusted. We can speak our mind, but not just anywhere, otherwise the Queen’s policemen will turn up. We can demonstrate providing we accept that nothing will change – that would be unthinkable in a free society.
DOING something is definitely not allowed. We have the freedom to do as we are told. We can speak however, because this allows us to be regarded as a talking shop – which is a suitably pejorative term and useful for attracting ridicule.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Welcome to the United Kingdom. This is not France where you can run riot on the streets. lol
June 8th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Monarchists and republicans alike agree that we are not free to do anything here. The people are so dangerous that ‘no tolerance’ policing is required and constant surveillance. Many wish that the authorities would go further and imprison republicans who are all traitors.
However, France is the most dangerous place in the world and full of terrorists and enemies of the state. All people in France riot continually on the streets and are free to do so, which is why they are all urgently campaigning to re-instate a monarchy, which will put things right immediately.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:00 am
I think I read somewhere that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit. It is certainly getting a little tedious.
There is little point in addressing your post as you have wilfully misrepresented my views. I appreciate that demonising the act of standing up for those who have been wronged may have been a little bit of a tough sell without some creative license. I understand.
For someone who bangs on about everything needing to be ontopic, one might find it surprising that you have ignored the ontopic part of my post… Twice.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Sarcastic irony. You are absolutely right. We should rule out the costing of the monarchy altogether, especially as Graham has said that “Saving money is not and never has been a central plank of our campaign.” The massive central plank, absolutely central to our campaign, and which you have skilfully pointed out as a contribution to the thread, is the undemocratic nature of monarchy.
Perhaps when Graham says “…we’ll be protesting outside Buckingham palace to highlight the continued waste of public money being spent on the monarchy” he doesn’t mean it or is being ambiguous. So thanks for foregrounding that.
Or he might be drawing attention to the undemocratic way in which hikes in funding, for some of the richest people in our society, are deemed as wholly acceptable, despite their illegitimacy, in a time of considerable financial stricture.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:38 am
How about we just type our posts like reasonable adults? Sarcasm, whilst irritating in real life, is doubly so in text form as one cannot so easily use tone and other indicators to tell when someone is employing it. The potential for miscommunication is unnecessarily great.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Phaedra
no switzerland is more dangerous and a monarchy more urgently required as they dont even have a president!
June 8th, 2011 at 10:58 am
“How about we just type our posts like reasonable adults? Sarcasm, whilst irritating in real life, is doubly so in text form as one cannot so easily use tone and other indicators to tell when someone is employing it. The potential for miscommunication is unnecessarily great.” Eccles.
Good idea. Posts can easily be misconstrued. We don’t want monarchists being confused with republicans for a start. Mind you, the freedom to express oneself in whichever way one wishes is fairly central to democracy of course.
June 8th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Of course. But just because one is free to do something does not mean that it is necessarily constructive to do so. I could post to you in Serbian or I could talk to you in the manner of a four year old. Neither would be particularly efficient forms of communication.
I did not suggest that you are not free to talk however you like, nor did I suggest that your freedoms should be curbed. I was simply asking you to communicate like a reasonable adult.
Гхњфж?
June 8th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Just recieved an email promoting this event on the 26th…
I am all for saving the taxpayers money – but maybe you should get your facts right first re: how much the royal Family cost us. £200 million is a ridiculously exaggerated figure based on…? It is around £40 million a year. If you are going to argue a case – at least make it balanced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html
Instead of devoting all your time to ‘saving’ £40 million – may I suggest you target the big corporations that evade paying tax – losing us 10s of BILLIONs of pounds every year? Surely that would be a more efficient use of your time. That is of course if you really care so much about the taxpayers money – or is it that you just hate having a Monarchy?
P.S I am not a monarchist – I don’t care either way, but I dislike the spreading misinformation and lies more than anything – so I felt compelled to write.
June 8th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Will those figures you quote do not take security costs, which we pay for, into account.
June 8th, 2011 at 11:32 am
There are practically limitless arguments against monarchy and for representation of the people, how about people can focus on whatever ones they want to and letting others do the same. Clearly it’s because of the cuts to public services together with Osborne’s plan to increase public money flowing to the ‘royals’ that this is the focus at the moment – perfectly legitimate and reasonable and likely to strike a chord with people.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Marjorie,
Absolutely agree. It’s not so much to do with the net costs as the shameful injustice of victimising public sector workers in general while doling out extra funds to the highest paid public sector recipients in the country.
And we continue to hear “we’re all in this together”…
Ugh!
June 8th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
To Eccles. Oh please don’t speak to me in the manner of a four-year-old. That would never do. I don’t have the luxury of sitting in the sun Eccles, even if you do, as I am speaking about the merits of Jan Gossaert at 2pm. I will try to be adult about it. Any more news on basing the protest around the lack of democracy inherent with an inherited head of state – or anything else?
June 8th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Will – The 200 million is certainly an exaggeration, even according to republics own website which actually claims it is between 130 and 180 million. 100 million of that is based on just press reports about the cost of security, most media reports actually say 50 million but they put it at 100 million.
There is also some complete made up estimates on costs to councils, and also from memory about 30 million which is apparently “Lost revenue” from the duchies which there is no evidence to suggest would automatically transfer to a Republican government.
Their figures are misleading, but even if it was 200 million, that is 200 million out of over 650 billion a year in government spending. I think there are bigger fish to fry. Its also before we factor in the fact the UK government gets 200 million a year from the Crown Estate in exchange for the funding of the monarchy. So the tax payer gets a good deal.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Hmm, the only purpose of your last dozen or so posts seem to be to attempt to wind me up. Are you only posting in an attempt to derail debate? Your deliberately unhelpful tone would suggest this. Are you, in fact, simply trying to troll me?
PS.
That talk linked to the renaissance exhibition at the Nat Gallery? That was pretty excellent.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Will
If we were called “The campaign against corporate tax avoidance” you might have a point, but we’re not.
The £40m is grossly misleading as it leaves out all sorts of costs and losses. We’ll be posting our revised estimates on the website in due course, but please don’t simply believe the palace spin that gets churned out via the media.
June 8th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Concerning police breaking up the protest:
On that most memorable day of the young couple William & Kate becoming newly weds the vast majority of Hemel Hempsteads police force were moved up to London to protect the wonderful pair.
Leaving, and this is fact, 3 police officers in one squad car to cover the whole of Hemel Hempstead.
Therefore as a concerned group of individuals we must be clever and protest on days when there are notable royal events happening, as the police force will be too busy protecting very small number of people that are considered vital to the existence of the universe.
Besides, I can vouch that it takes over half an hour for the police to arrive after a gang of 10 people have broken your jaw and threatened to kill you, whilst you are only a 2 minute walk away from the police station.
Therefore the republic protest has at least 25 minutes to protest after unfurling their banners before the members must retreat to the safety of London’s alleyways to escape police reprisals.
June 8th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Hi Graham,
Yes I do understand that your fight is not about tax avoidance – solely about the monarchy – but your main argument against seemed to be about the cost to the tax payers. In that case it just doesnt make sense why you would choose to attach the monarchy and not the corporations tax avoidance. Even if, with policing, the figures are a lot more than 40 million – it is not a scratch on the ocean compared to the billions being avoided by tax loopholes!
If your argument was less about the momney – then I cwould understand better what your fight is about..
June 8th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Well I just hope the Palace guards actually put some real ammo in their guns for this day then they can use these republicans for target practice .
June 8th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
to-Will
“…but your main argument against seemed to be about the cost to the tax payers.”.
I would seem a misunderstanding has arisen. Reuplic’s main argument is that monarchy denies us a full democracy-
a)It allows heredity within one family to appoint our HoS when it’s the nation’s citizens through democratic ballot who should do this.
b)It withholds the accountability which should exist, of the HoS, to the citizens.
We are confident a President would cost less but that is not the primary consideration.
What is, “a scratch on the ocean” ?
June 8th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Things don’t change do they. Simon, you go on about the same old stuff, you don’t really have any argument. Adam, it’s the same old same old from the monarchists. As one monarchist put it, there is no real reason why he likes the queen, he just does, he adds that it’s not logical. Indeed it’s not. I would say that going for a change in the head of state now is not the best way to get rid of the monarchy. We need to get a democratically elected second chamber in the house or lords, once that is in place the monarch, as head of state, will be hard to justify.
June 8th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Aah, Will’s reaction is pretty much the point I was trying to make. A protest outside the palace is (to my knowledge) about the highest profile thing that Republic have done since the wedding. If “Saving money is not and never has been a central plank of our campaign.” then having this demo based around the cost of the monarchy is misleading and a wasted opportunity for the group to get its core ideas across.
Besides, I feel that arguing in terms of cost puts us on a back foot. The figure quoted on this website is £184 million but the sourcing for that figure is pretty much non-existent. It also does not take into account any positive financial implications of the royal family (which are pretty impossible to quantify) nor does it take into account the fact that a significant amount of those costs would still have to be paid if the monarchy was replaced with a president.
My point is, its all a bit wooly and it is extremely easy to pick at holes in your data. It cannot proven that the queen does not generate vast sums of money through tourism just as it cannot be proven that she does.
Then there is the whole issue of whether, even if the monarchy costs £184M, is it still worth the price? To many people I think they would say yes. As Will points out there are far greater, easier and simpler savings to be made than reforming our entire constitution.
The idea of going through all that hastle just to save £184M is pretty ludicrous.
Isn’t it much better to fight on the grounds of the indisputable and unquantifiable benefits of a more democratic society?
June 8th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Graham & most of the republican brigade on here , frequently harp on how the money side of the monarchy is not their driving force – but the principle that a democracy should have an elected head of state.
Yet through-out the posts on this website , the question of money/costs is never much more than a paragraph away.
& now a few of this bunch are going to spend an afternoon outside the palace …protesting about what
A lack of democratic legitamacy of the Monarch ? NO of course not , a protest about cost and why, because they know it is more emotive and an easier way of rebel raising..
If republicans are to stand for anything then at least it should be the principle of democracy, not play to the simple eye catcher of costs.
After all we all know damn well that if we did away with the monarchy in favour of a republic it would make not one jot of a difference to the bank balances of Jo Public.
I am neither a monachist or republican, but simply your average Mr Brit, who for the life of me having read through much of your articles and peoples posts on here, has not come across anything that would convince me that the average punter would have any gain or feel suddenly more happy & and contented by the coming of an elected head of state as to what we have now and the immense upheaval of our system of government (as well as other countries involved !)/….MMM seems a lot of pain for very little gain to me.
June 8th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Why do you all give Simon so much time? Dawkins doesn’t engage with creationists because their arguments are absurd and they are impossible to reason with. Monarchists are largely the same.
June 8th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Phaedra, I think you owe Simon a very slight apology. After all, he is a pretty extreme right-winger with an admitted taste for authoritarianism, and an out and out monarchists, but he does have one aspect that I like and respect: he’s HONEST about it. And that’s not something I’ll say about all the posters on this site…..
And I mean that as a compliment to you, in case you read, this, Simon.
Ady danger, I’m starting to think you’re right.
June 8th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
George, can I suggest you see
http://www.youtube.com/user/republic4britain?feature=mhee#p/a/u/1/SGIrGHDRIqA
You’ll also find another nine interviews with Republic members or supporters
June 8th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
To Graham. How could you have got this so wrong? You have told Eccles that “Saving money is not and never has been a central plank of our campaign.” Your rationale behind the proposed demo is therefore “misleading” and “a wasted opportunity”. Eccles agrees with Will who is not a monarchist but dislikes the spreading of “misinformation and lies” more than anything and felt felt compelled to write.
Taking his lead from Will, arch-republican Eccles thinks it’s; “all a bit woolly” and your data is “extremely easy to pick holes in”. He agrees with Will “there are far greater, easier and simpler savings to be made than reforming our entire constitution.” Luke has now arrived and hopes that republicans will all be shot.
George, who is neither a monarchist nor a republican, follows Eccles and thinks that;
“the question of money/costs is never much more than a paragraph away…a few of this bunch are going to spend an afternoon outside the palace protesting about what – a lack of democratic legitamacy [sic] of the Monarch? NO of course not.” So legitimacy is what he is concerned about? Er no.
In a sudden volte-face his concerns become utilitarian: nothing he has read here convinces him;
“that the average punter would have any gain or feel suddenly more happy and contented by the coming of an elected head of state as to what we have now and the immense upheaval of our system of government.”
So you cannot please George even by concentrating on the lack of democratic legitimacy as an alternative to “harp[ing] on” about money, it seems.
So these comments about the Palace demonstration boil down to a quiet dragging of the thread around to the futility of the exercise, in terms of either seeking to replace the monarch or reforming our entire constitution to save money. We are being not-so-subtly derailed.
June 8th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Richard Vernon: What would you like me to apologise slightly to Simon for?
June 8th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Phaedra, forgive me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be just repeating other posters arguments – arguments that you seem not to agree with.
Perhaps the debate would be furthered if you instead provided counter arguments?
Oh, and I hope the talk went well.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Phaedra, it was a light-hearted comment. I was suggesting that his honesty is one aspect that I find rather refreshing. I suspect you might agree. By the way, if you or any other Republic members have a video camera please feel free to send a video message for inclusion on my youtube page at
http://www.youtube.com/user/republic4britain?feature=mhee
Email me the video to democracy4britain@hotmail.co.uk I can receive attachments up to 25 MB.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
It’s been a long day Richard! I’ll have a look at your page – thanks. Regards!
June 8th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Eccles I see that you are tacitly agreeing with me that these arguments are intended to derail the thread! The lecture went well – thanks.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“We are being not-so-subtly derailed.”
Phaedra is right. If we define a republican as-
1)One who seeks to make GB a republic
2)One who supports other republicans to this end.
I’m sick of monarchists judging us and I’m even more sick of closet monarchists supporting & making excuses for them. I know a good cop bad cop routine when I see one. This thread reads like a tea party between Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose.
Does the monarchy discuss its strategies with us?
Now, a decision has been made so let’s get behind it! If you’re a republican and have a genuine disagreement then just turn up with a banner stating a principle you’re happier with. If you’re continuing to carp on then as far as I’m concerned it’s because you’re a monarchist.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I am? Some of the posts here arn’t exactly constructive – Luke’s comments, for example are pretty awful.
But then I can’t help but get the impression that all of your posts on here (of which there have been many) have been extremely counter productive too.
I think my point that arguing on monetary grounds is a mistake is, whether you agree with it or not, at least on topic. I have no desires to derail this thread and I do not believe that I have thus far other than, perhaps, responding to your posts.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Eccles, I don’t think that highlighting both the vast cost and the secrecy that surrounds the cost of the monarchy is counter-productive, but I’ll very willingly agree that costs are not our main objection to the monarchy. So if you plan to attend this demonstration I’ll be happy to email you a printable PDF file saying ‘DEMOCRACY NOT MONARCHY’. I already have it and several others, so If you want it send me an email to the address I gave above.
June 8th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
To Paul. I agree. Solidarity is what is required. I have never heard such a put-up collection of ‘arguments’ from those who either claim to be neutral or to own a republican tendency. So getting behind Graham and the campaign team’s strategies, at this stage is far more productive than constantly seeking to challenge them via some misplaced notions of general internecine cleansing.
That the famous Eccles, with his clever pointing out of the campaign’s absolutely central armature as an alternative, thinks that I am ‘counter-productive too’ speaks volumes. We need a members area, where real progressive supporters can discuss strategies and ideas, without this persistently futile background noise of negativity.
June 8th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
to-Eccles
“I think my point that arguing on monetary grounds is a mistake is, whether you agree with it or not, at least on topic”.
Nobody cares what you think. A decision has been made. Respect it. This event is happening.
Now turn up or shut up!
June 8th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Mr Vernon, thanks for the offer but I’ll be in sunny (haha!) Manchester that day.
Phaedra, if you disagree with my suggestion that you have not been constructive on this thread, please point out a few examples of where you have added positively to the discussion?
Paul, you still have a few things to answer to before I’ll more than skim read your posts, I’m afraid.
But to everyone who is getting worked up – I must confess that I’m a little baffled at your reaction. I’m not trying to sow dissent or sabotage the protest. I wish the protest well and hope it advances the republican cause. All I’m doing is voicing an opinion. If you disagree, fine. If you ignore it, also fine. But why get angry? Why get nasty? What possible purpose does that serve?
It seems to be suggested that everyone must ‘toe the party line’, conform and not voice any opinion that contradicts what is dictated? Can you not see the irony in an organisation campaigning for more democracy trying to stifle democracy within even its own ranks?
June 8th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Eccles, many of us here have various disagreements from time to time with both Republic and other members. Many of us, myself included, would like to see greater prominence given to the democratisation of the House of ‘lords’, to give just one example. However that does not mean that we disagree with the fundamental aims or aspirations – that is why we are members, after all. But few of us are insulting (as you are) to other members. Many of us, myself included, have serious doubts that you are, or ever were, a Republican, to put it bluntly. There’s little in your posts that suggests that you are.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Put a sock in it Eccles…..for the last couple of hours you’ve been behaving like a self-appointed niceness-commissioner (I know this is your usual M.O. but it seems especially obsessive today) …. if you don’t like robust argument, find somewhere else to ply your platitudes….
June 8th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I will not be able to attend unfortunately. But I hope many do and that the protest is conducted in a sensible manner and gets the coverage it deserves.
June 8th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Mr Vernon, I’m insulting? I have certainly tried my hardest not to be. Perhaps I have slipped on rare occasion but I think I’ve been pretty civil overall. Certainly, I hope you will agree, in general I’ve treated the posters on this board more civilly than I’ve been treated myself, yes?
And as for all this about me being a monarchist spy or whatever nonsense… Well, by Paul’s definition I probably am, but by the standard definitions I’m pretty much in favor of a republic. I am intrigued though…what difference does it make?
Why would you treat ‘monarchists’ any different from ‘republicans’? Isn’t it better to judge people on their individual merits, not form arbitrary groups and treat them like second class citizens?
NTM
Sorry, I really don’t mean to preach. But since I got up this morning all I’ve got is sarcastic crap from Phaedra and it is wearing me down. I’m not entirely sure I’d define it as ‘robust argument’ though!
June 8th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
This point is not complicated and we’ve made it before, but here it is again:
We are not and never have been motivated by the cost of the monarchy, if the monarchy cost the taxpayer nothing we would be here campaigning just as hard. However, the cost of the monarchy and the nature of its spending and secrecy over its spending is a) a serious matter over which the monarchy must be held to account and b) a significant symptom of an institution that is entirely unaccountable. That is why we campaign on the issue.
The finances are one of a number of issues we raise, along with prerogative powers, the principle of hereditary privilege, FOI exemption and royal lobbying. To single out the finances and suggest that it is our motivation simply because we campaign on it makes no sense at all.
June 9th, 2011 at 8:17 am
To Eccles. I will certainly not answer to you in the way you insist. Paul has nothing to answer to either as far as you are concerned, whether you read his posts or not.
We need ideas, positivity and coalescence on threads which are discussing campaign actions, not assaults on our campaign manager’s abilities to articulate or plan. I have sought to point this out and to expose your attempts to introduce fundamental division into the forum.
As Graham says, the point of the demonstration is not difficult to understand in terms of the Windsors’ opaque financial aspects being a component part of the general lack of accountability. You have been here for five minutes. Your allegiances seem highly dubious. Clearly, you have not read any of the archived material, otherwise you would understand the relevance of many of the points raised by some of the opinion-forming posters here.
The ‘irony’ is found in ‘republicans’ who encourage dissent within the campaign’s strategies, side with monarchists and barely trot out Republic’s fundamental rationale as if they are Einstein. Are you a member of Republic? Are you helping to finance the campaign?
June 9th, 2011 at 11:23 am
@Richard-
Whilst perusing your excellent interviews from the republic street party, imagine my disgust and horror to find film of filthy uber-monarchist lickspittle Neil Innes!! In 77 he did a vomit-worthy single called ‘Silver Jubilee’, a slobbering valentine to Liz Windsor. I don’t recall this myself, was only a kid, but perhaps I’m repressing it.
The evidence is here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiSflr2XsQI
Get him explaining his actions behind a bullet-proof screen at The Hague, I say.
Anyroad up, are there any plans to film the protest? I don’t want any republicans bashed & I think police skullduggery is less likely if it’s all captured on tape, or mpeg, or whatever it is you youngsters call it nowadays.
June 9th, 2011 at 11:23 am
As a preliminary to the forthcoming Palace protest, if like me you thought that Cameron’s lengthy praise of Phillip Windsor utterly fulsome, he having enjoyed a lifetime of state-funded ease, interspersed with unbridled arrogance and rudery, dressed up as dutiful and endearing strength, here’s No 10′s in-box.
https://email.number10.gov.uk/
June 9th, 2011 at 11:45 am
I really am finding all this deeply depressing.
Phaedra, all I have asked is that you post with maturity and civility. Your continued refusal would seem to suggest that you lack both. You provide significant evidence to back up this hypothesis.
As for Paul, I think you are right. He only had things to answer to if he was to maintain any credibility for his statement of ‘I’m an honourable man’. I think the window of opportunity for that has long since elapsed.
And as for my membership, I was all fired up to pay up and join when I first came on this site. Since then, you and a few others have done a sterling job of convincing me otherwise. The thought of having to actually physically interact with people like you makes me feel a little ill.
Graham:
“To single out the finances and suggest that it is our motivation simply because we campaign on it makes no sense at all.”
I agree, I was only concerned that this might be the impression we create in members of the public who are unfamiliar with our cause, given that this is Republics highest profile event in a while.
I hope you at least realise that my posts were not “assaults on our campaign manager’s abilities to articulate or plan.”
June 9th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“And as for my membership, I was all fired up to pay up and join when I first came on this site.” Eccles
If you join you can be part of the campaign team or become a member of the board. Arguably we need people who will pull together, not those whose contribution is to attract the agreement of, or side with extreme monarchists like Simon Wright, who are here to destabilise and to try to control us. Why does it take so little to put you off? You don’t like me or the way I write? Tough. Ignore me. It’s not a popularity contest.
June 9th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Warwick – I agree with you that this country faces no greater evil than compulsory metrication. Is there a protest group I can join?
June 9th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Eccles, no disrespect old chap, but I think you are being just a little bit thin-skinned. That’s not a criticism, just how I see your debate is panning out. If someone has rubbed you up the wrong way, forget about it, and make your point. I’d like to hear, and do like to hear, any intelligent post, regardless of what that point may be, for or against, or whatever.
In other words, chill!
June 9th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@Lard, re Neill innes
I looked very hard for evidence of irony in the clip, and it may be there, possibly in the salacious “OOh Elizabeth” line, but if it exists it’s pretty subtle….. of course it doesn’t help that he is introduced by the nauseatingly saccharine tony blackburn…. must say that it is a disappointment as i did like his work with the bonzos and python… doesn’t even appear to have got a gong out it…
June 9th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Citizens-
In case you hadn’t noticed there is another BBC royal adorationfest this evening in the form of an interview with Phil Windsor. Trailers suggest it will be particularly nauseating. I’m away to collect my best suit from the cleaners. I wouldn’t wish to sit before him improperly dressed.
June 9th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
@PR, Sorry Paul, not ‘humble’ enough I’m afraid! The dress code is Soamesian cloth cap and knee protectors…
June 9th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
“I agree with you that this country faces no greater evil than compulsory metrication. Is there a protest group I can join?”
Great! Now the nation’s nutters are recruiting each other on our site!
June 9th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Lard, I was also totally unaware of this revolting single. I’m very disappointed in him. It seems to be about the only song he’s ever done that should be taken seriously – I couldn’t find any irony in it, but then I projectile vomited all over my monitor after about 10 seconds of it.
But yes, I’ll be there at the demo with my video camera. And I’m certain that the police will be less likely to bust any heads if they know it’ll be on tape, as in poor Ian Tomlinson’s case.
June 9th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“@PR, Sorry Paul, not ‘humble’ enough I’m afraid! The dress code is Soamesian cloth cap and knee protectors…”
“I couldn’t find any irony in it, but then I projectile vomited all over my monitor after about 10 seconds of it.”
There’s some very witty people on this site!
June 9th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@Richard
Yes, I was depressed about Innes’ going over to the dark side, only read about ‘Silver Jubilee’ by chance in a rare record guide. It’s a bit like discovering a favourite relative is a child molester.
Anyone seen this-?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/06/08/mp-paul-flynn-decries-duke-s-birthday-address-91466-28846585/
Not heard of Paul Flynn, but hats off to him.
Ed Miliband reveals a terrible wooden way with a turn of phrase here, calling Prince Philip “a king among characters”. Doesn’t work, does it? Sounds like the title of a Jeffrey Archer novel. He talks in clichés -“His unique turn of phrase has become a much-loved feature of modern British life”. Three lifeless clichés in one gasping-for-air sentence. It’s dead language. If Ed Miliband wants to reconnect with people, he’s going a funny way about it.
Anyroad, there’s a lovely thing in the latest Private Eye about the number of factual errors Brian’s programme about Hubert Parry contained. Chief of which, Brian said Parry fell out of fashion because of Schoenberg’s dominance, but Schoenberg actually became influential long after Parry’s death in 1918.
There’s also a rib tickling send up of Alan Titchmarch’s recent interview with the vampire.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
to-TLA
Paul Flynn is Lab MP for Newport (West I think). He recently tried talking about AW’s trade envoy fiasco in the commons and was slapped down. If you go back to the relevant thread someone said he is a member/supporter of Republic. Basically he’s one of the few ‘come out’ republican MPs.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Lard, thanks for the link. Yes, he’s one of our members. I was nauseated by the whole notion of a ‘humble address’. I couldn’t help thinking of Tom Paine’s ‘Letter addressed to the addressers’, which is a very highly spirited piece if ever there was one. As for Miliband, he makes me want to puke. There seems to be no limit to the sycophancy most MP’s will stoop to. Have they no shame? Are they really so fond of butt-kissing?
PS Lard, did you get that out-take video?
June 9th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“Be it everso umble….” – Uriah Heap
June 9th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Here’s a link you might like about our newly-married ‘royals’:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/william-kate-butler-valet-dresser
June 9th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Phaedra – What was the piont of you post about me?
.
Marjory Smith- Sorry one thing wrong with your statement. Public funding for the monarch is being cut like everything else is being cut. Part from the MPS expensive and pay funnily enough. I could be wrong about that, but when looking at the cuts I don’t see that being part of it.
Like I pointed out about this “Royal Finances “ pages, is there is a lot wrong on there. The monarch may cost us millions but so do the MPS etc most of the cost for monarch will still be there for a republic, the saving to the tax payer is not that great, if any at all. That “£40 million” sum pays for a lot, it doesn’t all go to the Queen, maybe look at what it goes on to judge whether that’s value for money.
Also many of you do need to learn what a democracy is and the meaning of it, and what actual makes a democracy. A elected head of state, is one part of one form of a democracy, it is not the ideal one , it is not the best one, it is not the correct one it is not even they only one, it does not match the definition of democracy, it is not the only form of government that is different from monarchy. It is one form of one, which some people prefer and chose to have, this does not mean we have to have it or we should have it, based on the word democracy.
Richard Vernon- Point of linking that article was?? If you can read it you would know the problems that come with that article.
June 10th, 2011 at 12:17 am
to-Adam
Was your posting checked for errors of grammar & punctuation? It doesn’t seem so. It is impossible to deconstruct your argument in detail as it stands. What you fail to appreciate is that puctuation alters meaning in written polemics. How do I know if your errors are in logic or in punctuation? It’s not my job to guess your meaning. It could be said that you’re knowingly hiding flawed logic behind flawed punctuation.
Why don’t you have it properly punctuated, repost it and then we’ll point out your errors.
June 10th, 2011 at 12:43 am
Adam-are you a big fan of ee cummings? esp. ‘Anyone lived in a pretty how town’?
The point of that Guardian article appears to be to contrast the highly confected presentation of William and Kate as ‘ordinary’ with the reality of them (and, by extension, the rest of the royal family) living lives of immense wealth and privilege.
All fairly straightforward. If I can explain anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me.
June 10th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Adam, It turns on your use of the word ‘allowed’. You might like living in an environment riddled with fake permissions. I don’t. I really can’t be bothered to answer further your monarchist drivel and your muddled attempts to defend these people. Most of your arguments are selective and make no cogent sense. You are just here to attack Republic, its members and what they stand for. You don’t like it? Hard luck. Get used to it.
June 10th, 2011 at 11:40 am
@ Adam
“Public funding for the monarch is being cut like everything else is being cut”
Not according to recent proposals put foreward by the Chancellor, George Osborne.
The Civil List grant is to be replaced by the sovereign support grant from 2013. The Civil List was supposed to be reduced from 2013 but a “masterstroke” by the Chancellor suggests that total revenues to the monarch will not reduce at all.
The “loss” will be more than offset by an additional £37.5m extra income each year from rents received from offshore wind farms which are sited on the sea bed of Britain’s territorial waters.
Apparently, the sea bed beneath the 14 mile territorial waters of Britain is “owned” by the Crown Estates (although my MP and the Secretary of State do not know when this “ownership” came about).
So, it is safe to assume that the headline spin of reducing the Civil List is another example of government spin which masks the real news that the offshore wind farm business is “experiencing exponential growth” (Crown Estates) and the 44% year on year growth ion revenues will be reflected in the 15% per annum shareout the monarch will get from the sum of such revenues.
In simple terms, if estimates regarding wind farm revenues are correct, this would effectively more than doiuble the current budget (around £30m) to around £68m per annum.
And this at a time when severe economic circumstances determine that “we’re all in this together”.
Not only that, any political control that Parliament had on the Civil List has now gone as the new grant will be an automatic process outside the scrutiny of MPs.
And not only that, but Charles Windsor has strictly forbidden the building of wind turbines on or around his property near Highgrove (and the haunts of his grandmother in Caithness) but he’s suddenly become a champion of offshore development of such “carbuncles”. I wonder why?
June 10th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Adam: Thanks for this attempt to educate us in the meaning of the word ‘democracy.’ Unfortunately I am none the wiser after several close readings… I don’t know which ‘uni’ is graced by your attendance, but clearly they have dropped the admission requirement of GCSE English Language.
June 10th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Good luck with the demonstration – but please keep it calm and peaceful or the whole effect will be lost.
June 10th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I’ve got a new video up on my youtube page. it’s a regular poster on this forum, and he makes some interesting comments on the hereditary principle. You can find it at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckC6sj94Qo
If any other members of Republic would like to post a video comment, please email me at democracy4britain@hotmail.co.uk
June 10th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
I don’t know why, but the link I gave doesn’t seem to work. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckC6sj94Qo
June 12th, 2011 at 12:09 am
Graham Smith
You keep going on that the cost of the Monarchy is not important , but that the costs are not fully public & accounted. and by such this is some avenue in which the Monarchy is singular.
Then if having an elected individual this would change .
So, could you point us to where we can find the total costs of the office of Prime Minister including security, & for each Cabinet Minister.
Can you tell us where we can find the cost for continued security for X-Cabinet Ministers.
Can you tell us the cost of security for Tony Blair & family last year(whil’st raking in his millions in iffy deals/books & lectures !)?
Can you tell us the cost of security for Margret Thatcher since leaving office?
Can you tell us the cost of security for members of the European commision last year ?
Can you tell us the cost to the tax payer of our portion of the security for the President of the E.U Council ? (He’s hardly got democratic legitamacy either !!)
Where is all this information openly avaiable to the public for their tax take ..I would put it to you it is not, elected or un-elected changes nothing. It is and always will be smoke and mirrors.
Therefore you are going up & leading others up a blind alley on this one, trouble is I believe you are fully aware of this, but choose to put the ‘principle of democracy’ as your banner away in the favour of the spin & easy headlines of costs.
So as your group rekons the true knowledge of the cost of Monarchy , I trust you also have the answers to the questions I have put above for our democratic & Quasi democratic individuals ?
Please enlighten us I am sure many would wish to know and after all on this site you come across as the one who knows all and everything.
June 12th, 2011 at 1:28 am
@George,
Your questions are legitimate. And the answer, in my opinion, is a very simple one:
Britain is not a Republic, or a democracy. Therefore, the prime minister, and every other institution in UK, operate under the monarchy banner. The prime minister, including every past prime minister, especially Tony Blair, are monarchists. And you know that. Therefore, why come to republicans to ask them about what monarchists are doing, or did in the past?
The only time republicans owe you an answer to such questions is after a written constitution has been enacted by the people, setting the rules, then you can hold the people responsible. Right now, all you see and criticize are monarchists.
June 12th, 2011 at 3:09 am
Eclub1
Wonderful political spin answer,worthy of the likes of Alistar Cambell .
Dodge the questions & set your own.
well then answer your own !
The only time republicans will ‘favour’ us with an answer is when a written constitution has come about enacted by the people.
Well thats a bit wooly, how does this come about ?
Before you can have a referendum on removing the Monarchy you have to have an agreed replacement of the entire constitution to offer.
It cannot be simply a question of say, should we have a Monarch or an elected President. Yes or NO,nor should Britain be a Republic Yes or NO.
What follows has to be laid out defined & beyond question, with all implications to the constitution & future governance in simplest form understandable to most half whitted of the electorate.
Are we to have a non-exec president ,or an executive one, should they be elected by the ‘people’ or selected by our representatives in Parliament(like German model) or Australia’s attempt.
Let us not forget it is obvious there are differing opinions on this even among’st hardened republicans..you do not have a defined path.
On the other part, to say Britain is not a democracy.well that is just plain daft given any basic idea of democracy (non exist that is perfect nor ever will), but given our governments that actually enact ‘LAW’ & Taxes & Policy are only formed via the votes of the electorate then it is a democracy.
AS for the costs of P.M’s , ministers existing or gone the reason you cannot give them is no different Monarchy or not, all this is covered up either way & would be in a republic too.
We witnessed what our dearly loved democratic M.P’s have got up to in expenses & nest feathering in recent years..Ohh so loveley democracy.election such a guarentee of perfection what?!
We all know if there was any honesty in this world probably 1/2 of the members of Paliament should be in jail, and no Republic will change that.Few Politicians exist other for own benefit
June 12th, 2011 at 3:42 am
@George,
By the way, I like your command of language, and reasoning. It’s disappointing to see you use them on the wrong side, arguing about something that is indefensible.
Your comment was non-responsive to my points. Let me just summarize them again:
1. Britain is a monarchy, not a democracy, nor a republic.
2. All Prime Ministers, past and present are (were) monarchists, NOT republicans, especially Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and Gordon Brown.
3. Unless the UK adopt a written constitution delegating power, and limiting power, to politicians, the monarchy is to blame, not republicans or the people.
Now, your last comment raised a different point that I wish to smother. You stated:
“We all know if there was any honesty in this world probably 1/2 of the members of Paliament should be in jail, and no Republic will change that.Few Politicians exist other for own benefit”,
I am stating that the biggest politician in UK is the monarch. The monarchy is made up of rational actors. Self-interested actors and actresses. The definition of politician is NOT one who ran for office. A politician is anyone involved in the polity of an entity or country, and in my opinion, the monarch is in every nook and cranny of UK polity, hence a politician. But, I agree with your larger point, which is that most politicians calculate their gains in terms of self interest, and survival. That is why the FOI should NOT have any exemptions. If any entity is exempted, they have something to hide. And should be assumed guilty until proven otherwise. You cannot give the monarchy an exemption from scrutiny, and then chastise those who got caught without a privilege of exemption. If one side is corrupt, all sides are corrupt.
Again, it is my opinion that members of parliament who do not come out as republicans, should be considered part of the monarchy, and all their crimes, or even sins, should be heaped at the monarchy’s doorstep, not republicans.
June 12th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Eclub1
If you keep spinning like this you will only make yourself dizzy!
Tell me what questions this referenda will be made of.
What do you propose we replace the current system with & who will decide that,a “Lobby Group” or a political party.
Personally I would want to have excluded from standing for President for instance, anyone who has been a politician M.P/P.M/Cabinet Minister or memeber of the house of lords,of course some may disagree with such.
I would wish a President to have more specific constitutional powers to hold at bay P.M’s & government,some may not agree.
I may wish to see a President selected and voted into office by our M.P’s rather than an x-factor public vote, again some may not agree.
Untill all these questions are answered the I ‘s dotted and the T’s crossed it is impossible to hold a meaningfull and democratic referendum.
You can certainly hold a referendum on a principle, but it cannot be finalised without the right to vote on the details of what is to follow.
Otherwise it would be a case of get rid of “This” & then trust us to sort out the details later…Mmmmmmm does not look good that way and hardly a real choice without facts & definative details of what will follow.
Then what happens say if Scotland & Wales vote republic, yet England & by that the majority of peoples vote Monarchy for Britain, a split of ideals, worse still what if the alternative- Englands voters vote republic & one or both Wales & Scotland do not..does then England impose a republic on them ?
It could also lead to the Channel Isles & Isle of Mann declaring total independance & retaining the crown, remember they are not part of the U.K are not subject to any laws of Parliament nor even the E.U.
They have there own governance under their Queen, “The Lord of Mann” & “The Duke of Normandy” of which Westminster has no control other than by mutual agreement when needed.
I know from my ties to the place there is no way they will take to dictact.
June 12th, 2011 at 7:56 am
George:
“What do you propose we replace the current system with & who will decide that,a “Lobby Group” or a political party.
Personally I would want to have excluded from standing for President for instance, anyone who has been a politician M.P/P.M/Cabinet Minister or memeber of the house of lords,of course some may disagree with such.”
I couldn’t agree more. I’m not a Director of Republic, just an ordinary member.
“I would wish a President to have more specific constitutional powers to hold at bay P.M’s & government,some may not agree.”
I do fully agree, for what it’s worth.
“I may wish to see a President selected and voted into office by our M.P’s rather than an x-factor public vote, again some may not agree.”
Nooooooooo……… I can’t agree with this, though some may.
“Untill all these questions are answered the I ‘s dotted and the T’s crossed it is impossible to hold a meaningfull and democratic referendum.
You can certainly hold a referendum on a principle, but it cannot be finalised without the right to vote on the details of what is to follow.”
Yes, this is of course the problem with any Constitutional change. We cannot guarantee what will happen. We are players in this game, but far from the only ones, and not even the ones with the greatest power.
“Then what happens say if Scotland & Wales vote republic, yet England & by that the majority of peoples vote Monarchy for Britain, a split of ideals, worse still what if the alternative- Englands voters vote republic & one or both Wales & Scotland do not..does then England impose a republic on them ?
It could also lead to the Channel Isles & Isle of Mann declaring total independance & retaining the crown, remember they are not part of the U.K are not subject to any laws of Parliament nor even the E.U.”
Well, I’m a Channel Islander by birth. I don’t think that this would be a big problem, to be honest. If Scotland wants to go their own way, let them. Same for other parts of Britain such as the Channel Islands. Let people be free to choose what they want, in my opinion.
June 12th, 2011 at 9:16 am
@George
‘….Can you tell us the cost of security for Margret Thatcher since leaving office?
Can you tell us the cost of security for members of the European commision last year ?
Can you tell us the cost to the tax payer of our portion of the security for the President of the E.U Council ? (He’s hardly got democratic legitamacy either !!) ..’
George, surely a lot of these figures are obtainable if you or I had but world enough and time to track them down? If we decided to make it the focal point of our existence, I’m confident that Freedom of Information laws would eventually yield the desired figures.
It seems you’re trying to defend one shortfall in political transparency with another. Or, conversely, you like the idea of democratic accountability, but only want the idea applied to the institutions you dislike.
Ideally, I’d like all this information readily available at the click of a mouse, and probably a link to complain about it on the same webpage. Though security costs for ex-Prime Ministers seem legitimate to me. At the very least, there has been some grudging move toward transparency with Mps expenses- available again because of Freedom of Information laws.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7843787.stm
Also….the democratic unaccountability of the E.U Council & President is a standard white collar Daily Mail trope; there exists some kind of framework where the idea can be discussed, frustration vented etc…yet with the royals, no such framework exists. It’s rare to actually see the issue debated. Freedom of Information laws exempt the Queen, PP, and William. I have seen the figure of 30m bandied about for the security costs of the wedding, but these figures always seem to exist in the realm of speculation and are always contested…not good.
June 13th, 2011 at 4:33 am
On Monday the 13th Australia celbrates the feast of Nativity of Elizabeth Windsor. One point monarchists in Australia, Canada and NZ harp on is that the Queen doesn’t directly cost their taxpayers anything. It’s time for that to change. If Tuvala, St. Kitts and all the other \realms\ want Betty’s profile on thier stamps, they need to start pitching thier fair share.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“The Queen doesn’t directly cost their taxpayers anything. It’s time for that to change. If Tuvala, St. Kitts and all the other \realms\ want Betty’s profile on thier stamps, they need to start pitching thier fair share.”
Ah behold, the Republican in his natural habitat. Observe the miserly plumage of avarice and its brightly coloured bitterness. They are, alas, a rare sight on these isles – often appearing only to whinge for a few moments before plunging back into obscurity and irrelevance.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
I just hope that everyone Participating in the Demo at the Palace will treat it as a serious matter No Smiling and cheesy grins The Family living in the Palace remind us that the Majority of Britons are still considered to be serfs and Chattels of the Monarchy Be Serious please the demo is for the good of the Country.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@James
Interesting capitalisation there, my good man.
Is it a code?
June 14th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Perhaps he has been Reading the Exploits of the Intrepid Character of Robinson Crusoe, and thus Inspired, Entertains the incredible Notion that by Capitalising intermittent Nouns and Verbs he can Pronounce with Sage Authority and Declaim with Literary Grace. Forsooth.
June 14th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I see that as we all tighten our belts, our paid-for ‘royal’ betters are, as usual, wasting their time at Ascot, along with the rest of those with money to squander – which is their right of course. (It’s a personal view).
June 14th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I see First Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope is warning that Britain’s defences could be at risk if the Libya campaign goes beyond another three months. Apparently the fleet will only be able to fight for 90 days more before it will be forced to make serious cuts elsewhere.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/252658/War-in-Libya-is-putting-UK-at-risk-Admiral-warns
It’s ironic that the country can blow millions on theatrical pageantry designed to cheer us all up without turning a hair, and then when our defences may be compromised due a lack of what boils down to money in the final analysis, no one sees the irony.
June 14th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
to-BW
I heard Stanhope (or some Admiral) on the radio explaining himself. Basically they’re feeling emasculated and want their aircraft carriers back. It seems ships will have to be moved from home waters to the Med. When the interviewer suggested that since the nation was not threatened that didn’t matter he had no answer. He just wants his big boat back. He couldn’t understand why the NHS was guarded against cuts but not the navy. The answer-’because we’re not at war’ didn’t seem to have occurred to him.
June 14th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
to-George.
Interesting questions you’re posing but why are you posing them to us? It’s not our job to do your research for you. If I were you I’d start with your MP. If you get an answer perhaps you could let us know.
June 15th, 2011 at 8:10 am
@Phaedra: Royal Ascot. So typical of the Windsors to enjoy horse racing. This involves exhausted horses being enthusiastically flogged by sadistic little men on their backs. The Windsors, and others who delight in this form of animal cruelty, bay for the horses to be whipped harder so that the “Queen’s horse wins” or the punters make money.
There was a move some years ago for the Jockey Club to insist on lighter whips. They refused. Sometimes a jockey gets banned for a few days for flaying the horse more than is usually permitted.
Behind the ridiculous hats, the Queen in her chariot, and the royal box lies the public and sadistic abuse of a helpless animal. I suppose Kate will be getting innured to accepting the pleasures of the Windsors, many of which involve the mass slaughter of birds, the delights of shooting stags and the longed for return to watching fox cubs ripped to bits so that the hounds can be trained to rip an exhausted adult fox to its death.
One of Philip Windsors “achievements” was to shoot a tiger. These people are only half civilised themselves and represent not the best of this country but the dregs.
June 15th, 2011 at 8:29 am
To Broga. I couldn’t agree more. Young Windsors being ‘blooded’ during killing sprees is regarded as a rite of passage. The whole business sickens me.
Some people cannot leave anything that moves alone. As far as these people are concerned their god has provided animals to be pursued, flogged or killed for their general entertainment. I haven’t forgotten the Windsor queen wearing pheasant feathers as an unspoken rebuff to anti-field sports activists who criticised her for wringing an injured pheasant’s neck during a shoot at Sandringham (albeit to put the bird out of its misery having been blown half to pieces). An aide said that the feathers were intended as a message.
And so the Windsors can be seen whiling away the long days prancing about at Ascot – working hard at ‘being seen’. What a dissolute bunch they really are. They represent themselves, mindless tradition and a life of excess at our expense.
Interesting to see in these straitened times that a significant number of people clearly rich and idle enough to go to Ascot are definitely all ‘in it together’. (Pretty general comment I know…)
June 15th, 2011 at 8:44 am
To Paul Roberts. Not at war? What on earth are you thinking about? Terrorists are everywhere. They all come from one place which we must relentlessly attack, demolish and rebuild. You are required to stay terrified. The impression that you have received regarding all Arabs is absolutely correct. Corporate interests are not involved. Thank goodness a leading politician is a non-executive director of a defence services company, with offices in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bahrain, and can assist in these matters.
June 15th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@Phaedra: The Windsor Way: “What a lovely morning. Let’s go out and have some fun and kill something.”
You are right about their idea of work being to flaunt themselves at Ascot. I now read that the “ordinary couple” of Kate and Wills are busy appointing their servants at their rather less than ordinary and publicly funded grand residence in the capital. I wonder if they are sticking to greedy Liz’s approach of paying as close to the minimum wage as she can get away with. The last time I heard she was paying an extra 70p an hour above the minimum. This means her serfs need more than one job.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Graham,
The rate you’re going, republic will take years to manifest. I want republic in months not years.
You do NOT harness all the talent available to you on this Blog.
You shelve all suggestions we make, and insist on going it alone with your stealth board.
Please, publish some articles from Cbrunstrom, Phaedra, Paul, T. Hughes, Jennifer, iMatt, Lard, Broga, and so many others, so the Blog will come alive.
There’s a protest soon, I keep looking out for an ad on BBC, and I don’t see one.
I hope you don’t expect to do this thing on a low budget. You’ve got to go big time… Graham.
I know your going to get upset with my comment, but look, you’ve gotta go big time on this thing.
June 15th, 2011 at 11:20 am
eclub1. I’m still not sure that you understand the rationale and cultural context around here! I would like the campaign rapidly to gather speed, but it aint gonna happen ‘in a few months’ with the current mindset. Why are you so insistent on our behalf may I ask?
June 15th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Ah, so these are the ‘bunny huggers’ the prince was talking about. Those poor horses really do have a very crappy life – I’m sure living out in the wild would be a much happier, safer and easier existence.
“sadistic abuse”
sa·dis·tic
deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from inflicting pain on another
I’m not 100% on this, but I’m pretty sure that the point of the whip isn’t so that the jockey can get his rocks off, but more so that he wins the race? The inflicting of pain is surely just a side effect?
“criticised her for wringing an injured pheasant’s neck”
Mercy killing? The evil cow..
“Their god has provided animals to be pursued, flogged or killed for their general entertainment.”
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Checkmate, atheist.
June 15th, 2011 at 11:56 am
@Graham
Why do you deliberately mislead the public?
To quote your protest announcement:
“The cost of the monarchy is still around £200m every year”
But then to quote your finances summary:
“Total = £184.2m”
But then to quote your working:
“Security is an estimate based on a number of press reports over the years[...]Estimates can range from £50m to £100m a year, so the figure in our table represents the high end of the estimate.”
So to give a far less meaningful interpretation of your own figures, you estimate that the royals cost us £159.2M (replacing the upper end of the security estimates with the mean value)
200 is 20.4% larger than 159.2. So even using your extremely dubious figures, you’re still inflating it by 20%.
Do you not feel shame?
June 15th, 2011 at 11:59 am
“Checkmate, atheist” (Pejorative use noted)
Hardly. Ok you consider inflicting pain on animals to be merely a side-effect. I would have expected nothing less. The rest of your post has been ignored.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Why are you so insistent on our behalf may I ask? –Phaedra
No, on my behalf. Why do you think Graham refuses the help? I haven’t been to UK, but I suppose division of labor works there too, no?
June 15th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Sorry eclub. I’ve got you down as living in America, but with an intense interest in our non-democracy. I didn’t mean to imply that you have no right to argue for a republic in Britain. I was merely curious regarding what fires you up! I don’t think that Graham refuses the help. I know that some of our recent ideas are being put forward to the committee, which is why I am interested in a members area to discuss strategy without incurring the rubbish posted by monarchists.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Phaedra,
Yes.
But, on publishing articles, video, fast developing events, opinions, and comments, why should that take more than a few deliberations to workout?
I see countless stories and articles around the world/websites that are great news for Republic, constantly going to waste; I have NOT yet met any reasonable person that isn’t ready for republic to dawn in UK. To be honest with you, only the fringe have been defending the monarchy. When I look at the Facebook supporters of Republic, I see one thing written on all their faces:
“What’s taking you guys so long; we’re ready to do the voting”.
I’m sure Republic has a finite day this campaign will catch up. Assuming the slow pace is quickened a bit, it should make a difference. If the original plan is what I see now, which is spreading the message via word of mouth from neighbor to neighbor; if mass media, such as TV is utilized, it should help, no?
June 15th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
eclub1. I agree that there is rising support for republicanism – and you are right, here at least it is only an obsessive fringe bothering to defend the monarchy. But don’t underestimate the silent establishment, those who rely on the current system for wealth, power and privilege. There are a lot of them. In my view we need considerably more support at grass roots level in order to turn the tide of received opinion.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
@Phaedra,
Okay, thanks for the answers.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Phaedra,
I have a question for you, are you around?
June 15th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
@Phaedra,
Here it is:
I’ve been arguing for over a year now, that past prime ministers, and the current one, are monarchists. I particularly point to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as ardent monarchists, because many of our antagonists on this blog often cite those two as bad apples, as products of popular vote, and by extension, republicans. I wholeheartedly reject this, in fact it upsets me greatly. How can monarchists such as those two, be allowed to give us their baggage, and never for once advocated for republic when they were in power?
So, my question to you is, how does that sound in your ears? What do you have to say about that argument? Since no one else comments pro or con on it. Thanks in advance.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
eclub1 Labour Prime Ministers have appeared in many guises. Blair sold ‘New Labour’ sprinkled with conservative, unashamedly capitalist values in order to get elected from the doldrums. His deputy Prescott, who had the appearance of a trade unionist was used to appeal to the union vote. Prescott, seduced, is now in the Lords. All party leaders have been thoroughly unable to endorse republicanism, political suicide, – although some of their party members do. The areas in which they operate are heavily weighed down with the apparatus of the monarchy, an illusion which continues to be sold, on all fronts, as part of traditional culture for reasons of power.
All three main party leaders have, in my opinion, sold out to corporate business. This drives and informs their policies, arms their biased enquiries and is responsible in many cases for their misleading public statements. There is a general lack of truth, which has put people off politics to an extent, but which has, as yet, changed nothing. There exists a burgeoning capitalist rationale in which the only arbiter is the balance sheet. This easily justifies the use of the armed forces in conflict situations in the Middle East. These are driven by corporate interests. Libya yes – world’s 10th largest oil reserves; Syria no, nothing worth controlling.
Brown, Blair and the current incumbents all serve the system, with its notions of monarchy. None are specifically elected on a pro-monarchy ticket, and this should tell you also that republicanism is currently not an election issue, although we are working hard to foreground it. This is unlikely to change any time soon, however, which is why we have some way to go with our campaign.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
to-eclub
You have a point but it’s hard to know how to translate some support into Parliamentary political action. Single-issue parties have a terrible track record in this country. A republican party will certainly fail. A way forward might be to offer electoral support to candidates of any party who offer to ‘come out’ as republicans and behave in a republican manner ie circumvent the oath, refuse honours etc, but other than that get on with the job. There could be some candidates in marginal seats who could use the extra support.
June 15th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“behave in a republican manner ie circumvent the oath, refuse honours etc,”
This is an attitude that puzzles me. How is refusing an honour an act of republican defiance?
Most countries – including the USA – have an honours system. These can be quite elaborate and showy – indeed, the Presidential Medal of Freedom has a fancy sash, badge and neck order that puts the Order of the Garter to shame. Italy even gives out knighthoods. While Prince Philip is currently an active topic of discussion on another thread, it’s interesting to note that most of the foreign orders that he has been inducted to are themselves republican, with countries as diverse as Mexico (Collar of the Order of the Aztec Eagle), Iceland (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon), Portugal (Grand Cross of the Order of the Infante Dom Henrique), Liberia (Knight Grand Band of the Order of the Star of Africa), and Peru (Grand Cross in Brilliants of the Order of the Sun), amongst others. These countries evidently do not see any constitutional calamity by doing so.
If the effort truly matters more than the award, why not politely decline the offer and leave the matter private – as, indeed, members of this site recently took William & Kate to task for not being private about their own charity work? If anything, refusing an award betrays greater egotism, because instead of just acknowledging recognition for good work done, which would prevail under any system of government, we instead have a weak attempt to stir up meagre scandal by making a show of rejecting it.
June 15th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Mr Frost. So what ‘good work done’ do you think occasioned the presenting of awards to Mr Windsor, such as:- Mexico (Collar of the Order of the Aztec Eagle), Iceland (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon), Portugal (Grand Cross of the Order of the Infante Dom Henrique), Liberia (Knight Grand Band of the Order of the Star of Africa), and Peru (Grand Cross in Brilliants of the Order of the Sun)??
What about Zanzibar (First Class of the Order of the Brilliant Star) or Argentinia (Grand Cross of the Order of the Liberator General San Martin) or Jordan (Star and Riband of the Order of Nahdah) or in 1979 Oman (Member First Class of the Military Order of Oman)?
I think that Mr Roberts may have been suggesting that republican MP’s should demonstrate honesty and take an oath of allegiance to the people as sovereign – rather than to the current illegitimate sovereign and family as merely people. An intimation that she is no longer recognised, in their case, might be to refuse honours, signalling that in their view she has no popular mandate to award anybody, anything, on behalf of anyone – all other considerations aside.
June 15th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
sclub1:
“There’s a protest soon, I keep looking out for an ad on BBC, and I don’t see one.”
eclub1, political ads of any sort are banned on all TV in Britain, with the sole exception of ‘Party Political Broadcasts’, which are tightly controlled ‘adverts’. They are free to the party that makes them, and there are a very limited number of the, Paid-for political TV ads are banned, simple as that. However, there are quite a few politics programmes on TV, and this is what we have to aim towards: getting Graham Smith or another spokesperson on BBC Question time or a similar programme.
But I’d like to put a suggestion up for discussion: about two years ago there was a series of Atheist adverts on buses throughout London, and many other parts of the country. It was quite successful. Could we replicate this, do you think? I think I heard that the total cost of the Atheist ads was around £100,000. As word spread, so more money came in.
June 15th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“political ads of any sort are banned on all TV in Britain, with the sole exception of ‘Party Political Broadcasts’, which are tightly controlled ‘adverts’” …Richard Vernon
@Richard,
As always, thank you for that answer.
I guess my natural response to the above, in a rhetorical question, is: So the monarchy is not apolitical?
If campaigning to abolish it is ‘Political’, advocating for it, and ‘being it’ must definitely be, clinically, Political.
June 15th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
eclub1, I can’t fault your logic. However I don’t think we’d get very far with this argument, not because it isn’t true, but because the Govt. wouldn’t want to hear it.
I’ll also point out that under Thatcher ‘political’ organisation were banned from having charitable status. This included Amnesty International and many more, such as ( I think) Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and so on. Under Blair this was relaxed, and I know that Amnesty is now again a charity, and with that comes significant tax advantages. I asked Graham some time ago if it was possible for Republic to become a charity, and he was very quick to say “no”.
But paid-for adverts on buses MAY be possible. It would certainly raise a huge row if we were banned, and I think the Govt. would want that even less than the ads themselves. So, what do you and other regulars think of this idea? Practical?
June 15th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
to-eclub1
“So the monarchy is not apolitical?”.
The BBC would say Yes. The BBC takes the view that some issues are open while others are closed-closed by an overwhelming social consensus. eg Party politics is an open issue and on that it must be impartial but on issues such as homosexuality, right of abortion, freedom of religion these are closed questions and the BBC adopts the social consensus. So the question remains-
Who decides what issues are open or closed?
Who decides what is the social consensus?
An example of how this can be abused would be the troubles, some time ago, in N.Ireland. Throughout, the BBC pushed for equal staus for all citizens but NI remains within UK. Left to themselves the British people would have walked away. The BBC, siding with the Unionist establishment, albeit on its own terms, got its way by stigmatising popular opinion.
June 15th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
“…but because the Govt. wouldn’t want to hear it”. —Richard Vernon
@Richard,
The government is full of crap! This is unfair. This is one of the drawbacks pf not having a written constitution.
The monarchy has got all the advantages grandfathered in.
How can Republic conduct a campaign with its hands tied behind its back?
It appears to me that those rules and laws are an infringement on freedom of speech, assembly, and a dozen others!
On your idea, it’s good, but too small. I wont settle for anything less than TV program of some sort. I believe some of these bans should be challenged all the to the EU.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“So the question remains-
Who decides what issues are open or closed?
Who decides what is the social consensus?” –Paul Roberts
@Paul,
Those are exactly the questions. That’s why I believe we can be creative here. It will be unacceptable, and what ever law that underpins it unjustified, if a single issue campaign organization cannot get on TV and air its message. If I find out that this is actually the case, I will down-grade UK some more.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
eclub1,:
“The government is full of crap! This is unfair. This is one of the drawbacks pf not having a written constitution.
The monarchy has got all the advantages grandfathered in.
How can Republic conduct a campaign with its hands tied behind its back?”
Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more.
“On your idea, it’s good, but too small. I wont settle for anything less than TV program of some sort.”
Oh, as I said, there’s a good chence that we will be able to get on TV in the not-too-distant future, but this will be on a prgramme, not by way of advertising.
” I believe some of these bans should be challenged all the to the EU.”
I was one of about three people that discussed this very possibility with Graham about a year ago. He didn’t think we’d stand a chance, and sadly I suspect that he was right. That said, we have some of Britain’s – and the world’s – top Human Rights lawyers as members, including lawyers from both sides of the trial of Saddam Hussein, no less, so maybe it isn’t that clear-cut.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
eclub1:
“On your idea, it’s good, but too small.”
I’m not so sure about that, in fact. There’s a big advantage to this kind of advertising: people who would not normally watch a TV programme about this kind of thing would be more or less forced to see it on the streets every day for a few months. It would almost certainly become a talking point. In this way it might just get our message across even better than an appearance on BBC Question Time, which is Britain’s biggest political TV programme.
So Paul, and others, what do you think of this idea? Would you be prepared to stump up some cash to support it? I’m about as far from being wealthy as it’s possible to be, but I’d put up £500 to get the ball rolling. Good idea or not?
PS these damn recapcha answers are getting worse. I had one in Japanese or Chinese a few days ago, and one in Cyrillic today. I think it was the Bulgarian version of Cyrillic……
June 15th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
@Richard,
I agree with you… on the captcha.
I choose both the TV and Bus, if the TV isn’t allowed, then we should go with Bus, and indeed any form of advert is better than none.
June 16th, 2011 at 2:09 am
” Labour Prime Ministers have appeared in many guises. Blair sold ‘New Labour’ sprinkled with conservative, unashamedly capitalist values in order to get elected from the doldrums”. —Phaedra
Labour Prime Ministers may have appeared in many guises, but there’s one guise they have NEVER appeared in: REPUBLICANS.
Therefore, we must remind anybody who is listening that elections is NOT synonymous with democracy, or republic.
In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, elections were held frequently, including fro parliament there. However, it was NOT a democracy at all. It was not a republic. Iraq was for all practical purposes a monarchy, with ‘King’ Saddam Hussein acting as the dictator, monarch, Army General, President.
If this confusion, the lie that these elite politicians who make up the power behind the monarchy are republicans, is so wide spread among the people, how come every member of the Republic is not shouting on top of their voices: “It’s a lie, Blair is NOT one of us, he is actually a monarchist!”?
And only then can we stop hearing “President Blair?” from monarchists.
June 16th, 2011 at 7:21 am
Richard Vernon. The ‘atheist bus’ idea was a good one and it gained considerable publicity for the BHA. It also highlighted the awkward position of some ingrained religious dogma and just how many people were prepared to contest it. I suggested to Graham that Republic try a similar campaign.
The problem is the funding. With Ariane Sherine’s atheist bus, the money came from advertising on a ‘Just Giving’ website – far more people donated than was thought possible, raising, I beleive, in excess of £150,000. But in order to qualify for inclusion on the website the organisation needs to be a charity, which Republic is not, so alternative funding would need to be arranged in our case.
June 16th, 2011 at 7:48 am
to-eclub1
““It’s a lie, Blair is NOT one of us, he is actually a monarchist!”?”
I think first & foremost Blair is a consummate opportunist. He’d be a flat-earthist if he thought that would work.
to-RV
If you’re not wealthy, I’m not happy about your putting up money you can’t spare. There are plenty of people out there for whom £500 is just a round of drinks. I think your suggestion forces us to confront the problem of financing. We must get a source of money. By & large we are working (or unemployed) folk with little to spare. We have brains, ideas, energy, imagination but no real money. Well, that’s a start. Raising money is an enterprise in its own right, and I don’t know what, if any, experience GS has in this. If he has very little, perhaps we should consult more widely. My financing suggestions would be-
1) I understand Barack Obama’s campaign was very much e-based with a lot of online contacting of millions of poor folk who would commit to just $1 per month. In the end it added up. Our campaign seems to have some appeal to the young (students) perhaps this strategy could aim at them.
2) I’m convinced there are quite a few wealthy enterpreneurs who must have considered how the monarchy imposes a glass ceiling upon their progress. Branson, Murdoch must know that in a republic they could go all the way. OK these people accept honours, but how much of that is just social compliance. They act humble, but they’re all Caesars at heart. Branson can’t be happy being a mere “knight” while royals are born neck-deep in fabulous titles. Royalty debases achievement. I suspect there’s more covert support for a republic among high achievers than is apparent.
June 16th, 2011 at 8:16 am
On the question of captchas (the words you input when commenting), if you sign up with a user name and password you can log in and then you don’t need to input the captcha at all.
June 16th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Graham, it’s good to see you read at least some of this. Thanks for the advice.
Phaedra:
“I suggested to Graham that Republic try a similar campaign.”
So you also think it would be a good way of raising our profile, I assume. Do any others, and would you be willing to put up some cash to pay for it?
Paul Roberts:
“If you’re not wealthy, I’m not happy about your putting up money you can’t spare.”
Well that really is quite a lot more than I can comfortably afford, but I can do it on my credit cards. And since my health is again failing, maybe I wouldn’t even have to pay it all back……. Of course, if I really thought the end was nigh, I might just max out my cards which would be rather a lot more than that…….
But would you or anyone else be prepared to join in? It will take sacrifices from many of us to get it off the ground, of course, but if only 200 people each contribute £500, that adds up to £100,000, and that’s quite a lot of money.
June 17th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Not the monarchist- Pathetic , if you know anything about “Uni” it is not GCSE’S that get you in. They get you into college, so clearly someone needs to go back to school to learn that.
Martin G
The public funding for the monarch is the civil list. Crown Estates income is not taxpayer’s money. The treasury is losing money because there is going to be a change to the system of funding. However just because the Queen will get money from the Crown Estates does not mean she will get all the profits. It is more then likely she will get money that will pay for the whole cost of the monarch, which includes money for palaces etc. This figure will be about £184 million if we base it on this sites figures, she will also properly get a little bit more properly a couple more million to a couple of 100 million but not Billions. No one in the government has said the Queen will get the whole profit from the Crown Estates, and nor will she. Has many believe that the Crown Estates is part of the unwritten constitution of the UK therefore most of the profits will go to the treasury to benefit the people.
Yes they are facing cuts, I never said they are the same as everyone else but they are. How about you read his information again, as it the civil list was frozen again in 2010, and again in 2011, they are also cutting their spending by 14% in the year 2012-13, and then in 2013 the civil list will be abolished.
Come on if you believe we are all in this together you have anything coming as the top elite of this country which includes the MPs have no idea but the cuts are like for others as they are not facing as big as cuts as the rest of the country.
Parliament still will have control over how much money the monarch can get, as they will say they need at least…. and we will give… Also he that’s his property then he can do that, so what.
June 17th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“Come on if you believe we are all in this together you have anything coming as the top elite of this country which includes the MPs have no idea but the cuts are like for others as they are not facing as big as cuts as the rest of the country.
Parliament still will have control over how much money the monarch can get, as they will say they need at least…. and we will give… Also he that’s his property then he can do that, so what.”
Would someone please translate the above passage as I’m an idiotic moronic republican it seems.
June 17th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“However just because the Queen will get money from the Crown Estates does not mean she will get all the profits. It is more then likely she will get money that will pay for the whole cost of the monarch, which includes money for palaces etc. This figure will be about £184 million if we base it on this sites figures, she will also properly get a little bit more properly a couple more million to a couple of 100 million but not Billions.”
This is almost as bad Bob W! I had to read it several times and even than it’s still hard going. Adam is clearly from the litle known country of Gibber as he writes fluent Gibberish!
Sorry, but if you have trouble with your English AND know it, have someone else type things for you! Not only for your sake, but for those you wish to read your posts.
June 17th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
to-Adam
“Parliament still will have control over how much money the monarch can get, as they will say they need at least…. and we will give… Also he that’s his property then he can do that, so what”.
Excellent, you’ve surpassed yourself.
June 17th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
HA you lot are pathetic! If you had any brains, you can clearly see, there are typing and prove reading mistakes. If you had any form of argument you would not have to come back to this thread and insult me. You lot do make me laugh! You want it in better English or in more detail here you go.
Come on if you believe, we are all in this together, you do have another thing coming. As the top elites of this country which include the MPs have no idea what the cuts are like for others. As they are not facing the same level of cuts like the rest of the country are.
Parliament will still have control over how much money the monarch gets from the public. This is because the monarch will say we need this, or the government will say the monarch needs this.. And then the government will say we will give… They will do this because they will tell the public how much money the monarch it going to get.
It is his property so he can do that, so what.
iMatt- You are the most pathetic person on here. I understand the above not making sense, the first time around. But that paragraph does! If you have nothing to come back with but that, then why bother! I know, because it makes you feel smart!
News flash, it will take a lot to make you look smart!
June 18th, 2011 at 6:06 am
Adam:
“Parliament will still have control over how much money the monarch gets from the public. This is because the monarch will say we need this, or the government will say the monarch needs this.. And then the government will say we will give… They will do this because they will tell the public how much money the monarch it going to get.”
Adam, I’m really not trying to put words into your mouth here, but you appear to be trying to say that Parliament controls how much money the monarchy should get, is that correct? If that is what you’re saying, then by implication, were the Govt. to say that the monarchy should get £0.00 every year, then that would be right and proper and legal, yes?
Also, are you claiming that from now on all ‘royal’ finances will be open to scrutiny and fully accountable? This seems to be the meaning of your phrase:
“They will do this because they will tell the public how much money the monarch it going to get.”
If so, it’s news to me, and very welcome news, but I don’t for one moment think that it will happen. On what basis do you make this claim?
June 18th, 2011 at 6:22 am
Paul
In the immortal words of Monty Python (now that is a british institution that is warmly received and enjoyed in many parts of the globe), “Sorry I’m afraid i’m not understanding banter today”
June 18th, 2011 at 10:29 am
“HA you lot are pathetic”…which leads on to…”If you had any form of argument you would not have to come back to this thread and insult me”…and of course… “iMatt- You are the most pathetic person on here. I understand the above not making sense, the first time around. But that paragraph does! If you have nothing to come back with but that, then why bother! I know, because it makes you feel smart! ”
HMMM…the words kettle, calling, the, black, the and pot suddenly spring to mind.
P.S. Adam, yes I do feel smart. How do you feel? Do you ever re-read what you type?
June 18th, 2011 at 11:26 am
“HA you lot are pathetic! If you had any brains {etc]” Adam
Dear Adam, Why are you always so angry and abusive? You demean yourself with your constant written assaults. They also obfuscate the points you are trying to make, which do tend to lack clarity. Making comments citing a general paucity of intellect is rather meaningless. No academic would assert or believe that perceived opponents in debates are, en masse, brainless. Best wishes.
June 18th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Adam. Srory meat btu enve atfer erading it herte tisem, dan enve atfer royu apmttet to meka it meor itnellibigle, I slitl acn’t udnersntad waht oyu’re tyrgin to tell su. It’s gobbledygook, sorry.
June 18th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Bob W, that’s pretty funny! That said, I could still read it first time round. Which is a damn sight more than can be said for Adam’s butchery of the English language!
June 18th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
@Bob W. Brilliant. You are a genius. That is pure James Joyce.