12 Oct 2009
Democratic Audit have just published The Unspoken Constitution, a “unique, satirical account of how we are governed in the United Kingdom.”
Republic supporters will be particularly interested in the section on ‘Monarchical Powers’:
5.1. The monarch shall have no political powers, save that he or she shall:
a) approve Acts of Parliament —a formality;
b) dissolve Parliament at the bidding of the Prime Minister;
c) appoint the Prime Minister from the majority party after an election;
d) choose the Prime Minister in the event of a hung Parliament, or political crisis, advised in secret by his or her Private Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, this choice being too serious to be entrusted to Parliament;
e) having taken secret advice, as above, be entitled to refuse a request by the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament, to dismiss the Prime Minister and appoint a successor in undefined circumstances, such a decision again being too serious to be entrusted to Parliament;
f) advise the Prime Minister at regular audiences.5.2. The heir to the throne shall also be given licence to advise the Prime Minister and other ministers in confidence, to approve or dismiss plans for new buildings in sensitive areas, and generally to interfere in public policy.
5.3. The monarch shall enjoy great personal wealth and possessions, an annual salary and allowances along with certain members of the royal family, and sundry other possessions, privileges and immunities.
5.4. He or she, along with members of the royal family, shall be exempt from parliamentary scrutiny or criticism, from Freedom of Information legislation and from regular tax regulations.
5.5. Acts of Parliament shall not apply to the monarch, unless it is expressly provided for.
Read the full text.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am and is filed under Constitutional reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
October 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Sounds fine to me.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Hear, hear, Simon.
For satire, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.
Thank God then that the majority of British people have such good taste – and eyes.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Hi Neil
Welcome to the blog!
Let’s put aside the question of satirical value – I think we’re agreed the above passage is an accurate description of the monarch and her family’s role in our constitution.
I’d be interested to know how you feel this arrangement benefits the British people.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
James
Wouldn’t it be more sensible for Republic to give the British people positive reasons for wanting to become a Republic. We know that you don’t like the current set – up and clearly from comments on your blog there is no affection or respect for the Royal Family from your regular contributors.
It does seem that Republic’s strategy is focussing on shoring up support from its own members (4,200 I understand) rather than appealing to ambivalent or uninterested members of the public.
As an aside, I watched the video of the lady in the spotty frock on the fourth plinth and it didn’t seem to me that Trafalgar Square was turned into a seething mass demanding a Republic.
On a positive note, I’m pleased to note that you have now appointed a new Treasurer.
Paul
October 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Welcome back Paul and thanks for your comments.
We do of course provide many positive reasons for adopting a republican constitution – have a look around the website, particularly the ‘Case for a Republic’ page. But as I’ve said before on this blog, anti-monarchy and pro-republic are two sides of the same coin.
You’re right up to a point. We do focus a lot of energy on galvanising our existing supporter base. We want the 20% of the population who agree with us to play an active part in the movement. We can then present the arguments more effectively to those who are “ambivalent or uninterested”.
But that’s not to say we don’t work hard to persuade the unconvinced through our talks, debates, media work, website, blog etc. We’re constantly debating the issues and discussing our campaign with people who aren’t natural supporters.
No, it didn’t seem like that to me either. I’m not sure what your point is.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Paul, when an unelected, hereditary head of state has powers like this, it would be utterly non-sensical to put all the emphasis on giving ‘positive reasons for wanting to become a republic’. This is rather like telling a health charity to focus on the benefits of not having a particular disease – you just don’t want it because it damages you. The deleterious effect the monarchy has on our democracy is the whole point and Republic consistently makes that case very well. Simon and Neil – if you don’t want to live in a democracy, we are clearly not the group for you. Bye!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Sophia
Do you agree that Republic should be fully transparent and:-
1) Publish their accounts on the website. They are available (when their not late) via Companies House but only on payment of a fee.
2) Publish their membership numbers.
3) Provide details of supporters who donate more than, say, £100 a year.
Or, do you only subscribe to transparency when it affects others?
Paul.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
We have been through this before Paul and just as you criticise us for having ‘no affection or respect for the Royal Family’ in reponse to a piece solely about the constitutional role of the monarch, this is simply a diversionary tactic because you have no proper argument to make about the real issues. This is a baseless slur. Republic have answered your concerns about this before and as a member I was very happy with that response to what was an imagined problem in the first place. What do you actually think is going on here? Something of the magnitude of Watergate? Funny how paranoid people get when you challenge their beliefs.
Why are you so concerned about the affairs of a pressure group, but not the unelected head of state we all contribute to financially whether we like it or not? Get real Paul. This affects all our lives and lack of transparency in the affairs of the monarchy is a political as well as an economic issue – the Royals have huge power and influence and we aren’t allowed to know how they exercise it. How can you possibly be so outraged over an imagined problem with Republic’s finances and accept this from our deeply flawed system of governance?
You don’t like republicans – we get the picture. Engage in a proper debate or go away.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I think we have said on numerous occasions that we supporters of Republic actually choose to donate money to Republic. We know how much we pay, we can choose how much we pay, and we can see what we get in return for it, and I for one am happy with it, – I haven’t seen complaints from any other Republic supporters, only from monarchists casting aspersions because their arguments in support of monarchy are so weak. If I was not happy to pay what I pay I could stop, but there’s no chance of that happening, and I will be looking to increase my regular monthly donation whenever my personal circumstances allow. Republic isn’t funded by the taxpayer but by volunteers. Contrast that with the monarchy where we have to fork out for this feudal farce whether we like it or not.
On the subject of constitutions, it’s amazing the number of people getting all precious at the prospect of an unelected President Blair of Europe, a position that might arise should the Lisbon treaty be ratified, and yet here we are in Britain with an unelected Head of State, (plus extended dysfunctional family) and an unelected upper house. If the people struggle to make their voice heard on Europe, or on any other subject, it is because we don’t live in a fully functioning democracy, something that could be rectified with a republican constitution and an elected Head of State with a few reserve powers.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The author Robert Harris made the point that we still don’t have an elected head of state in connection with the Blair issue on Andy Marr’s programme on Sunday, Bob. I think this is a good way of illustrating the problem. It is matter of pointing out the very real powers the monarch has and showing that this situation isn’t acceptable just because it has become normalised through years of royal PR. If you won’t accept Blair, why accept Charles?
October 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Sophia: “Simon and Neil – if you don’t want to live in a democracy, we are clearly not the group for you. Bye!”
No need to be like that. I was popping by and I thought I’d say hello to all my fans in Republic. Anyway, I thought Republic welcomed debate and was not frightened of it. Or is this another Republic myth, just like that other Republic myth – “republic is good for you”. I must say this blog has improved since my last visit. The contributions from Simon and others make it a real treat that must be read – by all monarchists. For there is this phrase that now sums up this blog – “self defeating”.
James Gray: “I’d be interested to know how you feel this arrangement benefits the British people.”
James Gray then adds: “…20% of the population…agree with us”.
Has it ever occurred to you, James, that the British people only agree with ideas that benefit them.
Anyway, I’ve got this burning question.
Why can’t I put my photo next to my name when I post comments on here? I’d hate to think it was one rule for republicans and one rule for the masses. I thought republicans were against social class divides.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Hi Everyone
Please note our moderation policy regarding staying on topic.
@Paul – the picture next to some contributors’ names is called a ‘gravatar’ and is acquired by signing up to http://www.gravatar.com
October 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
It would be ever so good Neil if you could come up with some cogent argument in favour of monarchy instead of the usual monarchists’ mantra – 75% of the public support the monarchy.
Just because the support for Republic might be at 20% of the population doesn’t mean we are going to throw in the towel any time soon. It’s not surprising the level of support for monarchy is at 75% when you consider the massive PR machine backing it up.
Go to http://www.gravatar.com if you want to put a photo next to your name.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Here again, even in satire, the power of the monarch is unbelieveable. You can tell, the monarchy doesn’t want to shine the light on these undemocratic powers. Sure, they pretend like it’s all a formality, you know, like it’s not real powers, so no one will challenge it; all along beholding its reality in secret.
One thing is for sure, the Republic should focus on these powers, and shine light on it, and bring it to fore. The monarchy is pretending like it is not real powers, but only ceremonial, while deep down they hold it to be real powers in secret, so why not focus on this and expose it?
October 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I am not interested in Republics accounts.
I am still waiting for Republic to condemn separatism and stand up for the country they claim they want to turn into a wonderful democratic republic. Sitting on the fence on the union issues clearly shows doing away with the monarchy is not the only thing certain people here wish to inflict on the British people.
As i have said before, i would rather live in a republic if it meant England and Scotland stayed together. Union first, monarchy second. Sadly some here are so obsessed with republicanism that theyd rather see our 302 year old union ended if it meant they could live in a republic.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Monarchists – instead of grinding these many other axes, can you please stay on topic and explain why you find it acceptable that the unelected head of state holds the powers listed above?
October 12th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Bob Wiggin: “It would be ever so good Neil if you could come up with some cogent argument in favour of monarchy instead of the usual monarchists’ mantra – 75% of the public support the monarchy.”
I must admit, it is rather good to know that our “monarchist mantra” has caught on – to the point that even republicans know it by heart.
Well, thanks for that http://www.gravatar.com tip, Bob. I shall sign up now.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
One Sword supporters of the current system MUST fall on is the inability of the people to dissolve the current rotten parliament and the possibility of such parliaments being allowed to continue again in the future (as it stands).
In the likely event of the Conservatives are Elected, they should be reminded it is because of the current system that they have had to wait so long for the chance to face GB in a General election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8290938.stm
October 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
@ Neil
Alas if it were only true that 75% of the British public supported the monarchy.
Unfortunately, we are not afforded the luxury of debating the monarchy or the proposed need for a republic in the Legislature – half of which is patronised by the Crown and the other half forbidden from even mentioning the subject by convention.
Maybe if the people were able to debate the subject on an open and informed basis instead of being confronted by the vast PR machine as mentioned by Bob Wiggin above, we’d get a different result.
As Stafford Cripps once said: “Democracy is safe in Britain as long as the people are told the truth”. Tell lies, and it might be something far worse than a republic that you finally end up with.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:28 am
@ Simon: I am still waiting for Republic to condemn separatism
You seemed to be confused, not only is separation a different issue but a republic is better equiped to deal wth it. Devolution has shown that the main concern is self-governance not independence. A federal republic would be able to accommodate regional self-governance far better than a unitarian monarchy.
This also seems to be yet another attempt from the monarchists to avoid the topic of this thread. None of them has presented any reason why the monarchy should have or should retain the powers and influcences outlined above.
The monarchy’s ‘right to govern’ derives from the divine right principle, see the national crest and the moto beneath that read “God and my right”. This is an unacceptable basis for the office of head of state in a widely secular and religiously diverse nation.
An elected president would hold the position by virture of the people, who would all have civil and political equality. Thus he would have greater entitlement to the be in office than any monarch. Through the mechanism of a constitutional document the president’s powers would be clearly defined and more transparent. A codified constitution would also be able to include a constitutional court to act as a check upon the exercise of those powers.
The monarchy by contrast not only lacks this moral authority, they also have a vested interest in preventing political equality and greater democracy. The secrecy surrounding the highest office is also indefensible beacuse it exludes the vast majority of the population from the decision making process. A majority who are needed for the parasitic monarchy to survive. None of you monarchists have proposed any alternative arguments or challenged this. You have simply attempted to divert the discussion, and this only exposes the weakness and unfounded position you hold supporting the monarchy.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:54 am
After reading that satirical piece, I don’t know whether to laugh because it’s funny, or cry because it’s true.
How can anyone support having such a dismal level of democracy which our current set-up gives us?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Sam Walker,
Ofcourse an elected president because of the population makeup of the United Kingdom would be overwhelmingly decided by the people of England. Its going to be difficult when we have a conservative government elected mostly by England and opposed by most of the people in Scotland and having a further election for president would be problematic too.
As ive said before if it was a choice between a republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland / the break up of England and Scotland, i would support a republic. If Republic wants to make the case the union would be safer as a republic, im more than happy to hear that argument and take it into account, but that is not the issue.
The issue is Republic claims to be standing up for the people and wants to make our country more of a democracy, it seeks radical change to our constitutional setup, and yet they sit on the fence on clearly the FAR more important matter, of what country we are actually talking about. Are we talking about what is now the UK? or are we talking aboiut England, or Wales, or Scotland? Separatism is the greatest threat to this country today, and Republic hides from taking a position on it. That is why i question some peoples loyalty to their country here.. it seems they have a bigger agenda.
More people i have got an answer from on this matter have said they would rather live in a Republic of England (etc) than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I find that shocking, Country first, Monarchy second. Yet it appears here some put Republic first, and are happy to decide on what country they want second.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Simon – I think you’ve made your point now.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
You still aren’t answering the question Simon. You said ‘Seems fine to me’ – can you please explain why you find it acceptable that the monarch has these powers? I find this flippancy about the violation of our democratic rights quite offensive. Republic have answered your concerns about their views on the union before, so can you deal with the issue at hand please.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Sam Walker: “‘God and my right’ – this is an unacceptable basis for the office of head of state. An elected president would hold the position by virture of the people. Thus he would have greater entitlement to the be in office than any monarch.”
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe “the people” have a “greater entitlement” to this role and office or whether “God” does.
It therefore depends, quite subjectively, on whether you believe the values of man should come before God or whether the values of God should come before man. Research shows that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe in God, whilst 70% say that they are Christian. About 60% believe they will go to Heaven when they die or experience a better life in the afterlife. Interestingly, 40% of people also admit to praying to or worshipping God. 75% say that they are monarchists.
At the 1953 Coronation, the majority of our parents and grandparents believed that The Queen had been born to rule and that Her Majesty had been given Her position by God. It was said at the time that it mattered little whether you personally believed in this Divine Right principle. All that matters is that God does, The Queen does and the vast majority of British people do. For if you believe in God, you also believe in a Queen. A Queen who, on Earth, represents His Authority, Power and Majesty as our (and Her) Creator. One life representing the Divine Creativity behind all human life and being. (1 Peter 3: v 13 to 25)
It therefore appears, from an entirely objective standpoint, that Her Majesty (with the blessing of God) has already won this argument.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Oh blimey…
October 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“For if you believe in God, you also believe in a Queen.”
Excuse me! WHAT?!!
James, can you PLEASE put up a blog on the Republic Talk which had the religious basis for a republic, I NEED to counter that.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
You still are not answering the question Sophia and Liam. You say ‘Oh blimey…’ and have clearly not read my Bible quote – can you please explain why you find it so unacceptable that the Monarch has these powers? When 90% believe in God and 75% believe in Monarchy, I find flippancy about the violation of our democratic rights quite offensive.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Neil – I did indeed read your Bible quote, I just don’t happen to think that the Bible has any authority or relevance when it comes to a discussion about the British constitution. You don’t believe in democracy and support theocratic dictatorship. Given that, and the fact you won’t engage with the issue at hand, there isn’t much room for discussion here.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@ Neil
I’m sorry, I think we answer the questions quite frequently. It is the vast majority of monarchists who are the ones who dodge questions on this blog.
Do you agree with this: somebody is superior to every one of the other sixty million people in the country on account of their DNA? Somebody has a default right to rule the country because they passed through one particular womb? Do you agree with these ideas?
I am telling you now, as a Catholic chaplain, that I find you using Christianity as a basis for the British monarchy quite disturbing. OF COURSE, you are entitled to your interpretation and I would not wish to deprive you of this. But to use the Bible as a basis for a plastic autocracy I find quite wrong.
You can use religion and religious texts to justify many different things. We only need to look at some of the evil in the world today to bear witness to that. It doesn’t make it right. It never ceases to make me want to weep when I find someone taking the words “love one another” and adding one some obsolete, ambiguous line from somewhere else in a holy text to say “yeh, but if they disagree with you, you can shoot them/blow them up, etc.”
“One life representing the Divine Creativity behind all human life and being. ”
If you wanna be pedantic about it, I would said that that “one life” is this bloke called Jesus Christ. Heard of him?
Please do not use religion in a way that makes us religious people seem like complete nutters to the rest of the world. It is very damaging and something that I have to fight against every day. You are not making it easier, Neil.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I cannot help but feel that you have both missed my substantive point. The “issue at hand” (The Unspoken Constitution as outlined above) is, I believe, supported in the United Kingdom on the basis of this belief in God and/or Christianity. That was the point I was making. Indeed, God certainly had a resonance in 1953. Amongst today’s older generation.
Argue for God to be cut out of our Crown and Constitution if you like.
The majority in Britain will disagree as evidenced by these poll findings.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
So does this make these powers democratic then Neil? Are you saying that because a poll stated 90% of a certain amount of people interviewed (what was the number of respondents, by the way?) said they believed in God, this can be seen as some sort of referendum on the monarch’s constitutional role and powers? A little tenuous I feel. Was an Anglican god specified (because that is the only god who counts when we are discussing the monarchy)? This 90% figure is clearly tripe in any case – what are the figures for regular attendance at Anglican church services? Very, very much lower I think you’ll find. Most British people aren’t adherents of the Anglican faith and even the monarchy itself is fast abandoning its religious allegiances. You see the religious significances of the monarchy as its primary characteristic, but this is just your view. The monarchy is a real, political entity which affects all our lives as British citizens. Your god thesis doesn’t deal with that aspect of it at all and is quite frankly meaningless to anyone who is concerned about the constitutional realities. In short, what you are saying has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with faith. You believe the Queen to be in some sense divine. Again, I can’t engage with your views on that basis.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Polls are not the same as elections; majority support is not necessarily democratic.
I find it difficult to believe your statistics, in all honesty but please feel free to prove me wrong – I don’t know which source you are using.
Just to make it clear, are you really suggesting that Mrs Windsor has been anointed by God to be the monarch?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Sophia. Who said anything about Anglicanism? I was talking about God. A God who, on all available evidence, does not condemn nor condone democracy in the way you appear to suggest he should. However, He does have rather a lot to say about Kings and Queens -
let alone how He chose His disciples and brought forth His son.
As I said, support in opinion polls for God and the Monarchy should be regarded as a suitable basis for our Monarch’s Constitutional role and powers. It would also be safe to assume the spiritual and religious significance of Monarchy in the eyes of the vast majority of British people. For the heart has reasons which the mind cannot fathom.
Liam Finn: “Are you really suggesting that Mrs Windsor has been anointed by God to be the monarch?”
Are you saying Her Majesty has not been? Read the Coronation Service of 1953 which our parents and grandparents collectively assented to on our behalf. They did so in the hope that the generations as yet to be born would also acknowledge their rightful Queen and serve Her and The Crown. I, for one, did not disappoint them. However, as I said above, it matters little what you believe. God believes, The Queen also, and the Country does. For the poll findings check the web – try Google.
For God, Faith and Reason should be at the heart of our Constitution. That is why I, along with the vast majority of British people, support the Monarchy. It fulfils a unique role that an elected president could never hope to fill. Indeed, I’d fight and die for The Crown tomorrow – but never for a president. If you want political entities vote for a MP.
For God should be a Constitutional reality because He is Reality.
The public have thus reasoned and, it does appear, they agree.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Can we have some proper arguments from monarchists instead of mumbo jumbo? The queen was not anointed by God. My grandparents had no say in the coronation service of 1953 which was probably made up on an ad hoc basis anyway, and we haven’t got God’s view on the queen. I was born in 1950 so if my grandparents were hoping I was going to bow down to their queen they, if they were alive, would be disappointed. Making the will of the people prevail is what a constitution should do, something our unwritten constitution singularly fails to do. What is the unique role the monarchy is so suitable for that a president is not suitable for?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I have two points to make, of equal importance, one is self evident, and the other suggestive. The later is that, although he keeps this forum busy, Simon should be banned from this forum; he adds nothing of substance; he brings all the baggage of racism, ignorance, and tangential issues into serious discussions, and ultimately diverts attention away from core discussions. And the former is that every attempt must be made not to divorce the ‘Crown’ from the ‘Monarch’. Every power assumed by the Crown is the Monarch’s. And they are real. I need to elaborate, and I will do that in the coming days.
On the issue of Simon being banned from this site, he could say, “Oh I don’t want to live in a repubic where my views can be capriciously banned”, fine, but he has failed time and time again to adhere to the moderation policy. In one of his posts I had just finished reading, he was indicating his dislike for Prime Minister Brown because the Prime Minister is Scott, amongst other reasons. That is intolerable. We must not wish to keep this place busy by all means, including useless chatter. He should be warned to raise his standards or get lost. I’m sorry.
The debate of Republic or Monarchy has been harshed out. Everyone knows the Monarchy is wrong. We basically have two camps; those who say, yes the Monarchy is wrong but we will keep it anyway, and those who say, it is wrong and we will do away with it. There is no tertiary group.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Whilst I sympathize with your point of view Eclub, I disagree with banning people from the forum as it will open Republic up to accusations of unfairness. Also, Simon’s arguments are sometimes so nonsensical that they must act in our favour surely? I used to think he was a plant, put here by someone in the establishment to wind us all up and deflect the debate away from the primary subject, but now I realize he really is a monarchist of the first order.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
It is important that monarchist argument is aired here. I don’t agree with some of Simon’s political opinions but then that is the strength of the Monarchy. We can be united by it without having to agree on the political opinions. That doesn’t happen in a republic. Bob Wiggin’s “the will of the people” becomes “will of the political party” in a republic.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
@ Neil Welton “Bob Wiggin’s “the will of the people” becomes “will of the political party” in a republic.”
No it does not. If the peoples’ rights are protected in a written constitution, and a president has the power to protect that constitution, (given to him/her by democratic mandate), then ipso facto the will of the people prevails.
What is so magical about the monarchy that it unites us? We often hear monarchists trumpet “the queen is the embodiment of the nation” – absolute flaming hogwash. Tell that to someone working down the pit or having to go down the sewers for a living. She and her extended family represent something slightly different to the vast majority of the rest of us.
The strength of the monarchy is tenuous at best and depends on who is in line for succession at any given point in time. Although I wish the queen no personal harm, I look forward to the activist king’s arrival and the constitutional crisis that he will surely provoke at some point.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Bob Wiggin: “‘Bob Wiggin’s “the will of the people” becomes “will of the political party” in a republic.’ No it does not. If the peoples’ rights are protected in a written constitution, and a president has the power to protect that constitution, (given to him/her by democratic mandate), then ipso facto the will of the people prevails.”
George Bush, anyone?
The Queen is the living embodiment of our nation. Her magic is derived from Her sense of mystery. A mystery partially derived from this sense that she is special – above cheap and tatty party politics. Those who worked down the pits or who have to go down the sewers are the most loyal to Her and to Her son. Indeed, when The Prince of Wales would visit south Wales thousands of miners would turn out to see Him. Taking off their helmets and bowing their heads as He went by. Why did they all do that? Is it because there is “something slightly different to the vast majority of the rest of us”? I wonder what it is.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
@ Neil
Thanks for dropping in. Public opinion evolves over time and if the polls from Australia, New Zealand and Canada are to be believed (which are all societies which are similar to our own) the monarchy is not especially popular. UK polls which have been conducted in an environment where there has not been a lot of open constitutional discussion show two things firstly a current majority in favour of the status quo and also a majority in favour of greater transparency (eg. over royal accounts).
Presumably at one point there were majorities for the disenfranchisement of women, witch burning and a flat earth. Republic is a pressure group that says we can do far better in terms of a head of state than the hereditary system we have at the moment.
Pressure groups generally have small numbers of people in them. It doesn’t mean that their causes are lost ones only that the people who have bothered to sign up treat that cause as really very important.
Arguments about God’s involvement are a bit lost on me – if the majority of people believe in God – wouldn’t it also follow that they might be interested in a theocratic caliphate ?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@ Neil
‘The Prince of Wales would visit south Wales thousands of miners would turn out to see Him. Taking off their helmets and bowing their heads as He went by.’
Have you ever seen ‘triumph of the will’ ? directed by Leni Riefenstahl ? Unfortunately mystery, myth and obedience can have some terrible consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPAxaFxjiDk&feature=related
October 13th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
@ Neil
Sophia. Who said anything about Anglicanism?
I think it is necessary to point out that Sophia was quite right to confine the issue to Anglicanism, as that is the basis of the monarch’s religious auhtority. This directly results from the Reformation of the 1500’s.
@ Neil
George Bush, anyone?
Also from the discussion of this blog it seems that Republic favours a president from specific reserve powers (similar to the German President) rather than an exectuive president running the country (like the USA) I personally prefer the reserve power system because it limits the powers of the highest office, and provides for an authority higher than the elected government which would help with the checks and balances of the state.
The suggestion that Mrs Windsor is the living embodiment of our nation is absurd, primarily because she does not represent the vast majority of the people. A more evolved state structure would remove an anachronistic and domineering position such as the monarchy, and replacve it with a more transparent and democratic one, i.e. a fully elected legislature, and head of state. And an elected government if the executive and legislature where to be separate.
I would also question Neil’s assertion that the people somehow assented to the Elizabeth Windsor’s coronation. The very fundamental basis of the our monarchy is the ivasion by William in 1066, I only raise this point because the establishment of the monarchy was founded on military power. At no time since has there been a referendum on wheter people support the monrachical system. Never has the monarchy been chosen by the people. Surely we have reached a point where our society can be founded upon the democratic right of the people.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:40 am
well said sam – the people’s right to choose is ultimately what we are here for.
Neil – I don’t notice loads of monarchists gratefully thanking you (and perhaps god) on your website – are the grateful welsh miners a wee bit shy ?
October 14th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@eclub
Just a question have you ever been to the UK ?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Tim Sharp. As a monarchist I am happy to admit that public opinion in Australia, New Zealand and Canada is not as I would like it. Surely they are bound to see sense soon over these witch burnings.
However, as you admit, public opinion “evolves over time” and there is nothing to suggest that the current support for the Monarchy in these countries cannot be increased further. This is especially true when you consider the number of Royal visits planned for Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the months ahead. As with MPs expenses, I also think we can all welcome greater transparency with the Royal accounts. This is something The Royal Household has led on. Unlike those creepy MPs.
“Have you ever seen ‘Triumph Of The Will?’” I can’t say I have. I only hope that you, like those naughty Sex Pistols in 1977, are not going to suggest that monarchists are fascists. This is quite unforgiveable when you consider the role of The Queen Mother in the Second World War and also the sacrifice of members of my family. However, in a modern context, we should be concerned by the rise of the BNP. I mean, you do know that the term ‘caliphate’ is only used in relation to Islam?
Sam Walker. “She does not represent the vast majority of the people.”
You have misunderstood my point. It is not necessary for The Queen to represent or to be chosen by the people in a referendum – in order to be “the living embodiment” of our nation. As I said above (and this is why I argued it) she represents God and is above political reproach.
I can’t help but sense that you seek a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights that could be brought into being without harming the Monarchy. A Monarchy that is supported by the “current majority in favour of the status quo”.
As for our website, how very observant.
Mind you, it hasn’t been updated for the best part of seven months.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Neil,
Just to clarify. You are suggesting that the monarch does not need to represent the populace in civil and politcal equality because she has been chosen by God?
You are aware the Reformation and the split from the Catholic church was closely linked to politics aims and was not intiated by a religious difference, but by Henry VIII’s desire to divorce his first wife. This seems to indicate that the religious authority that the monarch claims is a result of political turmoil.
I am finding it hard see what arguments you are advancing for the monarch to hold and retain their position. Obviously is cannot be based upon religious claims (even though we have a state church) because of the multitude of faiths and secular morals that people adopt. Surely your not suggesting that because the Anglican faith gives Mrs Windsor the powers above that every member of this nation must accept that.
Also as a side note, I believe Tim was merely pointing out that your view seems to suggest we adopt a theoractic model, and a Caliphate was just an example.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am
A Monarch does not need to represent the populace in civil and political equality because this is done by the political classes. Her Majesty is thus free to represent He who has Chosen Her. God. A God who, by the collective will or spirit of the people, has made Her Queen. A Queen ruling with the blessing of God – as publicly expressed by His people.
Are you seriously suggesting that divorce is not a theological concern? For yes, the argument I am advancing here is for the Monarch to hold and retain Her position by God’s Will. By so doing she represents the multitude of faiths without any political interference. She is also able to serve more secular morals. The Queen does the horses you know.
I did not suggest that we need to adopt a theocratic model – this is because we already have one. For it is you who does not believe in this more spiritual aspect of Monarchy. I contend the vast majority do.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:00 am
@ Tim Sharp
I have not been to the UK.
Thanks
October 14th, 2009 at 3:06 am
@ Neil
A God who, by the collective will or spirit of the people, has made Her Queen
This is a contradiction. God is the highest authority an appoints the monarch, so how can the people collectively make her the monarch. It seems that you are saying that at some point the people chose the monarchy rather than simply accepting its existence.
Furthermore, it has been accepted that a separation of church and state has been a movement over the 20th century and is a far better model. I would argue that divorce and other issues are only a religious factor for those who accept that moral theory. You must accept that the monarch cannot represent the multitude of faiths because only one sect of one faith accepts her a divinely chosen. This suggests you are attempting impose your religious view on others. I do not accept the spiritaul aspect of the monarchy because I am not an Anglican, as many people in the UK are not.
Whatever your personal views towards the basis of the monarchs authority, you have to acknowledge that the majority to not hold the same view as you. The number of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other religions, not to mention secularists, demonstrates that there is no coherency with your argument that the monarch represents us. Moreover the political classes, by their very nature, separate everyone in the UK into different unequal groups.
Republics seek to redess this travesty and grant everyone eqaul political and civil positions. You have presented no real foundation for Mrs Windsor to retain her position, except a personal view which cannot apply to everyone. (Also if you could provide the source for your figures that would be helpful) An elected head of state would have clearly defined reserve powers and be supported by a political process that was democratic.
I would suggest that the lack of education (both in schools and the emdia) of alternative social structures means that the vast majority acquiesce of people to the current system. As you correctly pointed out with have theocratic elements in the system which also must be removed.
I think the writers on this blog and Republic itself have made it clear that the monarch’s powers are unregulated and secretive, and that as the head of state the office should controlled and subject to scrutiney by the public. The best way to achieve this is through an elected head of state and a codified constitution.
So far no reason has been advanced as to why everyone in society must accept the view of a few Anglican monarchists, nor in what why the monarch represents the people. Neil your arguments above are illogical and circular. There is no reason why an elected head of state cannot represent the nation, indeeed I would argue that they would do a better job because their position is based upon them representing the people.
The monarchy represents an elite blueblood few and is immune to many social rules that affect everyone else. This is not based upon any social agreement but by historical landownership. As a question why do monarchists resist the idea of social equality so much? The UK becoming a republic would be a great advancment of social progess and remove the notion that your genetic hertiage should grant a position greater than you have earned.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
This is slightly off-topic and I apologise for that, but at long last I got a reply from Nick Clegg after writing to him on the subject of the monarchy being exempted from FOI. Here is the reply :
Dear Mr Wiggin,
Many thanks for your email to Nick Clegg MP. Nick has asked me to contact you on his behalf and I apologise for the delay in responding. I hope you will understand that, due to the sheer volume of correspondence that Nick has been receiving, it can take us some time to reply.
I can assure you that Liberal Democrats firmly believe that everyone should be subject to the same laws. As mentioned in a previous email to you, we also believe that Britain needs a constitution that would be able to include consideration of the role of the Head of State. In general terms, we also want to see a more liberal and far-reaching approach to freedom of information – not less.
Thank you once again for emailing us.
Best wishes,
Douglas Dowell
Office of Nick Clegg MP
October 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@ Sam and Neil
Just to refer to the comments inferring that the monarchy has been enforced by military means at the timeof the Norman Conquest and subsequently, I understood that the literal translation of the Early French motto: “Dieu et mon droit” is “God and My Right (HAND)” as opposed to “right” meaning “it’s mine and you’re not having it”!
I’d welcome correcting here if I am wrong but the literal translation throws a completely different complexion on the power ceded to the monarch at the outset.
It would also suggest interpretations of the further motto (of the Royal Garter???) “Honi soit qui mal y pense” ….. “Evil to those who think evil”. What was the constitutional basis behind this?
October 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Sam Walker: “God is the highest authority and appoints the Monarch, so how can the people collectively make Her the Monarch?”
God works in mysterious ways.
Have you read the 1953 Coronation Service? I suggest you do as it will answer all your questions. For I can’t see how the “multitude of faiths” would have any difficulty in accepting Her Majesty as Divinely Chosen. Don’t get me wrong. If some people in these minorities have difficulty with the concept of The Queen being Divinely Chosen then perhaps there is a problem – for them. Perhaps they are republicans like you. Why should the majority bend to this minority? Why should the secular minority impose all their political and civil views on the majority? Why should we ditch our belief in spiritual Monarchy because of the PC few? It’s time we celebrated our traditions and stopped apologising for them.
Sam Walker: “You have presented no real foundation for Mrs Windsor to retain Her position, except a personal view which cannot apply to everyone.”
What greater foundation do you need than The Will of God and the fact that the vast majority of the people (some 75%) support The Monarchy.
If you want “clearly defined reserve powers” that are supported by “a political process that is democratic”, or a Monarch who is not (in your words) “unregulated and secretive” and who is “controlled and subject to scrutiney by the public”, why not campaign for a British Bill of Rights? Remember, people do like Monarchy. It’s YOU who is on the wrong side of public opinion. For you are wrong, there is a reason why an elected head of state cannot represent the nation. It is summed up in one big word. Politician. The politicians who, over the years, have just stopped representing the people. Therefore, this is how Her Majesty represents the people. It can be summed up in three little words. Not a politician.
“As a question, why do monarchists resist the idea of social equality so much?” News to me. As I said, all the political classes represent social equality. Monarchists merely prefer The Will of God to take precedence. For by so doing the nation is able to properly fulfil and express itself. It fulfils itself by celebrating its Queen, Her Country and our Creator God.
Sam Walker: “The United Kingdom being a republic would be a great advancement of social progess and remove a notion that your genetic hertiage should grant a position greater than you have earned.”
Interesting. Just like in America. George Bush junior or senior, anyone?
October 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
@ Neil
Facist Windsors ? – the current Windsors very definitely had close relatives who were demonstrably pro-nazi. Phillip is on record as saying that at the time there was a lot of admiration for the facists in europe – and we have that famous picture of Louis Mountbatten in a kriegsmarine uniform surrounded by senior Nazis just before the second war (and after the Nuremburg laws had been passed) – and of course Harry’s silly mistake of wearing a Nazi armband at a party. But no I don’t expect that the WIndsors are facists – just not very good en masse at being heads of state. Indeed if chosen by god as you suggest then it must have been an off day.
But monarchism especially in its ardent form shares a lot with the technical description of facism – including the invocation of mysterious forces, demands for mass uncritical acceptance of a leader and a sense that the leader transcends interest groups and somehow represents the nation. In addition a point that was raised on the blogs earlier was how likely are we to have a black monarch, an openly gay one or anyone who has experienced the struggles that most of us face in meeting up to the economic realities of life.
Calipate is used in relation to islamic theocratic politics. As an abrahamic religion it enjoys the same god as the Christians and the Jews.
Which brings us nicely to the problem of bringing God into the state. All I have to do is claim (1) That I am a member of a faith group. and (2) Cite faith based reasons for why I believe my system is God’s chosen one.
For example ‘my god has said that monarchs are idols and therefore democratic government by the meek is god’s will’ It isn’t really an argument based on logic, good governance or economics but an opinion. I suppose adulterers (convicted on dodgy evidence) are offensive to most abrahamic religious systems – your logic would bring us to a point that we would bring back stoning of adulterers and all of the other illiberal uses of ‘gods will’ that make a mess of the world.
Neil I think we know where you are coming from but you use the usual monarchist approach of using generalisations and expecting us to swallow them – these blogs are really about proving your point of view with good argument. I have some very good arguments for monarchy (some of which involve religion) and I think Simon made an interesting point about how in a presidential system we might find that England ended up dominating the other constituent nations ( that deserves special discussion) – although as our current PM is Scottish and the current President of the Republic of Ireland is from Belfast, Sarkozy is of Hungarian descent and Obama is of mixed race with a Kenyan father – I am sure that we are getting to a point where we just want the best candidate for the job.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
@eclub
Hope you visit us one day !
October 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Tim Sharp: “I have some very good arguments for Monarchy.”
Go on, share them. You know you want to.
Mind you, I’m impressed by this. “I am sure we are getting to a point where we just want best candidates for the job.” You cite Brown and Sarkozy as best candidates. Best argument for Monarchy I’ve heard.
What you said about fascism was interesting. It is worth noting that The Duke of Edinburgh and Lord Mountbatten were never Chosen to be Sovereign. Nor do monarchists believe in gassing minority groups. However, celebrating national identity is very, very important. For one only becomes fully human when one has experienced fully the joy of national unity and the love for one’s Sovereign. We should therefore not allow fears of fascism to halt national rejoicing. Halt our identity.
As I have explained above, it matters little what you believe. You may believe in stoning adulters (or better still MPs). You may even consider The Queen a false idol. What matters is what the nation believes and what the majority in the nation believes. When up against the people, your “proving your point of view with good argument” is nowt but dust. That is why attempts to dismiss or laugh off what I have written here about God is futile. For the people do believe, as opinion polls suggest.
“If you want to be represented by a black person, an openly gay one, or anyone who has experienced struggles” – that is admirable. Yet, you can vote for them next year. Plenty of them in representative politics.
“For calipate is used in relation to Islamic theocratic politics. As an Abrahamic religion it enjoys the same God as the Christians.” You now therefore see how Muslims will not oppose the Divinely Chosen one.
All I have said here is that Faith and God are important. It is a view that is shared by the vast majority of the British people. A people who regard God as vital and logical if they are to receive good governance.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
With respect Neil, I think it is you who attempts to dismiss and laugh off valid republican argument with your religious gobbledygook. Church attendance is falling and a paltry 1.7 million or thereabouts attend church monthly. That’s less than 3% of the population to whom faith and God appear to be important. How that faith in God would lead them to believe the queen is appointed by God is lost on me. But then I’m a Yam Yam living in the real world.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
So very true
October 14th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Thanks Bob. You make a good point regarding the religious hocu-pocus we have been listening to.
I think that we cannot premise the position of head of state upon any religious belief system. Not only because of the disparate religions but also because it is a personal belief, which Neil you are under a duty to prove is valid. You are expecting us, and everyone else in the UK to accept your views at face value. While we are discussing and arguing with internally rational arguments.
I think you would have a hard time getting Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindis to accept that Mrs Windsor is the highest religious authority. This is what the Anglican faith is based upon, which is not only totally flawed (as it was a result of political pressures, see the reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I) but also unaccpetable to many. Your view can only apply to those who accept your moral system, not to anyone who does not. Religious domination by one sect of a faith has not been acceptable for a long time, and it has no place in the UK.
‘God works in mysterious ways’ demonstrates that you have no valid arguments and try to dupe us all with a baseless and unprovable phrase. If God works in mysterious ways then you cannot know what your God wants, and we can dismiss everything you have said. You are simply using a recognised social control system, namely state religion, to justify the position of an unqualifed and detached aristocrat. This only shows that you have no other theory as to why the monarchy should be retained.
I notice that you haven’t yet provided the source for your statistics. I also wonder how you can argue for a relio-political system that is based upon the elevation of one group at the expense of all others. I do not want to turn this into a theological discussion, however religion has no place within any system of government. No one sect of a faith can claim to wholly represent a populace, whereas a truely democratic system can.
I would also like to say the you cannot keep using the example of George Bush as an argument against an entire social structure. I think many of us would agree that there are examples of bad leaders throughout history, both in republican and monarchical systems. The point is not so much the individual but the philosphical and ethical underpinning of the system. I would not argue merely for a controlled monarch because the very existence of a monarch allows a system of privilege and power without any mandate or effort. The suggestion that people should listen to what any Windsor simply because they are a member of a particular family is patently absurd.
Your suggestion that a president could not represent our nation because they are a politican is also invalid. Not only because, as Republic has stated, the UK is known for many thing other than the monarchy and a revoluationary change of our poltical system would create its own recognition. But also because the USA, Germany, France, Greece, Turkey, Russia and many others show us every day that an elected president not only represents the nation but actively does so. A monarch on the other hand represents their own social class and perpuates outdated social divisions.
You assert than your God is vital for good governance, if this is so important, then logically, you should be arguing for a full theocracy. Also governments throughout the world demonstrate that a religious belief is not necssary for good governance, in fact what is shown is that religious governance causes a great deal of trouble. See the religious right in the USA, Israel and Palistine, Iran, the break up of India and Pakistan post-1946.
What republic argues for is a netural political system that allows equal citizens to participate in electing all those who govern the country. No one, especially not the head of state, should above the law or outside the system.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@ Simon
“For one only becomes fully human when one has experienced fully the joy of national unity and the love for one’s Sovereign.”
Simon get a grip, no one needs a sovereign to make their life fulfilling.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@ simon and neil
Seriously you two you could just as well be talking about crack cocaine – it doesn’t mean all those feelings are good for you.
My arguments for monarchy are already on the blog.
I am really impressed that you have the same confidence in the public as we do – I hope you’ll join us in supporting constitutional debates and pressure to have constitutional referenda on the future of the head of state,
I am sorry neil I am very supportive of people’s spiritual positions so long as they don’t impact on other’s rights. Your argument on religious grounds doesn’t really say why a monarch is better than a president.
I think that with thhe exception of islam and a brief burst of catholicism most of us are witnessing the increasing marginalization and irrelevance of established religion – So it is strange that you want to push the ‘god is key to people’ argument.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Sam Walker,
It is true that the UK is known for many things, however the monarchy is most certainly near the top of the list, if not the top. Remember that great president of the American Republic? One of the things he loves about Britain is our Queen! Ofcourse its not just the Queen and the royal family but everything associated with monarchy, its just a wonderful part of British culture. Liberals have gone out of their way to destroy everything else, they should leave our glorious monarchy alone.
It would certainly get alot of media attention around the world if we became a republic. I can picture some of the images now, as we evict and 83 year old lady from her home and throw her into the streets in front of the 10,000s of tourists. We would replace one of the most respected and well known head of state in the world, with what? Some pathetic unknown president that only half of the country will actually vote for. “What the hell were they thinking” is the sort of headline that comes to mind, even in countries that are Republics!
Wow those countries are just so wonderful, Britain is really held back because it cant be like them isnt it? On the USA, i have mentioned this extensively above, their system is dangerous. I dont want children in schools being forced by their teachers to sing songs for someones political gain. I find it rather amusing you mention Turkey and Russia, they are really republics that should be promoted lol. How many times in recent decades has Turkey been subject to a military coup? As for Russia, that has a wonderful presidential system. A former KGB agent becomes president, makes himself so popular and takes as much power as possible, including creating things along the lines of a Hitler youth movement, then when technical issues like a 2 term limit comes up, simply change the title on your desk to say prime Minister instead for four years, then run again for president because the people will demand it. My god i cant wait for that here!
This is still a majority christian country, although the church of England probably includes alot of people who dont actually believe in God, but no religion is perfect lol. Im not religious but i respect our christian heritage and the huge role christianity has played in our nation.
I do not get involved in religious issues, i think the Queen shouldnt be head of the COE, however she is still Queen of this United Kingdom and she unites the people of this country. Muslims, Jews, Asians, gays, blacks etc. What ever the background, she is our Queen and we owe her our allegiance. In about 10 months time perhaps Her Majesty’s Government will live up to its title and remember this is Britain, not the French Republic!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Sam Walker,
Do we need a republic to make our life fulfilling or complete?
October 15th, 2009 at 1:09 am
@ Simon
“we evict and 83 year old lady from her home and throw her into the streets in front of the 10,000s of tourists”
You seem to be forgtting her £800 million fortune, which I’m sure would mean that Mrs Windsor would never end up on the streets. Stop using unrealistic and absurd examples.
Regards Turkey and Russia, while they are certaintly not without their problems, they are certaintly more stable as a result of the adoption of a republic. Even with the changes in the term limits, it still must follow the constituional system and I would argue that most of what you refer to is a problem with the societies themselves rather than the system.
“pathetic unknown president”
You are talking insulting about a hypothetical person, which only goes to show how reactionary and irrational your arguments are. Mrs Windsor is not hypothetical, she an individual who has no real concept of working for a living, represents an elite few and presumes to lecture millions of other people to on behaviour. Not only that but the royal family abuse tax payers money, and all of this simply because Elizabeth had the genetic luck of being a Windsor.
While I acknowledge the problems you outline above, I must point out that we do not have a recent history of military coups, or erratic governments, there is no reason to assume that with the adoption of a Republican constitution the UK would descend into anarchy. We have had a movement throughout our history which has limited the role of the monarchy, then next rational and logical step is to remove the monarchy completely. Like an appendix.
I’m still not clear as to why you consider the monarchy ‘glorious’, what exactly have they done to earn such an accolade. Being rich, living like a parasite of the nation and being in existence for hundreds of years does not qualify. When a better system presents itself you do not stick to the old obsolete method.
A republic is integral for a fulfilling life. A monarchical system means that no matter your achievments or the merits of your life, you are expected to respect a particular family who have done nothing and achieved nothing in their life. How can you be so servile to a blueblood family who care nothing for, and do not represent the majority of the population.
I accept that the monarchy has been a part of our culture, but its time to relegate them to the museum and history textbooks.
I am glad to hear that you support the separation of church and state, religion and government.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Tim Sharp, i would say its a bit more like love for a family. Sometimes family relationships are not always perfect, but its worth the ups and the downs.
Pride in being British and having a love for our Queen is indeed a very big high, with very few downers. Surely getting a fix from listening to a fine bit of patriotic music is safer than doing drugs? Once the Queen dies, its going to be very painful, like losing a member of the family but as they say better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. Republicanism just seems so empty and dull, i dont see the big attraction to it. The whole thing just seems to be that republics are so great because they are not constitutional monarchies. Many people here are natural campaigners it would seem, if we became a republic you all wouldnt just say mission accomplished and live happily ever after. Most would look for something else to change or oppose instead. As ive mentioned before, its very clear many here want to take an axe to our union aswell, nothing at all is sacred.
Change, whilst certain change is needed, not all change is good. Our country has so radically changed over the past 60 years, it really is unrecognizable. The Empire is rightly gone, we are a far more tolerant and open society with huge diversity which we celebrate. But one thing has remained the same, offering stability and a sense of security knowing it will always be there. Something we can still take huge pride in and honour, not a boring statue or text book about our past acts, but a living breathing monarch, a symbol of this once great nation. Yet republic wants to throw all that away, even though it does no harm and is treasured by so many people. You would crush and destroy our culture, yet the same liberal POV pushers would stop us from questioning other peoples cultures in an attempt to be politically correct.
sigh, its no wonder in such circumstances you get idiots voting for extremists like the BNP. Anyway ive had enough depressing thoughts for one night.
Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
God save the Queen.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:45 am
God does work in mysterious ways. It is a fact. I’m here for a start.
Just to add to what Simon has said so well – I won’t be supporting your campaign for constitutional debates and referenda. Studies show you will lose them, especially on Monarchy. What a waste of public money.
Bob does not make a good point regarding the alleged “religious hocus pocus” we have been listening to. For I was not talking about Church attendance, I was talking about the vast majority of people in Britain who already hold “a personal belief” in a God or a Higher Power (90%). For them it is an “internally rational argument” as it has nothing to do with sects or cults – but has everything to do with a simple faith. “How faith in God would lead them to believe The Queen is appointed by God is lost on me.” Have you ever read your Bible? Do you understand The Coronation Service? Honestly. The great British people are, clearly and thankfully, way ahead of the British republican movement on this issue.
Anyway, who has said anything about The Queen being the highest Authority. I didn’t. That position is God’s – Her Majesty would agree.
Tim Sharp: “I am very supportive of people’s spiritual positions, so long as they don’t impact on other’s rights.” You can’t see it, can you Tim? This is exactly what you’re trying to do to the majority in Britain. James Gray has admitted only 20% of British people support a republic. Yet you want to force your views on the 75% who do not want it. Tragic.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Firstly, Neil you are a result of evolution through the process of natural selection. The is no evidence of God’s existence and all scientific discovery points to the probability of God not existing. “God works in mysterious ways” is the stock phrase used when all arguments and reasons have been shown to be false, unfounded or irrational. The logic that it is impossible to know what your God wants remains true and as such it cannot be used as a basis for an entire nation.
Also the results of referendum cannot be know in advance because all studies only question a small proportion of the population. So while predictions could be made, it is impossible to say with certainty who would win or would lose. I think that if given the opportunity to vote on the monarchy people may not be so accepting.
Secondly, I believe Bob was pointing out that if religious belief was so strong and important then church attendance would be higher. As attendance is low it can be inferred that many people do hold religious beliefs as integral to society but to themselves at a personal level.
I have read the bible, not all admittedly, but a large part. For a start the inclusion of the old testament in the Christian faith makes it clearly Jewish-Christian, and the old testament is a Jewish book. (The Talmud I believe). I don’t wish to offend anyone who holds these beliefs, but I feel it must be made clear that are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions on the Anglican faith. It therefore cannot and should not be part of how we, the people, run our country.
Finally, I was speaking of the monarch as the highest authority in the social sense, as in the highest office a person can hold. Furthermore Tim’s position is entirely consistent with the separation of church and state. Religion is a private matter and has no place in governance. Republic is not trying to force the UK to adopt a republican system, but to try and create and develop debate and understanding regarding our state structure.
Simon, it seems that you primarily hold the monarch in high regard for sentimental reasons. Is this a fair assessment? I would suggest that simply because the monarchy has been a form of stability does not entitle it to continuance without challenge.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@Neil
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that shows the ‘vast majority’ believe in this spiritual aspect of the monarchy? Or are you just making baseless assertions because you think having the majority on your side somehow makes you more right?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Yes Neil, rather than believing in a spiritual aspect to the monarchy the vast majority of people are probably just acquiescent. I could be described as working-class, the people I work with and meet every day are the same. Many of them have no deep affection for the monarchy but meekly accept the status quo because it has always been there. When pressed on the subject their anti-monarchy comments belie the oft stated overwhelming support that is attributed to the public. When we are allowed to have a national debate on the subject I think that the 75% support you monarchists cling on to will rapidly start to decrease.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
@ Neil, you said:-
“…. Nor do monarchists believe in gassing minority groups. …….. For one only becomes fully human when one has experienced fully the joy of national unity and the love for one’s Sovereign. We should therefore not allow fears of fascism to halt national rejoicing.”
I must ask you to comment on Edward VIII and his support of the Nazi regime to the point that he even spied for Hitler giving covert support for his invasion of France and the eventual evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940. Amongst other good deeds, he was very persuasive against Rooseveldt and tried to prevent the United States from entering the War. And yet despite his treachery, he still got a state funeral, complete with Royal Standard draped over the coffin, when he died in 1972!
So, whilst monarchists do not believe in gassing minority groups at least one monarch apparently did so.
With regards to the Church, as a member of said group, I would be delighted to see the Church of England disestablished. We can then get on with the important stuff like social and spritual issues instead of spending resources on fawning with and propping up the monarchy.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The results of opinion polls are now pretty accurate, especially in this day and age. For one only has to compare election results with opinion polls to see that is the case. They are very rarely “consistently” wrong.
I do not want to get into creation versus evolution, disestablishment or gassing debates because they are not the issue here. The issue is this. The majority of British people believe in God. British people who are not necessarily Anglican, Catholic or of any faith. They just have this simple and/or private faith which states this – “I believe in God”.
It is thus safe to assume they would like God and religion represented in their Constitution. That is why the majority of adults still demand Christian worship in State schools. They want God to hold the highest position in our national life and for their children to continue this belief. The Monarchy also allows this to happen and fulfils this deep rooted human need by placing a representative symbol of God at the heart of our national life in a humbling, moving and beautiful way – as a Family. Don’t get me wrong, I respect what non-believers believe even though I do not agree. I only demand non-believers allow us (the nation) to continue to believe what we believe, uninterrupted and undisturbed.
Why are republicans so keen to remove God from our national way of life? Why do they want to extinguish Christian heritage and traditions? Where is God in the republic? Don’t you realise you are going to make God angry by meddling in His affairs. He could become so angry that He might turn Britain into a basket case banana republic as punishment.
God created me and you. He also made the world. He made the moon and the stars too. He is the cause and mystery behind human life. He also sent His Son to us and He died for us on the Cross. This happened so all who believe can obtain His full Spiritual Blessing as our Rightful Heavenly Father – and thus be granted Eternal Life with Him forever. What our Father wants is in The Bible. The role of Monarchy is outlined at the Coronation. It’s presented to you in this life so that you have the opportunity to know God, to love Him and also to serve Him – to the best of your ability. This is how you become “fully human” rather than just making “life fulfilling” – you accept this inherited Wisdom.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
God will still be a part of national life when we are a republic. People of faith will not suddenly stop believing in God when Britain becomes a republic. The rest of your argument is I’m afraid nonsense and just more mumbo jumbo..
October 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
In that case, since the Conservatives are currently well ahead in the polls, we don’t need to bother with a general election do we?
No it’s not safe to assume that at all. I think you’re confusing secularism and atheism there, Neil.
Think you’ll also find that the bible is actually pretty anti-monarchy on the whole. You should have come to our seminar on the subject.
But this post is not about religion or the existence of gods – it’s about the monarch’s powers and the royal family’s place in our system of government. So please stay on topic.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
James Gray: “We don’t need to bother with a General Election do we?”
Yes we do. We just don’t need publicly funded expensive referendums that opinion polls indicate you will lose very heavily. Referendums that will be held every nine months or so until we give “the correct answer”.
James Gray: “So please stay on topic.”
Fair enough. However, it wasn’t me who went off topic by talking about God. That was Sam Walker. You should have stopped him on Tuesday. Or are you now finding my arguments a little bit too uncomfortable?
James Gray: “You’ll find that the bible is actually pretty anti-monarchy.”
I was talking about The Bible. I had assumed you have actually read it. Have you read the 1953 Coronation Service too? It’s explained there. Anyway, when it comes to God and whether He would actually have a role in the British Republic Constitution – I will let the people decide.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Sorry for raising the religious point of view so much, but it seemed that Neil was basing the validity of the monarchy upon his religious belief. I don’t feel that I was so off topic.
I felt that it was necessary to point out that a religious basis for a constitution is fundamentally flawed, and cannot reperesent the populace anymore than the aristocratic class represents working class. As you say Neil people may privatelt believe in God but that has no place in a political structure that seeks to create a more equal society with deeply entrenched human rights.
The reason a republic should be secular relates to the equal treatment of all relgious and non-religious beleifs. This cannot be achieved while one particular form of one religion is favoured over all others.
Furthermore you logic regarding poll, referendum and elections is worse than useless, its counter productive. As has already been stated poll can only allow for a prediction, and only from the perspective of a few. A referendum on the other hand would give the whole population an oppotunity to vote on what they believe. As the oppotunity has never arisen before it would absurd to assume the outcome is a given. It is for the same reason that general elections are held and poll are only used as indicators. It seems that monarchists fear a referendum and so make baseless claims that the majority support them.