07 Dec 2009
The monarchy is well versed in manipulating the media for its own ends. The royal household has a multi-million pound PR operation paid for by you, the taxpayer – either directly through ‘communications’ grants or indirectly through income from the Duchy of Cornwall. There are more than 20 full-time press and public relations staff at Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, working around the clock to ensure flattering coverage of the royals.
In this context the Queen’s barely veiled threat of legal action against freelance photographers who take “off duty” photographs of the Windsors seems to be not only staggeringly hypocritical, but also naive.
Journalists are usually happy to follow the Palace line, but their loyalty comes at a price – a steady stream of exclusive royal stories and photo ops. If the media thinks the relationship is becoming too one-sided, they won’t hesitate to publish damaging and negative stories. Indeed, the critical coverage of the Queen’s letter yesterday (Republic was quoted widely) gives a taste of the kind of backlash the royals might expect if they continue their bullying tactics.
The royal household clearly believes it has a legal case against the paparazzi. But, as Roy Greenslade points out, taking newspapers to court would be a huge risk. A high profile case would prompt an unprecedented public debate on the monarchy – something the Queen is desperate to avoid. It seems more likley that the Palace PR machine will simply ‘blacklist’ any newspapers or journalists who disregard the warning. They will be denied access to press conferences and won’t be fed the juicy tidbits that royal correspondents rely on.
Paddy Harverson, the man who issued the statement on behalf of the Queen, used to do the PR for Manchester United. To him and his staff the royals are a brand like any other. But the monarchy is not just a brand. It is the heart of our constitution, the source of all power. It is an institution pathologically obsessed with life’s most personal and intimate moments - conception, marriage and death. It blurs the notions of “public” and “private” to such an extent that they become meaningless. The monarchy doesn’t recognise “off duty”.
It is no coincidence that the Queen’s threat comes at the same time that the government plans to ban all access to royal documents under FOI rules. It seems the the monarchy is battening down the hatches, perhaps to ready itself for the constitutional storm ahead as the Queen gets frailer and Charles gets closer to assuming the role of ”activist king”. But, like another famous monarch, the Queen is trying in vain to hold back the tide. Our politics is moving towards more transparency and accountability, not less.
I’d like to see the Windsor family enjoy their lives free from press intrusion and harassment. They can only do so as equal citizens in a republic.
This entry was posted on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
December 7th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I discovered your site as a result of an article in todays press, those you seem to think are manipulated by the Monarchy! What planet do you and your supporters on this site live on? The press are manipulated by one thing only and that is the greed of the press barons who in turn play the tune for our so called “Elected” politicians to dance to! Get a grip you shower of sad, left wing boshie muppets, realise that the vast majority, thank God ( and no doubt that will offend you lot as well ) of the general public in this country are PRO Monarchy. You morons just like to spout your poison, generally falling back on how much they cost the country, when the FACT is they bring more revenue to the public purse than they take out. I do agree that things have to change in this country thyough, but not by electing ANOTHER pig snout for the trough, what we NEED here is a Military Coup, with Her Majesty remaining as Head of State. So, all you left wing ponsy gits ( most of whom will live within 50 miles of London ) can just crawl off back to pre 1989, where I am sure you will still find a trace of the Communism you seek. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
December 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
@ James
Thank you for your erudite and most welcome contribution to the pro-Republic cause.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Here’s a comment I’ve just left on the Guardian:
This is a very serious question. I believe quite strongly that we, the British people, should have complete access to any information regarding the Windsors’ public “duties” and all their governmental actions (such as Charles’ continous lobbying of the government behind closed doors). The blanket exemption from Freedom of Information requests to be introduced for the Windsors is utterly wrong and should be opposed.
Having said that, the Windsors should have their privacy respected. We should not be gorging photographs of them getting out of cars and walking down streets or eating their meals or getting thrown out of Soho nightclubs. I disagree completely with celebrity culture: I do not understand why somebody could be fascinated with someone else’s life to such a minute and monotous extent.
This debate would not be necessary, however, if it were not for us having the monarchy. That system – which provides us with absolutely NOTHING (Monarchists: specify exactly what it does give us if you beg to differ) – is what has landed the Windsors in their situtation. It is a non-argument to say “they’ve led such awful lives so let’s give them lots of palaces and money and power.”
Free the Windsors!
@ James
Do you reckon you’d be a) willing to back those “arguments” up with something and b) be able to give us a defence of the monarchy?
Please??
December 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The Queen’s warning is hypocritical and naive. James Emerson is also hypocritical and naive!
December 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@James, and there I was about to post a blog on the articulate and intelligent nature of monarchists.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Flaming fiddlesticks! I said recently that nobody could do as good a job of promoting the republican cause as that psychopathic monarchist called Neil, but now I think I’m going to have eat my words after only one post from James!
There’s no point trying to engage him in serious debate, but I will say that I take great exception to being branded a leftist: James, I am in fact a republican for the same key reason I’m a Conservative, because I believe in the power of individuals over that of the state.
Liam, did you get my most recent email?
December 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
James Emerson
Welcome, i enjoyed reading your comments. We do not need a military coup, the sort of change you mention could come about if we were all loyal to our Queen and wanted her to take steps to put the government in its place. She could dissolve parliament and clean up the shambles. A month or two ago one of the British overseas territories had its constitution suspended and was placed under direct British rule with the Queen’s Governor put incharge to clean up the island over a two year period. Alot of progress would be made.
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,
Long may she reign over us.
Matt,
Republicanism will always be seen as part of some left wing plot. I accept there are people from all backgrounds and parties that may support this sort of change, but it is led by the lefties which makes it even more dangerous. As a conservative, did you take a look at the Spanish constittuion, it had loads of social and economic policies, talk of trade unions and all sorts in there. Was abit likea left wing manifesto
December 7th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I would strongly recommend a course in political thought and ideology for you Simon.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Thanks Graham. What’s more, Simon: if I concede – for the sake of argument – that British republicanism is dominated by people who are Left-leaning, then will you concede – for the sake of argument – that putting the people firmly in charge of their political destiny could, if accomplished, prove very good for conservatism, since at least one other republican on here has agreed with my contention that the majority of Britons are, in their heart of hearts, conservative with a small ‘c,’ as you have?
December 7th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
When a Monarch CAN NO LONGER command her subjects to do anything, it exposes the fact that the monarch has no mandate from the people to rule. The way public opinion is expressed in a monarchy is by watching what a monarch can get away with. Can a monarch command the press to not publish a photo? Can a monarch dissolve parliament? Can a monarch command the people to do something or not do something? A monarch shouldn’t go to court to plead a case. A monarch should simply make a commandment. If a monarch can no longer exercise absolute authority, it’s a clear sign that the popularity poll numbers are truly in the teens. Any monarchist can sign onto the internet and make any claims, none of those things are important. YOU WANT TO BE HEAD OF STATE? RUN FOR THE POST AND WIN; YOU WANT TO KEEP IT, STAND FOR RE-ELECTION FOR THE POST. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE FOR YOU TO RULE OVER THEM, AT THE LEAST, THE PEOPLE REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD APPOINT YOU. SIMPLE AND SHORT. ANYTHING ELSE IS IMPROPER.
The monarchy must attain 100% public opinion poll for keeping the monarchy. Anything less than that is insufficient: a campaign for republic must proceed with vigor, from within and without.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@Matt Showering
I’m also a conservative, but that is totally unimportant when it comes to liberty and freedom. I’d rather be a liberal, left wing-nut and be able to select my own head of state, and representatives in government, than be a conservative living under a monarchy, or any such undemocratic system. I’m trying to say this to you Matt, avoid the soft jabs at Simon; knock him with heavier punches, give him an uppercut directed at his proverbial chin, swing often, and strike him hard. Do NOT find any common ground with Simon; conservative or not. Conservatism is not on the same level as republicanism. Republicanism trumps conervativism. First, let’s bring democarcy, then we can conserve.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Thanks for the advice, eclub1. But in all honesty, I’m only bothering to respond to any of Simon’s c**p because I’ve just got far too much time on my hands at the moment. I still try to ignore his repetition of the same old arguments which have already been defeated God knows how many times, but when he comes out with something semi-original – even if not relevant to the core debate – I try and do as he is always being urged to do if he disagrees with a specific republican argument, but never does of course: tackle the argument head-on. He’s had plenty of comments directed at him with the vigour you urge, but he hasn’t given up, which will surely happen only if he is banned.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Another thing to consider when talking about Simon (which surely in an acronym for Sychophantic Infantile Monarchist Opinionated Nonsense) is that his ‘argument’ is so weak and so hollow that he agrees with any fellow monarchist, despite the poor grammar, equally weak argument, cliches and repetition.
Simon, go away and come back with CONSISE BULLET POINTED reasons WHY Britain NEEDS a monarchy and not several pages of self repeating, contradictory, unoriginal waffle.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Matt,
Well it just seems obvious, the conservatives are more pro monarchy and tradition than the left wing parties. The supporters page on this website highlights this fact very clearly when it lists all the MPs / MSPs and you look up which parties they are from.
Improving democracy does not require abolition of the monarchy. People can take a more active role in our political destiny if they were encouraged to engage more but i fail to see why the ability to vote on a head of state is so important to this. Change is also full of potential risks. Also to focus on constitutional change prevents from serious action on other matters like dealing with law and order, radical islam, immigration, separatists, the war in afghanistan, debt etc.
Eclub1,
THis is a constitutional monarchy not an absolute one. The monarch was not responsible for running the country long before Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne. The Queen reigns with the consent of the people, even if that has never had to be confirmed in a referendum, the current constitutional setup is validated every time there is a general election where the people have their say on who governs us, so far 14 General elections have taken place whilst Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne, and yet she is still there! She has served her people and our nation for almost 60 years as Queen and support for her is solid.
This is a democracy, no democracy is flawless.
Imatt,
I have given many reasons why i think this country should not become a republic, read all of my comments.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
No you have not! You are very, very repetetive, go round in endless circles and simply provide endless lazy links to pointless YouTube videos. At the very best, you give reasons why YOU and your like are subservient. You seem vey comfortable in seeing yourself as fourth rate and inferior. This says much more about yourself than it ever could about the Royals.
If you really had a strong argument, you’d be concise and would be able to give, say TEN strong reasons in short paragraphs without resorting to your nausiating ‘god save the queen’ at the end of every post bollocks.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Simon:
Also to focus on constitutional change prevents from serious action on other matters like dealing with law and order, radical islam, immigration, separatists, the war in afghanistan, debt etc.
But that is the point! All those things, and respect for traditional state institutions like the armed forces, police and judiciary, as well as cultural institutions like the English language, would be at or near the top of most people’s agendas if they didn’t feel so powerless and disconnected, which is why liberalism is taking hold right now! There’s no point in trying to explain to you any further how the monarchy is inextricably linked to elective dictatorship and disenfranchisement, but here’s a nice simple exercise for you: ask around all your conservative friends if any of them would be prepared to accept the monarch acting as guardian of the constitution with a mandate to overrule the government via referendum. If you come back and swear hand on heart that just one of them approved of the idea, I will be more stunned by that than I will be if Newcastle win the Premiership next season, and maybe you will start to see the problem.
This is a democracy, no democracy is flawless.
That’s a change of tack, isn’t it? Up until now you’ve always emphasised that, in the words of Sir Humphrey, “this is a British democracy,” and voiced your agreement that said status quo means (or should mean) “aristocratic government tempered by the occasional general election!”
December 7th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Okay, Simon, I have a serious question for you. Please answer this properly, with all seriousness, where possible bring it home to Britain.
In Iran right now, the students are protesting the result of the last election; in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, who is the unelected head of state, he is also politician, cleric and the figurehead of the conservative establishment in Iran; Khāmene’i had declared that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election and that his (Khāmene’i’s) word settles it, that no one should challenge his word since he is the head of state and supreme leader; the students believe that the election was rigged and want full democracy.
What is your opinion in that situation, and how is that any different from a monarchy dissolving parliament against the wishes of the people. Do you think the students should protest the undemocratic situation there? Do you support what the democratic forces are trying to achieve in Iran? Don’t dodge the question, it’s not off topic if you answered it properly, all inclusively.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@Simon’
You said: “THis is a constitutional monarchy not an absolute one. The monarch was not responsible for running the country long before Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne”.
While you are answering my question on post#17, let me respond to your comment:
I personally do not believe that British constitution is finalised, because it’s not fully, completely and expressly written down. Anyways, sure the British monarchy is supposedly a ‘contitutional monarchy’, but it goes on to give the monarchy absolute powers; when a monarchy has absolute powers, whether the monarch uses it or NOT, what do we have? We have an absolute monarchy. It doesn’t matter what you call it, what matters is what it is.
Any monarch who can fire the prime minister for cause or not, dissolve parliament for cause or Not, is above the law, can only be succeeded by family member, never stands for election, is head of the church, can pardon convicted criminals, can say “My Government”, monarch’s image is on currency and stamps and most official documents, hire sherriffs, owns state estates and collects revenue therefrom, can declare war, can raise private militia, gets pledges of loyalty from the Military, Parliament etc, and so on and so forth, is an absolute monarch.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
@ eclub1
Thanks for the numbering system. I find the situation in the UK confusing as do many people. The Islamic Republic is in many ways simpler as it starts from the premise that god is sovereign (and god’s laws as expressed in the koran provide the basis for human interaction). At least the supreme ruler is trying to be consistent.
Although we have divided church and state (in the USA and UK) and have done so on the basis that we recognise that faith is something that is personal – many states are premised on some truths as being ’self evident’ have taken the line that ideological purity be it faith based as expressed in a holy book or a scientific ideology (marxism) neither needs nor finds desirable the kind of bickering and compromise that is found in western democracies. Theocratic rulers get their legitimacy straight from the creator and are not subservient to the populace or sections thereof.
On the other hand the UK before an election is surely the most democratic and wonderful place on earth as full of hope politicians vie with each other to express their democratic credentials and demonstrate how the other lot are insufficiently democratic. Typically during this period politicians are at pains to promise democratic reforms (proportional voting, reviews of the house of lords, more control for scotland, fairer taxation, support for depressed people, better budgetary control but with no visible cuts and a saville row suit for everyone who wants one). If promises and appeals to democracy were pound notes (or euros at the moment) we would the richest and happiest people on earth.
But really we are given a forced choice between two equally concerning parties. The Liberal Democrats who always get a good proportion of the vote but a tiny slice of parliament hope for a hung parliament where they could have a slice of the power. Every other choice south of the border is a mix or marginal, dangerous a protest vote or pointless.
When we vote for the party of our choice at the election we are largely wasting our time unless we specifically hate one party and try and vote tactically to exclude our least favourite choice. We have no real say in our actual head of state as our opinion is never sought, in voting we give up the power to have a secondary say on major constitutional reforms (eg, the EU), we have no effective say in who we would like as our effective head of state as we are given two choices (the head of party A and the head of party B),
Having formed a government all democratic pledges are shelved as diversionary or unnecessary (or descend into obscure wrangling as in the Lords reform) as the winners slap themselves on the back and the losers prepare for opposition and the government becomes Her Majesty’s. We will then be forgotten until the next cycle begins.
I have some sympathy for the point of view which says that the strength of British democracy is in the way it has evolved to water down and limit the effective power that any one part of the state has. But we are left like the children in a warring family having to decide whether we want to be on Mummy’s side or Daddy’s and once we have chosen that is the end of it until we end up back in court again. I don’t see that as an effective choice.
The monarchy as the least democratic part of our already very worrying system is completely trapped on one hand as a part of the state (and paid for by the taxpayer) it should be open to scrutiny on the other hand as a domestic family it shares every other family’s right to reasonable privacy. The only resolution to this is the detachment of the monarchy from the state. They are then free to be as Royal or not as they would like (there are plenty of aristocratic families in western republics) and their supporters such as Simon can continue to adore them I for one will wish them the best of luck and let them recede into history.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Tim:
Although we have divided church and state (in the USA and UK)
Have I missed something phenomenal – has the Church of England been disestablished while I wasn’t looking? And the Church of Scotland too for that matter.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Back to James’ delightful garbage.
\I discovered your site as a result of an article in todays press, those you seem to think are manipulated by the Monarchy!\
No, we don’t think they are \manipulated\. What Republic is saying is that the Windsors are quite happy to rely on the press to broadcast various propaganda yet are complaining when the press are too involved with them. I’ve made my opinion clear: I don’t believe that the press should be hounding the Windsors. I believe that they are entitled to privacy. But their predicament is because of the institution of the monarchy itself.
\What planet do you and your supporters on this site live on?\
We live on earth; I assume you’re writing to us from Uranus?
\Get a grip you shower of sad, left wing boshie muppets, realise that the vast majority, thank God ( and no doubt that will offend you lot as well ) of the general public in this country are PRO Monarchy.\
I am not a \Bolshy\. Not too keen on communism, in fact. A tad left-wing, perhaps, but is that some sort of evil infection? I also believe in God. I refute any accusation that my religion is an adequate basis for a plastic autocracy. My personal interpretation of Jesus is that he would be anything but a monarchist. But, I appreciate, that is my interpretation.
\You morons just like to spout your poison, generally falling back on how much they cost the country, when the FACT is they bring more revenue to the public purse than they take out.\
This is absolute rubbish. We would oppose the monarchy if it only cost a penny. There is also not a single shred of evidence on this particular planet that suggests the Windsors bring a net profit to the public purse. Please, please provide evidence to the contrary: we will be over-the-moon.
\I do agree that things have to change in this country thyough, but not by electing ANOTHER pig snout for the trough\
If you’re opposed to greedy pig politicians why be in favour of an institution which gives them incredible, unaccountable, undemocratic power?
\What we NEED here is a Military Coup, with Her Majesty remaining as Head of State.\
Yeh, nothing like military coups. Can’t beat ‘em can you! Long live military rule!
\So, all you left wing ponsy gits ( most of whom will live within 50 miles of London ) can just crawl off back to pre 1989,\
I live in Middlesbrough – 249.8 miles away from London according to the AA – and was born in 1991. Unlucky, once again, James.
Now, read over what we REALLY say, research something first and then come back with some competent, civilised arguments instead of this disgusting excuse for a debate.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Well said, Liam!
December 7th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Thank you, Mr. Sharp.
Simon is taking a long time to respond; he is either avoiding my question on #17, or writing a book on it. Hopefully, if it’s the later, he will be responsive.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@ Matt
You are right we still have an established church – I was expressing the idea that for all practical purposes religion and the apparatus of the state are separate but you were right to point that out. The most phenomenal thing this year has been welcoming you to Republic and the second the disambiguation of the identities of the eclub – so you are the man !
I always find it interesting that to be pro-democracy (which is overwhelmingly what Republic stands for) can be represented by some as being Bolshie, Childish and a Lefty metropolitan (Which probably means living in Hampstead and supporting the workers with one hand swilling organic champagne with thhe other). Also I think it is fair to say that we stand on the whole for a more representative and accountable approach to government with more transparency and a very reasonable worry that politicians should represent the electorate whatever their political complexion – Matt is Conservative, Liam is slightly to the left I am very definitely a Centrist (sometimes centre left sometimes centre right).
To be honest I haven’t met any extremist Republic members yet just people who are very concerned that we live in an open accountable and fair democracy.
I would love to hear Simon’s brief description of ‘why monarchy’ you spend a lot of time here Simon but your argument sounds emotional rather than rational to me so it would be great if you could condense your point of view into a series of points we could ponder. From what I have gathered #1 Is that monarchy contributes to the coherence of the UK.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I hate to remain off topic but whilst talking about the C of E, does anyone else sense Dissestablishment is possibly around the corner now Brown is calling for reform of the Act of settlement? I don’t think it should go unnoticed Rabbi Sacks Entering the Chamber and possibly others to follow. This could be to balance the number of the 21 (I think) Anglican Lord Spirituals. Not the best way to go about it, if it is so in my opinion.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Thanks Tim!
I always find it interesting that to be pro-democracy (which is overwhelmingly what Republic stands for) can be represented by some as being Bolshie, Childish and a Lefty metropolitan (which probably means living in Hampstead, supporting the workers with one hand and swilling organic champagne with the other).
Funny you should say that actually. I live in the Bristol South constituency, which is a predominantly working-class area and a 75-year-old Labour stronghold; but my neighbourhood, though one of the slightly more affluent wards in the constituency, is not a Conservative target, and is in fact one of the least conservative neighbourhoods in all of Bristol, because – being petit bourgeois bohemian – it is a nigh-on impenetrable Liberal foothold. So I often get light-hearted flak directed at me by my fellow campaigners for living in the ‘People’s Republic’, but I simply reply, “you mean the Bohemian Republic!” I love the neighbourhood just the same though, it’s got tremendous character and awesome views over the city; but the metropolitan jokes are rampant since I have lived in London before, and what do I drink at the superb local pub? Bath Organic Lager!
December 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
We have a case of a missing blogger. Do you suppose we publish his photo, name and description on milk cartons, newspapers, and perhaps offer a reward for his whereabouts? We only have his name as Simon, description as the most loquacious monarchist, has a tendency to be sentimental about the queen, never comes up with any cogent reasons, but otherwise pleasant to debate with, almost always grabs at straws, motive for disappearance: possibly avoiding a question #17! Waiting…
December 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
eclub, you know that Simon’s response will be something like “we live in the UK, I don’t care about what happens in Iran, I only care about the English speaking world, Iran is a Republic, so therefore all republics are evil, I, I, I, I, Me, Me, Me Me, I want, God save the glorious, lovely, Queen. I really love her, etc, etc, ……”
December 7th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
@imatt
You sized him up quite well; I read your post before I looked at the poster and thought that Simon speaking in third person, that’s how good you got him.
I just wanted to know if he was democratically inclined, and just made exception for the incumbent monarch.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:06 am
If anyone has time check out this debate about The monarchy at Huffington post, read the comment section especially a chap called jasev01, and opponents:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/queen-elizabeth-warns-pap_n_381717.html
December 8th, 2009 at 12:06 am
He’ll just be off researching some semi-relevant facts to distort into some completely irrelevant, incoherent twaddle LOL.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@ Imatt
Nice bit of standup that – got me laughing (I never LOL)
@ eclub1
Thats really sad – I would hate to think that Simon has been abducted and has been brainwashed into thinking that a dysfunctional group of people are his masters simply on the basis that he is constantly told that it is so. Does Balmoral have a cellar ?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:22 am
@ Ash
I love listening to the Rabbis on thought for the day – always very reassuring and humane.
@ eclub1
I read that one on Huffington – and not many people standing up for the Royals on the Guardian – I tried to be a wee bit kinder to them than the bloke who was dreaming of the Romanov’s fate. Anyways I am about to catch up with Dexter – series finale next week – woo (if thats not off topic nothing is)
December 8th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Hilarious!! Later, Mr Sharp!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Or, to give the bloke some credit, perhaps he’s actually followed my advice and is composing an essay-length email to all his conservative friends asking what they’d think of giving the monarch a decipherable mandate to act as guardian of the constitution. Having said that, I’m not entirely sure if I actually believe that he would truly support such a model – I wonder if deep down he does want the Queen to remain a subservient rubber-stamp for the executive and therefore, in his blind faith, not just impartial, but completely innocent.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 am
eclub 1 and Tim, thanks. The thing is that Simon is a walking, talking cliche. He trots out all the usual royalist guff without being able to back any of it up. He is a parody of the worst kind. Or the best kind as far as this site is concerned!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:35 am
James Emerson, If you think you are an intelligent person , then grow up ,and stop talking rubbish. Prove your worth , if you can,by debating in a proper manner, or keep away. I think that the media are sometimes too intrusive into royalty and all their relatives and associates. As Liam said earlier,such behaviour promotes celebrityism, which I too find abhorrent and obnoxious. It also gives too much credence to royalty,and gives the imppression they are more worthy of attention than they are. There are many more real newsworthy subjects to report about. Simon, You are doing it again! Siding with nonsense and claptrap from people like James . You’ll slip into that “fertilizer ” again soon if you’re not careful ! As republicans, we could all feel offended by James and call him names too, if we wanted to be rude.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Matt
“I’m not entirely sure if I actually believe that he would truly support such a model – I wonder if deep down he does want the Queen to remain a subservient rubber-stamp for the executive and therefore, in his blind faith, not just impartial, but completely innocent.”
I don’t know what to make of Him. He goes to extraordinary lengths defending his “blind faith”. I would have thought He would have noticed some plausibility in at least 1 argument given by Republic. As He hasn’t, I am inclined to think it is more like trolling than blind faith.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Tim is right at 19 above to say ‘They are then free to be as Royal or not as they would like (there are plenty of aristocratic families in western republics)’. This campaign is not at all about hysterically shouting ‘off with their heads’ as some monarchist would want to misrepresent, but (in the words of the standing manifesto of the Green Party of England and Wales at PA600c [1]): ‘The monarchy shall cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease.’ As I said earlier at the Guardian [2]: ‘Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Simeon II), pretender Tsar of Bulgaria and cousin of the Windsors, was elected Prime Minister of Bulgaria and served from 2001 to 2005. If there is a Windsor capable of the job, the people can still elect them to the appropriate office in a republic.’
[1] http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspa.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/21/prince-charles-politics?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:6ab323e4-6395-47a0-8a4c-f81e094edcac
December 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I do not have the time to respond to all the points on this page but ill reply to eclubs.
The situation in Iran is completly different. Most of them are protesting about the president who cheated in the election rather than the supreme leader whos sadly propping him up. If the people in this country demanded the Queen surrender her power, she would. She reigns with the support of her people. She did not try to block Australia voting on a referendum to remove her from power. If we the people elect MPs who propose to abolish the monarchy or introduce a referendum on it that will happen.. but we do not. 90%+ of us vote for parties who support the monarchy.
If such a situation happened here where the Prime minister is seen to have rigged an election, the opposition is crying foul and 100,000s have taken to the streets in London then our Queen would use her constitutional power and step in. It would be an event like that where the Queen would be the safeguard to our constitutionial setup and democracy. People here moaning about her not defending certain civil rights or stopping the Iraq war are fousing on minor issues which have no constitutional implications for our nation as one parliament cant bind another. In the case of a rigged election she would act.
Another example is the lisbon treaty. Now many were against this treaty although the majority of parliament supported it and the loyal opposition opposed it. Now if you believe the anti europe nuts we no longer have any democracy at all and are part of a european superstate which is a dictatorship. According to them we are no longer sovereign or free. Now had this lisbon treaty been as dangerous as some would like to suggest wed have seen political unrest. UKIP bangs on about it but it never organised a massive protest march. The conservatives opposed it but not as hard as they could have. With millions on the streets protesting, Her Majesty’s Loyal oppostion saying that Gordon Brown is guilty of treason and this is the end of democracy in this country if lisbon is passed, the Queen would in her private meetings with the prime minister have given him a nudge in the right direction. But it was not as serious as all that, because the lisbon treaty like many things on europe always causes overreaction.
I support the people of Iran who want to remove the supreme leader and the president. I want to see a democratic Iran which respects human rights and does not seek the destruction of its neighbours. Whilst i may make jokes here sometimes, i am not anti democracy or freedom. I consider myself free and living in a democratic country. Republicans here are in no way oppressed or living in fear because of their positions and whilst i disagree with the republican cause i agree that should always be the case. Ive said several times id happily see certain reforms to our monarchy and constitutional system to build in safeguards.
If we were to create a constitution whilst keeping the monarchy today i would support a clear path to a republic as a safeguard which ensures a legally binding referendum can be held which results in all constitutional powers of the monarch being withdrawn. I honestly do not think such a thing would be needed, i trust our Queen, i trust Prince Charles, i trust Prince William, i trust Prince Harry and i trust the British people to ensure the correct balance is struck to maintain our constitutional monarchy for our life time atleast.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@Simon,
I thank you for your response, it’s better late than never. I waited a long time for your response. I must add however, that I am disappointed at how pithy it was considering how you go on and on about insignificant issues, particularly when it comes to the shortcomings of the American Republic. I have not once seen anyone argue that the American Republic or Constitution is perfect. So, most times when you use the American system as a deterrent ( restraint, curb, check, hindrance) for progress in the UK, you are basically arguing with yourself. Whereever the Americans got it wrong, the UK can do better by plugging the holes. For instance, on the 1st Amendment issues that make political campaigns and lobbyists cause Multi-millionaires to influence election outcomes, and the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment when it comes to guns. All these negatives can be overcome in a British Constitution. It’s simply a red-herring to use those issues to oppose a written Constitution.
Now back to the matter at hand. You did not answer my question in post #17, at least not in detail. You created more questions than answers. In order to remain within the moderation policy and not go off topic, I will leave it alone for now. We shall return to it at a subsequent time. But, let me just summarise my thoughts in regards to your response:
You said: “The situation in Iran is completly different. Most of them are protesting about the president who cheated in the election rather than the supreme leader whos sadly propping him up. If the people in this country demanded the Queen surrender her power, she would. She reigns with the support of her people”.
The students are protesting both, the rigger President and the Authoritarian Leader. The cause célèbre, the latent reason, is the power behind the President. The system. The unelected cleric, and authoritarian leader. The President is operating with the power he gets by proxy from the Authoritarian leader. Much like the Prime Minister in Britain can operate with the proxy power he gets from the Crown. That power is unaccountable, final and dictatorial. It is beyond the reach of the people. So, the Iranians believe they’ve had enough of that, and are demanding change to the whole system. And I support the students. I am against the principle that produced such a system; I could care less of the personalities. If I am to be against that principle, and that is a principle that sets aside an unelected leader with ultimate power over all elected persons, over all laws, unaccountable to the people, an ayatollah, or a monarch, or what have you, I have to be against it across the board.
You then said: “I support the people of Iran who want to remove the supreme leader and the president. I want to see a democratic Iran which respects human rights and does not seek the destruction of its neighbours”.
If you really meant what you said above, then, there is no difference between you and I. You couldn’t possibly be a monarchist, you couldn’t possibly be against the HRA, you couldn’t possibly be against me interfering in other country’s affairs. Couple the above statement with your declaration that you do not believe in God, and you become an enigma of some sort. If you don’t believe in God, you believe in the students right to protest and change the system, and you believe in democracy, and you believe in Human Rights, exactly why haven’t you paid your monthly dues to the Republic campaign?