Subscribe to RSS feed
Jack has sent us this list of bullet points on the virtues of the monarchical system, as he sees them. Here they are, with our thoughts on each:
Monarchs are an enduring symbol of continuity and statehood. Thus, they provide a sense of unity and while crystallizing a national identity.
With respect, this is a fairly meaningless statement. Anything can be a symbol of ‘continuity and statehood’ and anything can provide a ’sense’ of unity, principally unity itself.
A hereditary monarch is likely to be a more competent head-of-state than is an elected president, because the former has been prepared, from childhood, to serve as such.
I’ll quote from my recent blog post:
We are an advanced society, with technology our great grandfathers could barely have dreamt of when they were young. Who made this country what it is? I’ll tell you who: doctors, scientists, intellectuals, engineers, leaders, explorers, businessmen and women, Nobel laureates, artists and entrepreneurs.Did these people receive “training from birth” to achieve greatness? Were they told they were going to pursue their careers from the day they were born? They grew up in a challenging world, competing against their peers, against the normal pressures of life. And in their adulthood they strived for success and they got there. And yet monarchists insult the greatest people of our country by demanding that the position of head of state must be reserved for the Windsor family, because they have been “trained from birth”. Flying to the moon anyone can learn, being head of state? That’s a job only for Royals.
What monarchists never seem to consider though, is this: If you do believe that our head of state needs to be trained from birth, why does that mean it must be hereditary? We could allow parents to stand their newborns for election: tell us the genetic and familial history of your child and we can all choose which infant to train to be monarch. It’s nonsense of course – but that’s the nonsense of the monarchy. It makes otherwise intelligent people say some pretty silly things.
Owing to their fortune and status, monarchs have less of an incentive for corruption and accepting bribes.
Monarchies are as corrupt if not more so than elected politicians. It is accountability and transparency that protect against corruption, not wealth and riches. Saudi Arabia, for example, is a deeply corrupt monarchy. And of course if corruption is about the abuse of public office for personal gain then it could be argued that all monarchy is, by definition, corrupt. We can see our own royals continually defending their interests, lobbying to protect and enhance their own positions and status.
A monarchy is, in fact, less costly to maintain than a republic because it spares the state the expense of holding presidential elections, and because the royal family’s private fortune may be enough for its own support, as against the public expenditures, in a republic, for the accommodations, pensions and other maintenance of incumbent and former presidents.
The costs of monarchy far outweigh the costs of a presidency. An election, which could be run simultaneously with other elections and which would only happen every five to seven years, would cost a fraction of the upkeep of the royal security bill. The royal family doesn’t rely on its own personal wealth, they systematically do all they can to ensure they get as much paid for by the taxpayer as they possibly can.
Competition and criticism to which republican presidents typically are exposed, as elected officials and especially during the election campaigns themselves, damages the reputation and dignity of the head of state.
Competition and criticism is the lifeblood of society, it’s what drives us forward and makes us better people. There is no dignity in a woman who takes her role for granted, there is no dignity in a system that tells us we have no role in choosing our head of state. There is no dignity in a system that tells us to defer to those born to a certain family, that we are not equals, that we should bow and curtsy to others. When we can look the head of state in the eye and say “I am your equal” and the head of state replies “yes you are, but I am your servant”, then the position will have dignity.
Because republican presidents are typically members of a political party, while monarchs typically stand outside of politics, a president is less well able to serve as a neutral representative of a country and its people.
“Being neutral” is an action like any other, so it must be seen to be done, and it must be accountable. The Queen isn’t neutral, she’s secretive. There’s a difference. Being unaccountable and secretive we have no idea if she’s neutral or not, and if we believe she isn’t then there’s nothing we can do about it. The neutrality of a post is determined by the constitutional context, not by the personal history of the person in office. An elected head of state is quite capable of acting impartially, and would be duty bound to do so.
Likewise, presidents are obliged to act in accord with the policies and ideas of their political parties, while monarchs can reign more independently of political considerations.
Well no, not at all. A president is duty bound to act according to the constitution. If they are a US style president then they act according to the policies they personal believe are appropriate (and are held accountable for those policies). If they are a ceremonial president then they don’t get into policy making and do what is required of them by the constitution.
Intermarriage between royal families often establishes cooperation and peaceful relations between the nations involved.
Now you’re wandering off into fantasy land. It’s barely worth answering this point, but I will. The Kings of the UK, Germany and Russia were all related when we were plunged into the horror of the First World War. History is littered with conflicts between members of royal houses and dynasties.
In a republic the continual changes of head-of-state create political uncertainty, which contrasts with the symbolic continuity of having a monarch.
Not really. We will continually have a president, just as we have continually had a monarch. There is no guarantee of the length of reign of a monarch, and we can re-elect presidents if we so choose. My real question is though, what’s this concern about “continuity”? What difference does it make if head of state changes once every few years? Name one, actual real difference? It certainly doesn’t create political instability.
It can be argued that monarchy actually guarantees political stability. History is replete with examples where the abolition of monarchy has spawned civil wars and the rise of totalitarian systems, such as Jacobinism in France, Nazism in Germany, Communism in Russia and China, and Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran. In contrast, nations that chose to retain their monarchies, such as Thailand & the Arab Gulf states, have remained relatively immune to the constant volatility that has plagued their respective regions.
This is an extraordinary interpretation on history. These weren’t cases of the people “choosing” to abolish stable monarchies and then finding themselves in chaos. The monarchies became unstable, they collapsed, and in the wake of that collapse other authoritarian figures came into power (which then later collapsed). The reasons for the instability and collapse essentially stem from the authoritarian and dictatorial nature of the governments. Whether monarchical or not, dictatorships face enormous pressures and eventually break under the strain. Democracy is designed to manage those pressures, to act as a safety valve and to ensure that division is dealt with peacefully. When a government becomes worn out it is replaced peacefully, not through revolt.
On the general question of monarchies and stability, this is a common fallacy put forward by monarchists: “the most stable countries are monarchies therefore monarchy is more stable.” Monarchists see a correlation and draw a conclusion that best suits them. It is the fact that countries are stable that has allowed the monarchies to survive, not the fact that they have monarchies that has provided stability.
To cite Thailand and Saudi Arabia in this point is bizarre. You should read up a bit more on those two countries.
Historically, constitutional monarchies have made the smoothest transition to democratic rule (prime examples being the Nordic states). In fact, with the exception of post-war Italy and several former Commonwealth realms, no modern, democratic constitutional monarchy has voted to abolish itself. Instead constitutional monarchy has been overthrown against the will of the people.
This is a very odd statement indeed.
Constitutional monarchy hasn’t been overthrown “against the will of the people”. It has become a rare thing because of the instability discussed above.
With all this considered, it is not surprising that monarchy is the system of government preferred by God Himself. After all, His title is “King of the Universe” not “President of the Universe.”
Well I’m not expert on the bible, but I’m pretty sure it says there shall be only one King, and that man shouldn’t put himself on a pedestal and ask to be worshipped as a King (or something like that).
Tags: impartiality, monarchist, Monarchy myths
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
That was very interesting. There’s really nothing to add to that dialogue. Everything was in there.
I’m beginning to think monarchists know the right thing, and are just playing around, or trolling. Nobody can be that off! Besides, the above monarchist is quite clever, just not the brightest bulb.
LOL at Graham:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Lmao i can only imagine how annoying it must be for people who think they have the right answers to everything and yet the vast majority of the people in this country disagree with their life ambition. It must be so frustrating.
I have some simple questions that have always bothered me on thesee matters.
Do you trust the current mob sitting in the house of commons and house of lords to lay down the foundations for a future republic? We would be allowing the most incompetent bunch of MPs for some time to create a constitution which will have radical implications for this nation over the coming centuries. We only need look at the US constitution to see how over 200 years after it was written their constitution prevents serious action to get money out of politics because it may violate first amendment rights, or to crack down on the out of control gun crime because it may violate their second amendment rights.
It has been claimed that the political class support the monarchy because it means they face less checks and balances because the monarch just has to let the Prime minister do what he likes, how can we be sure the new system they create would not be the same?
Do we honestly think that we would create the greatest republic and democratic system in the world if we created one today? and something that always gets glossed over, just who would we have to replace Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, there just isnt anyone suitable.. sorry
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Simon
“…just who would we have to replace Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, there just isnt anyone suitable.. sorry.”
Once again, your prejudice against the citizens of this country rears its ugly head. Do you really believe that in a country of 60 million plus people, only members of one family have these special abilities? Members of a famously dysfunctional family at that.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
This doesn’t get glossed over at all. I answered the point in my previous blog post, and I’ll quote it here:
Your view is simply offensive to the British people. You keep claiming we should listen to what they want, but then you insult them by saying none of them could do the job as well as Charles.
On your other questions, they are irrelevant. We trust the British people if and when we get the chance to write a new constitution. It’s not and never will be down to the current lot of MPs to deliver a republican constitution. Even if it were that’s also irrelevant.
You suggest they are the “most incompetent bunch of MPs”, well most of them support the monarchy.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
2 problems with that statement:
1. Actually if you read back through 1 Samual chapter 8 you will see God is quite obviously not pleased that Israel called to have a king like other nations. It is a rejection of Him as ruler. (Ch8 verse 6-8) God warns them that what a king will do in terms of subjugating them. (Ch8 10-18).
Verse 17 and 18 says “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Claiming that monarchy is God’s chosen form of government for us is very wide of the mark.
2. It’s an issue of language. The Bible was written 2000 years ago and the word president was not in common usage. The Bible was written and passed on orally with the people reading it in mind, ergo using appropriate language. A word like president would have made no sense to people then.
In spite of his age, 2 words. Tony Benn
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“…just who would we have to replace Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, there just isnt anyone suitable.. sorry.” Simon
No, quite right. I can’t think of one single person who could possibly replace her. There really is no one else that is so bizarrely odd and so remote if not utterly disconnected from the majority of citizens of this country and the diverse culture she claims to preside over.
The double-decker bus sized gap in your argument of course is that no sane republican or serious democrat WANTS to replace her. The days of unqualified deferment are well and truly over. The Windsors exist by quirk of fate and the fact that the class-ridden, self-serving buttresses that support them, as yet, have not seriously started to fragment.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Just to respond to one point..
Can a sitting President of the United Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be seen as a unity figure in the same way Queen Elizabeth II is? All the mainstream political parties support the monarchy and Queen, it is perhaps one of the few things they actually all agree on. Do we honestly think that all 3 of these along with most of their supporters would be happy with and agree on a single President for our head of state?
Lets focus on the Republic of Ireland a second. http://electionsireland.org/results/president/index.cfm This is a good website which shows the presidential election results, i find it rather interesting considering Ireland is the main republic promoted here.
In 1997, there were 5 candidates for President, 3 independents 2 for the main parties. McAleese (FF) got 45% of the first preference vote, the second party (FG) got 30%, the rest went to independents so most people originally voted for someone else. In the second preference vote those who voted for independents were divided fairly equally, 40% went FF and 38% FG resutling in McAleese winning. Just for the record her party has been in power since the 1980s and won the general election a few months earlier in 1997 and they are still in power today. Talk about a one party state and its reflected by the number of FF presidents theres been!
Now do we all honestly think that party affiliation plays no part in deciding who people vote for President? Its clear the popular party at the time of the election is more likely to get their person in than the other party. So between 1997 and 2001 when Britain to its shame was in love with Bliar and new labour, one of labours topdogs would have got the job of President, President Mandelson perhaps?
This matter is proven if we look at the 1990 election. There were 3 candidates, 1 Independent Mary Robinson and one each for FF and FG. The FF candidate got the most votes in first preference, 44%. Mary got 38% and FG got just 17%. Because the FF candidate did not meet the quota, FG was eliminated and their second preference votes taken into account. 76% of FGs vote went to the independent resulting in Mary Robinson winning. If thats not a political vote for head of state i do not know what is.
What really concerns me about their system is it appears difficult to remove a sitting president. Considering the short history of the Republic of Ireland the number of “uncontested elections” where the political parties decide its not worth putting up candidates for the public vote so the sitting president wins by default happens on many occasions, its the norm. So the Irish people get Mary McAleese for 14 years despite only 45% originally voting for her once, lucky them!
The Irish presidential election in 1976 sounds very interesting if you can describe it as an election, ive only read the basics on wikipedia but its well worth a read. The sitting Irish president carrying out his duties to safeguard Ireland’s constitution sent a bill to the Supreme court to determine if the bill was legal. The Emergency powers Bill, aimed at dealing with the threat posed by the IRA following the IRA assassination of the British Ambasador in the Republic and other violence and granted more powers to the security forces. You would think that “emergency powers” would be one of the most vital things to check for constitutional legality so perhaps the President did the right thing.
However the Irish government was not very pleased with him delaying and challenging them, especially when a further murder of an Irish policeman by the IRA occured on the day of the bill being signed by the President. The next day the Irish Minister of Defence attacked the President saying he was a “thundering disgrace”, the minister offered his resignation but it was rejected by the Irish Prime Minister, This then led to the Irish President resigning. The opposition party then nominated their candidate for president but to avoid doing any more damage to themselves the governing parties put up no candidates so the nominated president was elected unopposed. Not a single vote for the people of Ireland in that case.
I just cant wait for this wonderful democratic republic to be imposed on us! Anyway to get back to the point, the British monarchy can unite the people alot more than a president can and the Queen is considered by many a great symbol of our country and its history. Some President elected by backroom party deals somehow are not as symbolic or uniting as far as im concerned. Yet the head of state in republics are meant to unite people and be seen as neutral. It appears it doesnt always turn out that way.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Dave,
Im sure theres wonderful people out there who could greatly improve our country. Of course, such people will aim to become prime minister where they actually decide policy, not become a “ceremonial” head of state. I am looking for a few names just to get an idea of the type of person you think could replace Queen Elizabeth II and be seen as a serious uniting figure that we can all be proud of.
Graham ,
I am asking a question, i do not think there is any person in this country who could carry out the role our Queen does and has done for such a long period of time. If you have some ideas id love to hear them. Prince Charles is not our King yet, we have not seen how he handles the role. I am taling about Queen Elizabeth II, she is the one you seek to overthrow at the moment. If Prince Charles becomes king and does a bad job then the monarchy will rightly fall.
Sorry but the British people will not decide the constitution, our elected MPs would and whilst i have faith in the British people i do not have such faith in our elected MPs who we would be asking to define our system of goverment and entire country for centuries to come.. its risky. Surely it would be better to improve the parliamentary system first before seeking to turn us into a republic?
Yes most do support the monarchy, just like the overwhelming majority of previous MPs did but there was certainly some better quality of MP in the past.
Anthony Russel,
LMAO President Benn? damn thats a scary thought, i wouldnt want that liberal as my president, i do not know if he has enough time for such a job anyway, he spends all his time undermining the British war effort. Youd have that man as Commander in Chief of our armed forces? The chances of a military coup would certain increase! lol
Tim Cooper,
This is the problem no one can come up with a serious candidate that people would be happy to see as President. Sure maybe when we have a King Charles we may all feel rather differently but thats a matter for then. The point is today there is just no one we would openly seek to replace Queen Elizabeth II with because she is such a great Queen. So why try to bring about a republic whilst she is still alive, we know it will never happen. The monarchy may die out after her death but the British people would never seek to remove Queen Elizabeth II from her rightful throne, it just cant happen.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@Simon
Simon, you sure speak with a forked tongue.
You constantly post on this website how Britain has deteriorated over the years, and that Liberals have ruined the country, you complain that there are threats from separatists; you complain about changes in the culture; you rail against the Parliament and how watered down the current crop is; you said that British Glory is behind it, talking about the imperialist empire; you complained about the Lisbon Treaty, and how you hoped it wasn’t signed by the last hold out countries, and so on and so forth…….. all that is supposed to be in the dormain of the head of state, the constitution monarch is supposed to protect you from all these ‘ills’, the monarch is supposed to dissolve parliament if she likes, or cancel the Lisbon Treaty which you opposed, and so many other things, including protecting and expanding the imperial empire, if the current monarch failed in all these things that you hold dear, including losing the empire, why do you say she has done such a GLORIOUS job?
I think you are confusing doing a good job with staying away from doing a job. I believe you consider a head of state to be one that doesn’t do what the constitution says s/he should do? I say that because, the ‘constitution’ enumerates the job of the head of state, and the current head of state is not even touching the job, she is not doing the job, she stays away from it, … so I ask you, if she doesn’t do her job, is that being a good monarch? And if Charles does what a monarch is proscribed to do, then he is being a bad monarch? That is warped thinking and process!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@Simon
You have just exercised your right in the sense that a REPUBLICAN would. You vote for who you want to be President, and laugh at who you don’t want. It’s that simple.
It is ridiculous asking a generic question “who should be head of state”, because the answer is unique to every single reader; the answer should come after people have campaigned and put forth their agenda, views, and so many factors. It’s not a beauty contest. HOW CAN YOU DECIDE WHOM TO MAKE PRESIDENT BEFORE THEY CAMPAIGNED FOR THE JOB AND LAY OUT THEIR VISION AND PLANS? You choose monarchs by luck and serendipity, not Presidents.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I’ve said it before – I,m sure Simon sees the Quen as a surrogate mother or perhaps grandmother. However, let’s hope even he would not go this far if he ever met the Queen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV-uSb8MveY
Then again, judging by his deranged rants…..
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Eclub
The head of state is not responsible for these things. Whilst this country has had huge problems and many of it has been down to government incompetence, no government has done something that would require the monarch to step in and take action. The lisbon treaty, war with Iraq none of these are so bad that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has labelled the Prime Minister a traitor and called for him to be tried for treason. If we came to such a situation like that when millions were on the street protesting, the leader of the opposition calling for the sitting PM to be tried for treason then you would have a case. But we have never had such instability. There is no reason to presume a President would have stopped such things from happening or why a written constitution would have stopped such things happening
Sorry but as you are an American where you have one president who acts as both the head of state and head of government i can understand how you would find these matters confusing. The Queen carries out her duties and the overwhelming majority of the British people think she has done a good job.
It is Parliament that is meant to hold the government of the day to account. Sadly in recent years we have seen a strenghtening of the executive and an undermining of parliament as we have moved more towards a presidential style of government. Of course every 5 years the British people have the power to replace the parliament and the government.
So lets see i strongly disagree that Benn should become president, i think some of his actions undermine Britain, the British war effort and there for cost lives. But i will have to accept him as my president, a president that is meant to represent my nation. I should just “laugh at who i dont want” even if they come to power. How wonderful. Tony Benn would anger a lot of people, especially from a certain political point of view.. hed also for sure anger the military who hes meant to be commander in chief of. But if the liberals are in power i might have to suffer that person being my head of state? I think id rather keep the monarchy that people from all political parties support.
EXACTLY! Every single person will likely have their own view on who should be president, what sort of qualities they want, if they want a left wing or right wing president etc. Yet Queen Elizabeth II as head of state is supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people. Why should we give up on what we want just to appease the tiny minority of republicans in this country who oppose the monarchy. Theres far more support for her than a potential candidate because all people have their own views.
Imatt
I see her as my Queen and i have huge respect for her as shes served her people and done her duty for almost 60 years now as Queen. That sort of dedication is impressive and she has won the hearts and minds of her people, had it not been for greatness this country would be a republic today which would be a great shame.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@Simon:
I said that because you type “lol” after mentioning Benn, in a way dismissing him as a potential President, I assumed “lol” stands for “laughing out loud”, I’m sorry if that acronym stands for something else. But, if it does stand for laughing, not just laughing, but laughing out loud, then it appears you are doing that now even under a monarchy, so what is so irritating about doing that in a republic?
On a more serious note, it appears your arguments boil down to a couple of points, with no gray area:
1. The queen has served as monarch for 60 years or so, and is a remarkable sacrifice to ignore, and that she is an untouchable as far as criticism is concerned, and that she is beloved by most of her subjects, therefore, the minority opinion should be discarded. I believe you also allude to being open minded to drastic changes, even including abolition after her tenure, especially should Charles be a bad King. I hope I was fair to you in this synopsis, at least i intended to be. Now let’s see. I agree with you that the queen has served for that many years, as it is a historical fact (notice how I deal with facts, I recognise them as neutral, I do not follow your habit of acting as if you are entitled to your own facts), however, I do NOT subscribe to the impression you leave, which is that she served for altruistic reasons; The queen might be charitable, generous, philanthropic; benevolent, unselfish in her personal capacity, but I do NOT think she accepted her position as queen based on those characteristics. I believe the position of monarch is an amiable one that comes with a lot of perks. It is a paid position. She is salaried. She doesn’t do it for free. It is absurd for a mere sycophant, a little subject such as yourself to feel sorry for a QUEEN’s plight. The queens one day is like your entire lifetime, nay, two lifetimes! That is in terms of good times and perks, not necessarily beneficence.
2.
You have no official backing for the above statement. Without the laws and strategic barriers put in place to avoid the removal of the monarchy in Britain, without the muzzle put on Parliament, the Monarchy would have been forcibly removed by now. Imagine, it is even against the law to call for the removal of the monarch from outside Britain. The laws in UK states that its illegal for even someone in another country to speak out against the British monarchy. HOW CAN YOU TAKE ANY OPINION POLLS SERIOUSLY WHEN THE PENALTY TO SPEAK YOUR MIND IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR LIFETIME DEPORTATION OR EXPULSION FROM THE COUNTRY? YOU SAY THAT ABOUT 20% SAY THEY WANT THE MONARCHY GONE. THAT IS ONLY THE BRAVE AND DISGUSTED CITIZENS WHO ARE SAYING ESSENTIALLY, “I KNOW IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO GIVE THIS OPINION, BUT I WANT THE MONARCHY GONE; GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME LIFE IMPRISONMENT!” You are not counting the ones who are afraid to say what they really think.That is just my opinion.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
@SIMON
In case you are posting all these nonsense due to ignorance, let me summarise the following information from the centre for citizenship:
Members of Parliament are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the queen, not to the people who elected them and not to a constitution. Those who have refused have been barred from taking their seats in the legislature. Bishops of the Church of England also swear their allegiance to the monarch, rather than to their god or their church. Police officers and soldiers likewise swear loyalty to the Queen, not to the government or their country.
The monarch has the power to:
Choose the Prime Minister.
Dismiss ministers and governments.
Dissolve Parliament.
Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament.
Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch.
Pardon convicted criminals.
Declare a state of emergency.
Issue proclamations.
Command the army and raise a personal militia.
The monarch is supposed to be impartial and to do as the government wishes.
The access to information about government business that is denied to the average citizen, and a continuity in office while the elected representatives of the people come and go, certainly provide the potential for a very unfair influence.
The monarch is able to read a wide range of confidential government documents that are not in the public domain until many years later. These include intelligence service reports that are not shown to other ministers of the government.
The right the monarch has to declare a state of emergency when there is civil disorder or she believes that the government is acting unconstitutionally is potentially a very powerful one. Through the un-elected privy council she could issue proclamations which would not be subject to parliamentary approval and which would be enforced by the police and magistrates.
At the start of every session of Parliament the government’s programme of legislative business is read to the assembled legislators in what is known as “The Queen’s Speech.” It is a bizarre spectacle, this queen in a crown and spectacles, uttering words written by another in a monotone voice that has the peculiar accent of her family. But the government is said to be her government and, therefore, it is her programme. If this seems of little consequence, think how it reinforces the notion still strong in Britain that government is rightly the expression of the will of the mighty, rather than of the will of the people.
The monarch’s power to appoint the Prime Minister is supposed to be exercised after consultation with leading political personages. So once again a vital decision is not made by the people, nor according to a procedure clearly set out in a written constitution or other law. Its true that more often than not a party has a definite majority in the House of Commons and that party has chosen its leader. It is most unlikely that the monarch would choose another person in such circumstances. But when the position has been less clear cut the monarch has exercised a quite undemocratic discretion in choosing which candidate should head the government.
The monarch dissolves Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister. Constitutional experts say that it would be difficult for the monarch to refuse such a request because to do so would be to become a partisan figure. However, in the absence of a written constitution there is nothing but convention to prevent it. And the same is true of all powers that the monarch holds. We have no guarantee as to how they will be used. What we are sure of is that they deny the people the primacy of regard and power that they should have in a democracy.
As head of state the monarch is the chief representative of Britain at home and abroad. The present queen is however the least representative figure one could imagine. Her experience of life is quite unique and unhealthily limited in scope. Her family can never give expression to the social and ethnic variety of the country and nor could any single family. To the rest of the world she portrays a nation that is trapped in a feudal time warp.
Five members of the family have had until 1999 a right to a seat in the second chamber of the legislature, the House of Lords. They were the Prince of Wales and the Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent. The reform of the House of Lords ended that right. However, the government offered to make these five men life peers in order that they might continue to be legislators-for-life. They refused the offer.
THEY REFUSED!! THEY WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH REFORM. FOR THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY IS TRAPPED IN THEIR POSITIONS, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF THE DOOR IS OPENED AND THEY ARE ORDERED TO BE FREE, THEY WILL REFUSE TO GO.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
SIMON – “Sorry but as you are an American where you have one president who acts as both the head of state and head of government i can understand how you would find these matters confusing.”
Just how sanctimoniously superior can you get Simon?
“i do not think there is any person in this country who could carry out the role our Queen does ”
Perhaps you could enlighten us poor uninformed souls, exactly what does she do Simon?
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
And while your on Simon, what is it an 83 year old lady can do that not a single one of the rest of us 61 million people can do?
You make me so angry!
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“You make me so angry”
Bob, save your energy for things of relevance that should be getting you angry rather than a sychophantic caricature called Simon. His deranged ‘arguments’ are not worth it. Let him worship his surrogate mama the is the Queen! He is Alf Garnett without the humour!
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I think a lot of emphasis is put on personalities from the Monarchs rather than the system by Monarchs whereas it is the other way round for us, hence the confusion.
If Monarchs wish for a Republician to add a personality into the mix then I would like to see someone like Paddy Ashdown become President.
He understands the UK & the World better than anyone in Politics and has served his Country well in the Military as well. Unlike the current Heir to the throne pseudo military career.
This is my view and may not necessarily represent the views of other Republicians.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@ IMATT – “Bob, save your energy for things of relevance that should be getting you angry rather than a sychophantic caricature called Simon. His deranged ‘arguments’ are not worth it. Let him worship his surrogate mama the is the Queen! He is Alf Garnett without the humour!”
Thanks Imatt . Yes I really must try to channel my anger more productively and in future concentrate on criticizing the establishment, with its predilection for doing absolutely bugger all in the way of meaningful democratic reform, (pardon my French), and no matter what political hue the establishment is, they all seem to follow suit.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
That was very interesting. Does anyone know about Paddy Ashdown and his beliefs.? Is he at all a republican ?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I have to admit, if for the sake of argument our president was to be a retired politician (not that I believe they should be), then someone like Ashdown would be ideal, despite him having been a party leader.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“Does anyone know about Paddy Ashdown and his beliefs.?”
It seems a distinct possiblity.
It would be interesting to find out where Graham heard this.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-would-you-ask-paddy-ashdown-12430.html
November 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
“If Prince Charles becomes king and does a bad job then the monarchy will rightly fall.” Simon
If you believe this to be true then your argument is based solely upon reverencing the Little Old Lady who, acording to you has “done her duty for almost 60 years now as Queen” – not the institution of monarchy for itself.
So, what has her ‘duty’ consisted of? Making, for the most part, unsmiling public appearances on the one hand and being thoroughly involved secretly and undemocratically in politics, along with the rest of them, on the other. If you believe otherwise you are living on a cloud of ignorance. ‘Appearing’ for vast remuneration, in order to titillate lovers of the spectacular is NOT a valuable ‘duty’. It is not even a ‘job’. Any presidential involvement will be salaried, sanctioned, minuted, measured and transparent – and consequently will form an integral part of a democratic process. There will be no need for obsequous deferment, distinct but empty reverence and industrial-strength sucking-up, because in a carefully designed republic the chosen occupier of the position will be peer reviewed.
There is far too much ‘established’ muddy water surrounding the current system. Just what it is concealing is likely to be made quite apparent with the timely passing of these people. Impressed spectators, like you, might be profoundly surprised at the levels of concealment. Your ridiculous denigration of the spirit and potential of the people of this country has not gone unnoticed here.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@Tim Cooper:
Excellent points and contrasts!
I must say, by the time SIMON finally leaves this place, he would have been thoroughly educated. I just hope he’s got a great memory, or is taking notes. No monarchist has been taught so much, by so many, for so little.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I have sent many emails to this site with detailed analysis of why the Monarchy is great for Britain – they have never been published – it is quite amusing that “For the Monarchy” emails like this one gets published which are not nearly as observed and enriched as my email. If we are talking about corruption then surely them [republic.org] are corrupt within their own right.
Firstly, how can anyone suggest that our Monarchy are more corrupt than our faithful and loyal politicians. Have you heard of the expenses scandal? They are the true people making our country drown in our own corruption!
Secondly, our Queen does a lot of work – i get the impression by reading some of these comments that people think she lounges around on her throne all day waving occasionally from the palace!? If anyone truly believes this, they are nothing but an uneducated imbecile. The Queen attends hundreds of annual events, governs the Church of England and REPRESENTS our country. EXACTLY, what an elected President would do. Also, please note that an “elected President” would be of which ever “Candidate” pays the most money on advertising – therefore, who ever has the most money which corresponds to WEALTH! How is that democratic may i ask you?
Every US President, when they leave office lives a VERY comfortable life at the tax-payers expense. FACT! Every MP, even though they do LESS work than the Monarch, gets paid significantly high amounts – PLUS expenses. I really do think people should look into Parliament, study UK politics and come back to this website. It is SHOCKING to think how uneducated and thick (with all due respect) some people clearly are.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
In all fairness ‘Republic’ reserves the right not to post any comment they do not wish to. They are clearly not publishing emails that genuinely open a debate of why the Monarchy is a good thing – instead publishing silly emails that are easy enough to prove that a Republic Britain is a good thing. This to me, is VERY narrow minded of Republic and quite frankly ‘undemocratic’ within its own right.
Some of these comments, mostly republican, are ill-hearted, rude and stupid comments that clearly show the minds of Republicans.
At the end of the day – there are MILLIONS of people who want to come to this country and embrace, EMBRACE, our way of life, start a family here, get a job here etc. They WILL accept and respect that we are a Constitutional Monarchy – so please just leave HM’s country and let some of these people in. You are clogging up our society and our country with your Republican views.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE BRITAIN – GO TO IRELAND, FRANCE, GERMANY WHO CAN DO NO WRONG, OR EVEN RUSSIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, SPAIN. Aka – REPUBLIC COUNTRIES!
We are in the EU you no…
November 25th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@Jack
I’ve just checked and it appears you sent us an email less than a week ago. We couldn’t possibly put up every email we receive immediately – give us a chance! I’ll put it up here soon, don’t worry. I have to say though that it doesn’t appear particularly “observed and enriched”.
Oh, and by the way, Spain’s a monarchy.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
@ Jack
Welcome to the debate…..
“how can anyone suggest that our Monarchy are more corrupt than our faithful and loyal politicians.
The simple answer here is that nobody knows either way. What we do know is that there are “shady deals” being done in terms of income tax, inheritence taxes and maybe other little privileges that come and go with the tides. If we had more openness with regards to the role, cost and function of the monarchy we’d all be better informed to debate the cost of government – just like those MPs who resisted FoI and now we know why!
“our Queen does a lot of work”
The Queen works for about 30 weeks a year, for the time that Parliament is open. She’s only just got back to work after the summer recess. I work full time like millions of others for 47 or 48 weeks a year, including weekends. There’s nothing superhuman or deserving special attention in that.
“please note that an “elected President” would be of which ever “Candidate” pays the most money on advertising”
No. an “elected president” would be the one who wins the most votes.
“therefore, who ever has the most money which corresponds to WEALTH! How is that democratic may i ask you?”
Q.E.D. You’ve just described our monarchy. How indeed is that democratic?
“Every MP, even though they do LESS work than the Monarch, gets paid significantly high amounts – PLUS expenses.”
Regardless of what MPs have been doing with their expenses, most of them work very hard indeed for a basic wage that is, for instance, less that what many secondary school headmasters get.
To compare that with the Queen is unfair because, as mentioned in response to your first point, me, you and practically everyone else has no way of knowing who’s paid what and who claims what when it comes to the monarchy.
“It is SHOCKING to think how uneducated and thick (with all due respect) some people clearly are.”
Indeed.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@ JACK – Hello Jack. I’m one of your uneducated imbecile republicans. I personally have never suggested that the queen lounges around her palace all day waving to the plebs, but I do have a serious concern, not about what she does do but, rather, about the things she does not do. She may, as you claim, attend hundreds of annual events, she does certainly head the Church of England, she may also represent the country in some strange ruritanianesque way. But I am more concerned with what she doesn’t do, and she doesn’t do a single thing, as far as I can tell, to protect us, the people of this sceptred isle, from the vageries of our politicians. Having no democratic legitimacy, she will never be able to fulfill the role of Head of State properly and so that, in a nutshell, despite my imbecilic and uneducated state, is why I support this campaign, will always support this campaign and why I am a republican till I die. If you are happy with the monarchy then it follows that you will have to come to terms with living in an elective dictatorship and having all powerful politicians who can misrule us to their hearts content. I would prefer to have a Head of State who would protect a written constitution in which the peoples’ rights would be enshrined. Just another reason why I am one of your uneducated imbeciles. Finally, sorry to disappoint you Jack, but I have no plans to emigrate and I’m going to remain here and campaign for a republic, along with a growing band of other republicans.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
@ JACK – you’re probably going to come back with that new “old chestnut” that’s developing, politics can be reformed without involving the monarchy. Wrong! The monarchy is central to our joke of a system of government, any reform not including it is just tinkering.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I do apologise – Spain is a Constitutional Monarchy, believe it or not i did actually know that and i am quite embarrassed as to how i forgot, anyway.
Also, whether we like it or not, whether you like it or not – The Monarchy brings in tourism! It drives me absolutely insane when people then go on and talk about the USA and France and how they do not have a Monarchy, yet they get more tourists. BUT, let’s face it – France is on the Euro – and even though the pound is very weak at the moment, it has always been very strong and yet we get more tourists than most countries. France also has Paris the most romantic city in the world and the weather there is a lot better. What does Britain actually have to offer tourists? It it certainly not our fine beaches, great weather and exciting tourist attractions. So how does Britain continue to bring in so many tourists? THE MONARCHY!
It is also fact that MP’s go back to their constituencies and just do nothing! They claim they are gaining research, talking to people etc. But they are NOT! Please believe that.
The Monarchy actually costs the British Tax Payer less than a pound a year which covers the up keep of the palace something that would still be costly if we got rid of our Monarchy unless we demolished them and put up some flats. The EU President is on a £340,000 a year salary! For doing what exactly? Not as much as the Queen that is for sure.
Although the Queen was unelected – she WAS prepared for her duties, and whether you accept it or not, she does have duties! She was prepared for her role as Queen – FACT! Not much different to the fact that many employees up and down this proud nation do give promotions, top jobs and leave their businesses to their offspring.
I also noticed you put that Britain is well-known for many other things other than the Queen – including FISH AND CHIPS! Do we really want to be known as the nation of Fish and Chips? Lol. That is ridiculous.
The Queen is ‘Ms United Kingdom’ just like President Obama is Mr. USA. But for how long? Obama will not be President in 2016 – FACT! So he is Mr. USA for only 8 years max! Obviously, this is personal preference – but is not better to have a Head of State for a long period of time, someone away from Parliament?
PS- Apart from mistaking Spain as Republic – how was that comment uneducated? I fail to see the ‘indeed’ necessary for the rest of the comment.
Lastly, i did send an email about a week ago which you have told me you can not respond to so quickly – but i also sent one about two months back which was a lot more “observed and enriched” than the one i rushed into sending about a week ago. So why was my first one not replied to?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
And another thing – if you claim you want to be ran democratic, yet 70% of this nation are FOR the Monarchy! Then why are not leaving well alone? More people want to the Monarchy than there are people who do not want the Monarchy.
Or is it that you want everything to be ran democratically ONCE you get your own way?
Patriotism is also very high in this country – and patriotism is usually followed by people loving The Queen and everything in this nation. So, if we got rid of our LOVED (loved being used because a lot more people are for the monarchy than against it) Monarchy what would patriots sing? Would patriotism still be high in this country?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Jack:
And another thing – if you claim you want to be ran democratic, yet 70% of this nation are FOR the Monarchy! Then why are not leaving well alone? More people want to the Monarchy than there are people who do not want the Monarchy.
There is nothing remotely undemocratic about seeking to generate healthy debate on our constitutional future, and campaigning for complete transparency regarding the monarchy so that if and when a referendum is held on the subject, the people can make a fully-informed choice.
PS – I think the phrase you were looking for is ‘run democratically’ not ‘ran democratic.’
November 25th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Jack
“The EU President is on a £340,000 a year salary!”
LESS than a penny a year, BARGAIN!!!
“and whether you accept it or not, she does have duties! (Mrs W)”
That depends on which Monarchist you ask. some will argue that She does a great job, some say she doesn’t have a job apart from act as a unifying figure. As You’ve probably gathered, if the latter was true, this website wouldn’t exist and it’s difficult to say she does such a great job because others aren’t even sure the job exists.
“What does Britain actually have to offer tourists? It it certainly not our fine beaches, great weather and exciting tourist attractions. So how does Britain continue to bring in so many tourists? THE MONARCHY!”
Try Food, Drink, Culture, Scenery, Night life, Country walks, Castles, Country Houses, Fishing, Football, Rugby, Cricket, Shakespeare, Byron, Darwin. Did I mention the people?
If you think otherwise, maybe you should ask the following website if they could make an amendment.
http://www.enjoyengland.com/
November 25th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Jack
In what way does it matter whether or not the Queen “works hard”? No-one has ever suggested we get rid of the monarchy because the Queen is lazy, in fact no-one has suggested we get rid of it because of anything the Queen does or doesn’t personally do. If how hard a person works is what does it for you why not just pick the most hard working person in the country and appoint them head of state.
As for tourism: please come back with some evidence. But before you do explain to us why our constitution should be based upon what people from other countries find entertaining. Who should determine the nature of our constitution, the British people who are governed by it or foreigners on holiday? You tell me.
No it’s not. Patriotism is loving your country and striving to do what you believe is best for your country. We believe Britain is a fantastic place full of great people, people who deserve the best of everything, which means the best democracy possible. Republicanism is based on respect for the people, and appreciation of our ability to govern ourselves without clinging to outdated paternalistic institutions such as the monarchy.
Err, what? Let’s say for a moment that we believe the daft idea that the monarchy only costs us 66p per person per year. This is reached by dividing £40m by 60m people. Divide the cost of the EU president (although I’m not sure why we’re discussing him) by the population of the EU and he costs about 0.006p per person per year.
Aside from that, the monarchy costs between £130m and £200m a year.
Going with our current estimate of £183m that’s the equivalent of:
* 10,726 new nurses; or
* 9,241 new police officers; or
* 9,089 new teachers; or
* 3,660 new GPs; or
* 563 new hospital beds; or
* 18 new schools
November 25th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I’m enjoying the debate.
I must say to Jack, you are way over your head so far; the Republicans are cleaning your clock. Try to dig deeper, or make a phone call to Peter*, maybe he’d throw you a life line.
*(I meant St. Peter, cos I think Hitchens is likely cowering under the bed in order to avoid debating here).
November 25th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
@ Jack
Your contribution is uneducated from the point that it trots out the same old emotional propaganda about the monarchy. All of these myths have been dealt with on this website and elsewhere.
For instance, the old tourism chestnut….I will wager that far more people go to Disneyland Paris expecting to see Mickey Mouse than travel to the UK expecting to see the queen. The queen doesn’t do tourists – otherwise she’d be wheeled out onto the balcony of Buck House four times a day (including bank holidays) to wave to the holidaymakers massed below.
So, why don’t you take some time and care to research your argument more thoroughly and then come back and blow us all away with a decent pro-monarchy presentation?
November 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Look it up and research – The Monarchy brings in tourists! FACT! And i never suggested for a minute that the £340,000 a year is more than what the Queen earns. But, the Queen does more work than the EU President – that was my point. Again, look it up! People do not sing ‘God Save the Queen’ at protests etc because they are Republican – or they would sing ‘Land of hope and glory’ which is more English anyway.
When the referendum comes it WILL be rejected – we will NEVER axe our LOVED monarchy in Britain in our life time – and that is not fact, but it is certainly very unlikely for us to do so. Less than £1 a year for the monarchy is not bad at all! Considering we pay £40m a DAY to stay in the EU!
Of course people do not travel to the UK to SEE the Queen – why would a child want to meet the Queen in the first place? It is more of an adults’ thing. They come to see the Palace, just to see if the Queen is in – they go to Houses of Commons and look at the Queen’s throne. They don’t come to see a fully grown adult in a costume, that is for certain.
I do not even like the Royals – they are German, Prince Philip is a Nazi, we fought Nazis in WWII and the Germans in WWI. BUT, i no that the Monarchy is a great thing for our country and for the world.
Britain is most known for the Queen. We are of course known for other things like Football, Tea, Fish and Chips as well as our empire etc. BUT, we are most known for having a Monarchy. When Americans say ‘The Queen’ they are talking about OUR Queen! When we say ‘The President’ we are talking about the US President – everybody knows this – America is our closest ally. In terms of Politics – in which the Queen rarely is involved in and in terms of the people and our cultures. If we axed the Monarchy that would be ruined!
Also, the Queen meets with the PM weekly, usually on a Thursday to discuss political issues. She gives great advice, advice which has been widely used before and will continue to be used.
The pictures of Republicans on your website where they give reason against the Monarchy look like Working-class morons who are envious of the Royals – which is just sad and pathetic.
I have respect for upper-class Republicans – who have worked hard for their wealth and may think it is unfair that they are born into wealth and “political power” even though they go on to have children who will take over their businesses just because of “accident of birth” as one working-class person stated on your website. Of which, quite a few certainly live up to the bad-teeth English stereotype that is for sure.
Republicans are generally just jealous idiotic fools who have no life and despise the Monarchy simply because they are not Royalty – that truly is a new low!
November 26th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Jack, please refer to our moderation policy. You’re treading a very fine line. You’re welcome to come here and debate the issues, but petty abuse is not acceptable.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:19 am
“no one should be born into political power” What political power does she have? She gives advice to the PM which he can use or reject without a moments notice!
If you wish to discuss being born into political power – lets discuss the land of the free, shall we? George W H Bush and George W Bush. Ring any bells? The only difference is: George W Bush HAD ACTUAL power! And if you are one of the many who believe he contributed, was behind or knew about 9/11 then you could argue that a Republic Society is utter nonsense – because by being “accidentally born” you can create two major wars and kill 3,000 of your own people!
In 2004 thanks to “daddy’s wealth” George W Bush – DESPITE losing the 2000 popular vote he was able to get more votes AND more electoral votes by spending $41MILLION on advertising. Where did that money come from? Daddy’s credit card! Or was it the US tax-payer? You be the judge of that one.
Next, thanks to our huge empire which not only lead to our sports reach globally, our language be spoken by 1.5billion people world wide as a first, second or third language but also made our glorious flag be the most recognised in the world! A British republic would mean our flag changes! It will instead be three horizontal lines in red, white and GREEN! Now come on, that will be ridiculous! Also our anthem, God Save the King/Queen is the most recognised in the world.
The Monarchy is a great thing for this country – as Tony Blair once stated “A British Republic is a ridiculous idea”.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Sorry, i will apologise for the ‘teeth’ comment – it was petty and unprofessional. Sorry if those comments did offend anyone.
That was a sincere apology.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Jack, Jack, Jack, welcome aboard, matey!!!
I officially declare you to be our new recruiting tool. If you would very kindly shout this crap a bit louder, we’ll end up doing very nicely.
And here’s me thinking Christmas was NEXT month!
Joy to the world, etc.
______
Have a read around this website, have a read on the blog, find some evidence for your ridiculous claims and then come back to us. Maybe then we could have a sensible debate. By all means, stick around in your current guise but you will only end up joining Simon as the resident monarchist who is incapable of putting forward a legitimate argument.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:23 am
lol, sadly republicans think the people are wrong to support the monarchy and our Queen. Even if we had a referendum and the British people overwhelmingly rejected the idea of becoming a republic their campaign would not stop.
The British monarchy is certainly something that people think of when they think of Great Britain. To quote the first black American president of the United States of America, President Obama: “There’s one last thing that I should mention that I love about Great Britain, and that is the Queen,” Is that not shocking for a president of a Republic to say? They fought a war of independence against British rule and yet its leader like many of his people see the Queen and monarchy as something great about our country. To think we would replace Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II with A Preisdent Tony Benn as someone suggested earlier is unthinkable.
The world would look on in shock if this country became a republic and decided to remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from her rightful throne.
Oh just to let you know Jack the Queens throne is in the House of Lords though not the House of Commons.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Jack,
When people attack a culture, tradition, and a head of state it sometimes offends people deeply that they say things they do regret and loose their cool. Its understandable, the republicans challenge the very thing our democracy and society was built on.
Today i had to stomach listening to people say that police using riot gear to protect themselves from violent protestor and use force to maintain order is “not the British way”. Well sorry but this republican dream is “not the British way” either. We can not always have the things we want but majority rules. The clear and undisputed majority in this country support the continuation of the monarchy and without a doubt support the Queen.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Sorry – i meant to the Palace of Westminster. Again, i knew that and feel embarrassed. I also know that the Queen is actually banned from the House of Commons because of Charles I.
It made me so proud when Obama said that about the Queen – he even gave her an ipod which was really sweet.
This goes to show – that in theory – We Brits have a President. The US President. And the US have a Queen – The British Queen. We are the closest allies in the world! We have a major connection. The fact that we have different Parliament systems is a GOOD thing!
And they do actually spread terrible lies on their website. It is shocking that this website is legal!
These Republicans keep talking about “me using same old chestnuts” or something like that – yet they bring out the same old arguments about Republicanism!
November 26th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Its true Americans do automatically think of the British Queen when they think of a Queen. When they think of an Emperor they dont think of the Japanese Emperor. There is a connection with the royal family and ofcourse they loved Diana. Prince William and Harry are very popular over there. I remember watching the Queens state visit to the US the other year, she got a very big welcome. The only other person that gets the same sort of greeting is the Pope, the bossman of a billion catholics and Gods representitive here on earth. Not bad for a Queen of our little island as far as im concerned
As for the legallity of their website. In more serious times ofcourse it could fall foul of the treason laws which is indeed still a crime on the books, but we have a most gracious Queen and live in a democracy so its tolerated these days.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I think Jack lacks basic intelligence. I am surprised that Simon, actually, er, um ,has anything to do with him. Simon, you are lowering yourself into the fertilizer again !
November 26th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Just to remind everyone of what the President of the most powerful Republic on this planet said..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjt6Co-6HLU
He was very kind, was he forced to say such things or perhaps even lying? If he was being honest and does think the Queen is great then its a reason not to get rid of the Queen. If he was lying simply to impress the media then do we want to replace our great Queen with a President that lies? Either way its a good reason to not replace Queen Elizabeth II with Tony Benn as someone suggested we should.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:50 am
President Obama was being a polite gentleman. He is a very kind man. Obviously he is not going to say anything detrimental about the queen. He is being friendly and diplomatic, as anyone would expect an international statesman to be. Why should he lie ? He is preparing the ground for a future meeting with the queen. Surely there is nothing wrong with that ?. I do not think that any of this “praise” incident invalidates the republican movement in our country at all. Incidentally ,I believe that Tony Benn would make a very good president, of our country. He has been consistent in the past ,and has ,for example given up an aristocratic title as a matter of principal. It is a pity that there are not more like him.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:52 am
@Simon
PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION FOR ME:
You said:
GIVEN THE ABOVE, WHY SHOULD PUBLIC OPINION POLL STILL BE ACCEPTABLE AND HONOURABLE GIVEN THE ILLEGALITY OF VOICING A NEGATIVE OPINION THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOVE? WHY IS THE 75% FAVOURABILITY FOR A MONARCHY BETTER THAN SADDAM HUSSEIN’S 100%, OR KIM JUNG IL’S, IF ONE IS NOT FREE TO GIVE HONEST OPINION?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:10 am
barry,
Saying one of the things you love about Great Britain is the Queen hardly comes across as just being polite, its taking it a step further and he went on to praise her qualities, he was not asked about the Queen he raised it.
But my point was either he was lying through his teeth to be “polite” and impress the media which is still a big lie or he meant what he said. Either way its a case for keeping the Queen as far as im concerned.
Lol another supporter of President Benn huh? How wonderful. How on earth can we put that man incharge of this country’s armed forces. I remember watching his interview with Saddam shortly before the liberation of Iraq and his continued interference at home undermining the war effort.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:21 am
eclub,
People are free to not support the monarchy, people are free to want a republic and ofcourse the people opposing the monarchy here will not get into trouble with the law. However we do have treason laws which remain on the books and in a time of crisis when the very survival of our state is at risk those seeking to undermine the state and its institutions will need to be more careful about their comments and actions.
Obviously today such a situation is unlikely but the world can so quickly change as we have seen in the past. In times of trouble things may be seen as sedition or treason.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Simon, with all due respect, YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
How can you trust a poll given the conditions that you described? You are always singing “public opinion” “public opinion”….so answer my question referencing the public opinion and the cloud of sedition, treason and whatever else you said…. waiting..
November 26th, 2009 at 2:31 am
eclub,
Nobody today is forced to support the monarchy. The very few who have taken an oath to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are not punished if they break that oath. Some MPs who violate their oaths are listed on this website. They do not get into trouble and nor do the public for not supporting the monarchy.
My point was in serious times of trouble (however unlikely it may seem now) there are of course limits to freedom of speech and certain actions which aim to undermine the British state. Which is when treason laws may have to be used again or laws against sedition reintroduced.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:38 am
@Simon,
Again, Simon, with all due respect, YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. This is the last time I will insist, you either answer it or keep dodging it:
How can you trust a poll given the conditions that you described? You are always singing “public opinion” “public opinion”….so answer my question referencing the public opinion and the cloud of sedition, treason and whatever else you said…. How can we trust a public opinion when the respondents are under duress? waiting..
November 26th, 2009 at 2:47 am
eclub,
I am unsure of how much clearer i can be on this matter. Today people are not under any obligation, legal requirement or threat of punishment to support the monarchy. Even those very few people who take the oath can openly disobey it and mock it whilst taking the oath itself. There is no “under duress”.
My point was that in serious times of trouble activities like we see on this website (but other things non related to the monarchy like climate change nuts or anti war nuts) attempting to undermine the British state may not be in the interests of the United Kingdoms internal security and when the British state is at risk that must come first. This sort of activity would have been unhelpful during the world wars, different times i know but during the future the internet will be a war zone too. Certain sites will be taken offline if needed or internet access cut. This is not just about in our own system, even the USA with its right to free speech would face limits if the US was under a direct threat and emergency.
The polls today show huge support for the Queen because she is a great Queen. The president of your Republic explained why in the video i linked earlier.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Very well, I did say I will not press you to answer it a fourth time.
However, I have series of Video to recommend for you too…you remind me so much of the movie. If you have time watch the entire thing.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXgS9eyAtwg&feature=video_response
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGvc-JMfdc4&feature=video_response
November 26th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Jack, these two comments betray you as a fully-fledged WUM.
I do not even like the Royals – they are German, Prince Philip is a Nazi, we fought Nazis in WWII and the Germans in WWI.
From an objective viewpoint it is ridiculous (and from a republican viewpoint unhelpful) to label the royals German or Philip a Nazi (granted he did come perilously close to being caught in the Nazis’ grip, but thankfully he ended up on the right side and fought for Britain during the war). But if that’s what you genuinely believe, then why on earth are you staunchly defending the Queen’s right to reign? Surely you think that not only should the Act of Settlement be repealed, but the repeal should be applied retrospectively and the genealogists set to work on identifying Britain’s rightful monarch on the Stuart line? Or why not go back even further to the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate, meaning the true king is a vehemently republican Australian farmer?!
A British republic would mean our flag changes! It will instead be three horizontal lines in red, white and GREEN!
WHAT?! How in the blazes would becoming a republic require us to change our flag?! What exactly has the monarchy got to do with the Crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick?
The New Zealand Republicans don’t even advocate the removal of the Union Flag from their flag if & when they become a republic, despite the symbolic significance of the latter in terms of their independent identity.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Firstly, why would Obama lie about liking the Queen? That is absurd! Have you not noticed how liberal how media is? How they use any chance to slag off our Queen and other Royal members? To impress the media is just ridiculous!
Obama CHOSE to meet the Queen! He was not forced! If he didn’t like her then why would he choose to do so? That just does not make sense!
Again, please look it up – British Republicans have claimed that our flag can not remain the same if we axe the Monarchy and have proposed a new flag – three horizontal lines of red, white and green.
Only idiotic republicans use the \Obama must have been lying\ about liking the Queen. And if he really didn’t like her he would NEVER have given her an ipod with some of her favourite music! NEVER! Obama is a proud man and would not do ANYTHING to impress a nation he is not even technically President of!
To have a Head of State that represents the country for a long period of time, who is well trained, and crowned and is far better than having an elected President who only got the job through having wealth!
Whether this website likes it or not – The Monarchy will stay for at least the next 60 years before a referendum is even called!
November 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am
This is the point you need to explain. Just claiming it to be true doesn’t make it so.
And it is Liz Windsor who has got the job through having wealth, not any US president. They get it because their fellow citizens give it to them. Yes, wealth corrupts the US political system to some degree, but it’s still the free choice of the people as to who they have (notwithstanding their odd electoral system).
Do try to stop calling people names.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
@Jack
So you’re argument can be summarised as:
“1. The US President once gave the Queen an iPod
2. I prefer the Queen to fish and chips
therefore …. sovereignty should continue to rest with the Crown and not the people of Britain.”
You know when you tell us to “look it up”? It may help if you tell us where.
FACT
November 26th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I assume Jack’s comments will make up the bulk of the “Best of the Republic blog” Book? It would become the comedy bestseller of the year.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for replying to the virues of Monarchy which I sent you but whilst I was looking through the comments there was someone called “Jack”. I’d just like to say that this is not me. I sent the Virtues of Monarchy but this is my first comment.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Thanks for replying to the virues of Monarchy which I sent you but whilst I was looking through the comments there was someone called “Jack”. I’d just like to say that this is not me. I sent the Virtues of Monarchy but this is my first comment.
Graham/James: is this true? If so, Jack, will you be responding to Graham’s initial comments in an attempt to get a proper debate going, in contrast to the pathetic wind-up routine of this troll who has the same name as you?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
@ Jack
As you appear not to have taken the trouble to consider or counter the points made in my last posting, allow me to help you with some research that might assist your views:-
FACTS (since you like using capital letters) on tourism:-
Disneyland Paris – 2007 – 14.5 million visitors (source: Disneyland Paris)
Buckingham Palace – 50,000 visitors in 2007 (source:www.royal.gov.uk, the Queen’s own website)
You might also like to check out the many other articles that support the argument that folks don’t come to London to meet the queen, e.g. the VisitBritain research of 26,000 tourists in 2007 that “indicated a visit to the home of Queen Elizabeth II is nowhere near the top tourist destination in Britain”:-
http://www.eturbonews.com/1329/tourists-shunning-buckingham-palace
Unfortunately, I couldn’t make sense of the rest of your comment.
Furthermore, I note that Graham has asked you to respect the moderation policy so I will not push you further on your outrageous and highly offensive description of Greek-born Prince Philip. He might symbolise the monarchy and represent the establishment that republicans are challenging but he did see active service as a Royal Navy officer for this country in the Second World War even mentioned in despatches after the 1941 Battle of Matapan.
Finally, I will reiterate that you should go away and research your subject and then come back with a decent argument when we can debate properly.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yes, as far as I can see there are two different Jacks, and I see no reason not to doubt the second one. Aside from anything else, the original email I responded to was considerably more intelligently written than the comments from the other Jack.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Around 50,000 people go INTO Buckingham palace.. but many more come to England to SEE the palace. Surveys have been taken which shows that many people come to see the sights – of which Buckingham Palace and that is a main reason.
My argument was that the President once gave the Queen an ipod. Would it be a different story if he gave the Queen an ipod on a weekly basis? I fail to see the point in that.
It’s more than just about preferring the Queen to fish and chips. I have also stated i do not really like the Queen or the royal family. But, what would you rather be known as? For having a Queen? Or for having Fish and Chips?!
The point of Obama stating he likes the Queen strengthens that the US and UK people are so strong and connected. If we abandoned our Monarchy we wouldn’t have as big as a connection. Our political systems would be the same.
We are most known, by our closest ally as having a Queen! And to a degree, the Queen is their Queen and their President is our President. There is probably not a soul in the UK who doesn’t know who the US President is – but millions who do not know who Canada’s PM is, or Russia’s President etc. The same rules apply to the US – very few would not no who the Queen of the UK is – but very few would actually know who the Queen of Norway is or the Queen of the Netherlands etc.
To avoid any confusions i will post my name Jack Ja – happy?
Another point is that the Queen WAS born into her role, that is clear. And she will always be a wealthy lady with her land she inherited. But, how exactly is that different from a rich “citizen, not subject” basically buying Presidency! If s/he has money they can pay for my advertising etc to get them votes! And therefore win!
Because of the 2008 Credit Crunch the Queen herself even felt the wrath of it. She had to cut back! She didn’t abuse her power and claim more money from the tax-payer etc!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/12/entertainment/main5626347.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/02/barack-obama-presents-queen-ipod
There – read them!
November 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Unlike our faithful elected politicians who abused their power and claimed tax-payer money for non-existing mortgages etc – the Queen doesn’t abuse her very little power! They are the true people making our country un-democratic!
And the FPTP system isn’t exactly democratic at all! It is possible that the Green Party, for instance, could get 20% of the popular vote and not get a single seat!
Maybe you should be campaigning for something that is actually important rather than trying to get rid of the thing you claim is not important in the first place! Try campaigning to prevent Labour getting into power next year who have lead to the rise in the BNP with their ridiculous open-doors immigration policy and basically made Britain the Third Reich of the 21st Century!
November 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
No, they come to England for all sorts of reasons, and while they’re here they see the palace. They would still do that if the Queen weren’t living there.
But putting that to one side for a moment, perhaps we can return to my question about who decides the shape of our constitution: the British people who are governed by it? Or holidaying foreigners?
Are you really that worried about what people think of you? Britain is a proud and strong country with many thousands of things to claim fame for. We don’t need to be ‘know as’ having the Queen or fish and chips.
I suggest you do some reading on international politics and international relations. The UK-US relationship is not ’special’ as some would have it, and Obama and every world leader will always say nice things about the Queen for two very simple reasons: they think we love her, they are being diplomatic.
The difference is that between the citizen spending his money and winning the presidency there’s the small matter of voting. The people are quite capable of voting for the candidate with less funding.
Aside from that there is of course a good case for limits on electoral spending. That is no defence of the monarchy, it’s a case for better democracy.
Now go and read about PR and the press. These are classic PR stories put out by the palace press office to help promote the Windsor brand. Aside from that, when it comes to spending their own money, in a recession they should be spending more of it, not less. Spending help businesses survive.
That’s an argument for a better democracy, not for the monarchy.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Okay where is YOUR evidence for: “These are classic PR stories put out by the palace press office to help promote the Windsor brand.”
Believe it or not, like it or not the Monarchy brings in tourists!
We are in the 21st Century that it is clear – and the Monarchy as a political point of view is un-needed. But, the Monarchy is a great investment from a business point of view as well. It is a great investment as we spend millions, and make millions more!
It is also well known that undecided voters are influenced by last-minute advertising on the television, radio, internet adverts, on buses, or billboards etc. And a rich-wealthy man/woman can make that happen with big money and therefore the right man for the job will be decided on the man who stumps up the most cash in a close-call election.
A Head of State than be the figure-head of our nation, give out national awards, honour the brave, who can open Churches and buildings etc. The Queen to do this over a long period of time – someone chosen outside of the corrupt House of Commons gives the people of Britain national unity. The lady who represents our nation over a long period of time is able to do a better job than any given President. The Monarchy is a long-standing tradition in this country and to get rid of it would be heart-breaking!
your fighting for an un-needed revolution!
November 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
You can’t just keep asserting that the monarchy makes us money without anything to back it up whatsoever. On what basis do you believe this?
Let’s, for a moment, assume that you’re right. Why does the monarchy need a role in the constitution to ‘bring in tourists’?
If we had a republic the buildings would still be there and the people would still live in the UK. No one is going to get rid of the Windsors, and they’ll be free to use whatever titles they wish. Why do those titles need legal recognition and why does the monarchy need to be part of the British constitution in order to be a financial asset to Britain??
Those PR stories lack any substance, they smell of press office a mile off.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Where is your evidence that the PR stories lack any substance?
The titles of course need to be legal! No body wishes to meet Bill Clinton now that he is not President! The Royals are a great investment for Britain – everyone knows that. This, along with the fact that it is a long-standing British tradition to have a Monarchy is why we should keep the Royals.
We are a traditional country – we are a “funky island” that is what Britain is! The Monarchy will never be axed – A British Republic is a ridiculous idea! And you know what you can do if you do not like Britain for what it is! – LEAVE!
Watch this video from an Australian Monarchist – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgzWtWVr_4
Becoming a Republic is not NEEDED in Britain! The Royals have not put us into any debt, they have not strained our relationships with other nations – in fact they have STRENGTHENED it! They are not the causers behind the 2008 Credit Crunch, they are not the reason why Britain gets less tourists than France – they are a not a replacement to a British-Disneyland!
Just for the sake that we will be able to vote for a President of the UK – we are going to get rid of something so great and wonderful? Our government is corrupt enough as it is – without adding a corrupt President to the mix!
So, apart from the fact that we will get to choose a President? What other benefits will a Republic bring? Will it really bring us into the 21st Century? Will it make the people more ‘free’ and secure national unity? How will it be a turning point for British history – a good turning point in British history?
November 26th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I implore you to go and learn a few things about our constitution. If you don’t want politicians having all the power support a republic.
This is an issue to do with government and politics, as well as basic principles of citizenship and democracy.
If all you can do is go on and on about the fantasy money that the monarchy brings in then you’re really wasting everyone’s time.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Barry Kingsley you stated that “Incidentally ,I believe that Tony Benn would make a very good president, of our country”
What particular attributes do you consider he has which would make him a very good president? Also do you consider that a failed politician of the far left could be “sold” to the British public?
November 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Sadly i am rather busy this week so i have not been able to respond to the points in this thread as much as i would have liked to.
On the issue of tourism. As pointed out above the only figures we have are for the numbers who pay to go into the palaces themselves. Sorry but this does not account for all those that maybe considered tourists and it does not take into account the other employment because of such tourism. People must travel to get to a certain location before they go into the building, people usually spend money on food when they are in London itself.
Also these figures hansard suggest a far higher number than just 50,000
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/201/20106.htm
Buckingham Palace – 360,000. Windsor Castle and Frogmore House – over 1 million. This does not take into account the 1000s who dont go in or just go to see the changing of the guard every week. Buckingham palace as we have mentioned before is a working palace, somebody else pointed out that if in a republic the president was based there then there would still be limits on how often the palace could be open. Of course we could do what the Spanish monarchy does where most of the time their main palace is left empty so it can be open to the public. We do not have to do away with the monarchy for that.
Republic does not like to take into account the money raised from tourism because they say such tourism would continue because people would come to visit the palaces anyway. Yet for some reason it continues to take into account cost of maintaining palaces (15million of the 40 million official cost of monarchy), the millions it costs to protect the royal palaces which would still need security in a Republic. It has been several weeks since i made my post about the finances issue, i notice still nothing has been changed on the website itself to avoid misleading people. I hope the review is still underway and corrections will be made.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Paul,
Tony Benn as president of this country would be a nightmare for some. I certainly do not want that left winger being commander in chief of the Armed Forces. Can you imagine the guy taking the salute at the trooping of the colour as Republic says they will continue that.
The guy serious undermined the British war effort no matter how we feel about the actual conflict. Hes considered a traitor by some, i shall never forget his suck up interview with Saddam shortly before the war.
Oh i did a rather more extensive post on the tourism issue awhile ago but id just like to repeat certain issues like the fact the British pound for a long time as been strong so its been far more expensive for American and European friends to visit us here compared to us going there. The report i looked at from 2007 showed British tourists are the top if not among the top vistors to France. and i also provided a couple of links before showing that because of the falling pound earlier in the year travel agencies were expecting an increase in tourism from the continent as the pound almost was at parity with the euro. Also ofcourse should the comparison on tourism not be with the French Presidents residence not one of their other palaces.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Graham, is “petty abuse not acceptable” only when it comes from monarchists?
A quote from imatt “Bob, save your energy for things of relevance that should be getting you angry rather than a sychophantic caricature called Simon. His deranged ‘arguments’ are not worth it. Let him worship his surrogate mama the is the Queen! He is Alf Garnett without the humour”
Isn’t there petty abuse in that quote?
November 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
If you read my comments – i am not ONLY talking about tourism! There is NO need to axe the Monarchy and you did not answer my question! I love how you slyly avoided it!
Becoming a Republic is not NEEDED in Britain! The Royals have not put us into any debt, they have not strained our relationships with other nations – in fact they have STRENGTHENED it! They are not the causers behind the 2008 Credit Crunch, they are not the reason why Britain gets less tourists than France – they are a not a replacement to a British-Disneyland!
Just for the sake that we will be able to vote for a President of the UK – we are going to get rid of something so great and wonderful? Our government is corrupt enough as it is – without adding a corrupt President to the mix!
So, apart from the fact that we will get to choose a President? What other benefits will a Republic bring? Will it really bring us into the 21st Century? Will it make the people more ‘free’ and secure national unity? How will it be a turning point for British history – a good turning point in British history?
There, i have not mentioned tourism.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Paul,
Dont worry i dont mind such comments about me
I do love Alf Garnet though, he was great! I loved that tv show although ofcourse the racism in the show is rightly no longer acceptable, but it was still great to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE
Heres a great clip from that show. Be warned that video will offend people, it conains some very offensive terms but its worth a watch if people have never seen it before.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@ Jack Ja
On the tourism, issue I merely quote the facts that you clearly choose to ignore.
And are we talking about a head of state who attracts tourists or a head of state who has important constitutional roles?
On the other matters, you raise no new arguments in support of the monarchy. You are another wind-up merchant who offers nothing constructive to the debate.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I am asking you as a Republican how would a British Republic (the thing you are trying to achieve) benefit us as a society.
There are no statistics of people who visit Buckingham Palace just to see the guard outside, just to see if the flag is up etc. There are only facts to see how many people visit inside the Palace.
I was told that all i am doing is talking about tourism – which i am not doing now. So answer my question – convince me: How will becoming a republic benefit Britain? The Queen doesn’t abuse her power, she doesn’t strain relations between us and other nations, she has not put us into debt, she is not the reason we get less tourists than the US and France, she is not the reason for the high crime rates, bad education, poor health care, rise in the BNP, but merely the Head of State who keeps out of Parliament and acts, even in the worst times, as a cushion for the British people.
So convince me that a British Republic would be good for Britain and the British people.
Your campaign is pointless and un-necessary – you are seeking to achieve a Republic that we do not need and the most of us do not even want it!
November 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
The benefits of a republic:
1. It would be properly democratic, instead of a plastic autocracy as we have now.
2. those in power would not have jobs for life
3. It would encourage greater political involvement from people as they would actually be given the power to change things for once
4. It would limit politicians’ powers and increase accountability
5. It would provide people with a symbol of aspiration
6. It would be patriotic to trust the British people to choose for themselves instead of telling them that they are simply too thick to make the decision
7. We would have a head of state who properly represented us
8. We would have the opportunity of choosing a more talented and appropriate leader
9. It would be cheaper and more efficient
10. It would honour our history of democratic progress
November 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
At last some answers!
5. It would provide people with a symbol of aspiration
How exactly? The Queen is the greatest symbol there is.
How would it limit politicians?
We choose our Head of Government – why do we need to choose a Head of State as well? There is nothing more patriotic than singing God Save the Queen – one of the reasons why British patriotism is so high is thanks to the Queen. Ask British patriots if they support the monarchy. In a recent survey done by the BBC – it showed that people who are not patriotic are generally more Republican!
Ever heard of the saying ‘Spend money to make money’ Well – the Monarchy is a great investment as it brings in millions more than we spend, into our economy.
Change things for once? How are things not changed now? What exactly can the government not change? If they wanted to, they could remove things like the Queen’s speech etc. Personally, i agree that the Queen should be removed from Parliament altogether and just represent our country as a Head of State over a long period of time – rather than just a few years like a President would do.
The Queen gives awards and honours out – it would be far less meaningful if a President was to do this.
The Queen is also the governor of the Church of England. Who would take over this job? Or would we just remove the Church, created by one of our former Monarchs, altogether?
If you are religious – you may argue that she was chosen by God to represent our nation. Could anyone argue with that?
More talented? The Queen was prepared for her role as Queen of the UK. No one is more talented to represent our country than a woman who was prepared for it for many years. There is no way that a President would be as talented as any of our 20th or 21st Century Monarchs.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
@ JACK JA – What utter tripe. No-one of the 61 million inhabitants of this country, other than a Windsor, can aspire to be our Head of State. That is the point.
God save the queen is a God-awful dirge that says nothing about the people or the country but only about the queen and how she should reign over us.
Show us some proof of your assertion that the monarchy brings in millions. Good luck in your search.
The queen was not chosen by God, what absolute baloney.
There are many people amongst 61 million people who would be very capable Heads of State.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Well i strongly disagree and that is a matter of opinion. There are not even 61 (6-10 people who could represent this country as well as the Queen has! And as well as Prince Charles WILL!
In the second verse of God Save the King it says God Save us all.
This country is a Constitutional Monarchy that will NEVER change – if you do not like it THEN GET OUT! because you are not welcome as one of HM’s subjects!
The Queen was chosen by God to represent this country – and you are likely to burn in hell to question his decision!
This country is ran democratically and 70% favour the monarchy therefore it should rightfully stay because more people want it than do do not want it – so why don’t you, and the other 30% leave Britain and go and live in the Republic of Ireland!
God Save the Queen
November 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
in response to the above points..
There are republics that are not properly democratic, Italy for example. There are many ways we could improve our democracy that most of us would support (scrapping the house of lords, more powers to parliament away from the executive, the ability to recall MPs.) Do we trust the current bunch of MPs who govern our country to make the wonderful democracy you all seek to live in? Why are some of the most democratic and most politically active countries constitutional monarchies?
At any time we the British people can decide we want to overthrow the monarchy. Those in the royal family only have a “Job for life” with the consent of the British people and that requires they follow certain constitutional conventions. They do their Royal duty, the Queen commited herself some years ago to serve her people for the whole of her life and most of us think she has done a good job so far and want her reign to continue for a couple more decades yet. Also its important to note that in a republic like the USA whilst you are limited to the number of terms u can be president, they are called President still in the american media, they have access to CIA briefings for life and ofcourse a very handsome pension. Our royals are expected to do their duty until they are so old or ill they cant get out.
Rubbish. People have the power to change things now if they wanted. We could all go out and vote lib dem if we wanted to clean up our system. Also ofcourse there are constitutional monarchies that have high turnout. This idea we must become a republic to encourage people into politics is not backed up by fact. The trouble is whilst we would all love to see a huge political involvment in shaping a new republican constitution, we know the current bunch of MPs would not support that and theyd decide most of our constitution for themselves and our system which has huge implications on future generations.. i dont trust them to do that sorry.
we could do that without abolishing the monarchy.
I do not agree with this one at all. The Queen is a great symbol of our nation and she has huge support. Far more than most presidents would ever get. I highlighted how in the Republic of Ireland their presidents are political canidates and most of the time the vote for them is split down party lines. If you mean it will allow people to seek to become head of state as their life long ambition.. sorry but surely they would want to become prime minister to change the country and the world, a ceremonial head of state may come with great honour.. but is it honestly someones life long ambition?
The British people overwhelmingly support the continuation of the monarchy. Why do you not trust the British peoples verdict? If we held a referendum and the clear majority said keep the monarchy u would continue ur campaigns and moaning. So surely ud be saying the British people are too thick to get the right answer and try to change their minds? Becoming a republic is just not the British way.
The Queen is able to represent her people far better than a political head of state can. Look at voting patterns in Ireland. The question i raised earlier, who would we have that people think can represent us better? Tony Benn? that liberal doesnt represent me.
wed want them in the government not a ceremonial position. Name some better people than our Queen.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Wow – simon that was a great answer!
It will be interesting to see Liam finns response to this – and Graham Smiths response to this.
The Monarchy is a great thing for Britain and the British people – i fail to see why you are campaigning for something that doesn’t really matter at all – when there are actual problems in this country thanks to our democratically elected politicians something you want to create another one of!
A British Republic is not the British way and its’ not the British peoples choice to become Republic.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Simon:
This idea we must become a republic to encourage people into politics is not backed up by fact.
Interesting. Would most people here agree with me if I were to say that the most obvious symptom of the British people’s disengagement from politics is their ridiculous phobia about discussing politics in the workplace, the pub etc? The majority who believe that tripe would say that it’s simply ‘inappropriate’ or ‘unhelpful’ to discuss controversial issues in a social situation or one tinged with politics of its own (like office politics), which would no doubt prompt supporters of the status quo to deny that those people feel that they are shut out of politics or are being ruled over. But let’s be brutally honest here: if the purpose of the exercise is to avoid awkward arguments, then for most people football is a much more volatile subject for discussion than politics; but do people refrain from discussing that in the workplace or the pub? I think not.
I hadn’t really thought of this until Simon posted his comment, but now I realise it might not be coincidence that, like nearly all the British people I know outside the Conservatives, most of the Aussies and Canadians I met on my travels had that social phobia of discussing politics; yet I’ve met plenty of American, German and (much as it pains me to say it) French people – and people from many other republics – who think nothing of it. Since the ability to discuss politics in public without fear is essential in a healthy democracy, I am starting to wonder if my experiences are symptomatic of a status quo in which the citizens of republics – in which the people are sovereign – are more politically engaged and therefore more comfortable discussing the topic, than the subjects of monarchies – who short of standing for election themselves have only the right to tick a box every now & again and thus feel that politics is best left to the governing elite.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Jack Ja:
A British Republic is not the British way and it’s not the British people’s choice to become a republic.
I believe you need to choose your words carefully here: are you saying that the British people currently don’t want a republic, or that it’s not their decision to make?
November 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
LOL – i meant that the British people don’t want to be a republic. Not that it is not their choice.
And i hardly think that people do not wish to talk about politics in Canada because of the Queen! Shortly before Prince Charles went on a tour to Canada this year, a survey was done – and almost 30% didn’t even know who their Monarch was!
November 26th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Lads, normally I try to avoid the pedantic punctuation and grammar police act, but for God’s sake use some bloody apostrophes, will you?
I’m actually writing a book at the moment addressing monarchists’ arguments and putting forward a case for a republic. You two might want to read it as soon as it’s done.
“It will be interesting to see Liam finns response to this”. Your lucky day, bud! And guess what? I’m gonna wipe the floor with you.
Here’s a very brief rebuttal of your nonsense (I’m busy):
“5. It would provide people with a symbol of aspiration
How exactly? The Queen is the greatest symbol there is.”
Maybe you could do with looking for the definition of the noun “aspiration”. If we had an office of head of state which was available for everyone to aim for, that would encourage aspiration. I’m not suggesting kids in careers interviews will say “I wanna be head of state” rather than “I wanna be a rockstar”; I’m saying that barring someone from the country’s highest office on account of their DNA prevents them from aspiring to that office. This is so simple, you two, that I should be amazed if you do not take it as an insult to your intelligence.
“How would it limit politicians?
We choose our Head of Government – why do we need to choose a Head of State as well?”
A republic would limit politicians’ powers because it would enshrine in a written document what powers they have, what powers they don’t have and what can be done if they have acted unconstitutionally. Currently, we don’t have such a document. The Crown gives politicians incredible power, not least through the Royal Prerogatives. Again, if you took the time to actually research the topic you’re pontificating about, Jack, you might realise this.
We DO NOT elect our PM. We elect one MP out of 646. Lizzie then picks the PM. Why elect our head of state, as well? Oooh, I’m just feeling greedy, I s’pose!
“There is nothing more patriotic than singing God Save the Queen”. Hmm, I think singing a song about a system which tells us we’re inferior to someone because we didn’t pop out of the same womb as them and that we’re too thick to decide for ourselves is pretty unpatriotic. Do you believe in the ability of the British people? That’s proper patriotism.
“Ever heard of the saying ‘Spend money to make money’ Well – the Monarchy is a great investment as it brings in millions more than we spend, into our economy.”
Evidence, please. Specify exactly how many millions and where these come from. Cheers!
“Change things for once? How are things not changed now? What exactly can the government not change?” Is this an argument IN FAVOUR of the monarchy??
“The Queen gives awards and honours out – it would be far less meaningful if a President was to do this.” Completely subjective. I and many other people would refuse an honour completely if it was to be bestowed upon us by someone whose only qualification for her status was that she belonged to one particular family. (By the way – I don’t even want a president).
“The Queen is also the governor of the Church of England. Who would take over this job?” Erm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps?
“If you are religious – you may argue that she was chosen by God to represent our nation. Could anyone argue with that?” Yes, I’ll argue with that. I am a Catholic chaplain and I think that is absolute garbage. I think a few atheists might be able to argue against that, too – just a hunch!
“More talented? The Queen was prepared for her role as Queen of the UK. No one is more talented to represent our country than a woman who was prepared for it for many years. There is no way that a President would be as talented as any of our 20th or 21st Century Monarchs.”
How do you know if we haven’t even tried? Don’t try and tell me the people of my country are so stupid that not one of them could do a better job. Ok, let’s have a look at this “training from birth myth”. Surely, the logical conclusion of this would be that the Windsors are the most intelligent people in the country. After all, someone like Charles has had the best education money can buy. Yes, he went to Cambridge Uni but that was with a B in history and an A in French (not too bad, but one would have expected better with the resources available to him). I’m also going to Cambridge after my gap year. I got 3 As and a B (two marks off an A in French). Sorry if this sounds arrogant – I am merely trying to prove a point – but I did that having been brought up entirely in the state school system in one of the most deprived areas of the country.
(Continued below)…
November 26th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
i wasn’t looking forward to you replying to my comment! I wanted to see your response to Simons comment!
And the queen was trained from birth – only idiots would not know that.
So respond to Simons counter argument to your original list of ten reasons to support a republic
So you are Catholic – and you are not for a Monarchy that makes it illegal for a Catholic to enter the throne. How odd? A Catholic against our monarchy
November 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
…I hardly think that people do not wish to talk about politics in Canada because of the Queen!
I’m not suggesting that any of the Queen’s subjects refrain from discussing politics because of her; what I’m getting at here is the fact that in a British-style monarchy the Crown hands almost unlimited power to the government, which is likely to make the masses feel shut out – all the more so if they don’t know the reason for that being the case. Granted, both Canada and Australia (and indeed all the other Commonwealth Realms except Britain & New Zealand) have entrenched constitutions, and the Aussie system has many virtues; but here the Queen does what the Prime Minister tells her to do, while in the rest of those countries (including Aus) the PM can call her and have her dismiss the Governor-General if he/she refuses to toe the line (unless the GG is willing to stoke up controversy by striking first, like in Aus in 1975).
November 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“This country is a Constitutional Monarchy that will NEVER change – if you do not like it THEN GET OUT! because you are not welcome as one of HM’s subjects! ”
So you want to banish us now? How very democratic of you!
“The Queen was chosen by God to represent this country – and you are likely to burn in hell to question his decision!”
Smite me, father, for I have sinned!
“This country is ran democratically and 70% favour the monarchy therefore it should rightfully stay because more people want it than do do not want it ”
One of the ways in which monarchists seem to be confused about the term “democracy” is with their belief that the monarchy’s popularity means the institution is democratic. For me to deny that the Windsor family is popular would be foolish and stupid. But this does not make the monarchy democratic.
The temple of democracy is the polling station; the democratic ritual is performed by putting a cross next to a candidate’s name. Elections should be conducted following campaigns where the protagonists freely debate issues, with neutral media and responsible press.
Polls in the media are indications of popularity amongst, at most, a few thousand people randomly selected for specific issues at specific times. They are often incorrect and can often differ according to the newspaper which commissioned them. As I have said, I am not suggesting that the monarchy does not enjoy majority support; I am suggesting that polls are not the same as votes. Would we really propose conducting general elections by newspaper polls?
Republic prooses we have a referendum, giving the British public the opportunity to decide whether to keep or get shot of the monarchy.
Let’s imagine a situation in maybe thirty years’ time when this referendum is held: I would imagine, on current trends, it would probably be won in favour of keeping the monarchy. The monarchy would receive a democratic seal of approval from the British public, something which I could not argue with.
But would this make the monarchy democratic? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, it would be a greatly more preferable situation, but the monarchy would only be truly democratic if its incumbent was not above the law, was placed under the same scrutiny as politicians, could be impeached for wrongdoing, was forced to seek re-election on a regular basis and if the election was open to any British citizen. In other words only an elected king or queen, with any British citizen eligible to become king or queen, would make the monarchy democratic. Monarchists will note that if all of these democratic criteria were met, the monarchy would no longer be a monarchy!
“There are republics that are not properly democratic”
Right… so does that mean we’re not going to be capable of having a democratic one? Tsarist Russia was an autocracy, does that mean that Mrs Windsor is a dictator?
“Do we trust the current bunch of MPs who govern our country to make the wonderful democracy you all seek to live in? Why are some of the most democratic and most politically active countries constitutional monarchies?”
No, I don’t. I want to get rid of them. Yet you propose keeping FPTP! You contradict yourself perpetually by arguing in favour of the monarchy yet arguing that you hate politicians. The Crown is what the politicians love!
A country with a monarchy is not democratic. Simple. Yes, that means I think Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Spain, etc. are not democracies. I don’t think Britain is a democracy, either. We want a democracy; you don’t.
“At any time we the British people can decide we want to overthrow the monarchy.”
Oh, yes, because when we vote at a general election, we’re not voting for who has the best education, health or defence policies but who is going to get rid of the monarchy. I have told you before I do not believe that this is the most important issue. Giving us a referendum would be an opportunity to overthrow the monarchy, not a general election.
“Also its important to note that in a republic like the USA whilst you are limited to the number of terms u can be president, they are called President still in the american media, they have access to CIA briefings for life and ofcourse a very handsome pension.”
Am I supposed to think that’s right? Nope! Do you think I want that here? Nope! By becoming a republic would we need that here? Nope!
“Our royals are expected to do their duty until they are so old or ill they cant get out.”
Again: argument in favour of the monarchy? Na!
“3. It would encourage greater political involvement from people as they would actually be given the power to change things for once
Rubbish.”
Why is this rubbish? I am not suggesting that by becoming a republic we’re all going to skip along merrily to the polling station the next morning. But surely there is more chance of people being involved if they are actually given…
November 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I’m sorry Matt but i fail to see your point? How would people feel shut out because of the Queen? The Queen gives unlimited power because of the constitution not because we have a Queen. The constitution can be altered at any given time – the Queen will just sign on the dotted line…
Even if we got rid of our Queen – the constitution could read that when the party is elected – the government gets full power and therefore it wouldn’t be much different from now, would it?
November 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“6. It would be patriotic to trust the British people to choose for themselves instead of telling them that they are simply too thick to make the decision
The British people overwhelmingly support the continuation of the monarchy. Why do you not trust the British peoples verdict? If we held a referendum and the clear majority said keep the monarchy u would continue ur campaigns and moaning. So surely ud be saying the British people are too thick to get the right answer and try to change their minds? Becoming a republic is just not the British way. ”
I have stated my reasons why in post #91. Don’t try and tell US that we don’t trust the British people, you hypocrite. (By the way, calling you a hypocrite is not name-calling, because it has justification behind it).
“7. We would have a head of state who properly represented us
The Queen is able to represent her people far better than a political head of state can.”
I ask you: how is an eighty-odd-year-old, white, aristocratic, head of the Anglican Church representative of the British people? How is someone who, as a child, asked her nanny about “the world outside” the palace representative of the British people? How is someone who has never had a proper job and who has been brought up in an atmosphere of terrifying sycophancy and deference all her life – to the extent that some believe she prefers the company of dogs and horses to human beings – representative of the British people?
In what way is Mrs Windsor representative of the sixty-three-year-old former miner in Durham who had to work twelve-hour shifts for twenty years in constant danger of losing his life, who lost his job and his livelihood in 1984 and has had to struggle to afford to keep his family together and his home in his name ever since? In what way is Mrs Windsor representative of the fifteen-year-old, black, aspiring Muslim girl in Birmingham who has to study for hours each day in order to ensure that she attains the best possible grades in her exams so that she can fulfil her ambition of becoming a solicitor? In what way is Mrs Windsor representative of the forty-one-year-old nurse in Croydon who is struggling to balance between her bureaucracy-dominated career, young family, mortgage costs and paying for the nursing home care for her elderly parents?
Has Philip Mountbatten ever had to worry about his job security or the roof of the mine collapsing on top of him? Has Charles Windsor ever had to worry about attaining the best results in his school in order to reach one of the top universities or how to finance his studies? Has Andrew Windsor ever been forced to sell his parents’ home in order to pay for their health care? No. If so, how can the Windsor family claim to represent us all when they have led such sheltered and pampered lives?
I am not suggesting that it is necessarily wrong to be elderly or rich! I am suggesting that it is a very strange argument to claim that the Windsors are representative of the British people when they are, by-and-large, so far removed from the lives of most Brits. But this begs a deeper question: can we claim that our elected representatives in Parliament represent us? How can the Conservative MP in Hertfordshire who sits on the board of a major business firm claim to be representative of a man in Manchester who has just lost his job in a supermarket? How can the Labour MP who worked for fifteen years in a teachers’ trade union claim to be representative of the head of an accountants’ firm? (I apologise for resorting to such lazy stereotypes).
These people do not necessarily represent us in a social or economic or ethnic or religious capacity. They represent us because they have received more votes than other candidates in their parliamentary constituencies: they have been democratically elected by the people. So although they may be very different to such people, they have a democratic mandate to represent their constituents and are democratically accountable to their constituents.
Of course, we can still claim that the majority of people in those constituencies may not have voted for them. We can also claim that there are many people who object to Barack Obama being president of the USA or Nicolas Sarkozy being the head of state of France. But the difference between these people and the Windsors is that such individuals have received consent to be representatives from a black cross next to their name in a polling station. I am of the belief that in the twenty-first century one can only claim to represent others if he has received the official consent of a sufficient number of people. That is not a radical view; it’s called democracy. It is a complete myth and farce to suggest that the Windsors are in any shape or form representative of anybody but a handful of British people.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Wow ! Where do I start ? The “Fur is certainly Flying” with this topic ! How about some people putting a bit more into Michael Mansfield’s post,incidentally. He certainly deserves some more discussion. Anyway ,back to this one. Firstly,two questions. !). Is “Jack” the same person as “Jack Ja”.? 2). Does “lol” mean “lots of love ” ? Please educate me . I believe that ,as an answer to one of Simon’s remarks , that perhaps Tony Benn would be exactly the sort of person who would make a good president because he would be less likely to get us into wars by being too “trigger happy “. A president to my mind would be a figurehead only, undertaking some of the queen’s duties. I believe that a lot of the things the queen does are actually un-necessary. I have elaborated on this before. Tony Benn was just a possible suggestion. Obviously he has faults,like everyone,kings and queens included. If we want someone a bit more bellicose, who better than Paddy Ashdown . Anyway, Jack Ja,or whatever you call yourself,I would advise you to keep taking the tablets ,( for your blood pressure), or you might blow a gasket . Whether you like it or not, Republicanism is here to stay ,and is increasing in strength, daily. You can rant and rave all you like, but this is a fact. The establishment of a democratic British Republic will take Time,obviously,and will be an evolutionary process.It is not a matter of “getting rid of the queen “. Monarchy is just plain “wrong” ,for all the reasons already discussed in this debate. It is not a matter of us “getting out ” . We can just as fairly tell you to do the same ,along with your monarchist mates . If you like royalty so much ,why not emigrate to Thailand ,where they are even more fanatical than you !
November 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“8. We would have the opportunity of choosing a more talented and appropriate leader
wed want them in the government not a ceremonial position. Name some better people than our Queen.”
Me.
“9. It would be cheaper and more efficient
debatable.”
How? Even taking into regard your research, Simon – which I have done – the monarchy comes out more expensive than any of the models Republic has suggested or any model that I would suggest as an executive head of state.
“10. It would honour our history of democratic progress
no it would do away with part of our tradition, culture and heritage.”
Look at where this country was in 1215. Look at where it is now as a result of Magna Carta, the de Montfort Parliament, the Levellers, the Civil Wars, Habeas Corpus, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the 1832 Reform Act, the Chartists, the Payment of MPs Act, the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts.
The monarchy is very definitely a part of our history. But that’s what it should be: history.
“So you are Catholic – and you are not for a Monarchy that makes it illegal for a Catholic to enter the throne. How odd? A Catholic against our monarchy”
Oh, so that’s the primary reason why I’m against the monarchy? Are you kidding. Boo-hoo, my ancestors ran out of potatoes – REVOLUTION NOW!
Give over.
My work here is done.
Please do some research before you come out with any other dross, please.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Matt Showering,
All i would say is lets look at voter turnout in certain countries.
Norway (monarchy) 2009 – 76.4% / 2005 – 77.4%
Canada (monarchy) 2008 – 59.1% (lowest in Canadian electoral history)
Australia (monarchy) 2007 – About 95% because voting is compulsary
Sweden (monarchy) 2006 – 81%
Denmark (monarchy) 2007 – 86%
United Kingdom (monarchy) 2005 – 61%
French Presidential election 2007 – 83.8%
French Parliament election 2007 – about 60%
German federal parliament election 2009 – 70.8%
German Presidential election 2009 – The people do not vote.
Republic of Ireland General election 2007 – 67%
Republic of Ireland Presidential election 2004 – Unopposed so the people did not vote.
US Presidential election (one of the most significant in American history) – 2008 just 63%
US congress election turnout was around 40% overall according to media reports but its complicated because not all seats are up at the same time. either way it is far lower than presidential elections.
Those are just some examples i thought i would share with everyone. Clearly it is not the case that there is a massive turnout in republics and low turnouts in monarchies. Ofcourse this is not the only issue when it comes to people being involved in politics but those who can be bothered to vote is an important factor. Interesting to note the higher turnouts for the presidential elections compared to lower turnouts for legislative/parliament elections.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Well, in terms that 91% of this country is white it does represent the majority in that sense. The Queen represents us better than Tony Blair does or Gordon Brown does.
And The Queen could be black, muslim and not be able to speak a word of English and still represent the country. The Queen doesn’t represent working-class people, or upper-class people but merely represents Britain as a country and therefore doesn’t have to be anything like the average British-joe.
All world leaders know who the Queen is – the current Head of State. Can you really think that world leaders will know each and everyone of our many Presidents in such a short space time if we became a republic?
Of course it goes without saying that this country will one day be Republic – but it will NEVER happen in our life time! That is for certain. Keep hoping, keep praying but it will never happen because the Monarchy is far too strong.
Personally, i think that the Monarchy will get even stronger soon – after a blessing in disguise – Prince Charles will die before the Queen – meaning Prince William will become King!
November 26th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I’m sorry Matt but I fail to see your point? How would people feel shut out because of the Queen?
For God’s sakes man, how many times do I have to tell you this has got nothing to do with HM Queen Elizabeth II/Elizabeth A.M. Windsor/whatever else you want to call her?! The issue at hand is the monarchical system which enables Gordon Brown to rule over us like an absolute monarch – before you can even think about denying that I have two words for you, Lisbon Treaty – and thus makes the masses believe that they are powerless except during general elections.
The Queen gives unlimited power because of the constitution not because we have a Queen.
Thank you, my point exactly!
The constitution can be altered at any given time – the Queen will just sign on the dotted line…
Again – you are doing my arguing for me! Our politicians can alter our constitution and do away with our rights and liberties on a whim, and the Queen is constitutionally obliged to rubber-stamp their decisions! That is elective dictatorship – are you really happy living under such a system?
Even if we got rid of our Queen – the constitution could read that when the party is elected – the government gets full power and therefore it wouldn’t be much different from now, would it?
Actually, yes it would: the abolition of the monarchy would be followed by the drawing up of a constitution vesting power in the people, clearly defining and limiting the powers delegated to the government and to the president – the latter probably including the right to refer legislation they deemed potentially unconstitutional to the Supreme Court or to referendum – and this would be entrenched, preventing it from being repealed by a simple parliamentary vote, once approved by the people.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Yes – i am fully aware that we have an elective-dictatorship.
I do not disagree with you that the Queen should be removed fro Parliament! She signs on the dotted line or “rubber stamps” it what ever you want to call it.
But, the Queen represents us as a country – something that the President would do. And if the President refused to sign something – they would be overthrown!
A codified constitution would be adopted if we became a Republic – something our very country has never had!
We will forever have an uncodified constitution – that is the British way. It needs to be altered – of course it does, but getting rid of the Monarchy will not help us! That is a bad idea.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Jack Ja, I have only one more question for you: how in the blazes are we supposed to prevent elective dictatorship with an uncodified constitution? Bear in mind that NZ and Israel are the only other countries with uncodified constitutions: the former may be regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the world; but their parliament has no revisionary chamber, and even with a strong committee system a formidable prime minister can bend the system to their will as much as the British system is automatically bent to the will of the British PM.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I will respond to all these comments in the morning. I must go and celebrate the news that the people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines have rejected a republic because it does not meet the needs of the people and they would rather keep the status quo.
God save Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Long to reign over us, God save the Queen!
November 27th, 2009 at 1:21 am
@ Jack Ja
“And the queen was trained from birth – only idiots would not know that.”
You must be an idiot then. The Queen only became directly ascendent to the throne after her Uncle David abdicated in 1936 and the line of accession changed. Elizabeth Windsor would have been aged 10 then. (If she had been trained from birth? Well that would have made some conspiracy story, wouldn’t it?)
“And The Queen could be black, muslim and not be able to speak a word of English and still represent the country”
No she couldn’t be a Muslim and monarch. She’s head of the Church of England!
November 27th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@Jack Ja
You say you support removing the Queen “from Parliament” and you’ve also said that she has no power. Does this mean you’d be happy for the monarch to no longer have a constitutional role, but to act solely as a representative of Britain or tourist attraction?
And just out of interest, why do you think we’re going to hell?
November 27th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Can we enlist our two resident royalty fans to do a promotional article for Republic? They would surely be the best recruiting tool we’ve ever had and bring in new recruits in their droves. I don’t think I’ve ever read such an abundance of unadulterated tripe, such as is in their posts, since the last time I read the Daily Star, and that’s from an uneducated, imbecile republican.
They both have no time for our politicians, one of them even accepts we live in an elective dictatorship, but neither one of them comes up with any substantial reasons why we should keep the status quo other than ; the queen is glorious, she’s been trained from birth, she’s absolutely glorious, no-one else could be head of state, she’s glorious, she’s absolutely glorious, and the absolutely priceless from Jack Ja “Personally, i think that the Monarchy will get even stronger soon – after a blessing in disguise – Prince Charles will die before the Queen – meaning Prince William will become King! You couldn’t make it up.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Why not? You ask the British people to vote on the continuation of the monarchy if the majority put their little cross in the correct box as you say then thats what democracy is all about. Would you view it as democratic if on the death of each monarch we held a referendum and the people voted for the new sovereign to be monarch for life? Thats democratic surely? Is Ireland less of a democracy because its President can sit for a total of 14 years rather than an American president thats limited to 8? I am sorry you have a very specific opinion on whats democratic or undemocratic, its like the proportional representation debate. Why do people think their version of democracy is what everyone else wants. The United Kingdom is a democracy today. At any point the British government elected by the people can call for a referendum on abolishing the monarchy. They do not do that because the people support the monarchy and do not seek change.
This also comes up in the debate on the union. Separatists argue the people of Scotland have never voted to be part of the United Kingdom. This is ofcourse true, only the Scottish and English parliaments voted to join together and neither of our countries were democracies back then. But ofcourse the question is how far back must we go? The people never voted to form the Kingdom of England or the Kingdom of Scotland either so why is there a need for a referendum? We are all born into a system, this is the case in every country on this planet including republics. To change that system there must be support for change. So when the majority of people in Scotland vote for separatists ofcourse we must hold a referendum on ending the union. When the majority of MPs elected are republicans or we elect a republican party then a referendum must be held on ending the monarchy. Until there is majority support for that change, we all must accept the status quo.
So you may never have voted for our current system just like people born in Republics have not and you may not of chosen your country of birth, but it does not matter. If you are a British citizen, you have a Queen who is your head of state and until the majority want that changed it makes no difference if some people dont like it.
Like in a court of law where the burden is to prove guilt because we all start out innocent. We start out as a constitutional monarchy and the burden of proof is on those who advocate change that change is needed or a good thing for this country. Of course like in a court of law, there is a defence and it just so happens that the monarchy have the best in the land who can be called upon if needed, at the moment though Republicans have not even made it into court because theres no popular support for change
November 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Liam,
to respond to your replies..
I question how democratic a republic formed under the current MPs would be but the point is not all republics are wonderful republics. I consider our country more of a democracy than Italy, yet its a republic. The idea that any republic is better than our current system is misleading.
I do not hate politicians (well not all of them lol), but i do not want the current ones writting our constitution and creating a system that would define our country for perhaps centuries like the US constitution has. You say you want to get rid of them and dont trust them, but these are the people that would set up our future republic, your position is far more of a contradiction. As i have said before surely we should improve the democracy in ways most would support first? like getting rid of the house of lords. I used the example of building a pyramid with a pack of cards. The Queen and monarchy is at the top.. removing it wont make the other institutions below it more democratic but if you think the only reason those institutions like parliament and the government support the monarchy is because its a good deal for them then surely changing those and moving the cards holding the monarchy up at the top would lead to it all falling down?
Basically, get rid of the house of lords, improve parliamentary democracy and peoples powers then that would make it easier to remove the monarchy if u think its only held up because everyones corrupt and it gives them power. But that is not reality, Nick Clegg has no power at all and will never form a government, if he took a position on holding a referendum on becoming a republic he would secure every single republicans vote in this country surely? yet he doesnt bother. If about 25% support becoming a republic then surely hed increase his parties vote?
That is a very radical view, even if some support becoming republics its pretty crazy to think all these countries are not democratic. Some of those are so much more democratic than many republics.
I agree becoming a republic is not the most important issue when you think of all the problems we face. Until the people think becoming a republic is very important and needs urgent attention by the government there is no reason to hold a referendum, the same applies to the separatists issue and just to annoy Matt even the European Union issue. Until the majority of people in this country vote for parties which stand on withdrawing us from the European Union or it poses a imminent threat to our sovereignty, why bother holding a referendum on withdrawl. It is future change that should be put to the vote like Lisbon should have been.
But it happens, and in a republic.. the shame!
Yes they serve our nation their entire lives doing their duty. Many of our Prime ministers do their duty then go off and try to make as much money as possible. Hows Mr bliar these days?
see my response to Matt, turnout is higher in certain constitutional monarchies than it is in Republics. In the case of the USA and France a large number turn out for the presidential election but far less bother to turn out for the legislative elections. We can get people into politics without becoming a republic.
Interesting little graph here showing voter turnout in 5 countries.
.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Turnout.png Notice where we start out in the 1960s and back then people were more supportive of the monarchy and yet still saw the need to go out and vote. Monarchy does not breed voter apathy. I blame liberalism but thats another matter
If we hold a referendum and the clear majority supported the monarchy ud think we were wrong and our system must be changed. Sounds like not trusting the people and their verdict from where im sitting.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Sounds like we are getting into class warfare again. There is no person that can identity with every single person in the country, everyone has different backgrounds. This of course comes into play and is highlighted when people are asked who they would want as president. There is no ideal candidate that would appeal to everyone. Someone said Tony Benn, well i would not want that liberal representing me and he hardly has a normal background either.
Even in Republics the head of state is meant to represent the nation. What ever method of selecting that head of state politics is involved. If people can name me a republic or a President where politics has no involvement that i can look into in more detail i would love to hear it. Ireland is sometimes mentioned but i have looked into more detail about them and i must admit their system is even more damaging and political than i expected
.
She is also a symbol of this country and its history, i understand there are people that have gone out of their way to change the way this country looks and its culture, ofcourse we did not have a referendum on that change either did we?
The fact of the matter is, Queen Elizabeth II has huge support in this country from people of all different backgrounds and political parties.
Sorry but do people here honestly think the leaders of the Lib Dems, SNP, Labour, Conservatives, BNP and UKIP could all agree on who theyd want as our head of state? Currently they do, they want Queen Elizabeth II its quite remarkable actually. We can look into more detail about how divided other countries political parties are when it comes to heads of state, look at Germany or Ireland where parliament decides
Well he has served in the royal navy during world war 2 when naval conflict was rather dangerous, thats not something most people alive today have done.
Surely Liam you would want to run the country so you can bring about change for the people? You would rather just a ceremonial position of meeting / greeting people than improving schools and trying to bring about world peace? And just how representitive of the British people are you? Do you think ou are more representitive than Queen Elizabeth II, if so based on what? You mentioned the Queen being head of a religion, well there are less catholics in this country than Christians of our state religions.
well it is still questionable how much the monarchy costs here but is also questionable how much it costs in other countries. I would be interested to know how much the french system costs. The german system costs around 40 million (which is inline with the offical figure for our monarchy) but i do not know if the German cost takes into account security, pensions, cost of maintaining the building the President has as a residence either, then ofcourse there is no election for a president in Germany, simply selection by the parliament. I am sure the US system of a republic is far more expensive. And ofcourse Republic only cover expenditure, not revenue. So they count the cost to the local council for having to pay for a royal visit they do not count the income and boost to local economy such a visit like other major events would have. In a republic there are less visits because the whole family doesnt carry out visits on behalf of the head of state and less people would care about seeing the Presidents Brother or grandson.
When we take into account all these different factors it is debatable overall cost to the taxpayer and how it would differ in a republic. We have a habbit in this country of expensive projects, i fail to see why wed manage to develop a cheap republic here.
there have been many needed changes. Ofcourse history / tradition is no excuse for keeping slavery or not allowing women to vote. But there is clear reason for change in those cases for issues of human rights and freedom. We are free to choose a new system today, we can become a republic if its what the people want, no one is denying anyone that right. No one is punished for being a republican in our country today. On the issue of the monarchy we have had the change that was clearly needed, the right to openly oppose it without any fear of violence. Even a right wing supporter of the monarchy like myself thinks that is important and should always be the case.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@ SIMON – QUOTE (1) ; “The United Kingdom is a democracy today.”
QUOTE (2) ; “I question how democratic a republic formed under the current MPs would be but the point is not all republics are wonderful republics. I consider our country more of a democracy than Italy, yet its a republic. The idea that any republic is better than our current system is misleading.
It’s a chore plowing through all the drivel but I will just pick you up on these two quotes. On the one hand you claim that we are a democracy, then on the other hand you say you distrust politicians to be democratic. Do you see how you constantly contradict yourself Simon?
Also we’re not claiming that all republics are wonderful, some countries like China for instance have ‘republic’ in their title when they most demonstrably are not a republic. What we are saying is that the people, Simon, the bloody people for God’s sake man, it is us that should have a say in our own governance and not by just being able to put a cross in a box once every five years to pick the next elective dictatorship.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Woops just to correct one of my points above. The Federal presidency of Germany costs around £25 million a year according to the source i found. When we take into account £15 million of the official 40 million cost of monarchy in this country is to maintain royal palaces and a castle the remainder is in line with the Federal president of Germany.
Bob Wiggin,
We are a democratic country, we do not have a wonderful system. I have said many times i support reforms to parliament and abolishing the house of lords. What i am saying is do we trust the current bunch to lay down a constitution which will define our country for centuries in the way the US constitution has? I am sorry but i do not think that would be a good thing, i can imagine some nonsense about climate changing getting into it which could be dangerous.
liam thinks the being able to put a cross in the box every five years is what democracy is all about, we already have that. We can put a cross in the box for the Green party who seek to bring about a republic in this country… it is not difficult. Its just the people do not feel strongly about becoming a republic.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
SIMON – “Liam thinks the being able to put a cross in the box every five years is what democracy is all about,”
You are twisting what I have said, taking Liam’s comments out of context and using them to support your ludicrous none-argument. Liam’s point, I’m sure he will correct me if I’m wrong, was to counter your and Jack’s joint position that since 75% of the British people support the monarchy (a figure extrapolated from a poll, the sample size of which was considerably smaller than 61 million), then that is democracy. He very ably pointed out that democracy, where the choosing of head of state is concerned, would be better served by putting a cross in a box. My point was that we currently put a cross in a box to choose the next elective dictatorship.
You keep saying parliament can be reformed. Well it’s been in disrepute for God knows how long. Has there been any meaningful reform during that time? A big fat no. Don’t hold your breath waiting Simon.
When we eventually decide to become a republic there will be much discussion about what should be in our constitution, politicians will not have the exclusive rights to writing it on our behalf and the people will be consulted. I know this will happen because the will of the people cannot be resisted for ever. Inevitably, we the people will want our rights enshrined in any constitution and achieving that will be a 100% improvement on the current arrangement where our rights can be, and have been, withdrawn at any time and at the whim of a politician.
I’m not going to get into arguments about the cost of various presidencies around the globe and how they compare, favourably or otherwise, to our pathetic none-democratic arrangement. You see I take a slightly different position to some other republicans. I would oppose monarchy even if it were free Simon because of its detrimental effect on democracy, but if necessary I would be willing to pay more than the £180 million we currently blow on this feudal nonsense if it meant we could have a proper democracy. Having said that I believe a republican system of government would not cost any where near £180 million cost of monarchy.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Yes the sample size was smaller than 61m, but as this stupid website posted 59% of Australians are against the monarchy. i am confident that that survey was a lot less than 20m people!
Same old republicans contradicting themselves!
November 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Moan and cry all you like – regardless of the lies this website publishes – the Monarchy is here to stay. End of!
St Vincent and the Grenadines have voted to keep it in just this week! A predominately black country voting to keep a “white dictator” How odd!
Canada and Australia will axe the Monarchy when the Queen dies i think. UNLESS, a blessing in disguise occurs – Prince Charles dies before the Queen. Resulting in Prince William becoming King which will restore faith in the British Monarchy.
So sing your hearts out boys and girls – God save the King!
November 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
@Bob Wiggin and every reader:
” I would oppose monarchy even if it were free Simon because of its detrimental effect on democracy, but if necessary I would be willing to pay more than the £180 million we currently blow on this feudal nonsense if it meant we could have a proper democracy. Having said that I believe a republican system of government would not cost any where near £180 million cost of monarchy”.
That is the mother of all points. If you disagree with the above, you have no business being on this website. This is a Campaign to bring about a Republic, not a campaign to decide whether monarchy is cost effective or not, nor a campaign to determine whether a republic is good or not. Simon pay attention to these points. We are not here to determine which type of government we want, WE ARE HERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR A REPUBLIC; THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ALREADY, WE WANT A REPUBLIC. SAVE YOUR BREATH
November 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
JACK JA – A poll is a poll is a poll. Nobody on this site has claimed, unlike you and your equally eccentric mate Simon, that a poll represents a democratic decision. It is an indicator and nothing more.
So you think the monarch is a white dictator? How very odd from a monarchist. I thought that you believed a monarch was the fount of all knowledge, appointed by God, absolutely glorious and gracious to boot.
Go away and come back with some proper arguments instead of your none stop stream of unsupported drivel.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
@Jack Ja:
You posted:
“Canada and Australia will axe the Monarchy when the Queen dies i think. UNLESS, a blessing in disguise occurs – Prince Charles dies before the Queen. Resulting in Prince William becoming King which will restore faith in the British Monarchy”.
In your own absurd way, you had just voted for William over Charles. You cast your vote by wishing death upon your King-in-waiting; so, when Charles is on the throne, may you remember he is the guy you want DEAD. When he is ruling over you, it will be obvious he is not your choice. But like a termite, you will suck it up and accept him as your king and head of state because you had no choice in the matter. Well, most civilised people don’t choose a head of state by killing or wishing death upon someone else. That is really pathetic. I hate to be you.
On a secondary and more important issue, I will be writing to Republic to ban you from this website because of the following statement you made on post #114 above, and the over all attitude you bring here:
“Yes the sample size was smaller than 61m, but as this stupid website posted 59% of Australians are against the monarchy. i am confident that that survey was a lot less than 20m people!
Same old republicans contradicting themselves!” –Jack Ja
November 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Bob stated “Jack’s joint position that since 75% of the British people support the monarchy (a figure extrapolated from a poll, the sample size of which was considerably smaller than 61 million), then that is democracy.”
so i said the poll comment in response to that.
In a previous debate – someone said the queen is a white dictator. The quotes implied sarcasm. I thought even the irish would have worked that out not to mention british republicans!.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I do not wish death upon Prince Charles – but it would be a blessing in disguise if he was to die, peacefully of course, before the queen – so other realms will stick to the monarchy and not favour a republic.
The fact we do not get to choose a Head of State is a good thing in this country! It allows the Head of State to stay away from Parliament and keep out of the way of corrupt politicians. No matter what country you live in – republic or monarchy – corrupt politicians are EVERYWHERE! That will never be changed because people automatically abuse their power when given the chance. The expenses scandal has proved that – not to mention 9/11 for Republic America to be forced to live with for eternity.
I would much rather have a Monarchy than a Republic – a Head of State who was related to a former Head of State than a corrupt man who brainwashed people into voting for them by paying for more advertising.
As our greatest leader once stated “Democracy is the worst from of Government – except for all the rest” It has so many flaws and everything – British people have lost faith in politicians in this country – and you are campaigning to add yet another corrupt political figure- head to the mix!
Remember that i told you it was a bad idea – when, after a rigged election – President Tony Benn becomes Head of State!
November 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@Jack Ja:
You are here extolling the virtues of Winston Churchill, also to name him as your greatest leader, therefore I assume he would have made a great head of state, but he could never reach that position because of capricious rules to have a head of state from one particular family.
Anyways, as I said to Simon, you are on the wrong website. This website is for a CAMPAIGN FOR A REPUBLIC AND A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. The decision has already been made that we want a REPUBLIC, so I suggest you find another website in the preliminary stage of deciding between monarchy and republic; we have crossed that bridge here, we are now in the process of bringing the REPUBLIC to birth.
And finally, I will make sure you are banned from this site due to your disrespect for the organisation, we want vibrant debates on the issues, not insults.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Everything Simon has stated as been in response to other comments! Someone gave 10 points of why we should become a republic. Then simon questioned them 10 reasons and then liam questioned them 10 questions and then simon done the same thing.
This is a DEBATE! For and Against you stupid, idiotic moron! You should be banned for being so pathetic, dumb and a moron!
Keep campaigning for your little fantasy dream – it will NEVER happen! Not in our life time anyway.
In 10 years time when we are still reigning under Queen Elizabeth II, you will still be living in a dream world. Come back when you have reasons why we should actually axe the Monarchy instead of expressing your utopia about the place!
When you are shriveled up and on your death bed in around 60 years time or what ever – ask your son, daughter, boyfriend, girlfriend etc who the Monarch is. They will gladly tell you. THEN, when you are burning in hell – look back at what you did with your life – campaigning for something un-needed and un-wanted!
The monarchy is here to stay – we are thee funky island of the 21st century – we are the United KINGDOM!
November 27th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
OK, I second eclub’s request for Jack Ja to be banned.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Ye Gods – put them in the ‘Best of Republic Blog’. There couldn’t be a better recruiting tool surely?
I wonder who Jack Ja would want to be head of state if let’s say his ‘blessing in disguise’ happened and prince Charles snuffs it. Not my ‘blessing in disguise’ but his. (see above). And let us also surmise that prince William, whilst flying to his girlfriend’s home in a helicopter, meets with an unfortunate accident, (God forbid), and is not available to ascend the throne anyway. Will Jack Ja plump for Harry? Because if he doesn’t want Harry for some reason, (Harry’s a royal so he will won’t he), that will be tough won’t it? Harry will be next in the queue. And that’s one of the flaws of heredity. I’ve said before that the queen is probably the monarchy’s greatest asset, but what happens when the monarchy is not so lucky. I suspect we may find out when Charles becomes king.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
JACK JA SAID – Everything Simon has stated as been in response to other comments! Someone gave 10 points of why we should become a republic. Then simon questioned them 10 reasons and then liam questioned them 10 questions and then simon done the same thing.
This is possibly the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this blog. If all drivel was thus life would be so much more pleasurable.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Bob:
This is possibly the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this blog. If all drivel was thus life would be so much more pleasurable.
Personally, for outrageous laugh-out-loud humour, I think the prize would have to go to that schoolboy calling himself Cotale05 (among other things): the one who, in addition to making the most childish arguments imaginable, with horrendous grammar, at moments would’ve had us believe it was actually his dad writing them!
November 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Bob,
So why are there republics where people do not get to put a cross in the box for someone, we see that in Germany and sometimes in Ireland. The basic point is though that we do have general elections in this country, if we all put our little cross in the Greens box we would then get the chance to vote in a referendum to abolish the monarchy. It seems so simple, if only there was public support for it
.
There has been some reforms in the past few centuries, if we do not want to wait longer then we can vote for the lib dems who would improve democracy in this country (their policies would be a disaster for the country, but thats another matter). You think its difficult to get reforms to parliament yet these are the people who would decide on our future constitution and republican system.. rather risky i think. Far better to try and reform parliament than take on the monarchy which is even stronger
Lmao, yes i have seen government consultations, they are just great arnt they? The Australians consulted the people before they put the referendum to the country and lost. Also just whilst im on Australia, how many people there do you think were voting for a republic because of the principle people here obsess over compared to numbers voting for a republic simply because they want their own head of state rather than the British monarch which has remained because there was a slow peaceful transition to independence, the final ties being broken with westminster in the 1980s. For the commonwealth realms becoming a republic is the final step to independence… that just is not the case here, she is our Queen and its the British royal family.
I would be prepared to pay more to keep the monarchy than 180 million so we feel the same way on this matter, strange then that republicans go out of their way to inflate the cost of monarchy and how a republic would be so much cheaper.
There is still question about the 180 million figure and i am rather concerned republicans keep using it when this appears to be based on a report in the times in 2004, in 2009 they said security cost just 50 million.. so the total would be 130 million.
Our government spends huge amounts of money on the littlest of things, so i would not like to guess how much we would have to pay for a republic in this country. Hell we spent 80 million on the general election in 2001.
Jack Ja,
Lmao very good point.
Well i am sure Australia and Canada will become republics even if it was King William, its just part of a natural development for the other realms to complete independence from Britain. People often forget the final acts of independence which broke all links between Westminister parliament and Canada / Australia only happened in the 1980s.
Theres a blog somewhere on here by someone who met a Australian republican whilst on a train. They wanted a republic for Australia to have their own head of state but were shocked to find the guy worked for Republic campaign in this country saying we shouldnt get rid of the monarchy here!. Australians and others that vote for republics in commonwealth realms usually do it because they just want their own head of state from their own country that represents their own country. The Queen when she travels abroad usually represents Britain.. its a tribute to how great our Queen is they choose to maintain the status quo.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
SIMON – It’s my day off today and I’ve spent enough time at my computer today so i’m not responding to your torrent of drivel in its entirety, except for maybe
“There has been some reforms in the past few centuries” BIG DEAL!
“Far better to try and reform parliament than take on the monarchy”
The monarchy is where all the power, misused by politicians, derives. Any reform that doesn’t include the monarchy is tinkering around the edges and futile because the basic problem will remain.
“Our government spends huge amounts of money on the littlest of things, so i would not like to guess how much we would have to pay for a republic in this country. Hell we spent 80 million on the general election in 2001.”
Don’t go on about the potential cost of a republican system of government to me, I’ve told you, it is irrelevant to the argument, we want a republic be it cheaper or not.
Goodnight I’m off to keep my good wife company.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Eclub,
We we we… I thought you were in the United States? This is a matter for the British people living in Britain. Your attempts to silence debate are becoming increasinly alarming, i wonder if thats the sort of republic people have install for us.
Bob,
True its polls done by the most reliable polling groups in the country. But that is not the only way we test opinions, we have elections here once every 5 years. Over 90% of us in 2005 voted for parties which declare their support for the monarchy and especially Queen Elizabeth II. I am not sure how many votes went to republican MPs who do not campaign on the issue but choose to just violate their oaths, the votes to a party like the greens which want a republic is very low though.
I guess a sense of humour will be outlawed in a future republic? sheeesh. Although the principle about the fact the population is mostly black and yet voted to keep a 80 year old white woman from Britain as their Queen is an important point.
Eclub
As he was the greatest prime minister in British history i would rather Sir Winston Churchill was governing this country, not being a ceremonial head of state to just meet and greet people. I understand you are in america but please do not confuse the two positions head of state / head of government.
Jack Ja,
You should not let them provoke you. Eclub especially always tries to get people banned and provoke a response from them and he has said before he doesnt even live in Britain.
.
Id just like to make one other point although this has not come up so its slightly off topic. Today the Queen was carrying out duties as head of the commonwealth. At the same time Prince Charles was awarding medals to people are Buckingham Palace and he also went to Cumbria to meet some of the people in the area effected by floods and to turn on the christmas lights there to help boost the economy which is understandably going to suffer because of the floods. Under a republic we will have just one head of state, no one else to carry out duties on the head of states behalf. This is one of the reasons why its an unfair comparison when on expenditure with republics. We have an entire family that carry out duties all around the country and world on behalf of the British state and to represent the head of state. So its no wonder there is a need to spend more on travel and security when you have a group of people doing a job rather than just one person.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Bob,
There is no rush.
Lmao so removing the house of lords, being able to recall MPs, even “proportional representation” would all be just tinkering around the edges. Sadly some republicans seem to just want to do away with the monarchy at alll costs even if there are reforms that are possible which would make this country better. Sorry but the house of lords is far more of a stain on our democracy than the constitutional monarchy!
Well i do not want to pay for this republican utopia. We will all keep paying for the monarchy thanks
night
November 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Simon, You are lowering yourself by being associated with “that man” . Be warned .
November 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I do not agree with anyone swearing or using abuse, but i can understand why supporters of the monarchy get upset or offended by the comments here and over react or say things they should not.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@Simon who wrote:
“We we we… I thought you were in the United States? This is a matter for the British people living in Britain. Your attempts to silence debate are becoming increasinly alarming, i wonder if thats the sort of republic people have install for us”.
1. I am in the United States, so? Your vote for the Head of State of Britain count the same as mine, and that is a fat ZERO! Neither you nor I can vote for the head of state, sorry. I will only be meddling if you were a Republic and can vote for a head of state. As far as you are a monarchy, I am not meddling. We can’t vote for the head of state of UK, Simon; be you in UK or US, it doesn’t matter, nobody is meddling in something that you have no choice over. I’m staying and campaigning for a Republic from here, too bad. Simon, you and I have cast the same number of votes for the head of state of Britain, and I live in the US, think about that. You and I have equal say on the matter.
No one is advocating silencing any debates. When you have monarchists such as Neil and Jack-Ja, expect republicans to advocate for their ban.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Dear Simon,
Yes, thanks. I appreciate that you are not rude. I hope you can understand, also ,however,that republican supporters can get upset and annoyed sometimes about monarchist comments as well. It” rubs both ways”. Jack has also been pushing his luck a bit recently, let’s be fair .
November 28th, 2009 at 2:31 am
To: Simon
To put the issue of my commenting on the republican cause to rest:
I want you to think about Christopher Hitchens, who is an American Citizen like me, he is often invited to debate his younger brother, a monarchist, about republic vs. monarchy, or abolition of the monarchy, and often about atheism and God; no one in their right mind will say “nay, Christopher, you are out of place!” And in US, no one can say to us, “fellas, go back to England if you want to talk about this or that”.
Like Christopher, I come.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:32 am
You know what – i have been quite rude lately! And i do apologise for any comments that may have offended or been offensive.
I just feel that this debate in particular is not drawing a conclusion, so i snapped and just made rude religious comments to republicans. I do not actually believe that republicans will burn in hell – well not all anyway – lol.
Until a comment that i can legitimately challenge appears – i shall keep my mouth shut.
Simon has been giving out proper responses to everyone’s comments and i in particular would like to thank him for that.
And can i just say that people who are saying things like “you are getting involved with ‘that man’” Is actually quite rude in itself! At least i have apologised for my comments.
I am a supporter of the Monarchy – a strong supporter. Not because i love the Queen, or anything like that. But, simply because i am strongly against having a British Republic and think the Monarchy is a good thing for this country and it is the best form of Government for this country. Until we shape up our country and fix our actual government i do not think we should even discuss axing the Monarchy -obviously that is my opinion.
To some up, with some of my comments i have been childish and rude and i do sincerely apologise for that.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:15 am
According to Alexa – 70% of people who use this website are not even from the UK – that says a lot about some of the Republicans who visit this website. most of which probably already live in a Republic country.
The website is not even in the top 100,000 websites visited in the UK. That says a lot about Republicanism in this country. Also, Royal.gov.uk is in the top 100,000 websites visited in the UK and in quite a few other countries. Which shows a lot about how people like to know what the Royals are up to.
Although about 70% of visitors to Royal.gov are from overseas – it is still a lot higher ranked than this website which, to me, does show a lot about Republicanism in the UK.
I think that those demographics are quite promising for Monarchists.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:55 am
barry,
Thanks and i understand things can heat up for people on both sides thats why i ignore any of the comments aimed at me which may be considered abuse. It doesnt concern me.
eclub,
I am not saying that you should not comment or have an opinion on this matter but it would come across less strange if you spoke as an external observer to the debate rather than “we want a republic” and that you will continue to campaign for a revolution (even if it is just a peaceful one) in this country.
I have never voted for the monarchy, what i have done is voted for my member of parliament and party that supports the monarchy. I have the power to vote for an MP and political party that will bring about a republic in this country if i wanted like all other British citizens.
Jack Ja,
Interesting point about what part of the world the webtraffic is from for both sites. 20% of traffic to the royal website is from the USA, i guess that goes to show the monarchy is of interest to many americans.. Unless they are all just looking up about castles and palaces which republic recon is the only thing the tourists like.
Make sure you stick around Jack Ja, i feel a little outnumbered here at times.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@Simon:
Thanks for your response, but stay focused on your debates with me, it appears when ever I have you in a head-lock, which is often, you play dead.
I argued that you and I, and someone in Timbuktu or Jericho for that matter, have as much say as to who will be the Head of Britain as anybody; when it comes to that selection, there are no citizens or non-citizens, we all have equal votes, and that is NIL. Of which you countered with:
“I have never voted for the monarchy, what i have done is voted for my member of parliament and party that supports the monarchy. I have the power to vote for an MP and political party that will bring about a republic in this country if i wanted like all other British citizens”.
Let me then ask you, when you vote for a Parliamentary candidate, and your candidate of choice looses, and doesn’t become a member of Parliament, you effectively have no say in the matter of Head of State, or any matter National significance, for many years, right?
I will treat the above as a rhetorical question since the answer is obviously, RIGHT! You are effectively voiceless in the entire governance of the country as soon as your candidate loses in his bid to become a member of parliament.
One advise for you Simon, when you receive your Christmas presents on Christmas morning, open the damn box, no need to feel, snoop, pinch, & peep in it to see what you got for Christmas, it’s already Christmas morning. So too, when it comes to election of the head of state, why go around, and twist and knot yourself with electing parliamentarians, and political parties, as a test to see if the monarchy is supported, just go on and elect the person you want for the job. Open the gift box, stop peeping and pinching the present, or wishing and praying for one royal to die before the other. Even in a small group, a family of 2 or 3 eligible royals for the job of head of state, you find the front runner (Charles) to be objectionable, or the least favorite; imagine the fun you’d have choosing from 61 Million people including all members of the royal family.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Wow, that’s some serious straw clutching there Jack.
Firstly, not sure where Alexa gets its info, but having just looked at our own Analytics I can tell you that over 76% of our website visitors are from the UK. I imagine a lot of those not in the UK are British citizens abroad.
Quite why you think that the stats of this site compared with the stats of royal.gov.uk make any kind of case for your side of the argument is beyond me.
Let’s be perfectly clear: the debate does not hinge on the current level of popularity of the monarchy.
How does that work exactly? Do you consider yourself 80% right on this issue because 80% support the monarchy? If support fell to 60% would you consider yourself only 60% right? If a majority became in favour of a republic would you concede you’re now wrong?
Something being popular and something being right are not the same thing. To give an extreme example, Hitler was quite popular in Germany at one time. That didn’t make him right.
Now try to engage with the debate and come up with some reasons why you think the monarchy makes a better constitution that a republic.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
That wasn’t straw clutching at all – it was me giving a point. I felt that this website was very popular and considering you have raised £10,000 made me wonder even further how many people have visited your website and what those demographics are. ~
Because it is so low – Quantcast have not even analysed your website! And it seems to me that you are clutching at your straws – where is your evidence to show that 76% are from the UK?
Me mentioning Royal.gov.uk had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. Royal.gov.uk just explains what the Monarchy does etc- it is unbiased and i originally thought that it would have less hits than this one.
Most people in this country do not even care about the royals or the Queen – Republicanism is something for the very few of this country who think it is “unfair” or whatever. Someone said to me on this, i can’t quite find it now, that they, and many others, would reject receiving an award from the Queen because they Republican. But, if the day was to come that we elected a President and he wanted to give out an award to someone who didn’t vote for them – would they accept it? That, to me is an interesting question. They didn’t want President X to win, so would they accept the award from them?
With the Monarchy you don’t get a choice in the matter – and i understand that that is your argument, but if i was to accept an award from the Queen, the same Monarch who, for example, my grandmother accepted an award from – that would mean so much more to me that accepting an award from a President, even if i did cast my vote for them. Do you see what i mean? Now, before you say it, i am not suggesting that we should keep the Monarchy for reasons like this. But, in terms of accepting rewards, meeting other country leaders, representing the country, doing charity work, opening Churches and of course govern the Church of England – i would much rather that be done by the KING or QUEEN of the UK opposed to a President who would only be elected for a few years.
Do you really see Barack Obama wanted to meet the President Head of State opposed to the Queen? I don’t know – but has Obama met the President of Ireland? I know for a fact he has met the Taoiseach of Ireland and that he has met the Chancellor of Germany. But, no President of Ireland or President of Germany as far as i am aware. This strengthens my point that the Queen is able to strengthen ties with foreign nations.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Well the party i support does usually win, its whats known as a safe seat dominated by a single party for decades. The basic point is the British people in Britain can vote for parties who will bring an end to the monarchy or continue it. Those from outside of the United Kingdom can not.
ofcourse like in every country the person you vote for does not always win, 50 milion americans who voted for John McCain still had their say… something non americans did not. Same applies here.
I would be fine with King Charles, i am probably the one here that disagrees with him most on his politics because hes very interested in the environment and climate change, something i have strong views on in the other direction. However I have no problem with him representing the nation and being King, hes a damn sight better than President Tony Benn. It is true some people think Prince William would be a safer pair of hands for the monarchy, but thats not to say Prince Charles would be awful or destroy the monarchy. Besides the Queen will hopefully live a couple more decades anyway so its not something we need to concern ourselves with today. I notice most of the time republicans focus their attacks on him and other members of the royal family because the Queen, which is the person people want to overthrow is harder to attack.
Graham,
Well polls show strong support for the continuation of the monarchy after the Queen so it is not just about the popularity of the Queen. If the majority of people supported becoming a republic then we would have to put it to a referendum. But at the moment there is no need nor demand for change or a referendum on it
Jack Ja,
This is a good point, people like getting honours from Her Majesty or Prince Charles, its a bigger deal for people than meeting a political figure that many voted against and disagree with. Ofcourse Republicans here say they wouldnt take an honour and some wouldnt take a job where they are forced to take the oath to the Queen. Well if thats the case theres a huge number out there that dont seem to mind. When you watch some of the awards being issued, its a very important day and event in some peoples lives. It would be ashame to do away with such things or just have some silly presidential award for something. 100s turn out to see a royal visit, i cant imagine people making the effort to line the streets to see a prime minister or president in this country. When they do line the streets here they wave union flags.. they are engaging in patriotism, when of the very few chances we get these days.. but lets throw all that away and become a republic!
As head of state if Obama visited Ireland he would have to meet her, not sure if he has gone to Ireland yet though or if shes gone over there. One things for sure i doubt youd here him say one thing he loves about Ireland is the President of Ireland like he did when talking about our current great Queen
Obama may be a little jealous of the Irish President though. It turns out she has a bigger salary than the President of the United States. Rather strange dont you think? Considering Obama does both the job of head of state / head of government, governs a population of 300 million people compared to 4.5 million, the 4th largest country compared to the 119th and is incharge of the most powerful military force on the planet yet he gets paid about £25,000 less than the Irish president, and thats after taking into…
November 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Grrrr this character limit..
After taking into account the Irish presidents 10% pay cut. Yet the presidency of Ireland is held up as one of the great Republics we could learn from. Its not just the salary thats the problem though, considering Irelands short history they have many uncontested elections where the people do not actually get to vote and most of the Irish presidents have been nominated by the same political party.. Its a like a one party state over there.
For anyone interested this site shows the presidential elections, where its uncontested and also shows the voting patterns (when people can actually vote). Its clear people vote on party lines for their president.
http://electionsireland.org/results/president/index.cfm
November 28th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
@ SIMON – (In response to Eclub) – “We we we… I thought you were in the United States? This is a matter for the British people living in Britain.”
Just how condescending can you get?
(To me) – “There is no rush.” (concerning reform). How complacent can you get?
“The basic point is though that we do have general elections in this country”
Yes we have general elections Simon, to elect the next elective dictatorship that will rule us for the next five years, during which period the PM of the day will control parliament courtesy of The Crown in parliament. How many times must I tell you. You and your mate are always banging on about our useless politicians but cannot see the connection between them being useless, (although I disagree with your blanket condemnation of politicians), and why they are able to get away with things like the erosion of our rights etc.
“Far better to try and reform parliament than take on the monarchy which is even stronger”
As I have pointed out, the PM’s power comes from the Crown in parliament, he is in effect King Gordon. The monarchy is not as strong as you would care to believe. If Edward the whatever had not abdicated to marry Mrs Simpson we might well have been living in a republic now. It only needs another few crises to topple the whole rotten edifice.
“Lmao so removing the house of lords, being able to recall MPs, even “proportional representation” would all be just tinkering around the edges. ” – Yes Simon and for the reasons I gave above.
“Sadly some republicans seem to just want to do away with the monarchy at alll costs even if there are reforms that are possible which would make this country better. Sorry but the house of lords is far more of a stain on our democracy than the constitutional monarchy!”
No Simon – The House of Lords being populated by the unelected would never have happened in a republic. When it first came into being it was populated by the senior clergy and the nobility and why so? – because of the nature of our society at the time, when the plebs knew their place and were content to be lorded over by their supposed betters and didn’t think of questioning the status quo. The monarchy is a vestige of that time and, sadly, there are still people willing to suck up to and worship their so called betters. Well not me Simon. I like to question the status quo and campaign for the very best democracy we might be able to achieve. A republic.
“Well i do not want to pay for this republican utopia. We will all keep paying for the monarchy thanks”
Not if we here can help it Simon, and that’s why we are here mate, and we’re not going away, not me, not Eclub, not any true democrat.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Jack, You did not apologize until AFTER I advised Simon to beware of you ! It’s a bit like the queen not paying any tax until she realized that she should !
November 28th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Bob,
I did not say it in a rude way, i said he of course is welcome to his opinions and to comment on such things. But im sorry i do not think an American citizen living in the USA should be attempting to encourage and take part in a revolution in the United Kingdom. This is an internal British matter.
There are big problems in this country that need addressing, messing around with constitutional reform is not urgently needed nor a good idea. Im not being complacent, i am being a realist.
What makes you think this current bunch of politicians will introduce a system that does not help them keep the same sort of power they do today. We have already seen that many republics appear to like or have the president chosen by parliament rather than the people. They just get their own people elected into the presidents office and exploit the system there too.
you guys do go on about the PM having too much power and blaming it on the Crown. Well sorry but its parliament that is meant to keep the executive in check, its not been doing that good a job in recent years so more power does need to transfer back to parliament. We do not need to scrap the monarchy for such a thing to happen. I fail to see why we should think anything done in the last 10 years would not have been done anyway even if there was an elected head of state. People go on about the Iraq war, well sorry but plenty of republics took part in that war and plenty have just signed the lisbon treaty.
Well we elect the MPs that form the government including the Prime minister himself. We have the power to elect a government next year that will bring in certain reforms to strenghten the parliament and limit the executive.
Sorry but the house of lords being unelected and able to play a huge role over every bit of legislation passed by the government is far more of a serious drain on our democracy than the monarchy. Its just ashame some people really do hate the monarchy so much they cant see that.
no system is perfect today and nor was it in the past. The reason we have a house of lords still today is because our governments that we elect do not scrap it. Perhaps if we were all left wingers wed vote lib de and wed see the reform of the lords but we dont all vote for them (thank god). Oh just to let you in the Republic of Italy there are some life senators a bit like the way we have peers here. There are only a small number of life senators but its a republic and yet theres still such a system… Interesting isnt it? although Italy is certainly less of a democracy than this country. The idea becoming a monarchy will solve all our problems is very misguided. It is a great shame people waste their time campaigning for a reform we know will not happen whilst the Queen is alive, far better to focus on reforms that can be obtained like to the house of lords.
lol well the monarchy is not going anywhere either. Sorry
November 28th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
WHAT!! Barry please tell me you are kidding!
I do not know Simon in any way, shape or form! All i know is that he is a Monarchist like me. I do not look up to him, i do not adore him, i do not care what he thinks of me¬!
I apologised a few hours or days or whatever it was after i re-read what i said when i had calmed down! Then i realised what i said was rude, childish and stupid. I did not apologise because i thought Simon would hate me, or disown me or whatever! What is wrong with you?
And fyi- the Queen does pay tax! And it’s “realised, not realized!” We are not in America you know!
November 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Jack Ja: both spellings are acceptable in modern, UK English. Pretty rich you being pedantic about someone’s spelling after the state of your writing on here.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
No – ‘Realized’ is an American spelling for ‘Realised’. British English and American English are different languages.
How is my writing bad on here?
God Save the Queen.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
@Simon
You said:
“Sorry but the house of lords being unelected and able to play a huge role over every bit of legislation passed by the government is far more of a serious drain on our democracy than the monarchy”.
More of a good thing is bad, Simon?
We complain that the head of state is ‘unelected’, and you say ‘tough luck, it’s here to stay’. So, in HOL you have more of what you want, unelected multiplied, and you complain about that. I like a Ferrari car, but if the government gives me many Ferraris, I won’t complain. I will be more happy for them.
How can you reconcile your acceptance, NAY, enthusiasm for unelected head of state, with your disdain for unelected House of Lords?
Were you to check into a hospital with a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible arguments, emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations — you’d be diagnosed as schizophrenic; so far only your hospital check in and the hallucinations are lacking.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Sounds to me like petty abuse! I hope Republic will say “Petty abuse will not be tolerated in this because we have a Moderation Policy” like they said to me!
And its’ characterised not characterized! Here in the UK, we speak British English not American English – we have a Queen opposed to a President and we use the GBP not the USD.
The HoL can stall legislation but can not stop it. If they refuse to pass something – it can be passed through on an Act of Parliament and therefore the HoL is not really a drain. And we have stopped hereditary peers from the HoL anyway and instead bishops and former MP’s sit there.
OUR point is – there is no need to axe the Monarchy – there are bigger problems in our country and in our actual government – yet you are focusing on removing something that doesn’t do any harm! A Republic is not needed in Britain and will not be needed for a very long time – please note that.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:05 am
@Jack Ja
“And its’ characterised not characterized! Here in the UK, we speak British English not American English – we have a Queen opposed to a President and we use the GBP not the USD.”
Here in the UK? Here in the UK?? If I were to bite the bait of childishness, the me against you, USA vs UK anti-Americanism that you and Simon resort to, I could remind you that you are actually on “our internet”, the US invented the internet, so, you are having this discussion on “our” domain. How is that, jack? But, I’m British too, so I won’t go there. I’m campaigning for a republic, not playing around with childish jingoism.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Anti-American? Please show me one, just ONE comment which shows that i am anti-american?
I am against Britain becoming a Republic – i am not against other nations being Republic and i love that America IS republic, because they are our closest ally and in theory – Mr Barrack Obama is our President – and our Queen, in theory, is their Queen.
So how exactly am i anti-American?
And if you want to childish – whether it is British English, American English, Australian English or Canadian English it is still ENGLISH and this “our” domain! Not to mention – football which you play – or should i call it “soccer” and many other “domains” which America use ‘o so proudly’
And now to mention it – i do not recall Simon being Anti-American either? Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Dear Jack- Ja,
I really must get away from this site. I am getting a bit obsessed,but what else is there on a dark winter’s night.? However I have just had a nice break reading up about Marx’s Dialectic Materialism,( which I confess is a bit hard to understand !). Now ,back to you. You are doing it again, getting all worked up and making strange remarks. Who said anything about you liking or knowing Simon.? Certainly nothing was also said about ” adoring ” him, etc. As a child recently advised me to do when he noticed that my specs were held together by Blu-Tak — ” Why don’t you go to Spec Savers ?! “. Perhaps you should do the same before reading my posts. What does “fyi” mean ? Never heard that in the English Language. The queen would never have paid any tax unless there had not been a “hoo-ha” about it. She had that degree of lack of insight about fairness etc. She does pay something now,but nowhere near enough.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@Jack Ja
I believe you are violating, at least, one moderation policy simply by posing those questions, not to mention anticipating an answer. So, let’s get back to the campaign.
‘Republic’ is not any country’s property, ‘monarchy’ is not unique to any nation.
In a republic with a written constitution, a people decides how they wish to govern themselves. Thats all. They delegate power to their representatives. Period.
Below is how the old world Kingdoms and Empires reigned chaos around the world, for those who like to cite steadiness and peacefulness of a monarchy, check it out and comment:
http://vimeo.com/6437816
November 29th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Oh, and incidentally,——–God Save the British People ! ( from the monarchy ).
November 29th, 2009 at 12:55 am
I would opine that it is not necessary to “axe” the monarchy, yet. “Axe” is not such a good word. It rather smacks of bloody revolution. My belief is that a republic should be established gradually,starting with reformation of the monarchy itself,starting now ,with more information about it,and more transparency.Monarchy is actually a part of the bag of problems we have. Monarchy does cause some general harm to our society by reason of a number of facts about it. These facts have already been discussed many times.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Wow – i enjoyed that. Those were the good ol’ days ay? When Britain ruled the world. But, now those days are in the past – and in the past they shall remain. But, at least we still have our Monarchy which shows that at least one thing has remained now that the Empire has fallen. We could go on and remove the monarchy – but that would remove every last trace of our Great Empire.
Although, i did notice that it forgot about Afghanistan in 1919 – but not everyone is perfect.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Oh really? The Monarchy causes some general harm? I’m afraid i must have missed that bit? Please tell me how the Monarchy causes harm to Britain?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Dear Jack Ja,
I,m still here ! Do look in the blog archives. You will find all you want to know.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:33 am
I have looked on this website many times – and i read nothing but lies and anti-monarchy slander! It is quite aggravating to read and i shan’t put myself through it again.
The Monarchy is a great thing for Britain. Becoming a Republic would not help us and would not benefit us in any other way, shape or form.
Mr Kingsley – did you feel that myself or Simon had an Anti-American feeling among this long and healthy debate? Because apparently we are very anti-American.
So what did you think? Did any of my comments appear to be Anti-USA?
November 29th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Dear Jack – Ja,
Thanks. You are wrong. There are no lies or slander. I will re-iterate the salient points sometime for you, but not this morning,as I am becoming an insomniac.! I will also study remarks made by Simon and yourself to see if there is any evidence of anti American feeling. Toodle -Pip !
November 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The monarchy is a good thing, the house of lords which is just pumped full of poliical allies by the government and other political parties is not a good thing. The fact an unelected second chamber has huge power over every bit of legislation and can add / remove things at will from bills is much more of a flaw in our democracy than the fact we have an unelected head of state who simply signs acts passed by the parliament into law. Surely people can see those editing laws is a bigger deal than a convention where he monarch always gives royal assent. Much of the moaning about monarchy is is the potential abuse of power by both government or the monarch that is possible, well theres no potential when it comes to the house of lords, they DO have a serious impact on the governing of this country, every single day. There are plenty of constitutional monarchies in Europe without an unelected house of lords so the excuse we must get rid of the monarchy to get rid of the lords is rubbish.
How charming.
There is also nothing anti american about the view that the British people should decide their own future and that people living in other countries encouraging a revolution in this country is rather disturbing.
Nice video although i do not quite understand what that has to do with monarchy, the British empire was mostly around after the monarch no longer had absolute rule. Also ofcourse in the case of the British empire the bubbles bursting out were not violent revolutions they were peaceful transitions to democracy. long before ww2 we greated what amounted to almost total independence in the early 1922s to Canada and Australia although the final snip was not made until 1980s, there was no violence involved and they even kept our Queen as head of state. Whilst empire rightly ended, to portray it as only reigning chaos on the world is a gross lack of understanding of world history. The civilized world we live in today would not exist if it wasnt for European empires which dominated almost every part of this planet.
Barry,
Well i am certainly not anti american, i have said on several occasions the United States of America is the only Republic on this planet i have a huge amount of respect for. However when i see the American system of republic it concerns me, especially after some alarming trends since Mr Obama came to power. Surely you can understand that people from foreign countries should not be directly involved in an attempt to overthrow the British system of governance.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@ Jack Ja: both are acceptable. I use the “English” one but they are now interchangeable.
I’m talking about your lack of apostrophes, capital letters, use of past participles, etc.
As I say, hate to be pedantic like this but it infuriates me when people try to throw daft things into the ring like you did when questioning that particular spelling. Debate the proper issues, please.
Would you like to specify the lies we have printed? We would be very, very happy to hold our hands up and say we are wrong if you were able to specify which comments/statistics/”facts”/arguments, etc.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Liam Finn,
I have gone into some detail about the costs claimed as security and also the costs of other republics. I understand that it is under review but incorrect figures remain on this site almost a month after i posted my research here and the cost continues to be used on the blogs although i accept Graham now says 130-180 million rather than using just the 180 figure but it has been said in the past month. Ofcourse i still consider use of the 100 estimate for security costs very misleading. Unless i am incorrect and there are other media sources out there, only 1 source said 100 million and that was in 2004. The same newspaper in 2009 said the cost was 50 million so clearly they were originally wrong. I dont think republic is telling lies, but it could certainly be more accurate and use of the 100million instead of 50 million is rather misleading.
Also i clearly explained why comparisons with a country like Ireland are unfair. I went into extensive detail about that, but the claim that comparisons with Ireland are fair is still on the page. Its providing information without of the context.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Simon, I’ve said to you already that I have looked at your research and also adapted my “views” to the cost being between £133-£183m. I congratulated you on undertaking that work but we all said that if you wanted to win the debate, it was the wrong issue to look at: we would be opposed to the monarchy whether it cost £1 or £1bn.
We would quite willingly take back any other argument if you would be so kind as to attempt to justify our other points. You’re unable to do this.
N.B. The Daily Express royal correspondent has also gone on record saying that the monarchy costs £200m, so that’s another source. But I really am being pedantic there.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Liam Finn
Even to smudge the figures by always saying between £133-183 million is still rather misleading. The security costs are meant to be based on press reports, so far i found one press report saying 100 million for security costs in 2004, all sources this year have said 50 including the same paper. As for the Royal correspondent i did a google search i do not know if he has talked about it before in more detail the thing i found was a radio interview which Graham took part in.
The transcript said..
RB – “it is hard working out how much the royals cost because we get told it’s 69p a year per person, but these costs don’t even factor in security and things like that, for example, do they”
Richard Palmer (The express Royal correspondent)
- “No, no, i think the real cost is well over £100 million, possibly up to £200 million when you factor in all these other things.”
Notice you did the same thing i am talking about. He says it costs well over 100 million, “possibly up to £200 million” and yet you say”gone on record saying that the monarchy costs £200m”. There is a big difference and considering the figure Republic puts around its understandable if he wanted to set a cap of the total possible cost.
Of course Graham Smith then went on to say “Well that £200 million – 183 million we estimated it at…. ” He did not say between 133 – 183 million, just jumped right into the 183 million because its the highest cost. I look at the date of the interview and it turns out to be 17th of November 2009, a couple of weeks after i posted my research here.
Sorry but to me thats rather misleading and we are not talking about a small amount of money here, we are talking about over 25% of the claimed cost of monarchy by republic. Some of the other costs are ofcourse questionable as well, almost 30 million is actually not a cost, its Republics view of “lost revenue”. And of course whilst the monarchy does include the costs of maintaining the royal palaces, the 15 million cost would still exist in a republic. Dont forget we are only talking about costs, republics figure do not take into account any possible revenue.
You republicans here may not care about if the monarchy costs 1 billion or 1 million and would still be against it. Why does republic go out of its way to inflate the costs and offer suggestions of how that money could be better spent. Its just an attempt to turn people against the monarchy because of how much it is claimed to have cost. Whilst u hardcore republicans here wouldnt care about cost, i bet some drifting towards the republican cause do so because they think its a waste of money and that it could be better spent
November 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
SIMON SAID – “Whilst u hardcore republicans here wouldnt care about cost, i bet some drifting towards the republican cause do so because they think its a waste of money and that it could be better spent”
Well let all us hard-core republicans, interested in meaningful democratic reform, hope you’re right Simon. Let’s hope we can persuade people to take off their monarchy goggles, like the ones you wear Simon, and see the light. Let’s hope King Gordon is thwarted in his aim to hide the truth from us with his plan to exempt the monarchy from FOI. Better still, let’s all write, as I have, to our MPs and ask them to sign Lynne Jone’s EDM, and let’s hope they all sign it. Let’s hope King Gordon ends up with egg on his face.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Bob,
Hope i am right on what? That some may be misled into supporting a republic because of inflated claims about the cost of monarchy?
I am sure my MP will not sign such an EDM, 30 out of 600+ isnt too bad though
Whilst i would love to see Prime Minister brown get egg on his face, if its an issue related to the monarchy then that is not a good idea. He makes mistakes on a weekly basis i do not think there needs to be a big fuss avout this little change to the application of the Freedom of Information Act. The government is just cleaning up some loose ends which often get left open with their rushed through legislation.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
SIMON SAID TO LIAM – “Notice you did the same thing i am talking about. He says it costs well over 100 million, “possibly up to £200 million” and yet you say”gone on record saying that the monarchy costs £200m”. There is a big difference and considering the figure Republic puts around its understandable if he wanted to set a cap of the total possible cost.”
Hear those straws rattling folks.
Why do these monarchists not look at what the institution of monarchy is doing to our so called democracy. Do they have a mental-block? Regarding the cost of monarchy Simon, and as I’m sure someone else has probably told you time after time, Republic has just reacted to the disingenuous spin coming out of the palace and because of the spin, (69p per capita), Republic have had to try to source the information themselves when that information should be in the public domain anyway, we pay for it after all. It’s quite obvious even to me, an uneducated imbecile I think Jack Ja likes to refer to republicans as, that the official 40 million figure bandied around is woefully short of the truth when the cost of security isn’t included. It’s the palace that’s claiming the monarchy is a bargain, so if it is such a bargain why are they concealing the cost of security? This is getting like ground-hog day and I’m getting fed up. I’m off to have a cold press on my forehead.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Are we not talking about Royal costs? Obviously as there are ROYALTY they need higher security, especially with the masses of Irish immigrants in our great land. But, them costs could still be just as high with an elected Head of State.
Let’s just say for a minute that Tony Benn is our President and his security costs are only about 40m, significantly less than the Royal securities, yeah? Why is that do you think? Is it because the Government value the President less important than the Queen ever was? Or maybe it is because no one really cares about the President?
I take it you see where i am going with this.
Barrack Obama – because he was the first Black President of the USA – requires higher security levels than any other President has in history! It was estimated during his first 100 days that security for Mr Obama costed just over $100m! In less than 100 days his security costed around £60m! Imagine how much that will add up to by the end of his first year – not to mention his first term!
The Prime Ministers security is far less than the Queen’s security. Why is that do you think? Because no one really cares about the PM. how many Americans do you think, who voted for Obama, would want his autograph? How many Labour supporters would want Tony Blair’s autograph or Gordon Brown’s? How many do you think would want the Queen’s autograph? Not many for either – but i think people would treasure having the Queen’s autograph FAR more than having the PM’s autograph. Would you agree?
November 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“I take it you see where i am going with this.”
No, I don’t.
As for your quality of language, everything has been covered in your last post!
November 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Dear Jack-Ja,
As promised, here are my thoughts about reasons why the presence of the monarchy causes our society some harm, in a nutshell. The harm caused is not direct physical harm, as was caused for example,by Tsar Nicholas 2nd to the Russian people,and Henry 8th to a lot of people. Even Lenin stated in one of his works that he did not think that the British monarchy was as harmful to the British ,as the Tsar was to his countrymen and women ! However the harm is caused by the frustration of the correct and rightful democratic development of our country. It is palpable.The monarchy and the associated aristocracy inhibit the rights and general welfare of our citizens, by reason of Negativity. To see a list of valid reasons why we need a republican democracy, please look again at the ten points listed on this thread,above,at post no 82,submitted by Liam Finn on 26th November. Concerning your attitude towards America, I have scanned your remarks,and I do not feel that you have any particular hatred of that country. Obviously there are faults with any political system, and I feel that you have merely stated what you thought these were.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
SIMON (in response to this comment from me) – “Well let all us hard-core republicans, interested in meaningful democratic reform, hope you’re right Simon.
Hope i am right on what? That some may be misled into supporting a republic because of inflated claims about the cost of monarchy?”
God this is getting tedious
If people become interested in republicanism because they recognize the 69p per capita figure quoted by the palace for what it is, (a disingenuous con), then I am all for that. It is not Republic who are cooking the books.
“i do not think there needs to be a big fuss avout this little change to the application of the Freedom of Information Act. The government is just cleaning up some loose ends”
If you don’t mind the PM being able to afford the monarchy blanket exemption from FOI then you’re complacent and have no understanding of democracy. There is a danger, if this goes through, that ministers will be influenced by royalty meddling. We need to know if royalty is meddling in the supposedly democratic process. If they are not meddling then why the need for blanket exemption from FOI? What loose ends are you referring to that need cleaning up and which relate to the monarchy?
Jack Ja – I’m not even going to reply to your drivel.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Simon, have you contacted the Palace about your finance research? After all, it is quoting an incorrect figure.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@ Jack Ja
“Obviously as there are ROYALTY they need higher security, especially with the masses of Irish immigrants in our great land.”
Why do we need higher security with the “masses of Irish immigrants” in out great land?
“Let’s just say for a minute that Tony Benn is our President and his security costs are only about 40m, significantly less than the Royal securities, yeah?…”
Blah, blah, blah ……. As has been said umpteen times on these pages, the principle of having a republic overrides the cost. Secondly, however, I’m fairly confident that a President Benn, a President Thatcher or a President Whomever would only have maybe one or a maximum of two residences to look after instead of the dozens that are used by our unelected head of state now.
“Barrack Obama – because he was the first Black President of the USA – requires higher security levels than any other President has in history!”
Conspiracy theorists like Earl Macrae might have mentioned this in passing but I would have thought that US foreign and domestic policy might create a need for security rather than the President’s race. Either way, I am not sure what point you raise here or where you get the information from. Please clarify.
“i think people would treasure having the Queen’s autograph FAR more than having the PM’s autograph.”
What is this? You are turning a serious debate into a celebrity memorabilia auction. However, if you really want to go well off base, the collectors’ market is based not only popularity and topicality but also on scarcity.
As Elizabeth is not known for handing out autographs, it is reasonable to assume that you can fetch a decent price for HM The Queen’s scribble on well-known internet auction sites. However, an autograph by President John Fitzgerald Kennedy could net you a tidy $40,000 depending upon the circumstances.
Now can we get back to the subject.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Bob,
Because we do not consider the monarchy a drain on our democracy.
I do not consider the figures the palace release as spin, they clearly state on their website along with all media reports about the situation that security costs are not included. This is not an unreasonable exclusion, i doubt all republics figures on cost include security. Of course if they wanted to improve the figures they do not have to include costs of maintaining the palaces and castle as a “cost of monarchy”. That would save them £15 million. But there is no reason why the “lost revenue” would be included. This is a very complicated area and the idea we can just presume the dutchies will belong to the state if the monarchy is removed is misleading. If we did scrap the monarchy our former royal family must have financial security, keeping the dutchies may have to be the pay off but it would be a big legal battle, either way its wrong to count a lost revenue as a cost.
Bob,
Republic are just misleading people about the actual cost of monarchy. I fully accept because the monarchy does not release figures on security and other matters that republic must use reliable press sources. I am fine with Republic using the 50 million estimate for security which the press says this year. What i think is misleading is when republic say its 100 million, which appears to only come from one press report in 2004. Even then they do not say 50-100 million.. they say 100 million, this is highlighted in the radio trasncript where Graham said republic estimates it to be 183 million.
As i have said before i do not think there is a real need for change on this. Id be fine with the status quo where exemptions already cover a range of areas and are applied often. The personal correspondents between Her Majesty the Queen and her Prime Minister certainly has no place in the public domain and should be automatically exempt. It could undermine our constitutionial setup and stability.
Like everything the Labour government introduces there are always flaws in their legislation. If the government that introduced the FOI is seeking to amend it to protect the monarchy and our constitutional setup then i have no complaints. FOI is very new anyway, we managed before it.
Anyway i am going to be slightly busy in the next few days, the separatists have just launched their white paper on destroying the United Kingdom so my attention is needed elsewhere.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
SIMON SAID – “Because we do not consider the monarchy a drain on our democracy.”
You’re blinkered then Simon, and that is evident throughout every one of your posts.
“Republic are just misleading people about the actual cost of monarchy”
No Simon, for the umpteenth time, the palace is misleading the public. The expenditure of public money should be transparent instead of hidden.
“As i have said before i do not think there is a real need for change on this. Id be fine with the status quo where exemptions already cover a range of areas and are applied often. The personal correspondents between Her Majesty the Queen and her Prime Minister certainly has no place in the public domain and should be automatically exempt. It could undermine our constitutional setup and stability.”
I expect this attitude from you Simon – blinkered and complacent. Royalty have no divine right to interfere in our government and their correspondence should be public. They have no democratic mandate.
This is extremely tiresome so I’m glad you’re busy for a few days, it will give us a rest. While you’re away do you think you might be able to come up with some cogent argument in favour of monarchy instead of your usual repetitive “it’s cheap at the price”, ” we have a gracious queen who should live another 20 years”, “your not worried about the assault on our right to know how royalty might be meddling”, “It’s OK by you for the government to do anything it sees fit as long as it protects your beloved monarchy”,”any MP that treats a republican constituent with utter contempt is OK by you, and you would like to vote for a knob-head like that”. Now please go away and annoy some Scottish separatists for a while.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Having said that, be careful how you articulate your support for the union. With your track record you might very well send Scots into the separatist camp, (I prefer to call it the Independence for Scotland camp).
November 30th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
How many times – it doesn’t matter how much the Monarchy costs in security! It costs more because they are Royalty. Barrack Obama’s security costed over $100m in his first 100 days! So even if we had a President – depending on how many terrorists want him dead – it will cost big bucks!
Stop clutching at straws and trying for find imaginary reasons on why the Monarchy is so bad. Especially, when our lovely elected Government are paying for immigrants £1,600 a month rent in Westminster! Those are the things you should be attacking – not how much ROYALTY costs. And before you say – obviously £1600 a month is not as much, as say £133m, but it is principle and until we shape up our corrupt government there is no need to remove the Monarchy.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“Especially, when our lovely elected Government are paying for immigrants £1,600 a month rent in Westminster!”
Well, a heck of a lot cheaper than the immigrants in the Windsor family…
December 1st, 2009 at 1:10 am
@ Liam
I know….. I know…….it’s very sad in a way.
And I always thought it was the local council’s legal duty to find housing for people in their respective boroughs and not the role of the Government, but since when has Jack Ja bothered himself with the facts.
Maybe these are Irish immigrants (ibid.) he is describing?
And maybe Jack Ja is one of the best advertisements in favour of a republic we have ever come across?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
Liam/Martin:
Can I just say I don’t think it’s entirely fair, nor helpful to our cause, to label the Windsors as ‘immigrants.’ Granted, there is a point to be made about the absurd and shameful continuation of the anti-Catholic discrimination which is the reason their ancestors were promoted up the line of succession and came to Britain in the first place (albeit that move made good sense from a governmental perspective at the time), but when it comes down to it they are as British as any other family which has been in Britain for nearly 300 years, even if they did carry on marrying Germans for the first 200.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@ JACK JA – “until we shape up our corrupt government there is no need to remove the Monarchy.”
And how, pray, do you propose we do that Jack Ja? And how have we managed to reach the position we are now in Jack Ja? Why have our elected representatives been able to get away with it for so long Jack Ja? And don’t say it’s a purely Labour Party phenomenon because it most patently is not. And don’t say it’s only a recent phenomenon because it most patently is not that either. We’re still waiting for a response as to why you see the Irish community as a security threat, rather like we’re still waiting for Simon to tell us what all these loose ends are that need tying up and which necessitate blanket exemption from FOI, (total secrecy), for the royal household.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Extraordinary. Have you not noticed all the commentary on here about the power of the Crown and the relationship between the monarchy and our government?
Governments are corrupted by power, and in this country the Crown gives them all the power they could ever want.
If you want an uncorrupted government and a more accountable political system then you must support a republic – or simply contradict yourself at every turn.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@ Matt
I know, I was joking! I was trying to adopt the same stupid line that Jack Ja took to show how silly it is/was. I’ve worked with a number of group supporting sanctuary seekers in the past and if I follow a career in law I’ve looked into working in immigration.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@ Matt
My aside was not aimed at any family in particular but at the unfounded sarcasm made by Jack Ja about “Especially, when our lovely elected Government are paying for immigrants £1,600 a month rent in Westminster” and the unanswered query I lodged earlier concerning the alleged need for additional security because there were “masses” of Irish people living in the UK.
Please read the post in that context.
I have no truck whatsoever with immigrants per se who more often than not add substantial value and enrich the culture of this country.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I can not believe you are banging on about my irish comment – still! It was a joke – about the irish terrorists who are republicans who seek to remove the BRITISH Monarchy – by force if necessary. Now lets make that the end of the matter.
Obviously £1,600 a month is far less than what the “german immigrants” get, but those “german immigrants” are ROYALTY! And as the Queen is the Head of State she needs security which does cost money. In the 1940s, 1950s etc people had the right to vote for which political party they wanted to. And ever since the Monarchy became Constitutional – parties determine whether or not the monarchy is kept or removed. If you seek to remove the Monarchy – do not vote Labour or Conservative as they are for it, instead, vote the Green party for example. We, as British people, have the decision to vote for a different party than the one our relatives, parents and grandparents voted for. So, in theory, a vote for Tories or Labour is a vote for Prince Charles as the next Head of State. Just like, a vote for Barrack Obama for Head of Government in the U.S was a vote for Barrack Obama for Head of State.
And this “security costs” is nonsense! In the U.S Obama’s security for his first 100 days costed over $100m – more than any other president in U.S history! That is according to Sky News sources who was talking about it on the program. So, if we had an elected Head of State – his/her security could be just as high, if not higher!
The fact that our government is paying £1,600 for an immigrants rent is absurd! We need to fix our government before we fix the Monarchy or remove the monarchy. I fail to see how removing the Monarchy would change our corruptness in Government! But, please, inform me how?
Would we have a brand new constitution? What would stop our government from being just as corrupt as it is now, if not worse, than what it was before – from just simply not having a Monarch.
The Queen does not decide what happens in Parliament – the Queen does not decide to allow the tax payer to pay £1,600 a month on someone’s rent! So, how would, by not having a monarchy, stop this kind of behaviour?
The Government decides what happens to the country! A brand new constitution could still arrive WITH the Monarchy. Therefore, just because we have a Queen does not mean that our government will automatically be corrupt! Norway are a Monarchy – yet they have one of the governments in the world – in terms of little corruptness, big results and huge faith by their people. This is according to the HDI.
If it is not broke – don’t fix it. An elected Head of State could be ten times worse than the Queen. I think it is safe to say that the Queen has not done anything other than a GREAT job for GREAT Britain? Would you disagree, of course you will disagree – how has the Queen done a bad job for this country as Head of State? We were a republic for 11 years back in the day – look at how our country was then!
December 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“but those “german immigrants” are ROYALTY!”
Of course! Because of somebody’s blood they should get more money! Why didn’t I think of that before?!!
“So, in theory, a vote for Tories or Labour is a vote for Prince Charles as the next Head of State. Just like, a vote for Barrack Obama for Head of Government in the U.S was a vote for Barrack Obama for Head of State.”
Right, now we can sort of understand why monarchists reckon the monarchy is democratic! When someone votes Labour, they’re not voting because of Labour’s education, health or immigration polices; they’re voting for Charlie boy!
“And this “security costs” is nonsense! In the U.S Obama’s security for his first 100 days costed over $100m – more than any other president in U.S history! That is according to Sky News sources who was talking about it on the program. So, if we had an elected Head of State – his/her security could be just as high, if not higher!”
Says who? (The word is “cost” not “costed”, mate). Obama is an absolute exception in terms of the danger he faces. I do not object to the Windsors having security. I don’t object to paying for that security. I object to having them as the family with the power. They shouldn’t have needed that security in the first place because they should never have been in their position.
“The fact that our government is paying £1,600 for an immigrants rent is absurd!”
What the hell are you talking about?
“I fail to see how removing the Monarchy would change our corruptness in Government!”
There would be more scrutiny and transparency in government; politicians would be under greater pressure to not be corrupt; measures would be in place to get shot of them if they were. Yes, there is corruption in some republics, but a) the people can get rid of those particular thieves and b) are the measures in place to provide adequate transparency in those republics?
“The Government decides what happens to the country! A brand new constitution could still arrive WITH the Monarchy.”
But why should our brand new constitution have this in it:
“The Head of State shall be a hereditary monarch, descended from the most excellent Princess Sophia of Hanover, being Protestants, giving preference to males over females and recognising the right of primogeniture”
Go on, give us some reasons. Pleeeeeeease???
“If it is not broke – don’t fix it. An elected Head of State could be ten times worse than the Queen. I think it is safe to say that the Queen has not done anything other than a GREAT job for GREAT Britain? Would you disagree, of course you will disagree – how has the Queen done a bad job for this country as Head of State? We were a republic for 11 years back in the day – look at how our country was then!”
Ok then
1) If an elected head of state would be worse, give us ten reasons why this would be the case.
2) Is cutting ribbons to open schools and hospitals a great job? I actually don’t think it’s that spectacular. Neither do I think it is spectacular having a head of state who sponsors a homophobic Church group. Neither do I think it is spectacular having a head of state who has the social skills of a wooden table.
3) Cromwell’s Commonwealth was about as far removed from proper democracy as one can get. Are you really trying to tell me that the people of this country would be incapable of succeeding properly with a new republic because of some tyrant three hundred years ago?
NB You need English lessons.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Sorry i have been slightly busy so not following this thread, Liam id like to address some of the points you put to Jack.
Yes that is how our entire system is based including in republics. People benefit from their parents wealth or position. This may not make those interested in class warfare very happy but its the way of the world even in republics.
You are partly right yes. When someone votes for the labour party they are voting for a party that supports the continuation of the monarchy. If they had placed the abolition of the monarchy in their manifesto then the conservative party in 1997 would have won that election. The same applies to the situation with the separatists. Some say the Scottish people must be given a referendum on if they want an end of the union. They are completly ignored until the separatists win enough seats enabling them to form a minority government, and now its a serious possibility because people voted for a party that supports a referendum on it. Not enough voted for that party though, most votes went to unionists who stand on a platform of keeping the United Kingdom together. Only when the majority votes for the separatists is there justification and a need for a referendum.
So back to the point, whilst the British people vote for the BNP, UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems, Conservatives and my goodness even the separatist SNP (thanks Alex!) they are voting for parties who do not propose to attack the monarchy and remove it, they want to keep it. if ofcourse the British people are struck down by some illness which consumes them and makes them vote Green (why does the climate change nonsense come to mind?) then there would have to be a referendum on the monarchy because the government elected by the people have it in their manifesto. Its a rather simple concept, its British democracy!
Whilst Obama needs even more protection, all US presidents get alot considering theyve had several presidents killed and a couple wounded along with many attempts so even before 9/11 the US spent far more on security than we did. Of course the Queen has been at risk too, she has been shot at and woken up to a strange man in her bedroom (not the Duke of Edinburgh). So security is needed. I am glad you accept we must protect them, its just you disagree with the principle of monarchy that requires them to be protected. Republican first families need protecting too!
In an ideal world may be, how can you be sure the current bunch would establish such a wonderful republic. As you point out there are many republics that lack such things as well. We can bring about a more open government without abolishing the monarchy if thats what the people want and vote for.
It would have the hereditary monarch as head of state because thats what the people will have chosen. It shouldnt have the discrimination of females / catholics but as pointed out before we share our monarchy with 15 other countries. We can not just change ours it would cause huge problems. When the Queen dies these matters will be addressed, dont worry.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
“Yes that is how our entire system is based including in republics. People benefit from their parents wealth or position. This may not make those interested in class warfare very happy but its the way of the world even in republics.”
No, no, no. You have misunderstood my point, Simon. I am against people getting money from the state on account of their family; not hereditary wealth. I have said a number of times that I am not a socialist. I agree with the basic principles of socialism but think it is impractical and out-dated.
Your points about voting for political parties are correct to a large extent. I have said that one of the reasons why I voted Green in the European election was because they are a republican party. However, it was the least important factor in forcing my decision. I agreed with the Greens’ environmental and economic policies above anything else. (I would LOVE to be wrong about climate change but from the evidence I have seen so far – and I am continuing to look at the whole lot – I think it is a real threat).
Re: security. The Windsors shouldn’t have required that protection because they should never have had the status they have “enjoyed”.
“In an ideal world may be, how can you be sure the current bunch would establish such a wonderful republic. As you point out there are many republics that lack such things as well. We can bring about a more open government without abolishing the monarchy if thats what the people want and vote for.”
You keep banging on and on about the current bunch. One of the reasons we are so opposed to the monarchy is because of what it results in: the current bunch. We want to have the proper mechanisms with which to get rid of the currrent bunch. Simon, stop doubting our ability to have proper transparency and democracy.
“It would have the hereditary monarch as head of state because thats what the people will have chosen.”
Why can’t we put it to the test in a referendum?
“It shouldnt have the discrimination of females / catholics but as pointed out before we share our monarchy with 15 other countries. We can not just change ours it would cause huge problems.”
This is absolute RUBBISH. It is a pathetic, pathetic excuse to avoid a vital issue which has been trotted out by everybody, including Brown. We have no problem with walking into other countries and installing an illegitimate head of state yet when it comes to an issue which would seriously weaken that arrangement we chicken out. That’s cowardice.
“When the Queen dies these matters will be addressed, dont worry.”
Actually, I am very, very worried about how this will be addressed. I also resent your argument that we should postpone our bid to have a democracy until the sad day when this woman dies. Would we say, “let’s postpone a decision about the EU presidency until the bloke has died?” No. This is about the principle, not the individual.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Another fantastic response from Simon.
Can i also point out that the Lib Dems – the third post voted political party in the UK – does want to remove the way our Monarch is chosen. For example, they want to remove discrimination altogether so even if you are Catholic you can still get to the throne (if your part of the Royals obviously) and if you are the first born in your family, regardless of gender – that person will accede the throne.
So it can clearly be seen that the Monarchy can be altered without removing them. If the Lib Dems do get into power, then they will address this issue without removing it altogether. Which therefore shows that other issues can be addressed without removing the Monarchy.
I didn’t say that an elected Head of State WOULD be worse! I said that it COULD be worse! There is a difference. I think you need reading lessons – or maybe English lessons to be able to tell the difference between certain words that rhyme.
NB: And saying that i need English lessons because i misused a word is ridiculous! I used the word ‘costed’ in the wrong context, that is all. To say that i need English lessons is just silly!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
“Can i also point out that the Lib Dems – the third post voted political party in the UK – does want to remove the way our Monarch is chosen.”
Since when did the Lib Dems become a republican party? Please can you find me this particular pledge? I might be changing my vote at the next election now!
“So it can clearly be seen that the Monarchy can be altered without removing them.”
Oh, of course it’s possible. But why go half-measures? Why just stop discrimination against Catholics and women when you’re discriminating against everybody else in the country who doesn’t belong to the Windsor family?
I know the differences between tenses. I asked you for at least ten reasons. Still waiting, Jack…
“NB: And saying that i need English lessons because i misused a word is ridiculous! I used the word ‘costed’ in the wrong context, that is all. To say that i need English lessons is just silly!”
Of course it’s silly. I’m going out of my way to draw attention to your bad writing because it infuriates me so much when pedantic people like you try and pick up on other people’s typos or mistakes as a substitute for delivering an argument. “Costed” isn’t a word.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Jack Ja, allow me to point to the reasons why Liam is absolutely right about you needing English lessons.
* “Can i also point…” – should be capital ‘I’
* “the third post voted political party in the UK” – meaning what?
* “the Lib Dems…does want” – should be “do want”
* “if your part of the Royals” – should be “if you’re one of the Royals”
* “the Monarchy can be altered without removing them” – should be removing ‘it’
* “saying that i need English lessons because i misused a word is ridiculous” – you destroy your argument with the two small ‘i’s!
* “To say that i need English lessons is just silly” – I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
As I say, Jack Ja, I am doing the English teacher act for a joke. I have written many, many posts on this site and I’m sure there will be plenty of mistakes in them because I never check back through them. It’s just so damn irritaing when somebody comes along in such a childish manner and picks on someone’s writing as if they’re using it as a substitue for an argument.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 am
@ Jack Ja
“I can not believe you are banging on about my irish comment – still! It was a joke – about the irish terrorists who are republicans who seek to remove the BRITISH Monarchy – by force if necessary. Now lets make that the end of the matter. ”
No. Let’s not make it the end of the matter. You cannot be allowed to dismiss such an ill-advised posting so easily.
I find your stereotyping of the Irish quite infantile, ignorant, deeply offensive and, needless to say not at all funny.
Do not make comments like this and claim later, when found out, that it really “was a joke”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 am
Well our short period crossing over to the dark side was not something we should forget. Of course today if we became a republic it would not result in such suffering but do we think the current mob in the house of commons are capable of introducing a decent republic we can all be proud of? Good lord no. Ofcourse there is a little double standard here, some people attack todays monarchy because of what happened 100s of years ago when certain rules were drawn up
I do not think the head of state position is that great a job, i think its a job most of us would not want. Some people say that not being able to qualify for that top position holds children back. What rubbish considering how great our history has been whilst having a monarchy and people would want to aim for the job of Prime Minister where they can bring about reform and change the world. Do you really want a job where all you do is “cutting ribbons to open schools and hospitals?”
Whilst the position may not be great, the overwhelming majority of the British people and indeed respected figures from all around the world (President Obama, Nelson Mandela etc) think she has done a great job and have huge respect for her. If she had done a bad job this country would be a republic today. Monarchists who argue the greatness of the system of monarchy are stuck with that one family and if Prince Charles becomes King and does an awful job then the monarchy will fall and this country will become a republic
Most if not all religions are homophobic so that could apply to presidents and monarchs unless they are atheists.
Well thats a pretty nasty attack on the Queen there, she has social skills but because of her position she must be careful what she says in public. (maybe her human rights are being violated, call the European court of human rights!). Also ofcourse we could have presidents like that, does Gordon Brown have social skills and charm that many would like?
1) In republics where parliament decides the head of state they are usually split down party lines. If the dominant party / parties get their guy into the presidency will the president act in a fair way?
2) In republics where the people directly elect the president, this is based on opinions at the time. So between 1997 and 2001 when we were in love with labour we would likely have elected labours candidate for President and are we sure theyd act in a fair way?
3) The monarchy has support from people of all sides of the political spectrum from left wing to right wing and from the political parties with the exception of the greens. That sort of consensus (all the parties couldnt agree on anything else) helps strenghten the position of head of state as a unifying figure which even in republics they are meant to be
4) The Queen and the royal family have huge media recognition not just in Britain but internationally. Most ceremonial presidents that come and go lack that recognition which can be used to promote British industry and the nation abroad and charities at home
5) An elected head of state is just one person, The Queen has a family who carry out royal duties on her and the states behalf which means more hospitals and schools can be opened. More soldiers greeted and given awards. More charities supported and sponsored etc. A sitting presidents wife may do some things but not the children and republics proposed system opposes they get involved
6) Different people appeal to different parts of the country. The Queen is seen as British by most people, if England because of population size elected an Englishman like Boris Johnson who attacks the Scots would that help or weaken the union?
7) Too many elections hurt voter turnout. The French and US presidential elections have high turnout, the legislative elections which are just as important are significantly lower
8 ) Celebrating the monarchy is a chance to celebrate the country. People wave union flags at the Queen not the royal standard
9) An elected head of state is not a symbol of the nation, our Queen is considered one
10) Loyalty to a non political monarch is safer than loyalty to political figures…
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Liam, you’ve absolutely nothing to apologise for. Although you may’ve intended your remarks about English lessons to be taken humorously, the string of mistakes in Jack Ja’s latest post is horrendous, and cannot possibly be attributed to writing in a hurry or momentary absent-mindedness.
I have to admit I am somewhat obsessed with the proper use of English, but I don’t mind also telling you that this played a key part in converting me to republicanism: for even while writing my most passionate defences of the monarchy, I was in my heart of hearts coming to terms with the fact that the institution represents a Britain which no longer exists, certainly for me, as I had felt like a foreigner in my own country since returning from my travels a year-and-a-half ago; a major reason for this was that every other person I spoke to outside my family and political circles had severe difficulties with my “big words” and “long sentences” (whereas in New Zealand I had no problems like that whatsoever, because everyone there speaks perfect English as it was taught here before it started getting dumbed down). Eventually my constitutional ponderings got me to the point where I could no longer seriously deny the democratic need for a republic based on popular sovereignty, but I still needed a hard push off the fence into the republican camp. That push came one terrible day just over a month ago when, after two weeks of serious communication difficulties with several people, I found myself having an awkward conversation regarding some unfortunate business with a person who is supposed to be at the top of her profession, and every single word I uttered – plain as day – went straight over her head, as though I were speaking a foreign language.
Now before Simon and Jack Ja can even think of asking me what the hell I’m talking about, obviously the monarchy v republic debate doesn’t have any direct connection to the problem of the English language being dumbed down. But the latter is nonetheless highly symptomatic of a people fast asleep, and thus a prime example of a way in which we can make Britain great again by urging the masses to wake up, take control of their destiny and stop letting the state dictate their lives.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
… as often happens in republics.
Grrrr im behind and have to catch up lol
Liam,
They get money from the state because the state chooses the system of monarchy and there for has to pay for it. If those that did not carry out royal duties got tons of tax payers money i could understand your concerns but i happen to think the fact we have many royals carrying out duties all over the country is a good thing and something wed miss out on in a republic.
priorities matter though. If saving the planet is more important than getting rid of the monarchy then you should vote green even if they wernt republicans. If Scottish independence is more important than health, education or any other policy then people should vote SNP every single time. Thats how it works, i accept its not the same as a mandate from the people in referendum but general elections are a good test of public opinion and priorities. Even though the lib dems dont advocate abolition of the monarchy right now we know voting for them would clean the system up alot. As for climate change i think its happening, what i question is how much man is responsible and if we should try to stop it or even can stop it which isnt a certainty. Id rather invest 10s of billions on sea and flood defences at home so we are safe no matter what than trying to “save the planet” which wont have a huge impact.
Well they do so they must be protected. Dont forget former American presidents still get round the clock secret service protection despite being out of office for a long time.
We do not have to scrap the monarchy to do that. You campaign to remove one of the strongest British institution there is yet its like facing a brick wall.. we all know the Queen will not be removed from her throne. So focus on political reform that we can all support and demand changes on. I support dealing with the house of lords and cleaning up parliament.
If we vote for a party that wants a referendum on the monarchy then we must have one. Ive said before there are a huge number of reforms to the constitutional setup relating to the monarchy id support. One would include a automatic right to a referendum following the death of a monarch to reaffirm our support for the new monarch and a mechanism of when parliament needs to call one about it. Big reforms which could be built around keeping the monarchy.
No this is a very serious problem. We would need every single one of the Queens realms to change their constitutions. Considering a country like Australia has a PM/opposition who support a republic, the idea they could get through such a reform is foolish. It would put some of Her Majesty’s realms at serious risk, now is not the time. it can be addressed following her death when many become republics and a open debate can be had.
In principle we all agree there is a need for change to the line of succession rules but it is simply not possible in practice. Following the Queens death some countries will want to become republics. That is the time when the realms must come together along with the King’s officials and get agreement on how we are all going to proceed. It will be done in a dignified way when the time comes but it should be put off until then. There will be radical reforms when the Queen dies which will address some of republics concerns. Just have patience.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Martin,
I have not been following the debate about Jacks specific comment, but I am sure the security services were concerned about some of the Irish community in this country and if any of them were loyal to the republican cause and might cause trouble. We have heard from someone else on another post their experience in manchester or liverpool i forget which where there were some less than patriotic catholics in that city who did not feel British. Sadly this sort of thing certainly applies in Scotland today, we saw that a few weeks ago with some Celtic fans singing IRA songs during the minutes silence on remembrance Sunday. ( I do not know if they were catholic or Irish but clearly supporters of the Irish republican cause. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KwSJCAfaBE Ofcourse the same applies today to the muslim community because of the threat of Islam, its just natural that the security forces will see certain communities as more of a threat to the state than others. Its like complaining about police profiling. We all know it happens, even if it shouldnt! Sometimes it comes down to commonsense, is it wrong to think that a 20 year old asian man acting in a strange way might be more of a threat than a little 90 year old lady? Do we have to be politically correct and stop the 90 year old just for the sake of it? Anyway way way way way off topic but couldnt help just make that point. Hes said he was only joking about his comment so moving swiftly on.
Matt,
My English is certainly not as good as i would like but i honestly do not see how the sort of political awakening in the form of a republican movement would bring about any sort of change to these matters like education you would want. I see it as a distraction focusing on constitutional reforms instead of getting to grips with things like the education crisis in this country.
People should take more responsibility, people should be far more politically active but i do not see any sort of evidence that this is linked with the system of government and that if we were all politically active we would want to abolish the monarchy, the Scandinavian countries which mostly have monarchies have very high standards on these sorts of things without the monarchy being a block.
People always say on here “the people must be sovereign” like its the answer to all our problems. I just do not understand this point. I fail to see how in America or France the people are any more sovereign than we are in this country. Sure the U.S constitution may start “We the people” which is very nice but where are the actual differences?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 am
And the joke i said about the Irish was clearly of humour to me. I have grown up in an environment where the irish, welsh, scottish and even the english are joked about so rudely in London.
I’m sorry that you were offended by my Irish joke – but the Republic of Terrorists is well known for their hatred of the Monarchy and therefore as a result, EXTRA security costs are required – especially with the amount of filth coming into Britain we see day in, day out, through lack of boarder control thanks to our lovely elected government. i’m sorry – thanks to the Monarchy – after all they are to blame for everything that is wrong with Britain, aren’t they? In case you didn’t realise – i was being sarcastic.
Oh, and by the way – ‘costed’ IS a word. I, mistakenly, used it in the wrong sentence. I strongly suggest you look it up before you continue to make yourself look like a fool and say that it isn’t a word, AGAIN!
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 am
Simon:
how would the sort of political awakening in the form of a republican movement bring about any sort of change to these matters like education you would want?
Because, in a nutshell: I firmly believe that the majority of Britons are, deep down, conservative (important to note the small ‘c’), aspirational and possessed of great moral virtue, and not politically correct or overly liberal; but as long as they believe they are powerless to change the status quo of elective dictatorship then they will never make any serious attempt to force change, meaning that the Conservatives (now with a large ‘C’) could stay in Downing Street for 18 years like they did under Thatcher (and Major) but would ultimately be powerless to reverse the full extent of the damage done by years of liberal authoritarianism without the active participation of the people.
Graham/James, please ban Jack Ja. He has gravely insulted Liam and possibly me as well.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 am
Er,UMMM. What is a t**t?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 am
Barry, trust me, you don’t want to know. But presumably you will join me in calling for Jack Ja to be banned – I only just noticed his disgusting remark about Ireland, and I was about to turn in before I read his gross insult to Liam, now I’m buzzing with anger!
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Matt,
I agree with all of that except the elective dictatorship bit. If your fears about change not being possible were proven wrong without the need to remove the monarchy would you still think it needs removing? A reformed modern monarchy which will come about following the Queens death could have a positive position in a new Great Britain.
Jack Ja,
You have to stay calm, abuse and shouting solves nothing, especially foul language. As for all the fighting over spelling its not worth it online although it would be great if these textboxes came with automatic red lines for spelling errors to reduce mistakes made.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
LOL – get me banned. I can use a different email address if that will be banned. I can use a different computer – and different internet connection at work.
However, you will pleased that i will be absent from Republic.org from June 11th to July 11th as, unlike some nations, i will be off to South Africa for the World Cup.
I could be back very shortly after the 11th, if we don’t manage to get out the group stages – but either way, at least we was there.
I can not wait to sing my heart out – God Save the Queen. I also can’t wait to clap Henry if we do get to play them.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 am
Applauding a cheating Frenchman? Sure, that’s the absolute epitome of English patriotism LMAO!!
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:38 am
Matt, imagine if the world cup qualifier had happened a day before the Lisbon treaty referendum in Ireland.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 am
For every man who thinks Henry is a cheat, someone else thinks of him as hero – what would you rather be, if you were Henry? Hero by your country and villain by Ireland – or depressed because you didn’t make it to the World Cup? Let’s face it – Ireland were heading for South Africa even if it was by penalties – only something to the extreme could prevent it happening.
But let’s not let this be about football. What is done is done, who are through are through, who are left at home are playing in the world cup, on their playstation next year.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 am
Jack, I have asked you more than once to respect our moderation policy. Personal abuse is not acceptable. If you can’t respect the policy of this blog don’t post here.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
GRAHAM! Are you being serious? I have apologised for my Irish joke – they furthered it! I then pointed out someone’s spelling incident, because it was spelt the American way. They then all attempted to bully me and say that i needed English lessons!
I do hope that they will be reminded of this moderation policy as well! Or is one rule for Monarchists another rule for Republicans?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 am
Actually, Jack, you apologised for your Irish joke but then rendered your apology worthless by calling Ireland “the Republic of Terrorists,” and then referred to the “filth” coming into Britain.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 am
Actually there are far more people around the world who see him as a cheat than a hero. His reception at the world cup will be very negative indeed and to a lesser degree so will Frances.
I think Henry would rather be remembered as a great footballer than hated by millions as a cheat. He is going to get abuse by some where ever he goes now. The next French-Irish friendly game will not be a pretty sight. Although atleast his actions have forced the hand of FIFA to actually accept there is a urgent need for some changes like more referees.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 am
Let’s get back to the debate in hand.
It is almost impossible to find a political party that supports everyone of your beliefs. For example, i am for Capital Punishment for Terrorists, sorry i mean the Irish, no no, i was right the first time Terrorists (i always get confused between them two), as well as for murderers and rapists. But, i do not agree with their other policies and therefore i would not vote for the BNP. If you feel so strongly against the Monarchy – then do not vote Labour of the Conservatives as they are for the Monarchy. Instead, campaign for the Green Party. I vote Conservative – but there several of their policies i do not agree with. But, you have to balance them all out. For example, being for the Monarchy would be +5 points for me, being for minimum wage would be +1 etc etc.
If Labour or the Conservatives still gets your vote – even though you are against the monarchy. Then you will just have to live with it. Just like how 60%+ people who didn’t vote for Labour had to accept that they got into power for three terms running.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
Matt,
Yes the Republic of terrorists and filth comments were out of line and certainly not needed.
Jack,
You have been given a second chance by Graham so you should take it by not making any more offensive comments. It may be easy to get a new IP, new computer, new email address but not that many new people post on these blogs, you will stand out if you do get banned and come back with a new name and with certain comments like the ones you made earlier you are clearly stepping over the line.
I do not want to see you get banned because its nice when theres more than one supporter of the monarchy around here but you will deserve to be with comments like that. They help solve nothing
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
He’s done it again! This has GOT to stop. Don’t you agree, Graham?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
I meant for every Irish man who thinks he is a cheat a Frenchman will think he is a hero. ~
In all honestly, because all of their players play in England – i did want them to go through and i was disgusted with what Henry done. I am also glad that it has lead to FIFA’s decision to use 5 referees at the Finals next year.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Oh come on, it was a joke. I am actually 1/16th Irish! So therefore i cannot say anything, can i? It was out of order and i do apologise for my comment made. But, they said i need English lessons! I was offended by that comment and lashed out!
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:16 am
@ Matt
the worst comment Jack Ja has made is in No. 202 re ‘the amount of filth we see coming into Britain day in, day out’ which seems to be a worse than pejorative reference to immigrants/asylum seekers. I think he should be asked to withdraw the remark if not himself.
I agree with you about many British being conservative with a small c and also about the blockage on aspiration caused by the inability to vote for a head of state/president. In American, I know there is a lot of poverty but there is much more of a can-do mentality, let’s try for the top, whereas I was brought up on ‘it’s not what you know, it’s who you know’ which I think is, not surprisingly a very prevalent attitude in England. Oh the excitement in some royalist supporters at the prospect of being awarded membership of the non-existent British Empire instead of a proper aknowledgement of hard work.
In particular I thought some of the enthusiasm for Obama a year ago when he was elected in the US wafted over here a little but it was inchoate; we could feel it but didn’t know what to do with it to implement democratic change. There was a very moving moment when the Obamas visited London a little while ago and Michelle was filmed speaking to school children, mostly seemed to be black girls, about her shock that as a black child from a poor part of Chicago, she now found herself First Lady and visiting overseas countries with the President. She urged the girls to work hard at school.
They seemed enthused but it is not the same for black girls in London as it is for black girls in Chicago. I hope I am wrong and by the time the British girls grow up there will be a way merit will find a way rather than privilege and they can aspire to be head of state here.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 am
When i said ‘filth’ – i wa referring to overseas Republicans seeking to come to Britain and remove the Monarchy.
Michelle Obama is the First Lady of America simply because she is Barrack Obama’s wife. Not because she worked hard! And why would Michelle Obama urge girls, black, white or Asian to work hard so they can be Head of State. It is hardly someone’s life long dream to be Head of State, but, instead Head of Government.
I very much doubt, that even if, we do become a Republic that we will share America’s political ways and have a joint Head of Government and Head of State.
Imagine we were a Republic: ‘Work hard children, and one day you could become Head of State!’ It wouldn’t really happen would it?
And also, it’s who you know, not what you know – it a load of rubbish!
Michelle Obama has worked hard, but that hasn’t lead her into being First Lady – has it? She was actually the person who Obama looked up to. And many have wondered if he chased her because she was higher up in their law firm or because he genuinely liked her.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 am
“I do not want to see you get banned because its nice when theres more than one supporter of the monarchy around here but you will deserve to be with comments like that. They help solve nothing”
—- by Simon
Jack is actually redundant. One monarchist, you Simon, can parrot the monarchists’ point just fine.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 am
Monarchists are a rare-breed on this website! This website in fact, is a rare breed. Demographics have proven that this website is visited by very few numbers – which goes to show how many Republicans are actually around in this country. Or at least the amount of Republicans who care enough to actually be bothered to do something about what they see as “democratically wrong”. I stumbled across this website by accident after searching reviews for the shop ‘Republic’. As i went on it – i noticed a section “I’m a Monarchist” and clicked on it.
If you read all my comments – you will see that, despite the rude, irrelevant comments i have contributed quite significantly to this debate and given some good points, which have been answered well in some cases, and not so good in other cases.
I do ask for Republic.org to re-consider before removing me from this website. I will also call for a full investigation into ALL comments made, before their final decision is decided, as a lot of comments from Republicans were indeed rude and offensive and i did NOT even receive an apology for ANY comment directed at me, that was rude. And therefore, i call for other members to be banned if i am removed otherwise it will clearly be a biassed decision to remove me – i have always apologised for my comments made, if offence was caused to someone or some people from my comments that were said in the heat of the moment.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 am
Oh, and Bob and eclub – i do not think for a minute that you are contributing to this debate very well. If i am “redundant” then you must be as well. The only two that are truly getting into this debate and giving valid and well thought out responses is Simon, Matt and Liam – the rest are only giving basic responses and occasional valid points are being made – and yes, that does include me. But, a debate can be more than well-thought out responses, so if i am redundant then you guys must be as well.
Therefore, Matt and Liam you can “parrot” the Republican points just fine and Simon you can “parrot” the Monarchist points just fine. But, i highly doubt that the rest of us will keep out of it so i will continue to get involved in this debate. However, what i will try and do is not let my emotions get the better of me and say something rude in the heat of the moment – unless of course i am removed, but i do doubt that will happen because i have apologised – something the Republicans have failed to do – and the fact that other Republicans have made rude comments as well, whether or not they were in response to my comments is completely irrelevant.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 am
@Jack Ja:
“If you read all my comments – you will see that, despite the rude, irrelevant comments i have contributed quite significantly to this debate and given some good points, which have been answered well in some cases, and not so good in other cases.
I do ask for Republic.org to re-consider before removing me from this website”.
You are displaying the personality of a spouse abuser. You make nice and apologise one day and you get dark in the next, and do this sequence over and over, and then you remind her/him the days you brought flowers….
That will not work here. We don’t care if only 5 people post and read our website; we want genuine discussions, no childish games. I will be working harder to get you banned, even if you apologise and repent. We don’t want you here. Posting on a Reuplic website is a major privilege.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 am
Jennifer
I understand where this point comes from but i do not think its really that true. You mention Obamas victory, but one of the few things many republicans here agree with me on is the fact the American system of a single head of state / head of government is a bad system. So in a republic that Britain is likely to adopt, which would be seen as a bigger deal… obtaining the role of head of state where you go around cutting ribbons to open hospitals, or head of government where you decide policy and run the country. Id say it would be aspiration to the head of government position. It depends on the system, in France the President is the top job, in Germany whilst technically the German Federal President is the head of state and highest ranking German, its the position of Chancellor that is the important job, people celebrated the fact Merkel was the first woman and east German chancellor.
Well i certainly agree we are very negative in this country and we should be far more positive and have a can do attitude although i do not think that is connected with the monarchy and our system of government. Britain over the past few 50 years has declined as a global power, under such a decline its easy to see why such negative attitudes develop although it is also just part of our character these days.
for many it is not the title of the award issued, but the reasons it was given and who it is awarded by. A Queen the majority of the people in this country support who has been on the throne for almost 60 years must surely be more on an honour than some president that was selected by the parliament.
I think it was easy for everyone to get swept away in the moment, it truely was an amazing event for many reasons, the first black president was indeed something to celebrate and see as a huge moment but for many people it was just his message of change after 8 years of Bush.
Of course a year on people are now back down to earth. After the initial huge hype about Obama becoming president things have clearly changed. His approval ratings are on the decline, his healthcare bill is completly bogging down his administration. So after the wonderful change America voted for, has there actually been any huge real change? He may of changed certain policies, tried to improve relations.. but hes certainly not lived up to some of his promises. The bigger the hope the harder the fall and there are many disappointed Americans who voted Obama and any angry Americans who didnt vote for him.
I do not see why they should want to aspire to be head of state. They should want to aspire to become the Prime Minister and change the country and the world for the better unless we are talking about a head of state like in France / USA but that isnt the system Republic advocates or focuses on.
America is a very different country for many reasons. As a nation of immigrants, white people have had the power and blacks have been very badly treated for centuries. There were very few Black or Asian people in Britain until after the 1950s. I think we have come along way since then and ofcourse theres more to do but change takes time.
One thing i will give labour credit for is their Citizenship lessons. Whilst i have concerns republic goes along to some of those lessons i think it is a great way to help inspire young people to take politics and social / global issues more seriously. Is shocking that such things were missing from schools for so long.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 am
Meeting the Queen is a major privilege! This is hardly a privilege, let-a-lone a major privilege!
Okay, work harder to get me banned! But, some Republicans will have to go too – there comments were equally as rude as mine. When you get into a debate, some people’s emotions run high and people say things that are rude and uncalled for, these things do happen – but we have to get on with it, be adults and move on.
I trust that the Republic.org team will not ban me from this website until at least an investigation is launched and they see that some of my comments were said in a humorous way which people claimed offence by – which i then sincerely apologised. I have always apologised for my comments and will continue to do so if i say anything that could claim offence to anyone! Just because you are Republican (not you specifically) does not mean you can be rude to a Monarchist on a Republican website – and some people were just as rude as me and showed no remorse whatsoever!
Another great point from Simon on post 225. He as brushed up on what i said about it is no one’s dream to be Head of State, but Head of Government.
I made a joke about the Irish and why we need extra security for the Queen – that joke was received badly! But, i grew up in London – where everyone in the British Isles were taken the mickey out of – if it seems that i am showing actions of a wife-beater then that is your opinion. So therefore, that joke would not have offended me. Just like all the other comments about the English, Welsh and Scottish would not have offended me, because i am so use to it from when growing up. Clearly some people find it hard to hear jokes about the Republic of Ireland – as soon as i realised that it caused offence i apologised and immediately regretted my actions – i continued one joke with Matt as i thought he knew how to take a joke – when we briefly discussed the world cup. I then realised he didn’t see the funny side and apologised for that.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Jack, it wasn’t the comment about the Irish it was your offensive language, which I’ve now deleted.
There’s really no reason not to keep the debate on an intelligent and respectful level. Calling people names, even if they are inoffensive, is just unnecessary, and does nothing to help your argument.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Meeting the queen is not a privilege. If I were offered the chance I would never accept it, as a matter of principle. I do not understand why some people think meeting the queen is so great . I read something recently about the actress Diana Quick,who at the age of about 19 met the queen for some reason.When the queen asked her a question which merited a reply, Diana gave the reply. Then ,some officious person,( I will not use the word that Jack Ja likes to use,but you can imagine what I mean ! ), went up to her and informed her that it was not the done thing to engage the queen in conversation. WHAT POMPOUS NONSENSE AND RUBBISH ! If the queen wanted to talk then so be it. It is often the toadies and the “hangers on ” who create a lot of the problems with royalty !
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Hang on a minute Barry, are you saying that the Queen initiated the conversation but Diana Quick was scolded for engaging the Queen in conversation? Like what the hell?!
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I am all for keeping Jack Ja on the website blog,as long as he is not too “rude”. Rudeness, like violence,tends to breed rudeness. I feel like being really offensive sometimes, but it is wrong and does not help our cause. He has “stickability”, like Simon, and I think is a bit of a “character ” and we need monarchists to contribute to the blog. I think that Jack is sincere about his apologies,and is not plain daft as some of the people who have “contributed” here are, such as Peter. I have to say that if this blog is so rarely visited ,and is of such apparent unimportance,why do any monarchists bother with it ? Also, the fact that such a blog exists is a big step in the right direction,and is a good focal point for republicans who must have always existed , to contribute and express views. Such an organization and blog site would not have been feasible ten or twenty years ago. Occasionally an eccentric looking republican was shown on T.V. , in a dirty raincoat ,and interviewed, and it did not show the movement in a good light. Republican numbers are growing !
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Hello Matt, That was quick ! Apparently,yes. I read it in one of my newspapers this week,( I think it was actually the Mail : I must try to find it and keep the cutting. I get a different paper every day,you see).I know newspapers sometimes put their own slant on things, but the information seemed bona fide to me, and Diana had been interviewed about the incident. Apparently Diana Quick met the queen at some venue where some demonstrating students could be heard ,and the queen asked Diana what was going on. Diana said to the queen what she thought it was ,and after a few minutes the discussion ended. Then some busybody came up to Diana and advised her that it was not the correct “protocol” to engage the queen in conversation. I have actually heard of similar stories about incidents like this. It would be interesting to get hold of a book of royal protocol rules, and find out exactly what training the queen’s advisers, flunkies, servants etc get vis -a- vis this sort of thing .
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
WOW! It seems that Jack Ja has finally replaced Neil as the blogs resident frootloop!
“This country is a Constitutional Monarchy that will NEVER change – if you do not like it THEN GET OUT! because you are not welcome as one of HM’s subjects!”
The above is unbelievable! What an illiterate rant! Let’s say I work for Nissan. On my first day at work I turn up in a Ford Mondeo. My supervisor sees this and summons me into his office. I am threatened with dismissal unless I purchase a Nissan model within the month. Would that be fair, Jack? You must think so as it is similar to your above rant. Surely I would have perfect grounds for unfair dismissal.
“St Vincent and the Grenadines have voted to keep it in just this week! A predominately black country voting to keep a “white dictator” How odd”
You know very little about the Carribean. My parents are from St.Kitts and Nevis. And yes, they still have Lizzy as head of state. However, many from this part of the world often referred to Britain as “the mother country”, despite never having visited any part of Britain. As I said before, when many from the Carribean came to this country in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, they saw how many (but by no means all, my parents wedding photos’s from the 60’s contain a number of white faces for example) in the mother country treated them with rampant pejudice and bigotry. No dogs, no blacks, no Irish.
As for tourism, this non-argument should really be put to sleep. People come to see the trappings of royalty, not just royalty itself. This goes for other countries that had monarchies in the past. Many see go to France to see the royal places there too. One thing people esp lickspittle royalists should take into account is what I call the Elvis factor. Elvis has been dead for 32 years now. Yet there are Elvis fans born AFTER the man passed away, no doubt helped by their dad’s /grandads old record collections, tribute TV progs and You Tube.
This has helped make Elvis’s home, Graceland one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world. As a result, Elvis is making more money dead than he ever did when he was alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland
No doubt we’ll see the same thing with Micheal Jackson. If the royals were to dissapear by this time next year, people would still come to Britain. Indeed, there could evn be MORE tourists if they could be given tours of where Liz and Phil used to sleep, eat and make toilet!
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
No one has actually mentioned tourism for quite a while now. I do genuinely believe that the Monarchy brings in tourism – when i was in the USA for 6 months during my gap year, so many people kept telling me they want to, or have been to Britain and couldn’t wait to see Buckingham Palace. One lady even said that she took her daughter to the UK JUST to see the palace, after her exams. But, obviously the amount of actual numbers who come to Britain for the Monarchy is an impossible number to predict and work out – so we will end the tourism argument.
You say that you would not accept meeting the Queen or receiving an honour from the Queen for matter of principle. But that argument can still be applied even if we had an elected Head of State. I know that if i was to receive a congratulatory message or honour from the Prime Minister i would not accept, because i did not vote for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown – and the same rules would apply, for me, if i didn’t vote for the Head of State – and i am confident that many others would feel the same about this issue. Receiving an honour etc, is a major privilege and i would not accept it from someone who i did not vote for or did not want to win. But, it is different with the Monarchy. I do not really want Prince Charles to be King – if he is King then that will be great and i would accept an honour off him, if given the chance even though i didn’t really want him to be Head of State (and that is solely for the whole Princess Diana – Camilla saga). BUT – nonetheless, i wouldn’t mind, because he was hereditary and that would be a major honour for me, even though i did not directly vote for him – but because he is royalty, because he is a descendent from the same Head of State than represented my country when my parents and grandparents were growing up etc.
I agree that some of the rules concerning the Queen are silly. For example, you are not allowed to touch the Queen, if she puts her hand out to you, you are suppose to let her just brush her hand against your ever so quickly. I personally think this is silly – BUT, the Lib Dems do plan, if they get into power, to remove these “rules and regulations” and they also plan to remove the whole ’subject’ not ‘citizen’ nonsense. These things can be changed and altered if we, the British people, allow it to happen. We all vote Lib Dem and they will change these things – along with discrimination against women and Catholic on the people who can accede the throne.
Therefore, it is clear that things concerning the Monarchy can be changed – we just have to allow these changes to take place by using our votes.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 am
Dear imatt, St. Kitts and Nevis sounds an interesting place. I was sad to read again about the way some people in the “mother country” treated people from Commonwealth countries in the 50’s and 60’s, as you said. I think it was disgraceful, and looking back I think that government could have done more to stop and change such prejudice. I think the “media spin ” you mentioned concerning deceased celebrities and the making of large capital from it, such as in the case of Elvis etc, is a manifestation of of capitalist societies. Royalty is a form of celebrity now, in our modern age, and a big industry exists centred around royalty ,doesn’t it, in the form of the production and sale of many artefacts about royalty, ranging, for example, from caricature “Prince Charles ” mugs to Windsor Castle tea towels, not to mention all the postcards. ?
Dear Jack-Ja, The reason I would not be happy to receive any honours etc from the queen, ( or other royalty), even if I were deemed to be suitable for any such thing, is entirely due to my belief in republicanism. The queen is not elected, therefore it is a matter of principle for me not to support such a system. There is nothing personal against the queen at all in this. By the same token, I would be prepared to accept an honour from an elected president of a republic,( unless of course he/she had a terrible human rights record or something like that). I am generally against an excessive honours system, which I think we have in our country today. I do not believe in “Sir” this, or “lady” or “lord” that. We do not need too many honours, or it gets diluted. In any case the honours system has been grossly perverted over the years. Too many people , grossly over-rated, who have only produced daft , noisy songs , for example, have been knighted, along with so many film actors, (celluloid heroes ). I never refer to any of ‘em as “Sir” . Ludicrous. As for “Lord” Sugar, well ,what can I utter but “SUGAR !”, ( to be polite ).
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 am
Honours and titles – that’s an interesting one. Here’s how I’d go about reshaping the system in the United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
* No more knighthoods or damehoods to be awarded, but previous recipients allowed to continue using titles and deceased recipients still referred to as ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in all official documents.
* Order of the British Empire renamed Order of the British Commonwealth (officially in recognition of Britain’s new name but unofficially doubling as homage to the Empire’s successor, previous & deceased recipients unaffected) and to continue as main order for recognising excellence with untitled ranks remaining; Order of Merit to be highest honour but not in personal gift of head of state; all other orders of chivalry to cease new honours, and naturally wind up when only one member remains.
* Last hereditary peers in upper house removed (obviously), all of them stripped of noble titles but allowed to assume style of ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ if they wish, with no titles whatsoever for their children, and the new titles becoming extinct when they die; as with knighthoods, the titles of deceased recipients unaffected.
* Life peers also removed from upper house (which would now be fully-elected) and stripped of noble titles, but automatically assume style of ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ unless they wish otherwise, with democratic mechanisms instituted making it possible to strip dodgy peers of all titles (e.g. Michael Martin, Peter Mandelson), and obviously no more peerages to be awarded; titles of deceased recipients unaffected.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Barry – i didn’t expect for a minute that you or any other republican would receive an honour etc from the Queen or other royal members. It would be very hypocritical of you if you was to accept one. But, my point was that i would not accept anything from a President that i did not vote for – even though they would have been elected fair and square. But, fair and square could and most probably would be from pure advertising from hidden or inherited wealth – which i think is just as corrupt.
Obviously the way “mother Britain” has treated most commonwealth countries is unacceptable. But, it is fact that all the former British colonies that are in the third world are the best countries within the third word – and so to that extent what Britain has done is not anywhere near as bad as what the French and Portuguese empires have done to their colonies.
If Britain had not taken those African nations and India etc – someone else would have. They were sitting ducks.
Our empire was a great thing – it allowed us to move our culture all over the world. English is now, by some margin, the most spoken language in the world as a first, second or third language. Our sports are some of the most widely played sports in the world. Football is THE best sport in the world – in terms of the amount of money is makes and the amount of people that play it. Rugby and Cricket are very popular among our former colonies – look at India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan for Cricket and Australia and New Zealand for rugby and cricket. Our empire today has gone – it is in the past and in the past it shall remain. But, we still have our Monarchy, in which our Monarch is a direct descendent from those Monarchs who reigned under the entire Empire in the last two centuries. I for one, am very proud of this and will continue to be – and i am confident that many other patriotic British men and women are too.
I propose that the House of Lords to remain how it is – with some unelected peers and bishops from the Church of England. If the House of Commons passes an Act though that the HoL rejects, then it can still be passed through on an Act of Parliament – i think that this should be removed and if both Houses are deadlocked – then a referendum on the matter is called.
If we did make the HoL a completely elected second chamber – who would want to sit in it? If it has less power than the HoC who would want to run for HoL if they couldn’t get as much power? If we are going to scrap the way the HoL is – then we should just rid of it altogether and just have a Supreme Court. I do think that the silly traditions that the Queen has – like her speech in parliament that is written by the PM should be scrapped! In fact, i do think that the Monarch should be removed completely from Parliament – and just represent the country. Go round opening Churches, visiting the sick, visiting schools, touring other nations, meeting other world leaders etc etc.
Whether you accept it or not – the Queen does a lot for this country, and was well prepared for her role. She was trained to be Queen and trained to do everything that she does do – just like someone who is trained to be an accountant or a lawyer etc. Prince Charles has also been well trained as the next Monarch of the United Kingdom. The way the Monarchy is is just like how someone gets “first refusal” if someone who owns a business is retiring the hire the person or hand the company over to the best person for the job. The person who has been trained and worked hard for that role.
I often feel that people who are Anti-Monarchy are just jealous that they are not Royalty – which i do honestly believe is just sad. But, i could be wrong.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Britain 50 years ago was indeed a very different world, it takes time to adjust but in the past few decades Britain has come a very long way when it comes to equal rights and tolerance. It is just ashame that because of 10 years of labours incompetence which has led to mass immigration which is putting huge pressure on services and population growth that we see a rise in the sick far right BNP. This is ofcourse another reason why a conservative victory in 2010 is important, 5 more years of labour and i really do think we will see the BNPs support grow even more enough to get some MPs into parliament. If the conservatives win they will do alot more to take action on these sorts of matters and reduce the problems the BNP exploit.
One of the ironic things is that in the past people all over the world would be consider British subjects, theyd have a connection to Britain and see it as the mother country even if theyd never visited here. Yet today British identity is seriously weakened within Britain itself. Too many people here only feeling English or Scottish, separatism and English nationalism on the rise.. its a very very sad state of affairs.
Jack Ja,
On the rules about what to do when meeting a member of the royal family these are excessive today but ofcourse each monarch shapes the position. Following the Queen’s death there will be many reforms to these sorts of things, it will happen naturally. That of course will also be the time for certain constitutional changes. The comonwealth realms will get together and work out what is going to be done. Australia and Canada will become republics as will most of the other realms, preparations for that will be put in place in the run up to the Queen’s death. But those that wish to retain monarchy, their may be some will have to come to agreement on changing the rules to the line of succession. It is just impossible in the current circumstances to have debate on such matters, it would put her majesty’s realms at risk. There is no need for a change at this point.
Matt Showering,
I agree with some of the points on the honours, ofcourse there will likely be changes even if the monarchy was to remain. I support abolishing the house of lords completly and replacing it with an elected second chamber. But do away with knighthoods? awwwww We should toughen up the rules on who gets them, but i like how we give recognition people when addressing them.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Thanks for that Barry. I mentioned Elvis making more money now dead than alive, although I could have used Bob Marley, John Lennon, Jimmi Hendri(x or Buddy Holly), is that it destroys the notion that a person always has to have a physical presence to inspire, teach, create new generations of fans and followers, generate income and yes, even attract tourism!
A man or woman can be inspired by Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Alan Turing, Abraham Lincoln, Mary Seacole or Marie Curie despite all these chaps and chapesses being long dead just as much as one can be inspired by living figures such as Bill Gates, Nelson Mandella or Lech Wallesa.
As for titles, I am in agreement with you and Matt. Benjamin Zephaniah is perhaps the most famous refusee in recent years (hope that’s a real word) of a title, notably an OBE. From what I understand, he objected to the ‘Empire’ bit. As he says: it reminded him of “how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised.” Now, being black myself, I can appreciate the angle he is coming from.
However, If in the very unlikely event I were ever considered for such a title, I would have to refuse too. But for different reasons than Zephanias. For example, I am starting my own business (an personalised greeting card service). If in time this were to grow into a multi-million £$ business (let’s hope), then I would be content in being successful IN MY OWN RIGHT! Not by someone elses standard! If you wish to congratulate me fine, if not then so be it. I do not need an OBE, MBE, CBE or Knighthood to be a marker of my success.
Take ‘Sir’ Richard Branson. No one can deny he is a susscessful entreprenuer. Would he be any less successful f he were plain old Ricard Branson? I think not. Would anyone decide to purchase Virgin media products, travel on Virgin Rail or fly with Virgin Atlantic soley because these are fronted by ‘Sir’ Richard Branson? Or take ‘Sirs’ Anhony Hopkins, Sean Connery, Roger Moor or Ian Mckellan. Are there films suddenly better since receiving their titles? Hardly! Or how about ‘Sirs’ Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger, former rock rebels, now firmly part of the establishment. Does anyone download Beatles and Rolling Stones tracks/albums from Napster and iTunes simply due to their frontmen being ‘Sirs’? Absolutely not!
If an athlete wins three golds at the 2012 Olympics or an English footballer scores the winning penalty winning England the World Cup, sure he/she may get a title of some kind by Liz or Charlie. However, even without such a title, would thier acheivements still not be seen a great and noteworthy? This is how people should be judged in my view. Acts of bravery and courage should be noted with some special honour or merit though.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Jack,
So true, i certainly would not accept any award from President Tony Benn.
It is ofcourse not just about being issued the award by a president, its seen as a “President’s Award” http://www.gaisce.ie/
I find something like that rather disturbing. Young people should be loyal to their president and accept her challenge? Gives me the creeps a bit considering the president is a political figure.
Is it just me or does that President of Ireland award sound like a complete rip off of The Duke of Edinburgh’s award which was created 25 years earlier?
I suppose after such a long history together the ROI will always follow suit in somethings we do.
With out any doubt at all the British Empire did act in a more responsible way than the French and Portuguese empires. When you look at the huge success many of our former colonies have had compared to other countries colonies. Whilst we should be proud of Australia, Canada and the fact British colonies went on to create the USA, i think one of our greatest successes is Hong Kong. Not only has it become such a well developed place that respects human rights and limited democracy, now that its part of China it can rub off on the mainland. Millions of Chinese people are visiting Hong Kong and in time the freedoms that exist there will spread. If our actions there do help speed up democracy to the most populated country on the planet and a new world super power, it is something to be very proud of. Its also very much in the people of Hong Kongs interests to seek as much reform as possible in mainland as soon as possible, the guarantee in the declaration between China and Britain was that Hong Kongs way of life would not be changed for a period of 50 years. There for in 40 years time we need China to be much more of a democracy and far more respectful of human rights. Progress is being made for many reasons, but the fact China has a clear example within its borders of how democracy and capitalism can flourish helps.
Well id like to see it abolished and a British Senate created or something like that. The election to the senate would have to be thought out carefully though. Id like to see tough age restrictions and certain job experience. No one should be allowed to be a senator unless they are in their 40s or something like that and have work experience. It should have the same sort of role as the lords do now though.
lol I do detect in many cases this is all part of the class wars. Some people just refuse to accept their place and think that we could live in some socialist utopia where we are all equal and sit around camp fires singing "imagine all the people, sharing all the world". They are dreaming, we live in the real world. It aint always fair!
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Imatt,
Well i agree partly with this but ofcourse former monarchs are still popular in this country. Following the Queens death so many will have a huge respect for her in the same way as the generation that knew the previous King thought he was a great King. By ending the monarchy ofcourse you are stopping the flow. Had we become a republic in the 1950s we would never have been able to celebrate our gracious Queen Elizabeth II. If we become a republic following the Queens death we may miss out on King William who could be an amazing king for this country and inspire so many people. When a legend dies, whilst we will remember that legend and there will be dedicated fans, another great replaces them, you do not stop future great artists in the way you seek to stop future monarchs.
Now on the issue of tourism. There is a case that the palaces being opened up for longer during the year would result in more revenue, i agree with that and would support it. We could perhaps learn from the Spanish monarchy in this area and a number of areas actually. Their King spends most of his time at a smaller residence, which allows the main grand residence of the monarch to be empty much of the time except for official state vists etc. If we did that we could open it up more to the public. I fail to see how getting rid of the monarchy will suddenly increase tourism. As someone said its not just the royal family but everything that surrounds them like all the ceremony. Now republic says we could continue with things like changing of the guard and trooping the colour. I do not think that will happen. If we are to abolish the monarchy and become a republic then all tradition will have to go with it. I certainly do not expect to see a president being paraded around and taking a salute from our armed forces as the Queen currently does. I watch the French President on Bastille Day, hes like a little Emperor Napoleon. Sorry but if we are to have a dull republic with a dull president the cereomonial stuff has to go.
Well i can understand that, although like every country there are dark sides to its history and people need to accept the British Empire did far more good than bad. Sadly too often we focus on the negatives, instead of the positives like the role the Empire played in ending the slave trade.
As the Empire is gone there is a case for bringing an end to that honour even if we kept the monarchy anyway and i think following the Queen’s death that will happen.
No, but issuing a title and the people calling him by that title “Sir Richard” is a big recognition of his success and a reminder of it. Recognition of success helps inspire. When the new years honours list is announced, people discuss about those peoples successes, if there was no recognition through awards wed have less oppurtunity to recognise success.
I do have concerns about use of the honours and i think it needs a radical overhaul, something that will happen when there is a new King. We do need honours with titles specific to what they are honouring. Those who risk their lives do require a different form of award than those for contribution to sport and culture.. but i think even thats worthy of recognition. We just need a new set of honours / awards.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Simon, i completely agree with you with the whole Conservative victory is needed to rescue Britain! If Labour win in 2010 – then the BNP support will increase dramatically and could end up getting seats in Parliament! In order to save Britain and remove the BNP from popularity – we need to defeat the monster – and that monster is NEW LABOUR! I have convinced so many people to vote Tory next year, and why they should not vote Labour! But, i do feel that if you vote Labour – you honestly can not moan at someone for voting BNP. If you hate the BNP like me, and millions of others – you need to hate Labour and convince friends and family to vote Tory.
My Grandmother has always classified herself as British – from when she was growing up until very recently when she filled in a form for the local council. When she put her nationality as ‘British’ she was then phoned up and told she had to change it to ‘English’ because she was white. She was then told that the term ‘British’ is used for second generation immigrants! I was disgusted by this, and my grandmother was even going to sue – she then decided against it. As i thought more and more about it – it makes sense. Immigrants often classify themselves as ‘British’ and the white British classify themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. When i was in university, there was this one black girl who said, in one of our lectures that if you are black you can not say you are English or Welsh etc, but instead British. It again astounded me that people can think like this! Then when i stumbled across this article, everything fell into place (it took me ages to just find that, i remember reading it though so i know it existed)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386024-ethnic-minorities-more-likely-to-feel-british-than-white-people-says-research.do
This kind of ideology among British people is wrong. It is dividing us British people! If we are being divided anyway, then why do we have multiculturalism in this country in the first place? I actually blame Labour for this. I know that there policies have lead to this inhumane divide among British people.
And yes, receiving Knighthood is seen as wrong by some people as their achievement is still great, regardless of what the Queen says about it. But, it is still nice to receive a formal congratulations from the Queen.
For someone to say they don’t like the ‘Empire’ bit because it reminds them that there fore mothers were raped and forefathers were brutalised is just strange in my opinion. The Empire no longer stands today, but it did still exist – why should we change a name of it just because it may offend? It just reminds me of other ridiculous laws and rules that Labour have brought into force. For instance, you can not wave the British flag as it may “offend” you can not use the term “blacklisted” because it man offend, you have to use the term “blocklisted” you can not say “Merry Christmas” instead “Happy holidays” etc etc. These STUPID things are turning people into BNP activists and turning people against multicultural Britain! Labour have run this country into the ground and it is time for the Conservatives to put things right. Obviously, they might not reverse some of the stupid laws and rules etc, but if they don’t the BNP’s popularity will continue to rise.
Sorry, i went a little off track there… lol
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Simon:
But do away with knighthoods? awwwww We should toughen up the rules on who gets them, but I like how we give recognition people when addressing them.
It is true, of course, that some republics do bestow titular honours. What’s more, the New Zealand Parliament will be debating a private member’s bill on a republic referendum early next year – which is unlikely to pass, and even if it does then the referendum could well be defeated – but if they do end up becoming a republic any time soon I can’t imagine them re-abolishing knighthoods immediately, having only reintroduced them early this year.
You could also argue that since, with no aristocracy or other inherited titles (I should’ve mentioned baronetcies will also need to become extinct when the holders die), all honours will be given on merit, allowing a distinguished contributor to the life of the nation to call themselves ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ is no different to allowing a distinguished academic to call him/herself ‘Dr’ or ‘Professor.’ But the crucial difference is that the criteria for awarding doctorates and professorships are much more objective than the criteria used by the state to bestow honours, which is why I feel it would be fitting for no new knighthoods or damehoods to be awarded in a republic built on egalitarianism and meritocracy.
Having said all that: imatt, if England win the World Cup next year then I sincerely hope Fabio Capello will be fast-tracked to British citizenship so he can be given a full knighthood instead of an honorary one. I’m sorry, but no honour would be too great for the man who engineered the ultimate sporting miracle! As it happens, there has been talk of renaming the Order of the British Empire the Order of British Excellence, which could make the honour less offensive for some while the monarchy continues, and could be a suitable permanent alternative in a British republic with any name bar the one I want for it (I don’t think Order of the British Commonwealth would be appropriate if referring only to the Empire’s successor), without anyone having to change their post-nominal honorifics.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jack,
I am getting concerned about how close the upcoming election will be. David Cameron was awful yesterday at Prime Ministers Questions, even if Brown doesnt know which countries are in the G20, Cameron came off as the loser. It is true immigrants (especially in England) find it much easier to consider themselves British, i think thats great its just sad that we have gone so far to divide British people they only think of themselves as English or Scottish. Urgent action is need to change this and some conservative plans do some interesting although they will not go far enough.
Political correctness is a disease. Its right that we are a more tolerant society today and do not view certain things like racist jokes as acceptable but it goes way too far on the undermining of christmas or where a police force can has to pay out £10,000 for asking a policeman to put on a riot helmet which was against his religion. Its just so pathetic.
Matt,
I agree that awards should only be for merit and at the moment the critera is far too open. It should be much more restrictive. We do need a complete overhaul for different levels of award, and only the most well earned award should continue with the knighthood and keep the “Sir” title.
I do like the “Order of British Excellence” which could easily be changed to and think that should be done following the Queen’s death.
As for England’s chances in the world cup do not hold me to it but i think theres more chance this country becomes a republic.
I hope im wrong but we will have to wait and see.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I do not think for a minute that England will win the World Cup. I will get my hopes up if and when we get to the Semi Finals. Personally, i have a horrid feeling we are going to get France or Portugal and the Ivory Coast! I will be heartbroken if we do – i think that England’s chances of getting through to the knock out stages would be halved in that group scenario!
But, let’s just say that we do win the World Cup. I think that each and every player and Fabio Capello himself should receive an honour from HM. The players would be Hero’s of England and that should be rewarded.
And Simon, you are right – political correctness is like a horrible disease! It inflicts pain and misery across everyone!
I do think that the Monarchy is great for Britain and it should always remain in our country. They do no harm, they do not put us into a debt. They are a reminder to our great history and our huge empire we established. And yes, it wasn’t great for everybody, and Britain is sorry for people who’s ancestors were abused, hurt or even killed from the British – but the positives of the empire do outnumber the negatives to a large extent. And therefore, it should remain.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Please keep it on topic.
Cheers.