16 Oct 2008
So, Elizabeth Windsor is to pay a visit to Google’s UK headquarters today. And to mark this momentous event, she will be honoured with her very own ‘Google doodle’.
According to The Times, “the Queen has embraced technological changes over the decades”. Or rather her PR team has. The royals are desperate to prove that they’re in touch with modern life. As a Republic board member said to me this morning, if the Queen was really in touch she’d abdicate.
If I were her, I’d leave Youtube and Facebook to someone else and concentrate on grasping that other big development of recent years – democracy. It’s very popular with the kids, you know.
So, what do you make of this visit? And who’d be on your Google doodle?
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 16th, 2008 at 9:29 am and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
October 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I think we should all change our search engines in protest. “We’re not googling anymore!” Yahoo!
Personally I don’t notice these alterations by Google to “Google”. The only one I can recall seeing was the Shamrock on St Patrick’s Day.
Does Google alter its logo on June 2nd? our Republic Day.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“The royals are desperate to prove that they’re in touch with modern life.”
Or is it you who are out of touch with British popular opinion?
October 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Actually I think its quite cool.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Hi Matt
I take it from your comment that you believe republicans are a minority in this country. You also appear to think that a view is only valid if it is shared by the majority.
Ah, the old argumentum ad numerum again.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Nicky – what do you think’s cool?
October 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Results from Google:
“uk monarchy” – 1,590,000 results
“uk republic” – 12,600,000 results
October 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Just read the ‘Republic’ mission statement….and it left me wondering, if there was an elected Head of State, would the millions of tourist come to visit London and Buckingham Palace. I don’t think so !! Just look at the White House in Washington DC. Is it a must see tourist attraction. No ! it has dozens of down and outs dossing around the front of it.
Keep the Monarchy. Civil and Religious liberty is guaranteed by a Protestant Head of State. The greater majority don’t wish to have anything else.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’m not sure its our Queen that needs to google ‘democracy’ or the small minded people that run this website.
I think this is quite possibly the most ridiculous website i have come accross and i am ashamed to even live in the same coutry as half of you facking idiots.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi William – thanks for your comment.
You bring up the good old tourism argument, which we do cover elsewhere on this site (see http://www.republic.org.uk/reply). I’ll quote from that page:
However, the idea that the monarchy is good for tourism is nonsense. There is simply no hard evidence for it. Even Visit Britain, the body charged with promoting Britain as a tourist destination, can’t give us any stats on the impact our constitutional monarchy has on visitor numbers. If the monarchy is really so important to our tourism industry, don’t you think they would have some evidence to support that claim?
Of course tourists come to Britain because of our heritage and our history. But that will not disappear when we become a republic. In fact, tourists will have many more chances to experience that heritage and history when our former royal residences are fully open to the public.
As for your last point – that civil and religious liberty is guaranteed by a protestant Head of State – I’m afraid that’s also a myth. An elected, accountable Head of State, whose role and powers are defined within a written and codified constitution is the best guarantee of freedom.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Thanks James – monarchists are always so articulate.
Care to tell us why we’re wrong, or do you just want to call us names?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
hi,
I just stumbled across this site, ironically, from a link from a google headline, and i’m neither pro nor anti monarchy, but I note with keen interest the considerable effort that this website and thus it’s owners have gone to represent their point of view. Bravo, it’s good to see people who care about something enough to go to those lengths. However, do you not think your time would be better devoted to something which a) is likely to ever happen (thats not being cynical and i believe you are all too aware of that) b) even in the frankly impossible likelihood that this were to happen, would make the slightest difference to the average persons, nay, anyone’s life or finally c) anyone, save a few of your dedicated selves obviously, ever spends more than one second of any given day thinking / worrying about?
With regards to the money they cost the UK, does that not pale into insignificance when compared to how much money the current banking fiasco, caused entirely by the greed, incompetence and arrogance of the MDs and traders (which by the way, are terms I don’t believe have ever been applied to the current monarch?) has cost the average tax payer? Don’t you think you would attract more support and use the time in your obviously very busy lives more productively, if you say, started a campaign to reclaim the millions of £’s in bank charges we have all paid out to these idiots in charge over the past few years, or bring about some sort of criminal action against the gross incompetence that would be applied to a doctor or soldier? This would probably attract praise instead of the expected and apparent negative comments your insignificant cause draws? From your replies to posts above, you obviously know your subject matter, so why not apply it to something useful?
As to the poster above, suggesting changing not using google, do you think anyone would actually care if you didn’t? Do you think anyone would actually be aware of your brave, bold and magnanimous statement?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I like that the Queens gone there. It’s always funny to read about what they’re up to. Kind of got a soft spot for them. They don’t really rule us though. What is it that they do wrong?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I see James is worth every penny of his salary! Couldn’t put it better myself.
I’m also thinking Joe may be right- perhaps the next Republic campaign should be ‘Yahoo- the official republican search engine’? No,no, that would be silly.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Hmm, so you reckon President Blair would be any better? I don’t think anyone has to be much of a Royal fan (as opposed to a Royle fan
to recognise that the alternatives would be worse.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
i do feel this is utterly laughable.
if you look at this sensibly, you will not get anywhere with this whole republic crap.
its just not going to happen. nobody really cares in britain. it wont have a dramatic effect on life and its good to have some of our history with the royal family still intact.
this will one day be one of those sites that was laughed at for its stupid thought of being able to change the world.
lets be honest with ourselves now. you’re just fighting a cause thats not even lost, its never really begun.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I agree with Chris; there are much greater threats to our democracy like the abolition of hereditary piers. Non-party-political monitoring from the House of Lords is an important part of the state system. Stop crazy PM waging illegal wars, oh wait a minute…
The Monarchy are irrelevant.
PS Can’t wait to hear what James has to say next, James Gray is so easy to wind up… discuss…
October 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
i do feel this is utterly laughable.
if you look at this sensibly, you will not get anywhere with this whole MP’s expenses crap.
its just not going to happen. nobody really cares in britain. it wont have a dramatic effect on life and its good to have some of our history with political corruption still intact.
this will one day be one of those sites that was laughed at for its stupid thought of being able to change the world.
lets be honest with ourselves now. you’re just fighting a cause thats not even lost, its never really begun.
Oh, wait, you’re talking about us?! Sorry, I thought ‘jeremy’ was referring to some poor deluded memebr of Amnesty there… LOL!
October 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I imagine judging by the amount that James Gray has written on here that you don’t have an awful amount of anything to do with your time. in fact i anticipate you are living of the state!!!
How on earth can you be so ridiculous as to contest our monarchy. They bring a huge amount to this country and pay for themselves and then more. We as a country don’t have much to offer foreigners other than a benefit system that is raped daily.
The one thing we do have is heritige and history that is second to none and the fact we have a living royal family that still remain the figurehead of our country brings millions of tourists to london ever year. What stats do you need?? it can’t be quantified unless a daily count was carried out or sorry a maybe a ticketing system implemented to take pictures of Buckingham Palace and the many other royal sites acros the UK. i imagine these are the sort of things you republicans would like to see. It is a routine part of any visit to our capital.
Let it be said the Queen is a working woman at her age. any other would be drawing a bloody pension fom state.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I see the royal PR machine is doing its job well! When are people going to realise that a significant amount of their tax money is used not only to keep these people in power (and in luxury) but it is also spent on propaganda to convince us that we need them and should keep paying for them?
Rich – the banking crisis is a completely different issue. This system has evolved, with all of its flaws, and any of your money lost through it is incidental. The monarchy, by contrast, actively help themselves to public funds. Are you aware that, unlike every other publically funded body, they don’t even have an annual budget? They just spend what they like out of the taxes we must pay by law and tell us how much they have frittered away afterwards. And we still don’t know how much they cost us in total when everything from needlessly high security to new toilets are provided when they go on an official visit.
Iain – if you look at the rest of the site I think you will see this is not about these particular individuals and what they ‘do wrong’. It is not remotely personal, it is a constitutional issue. And they do indeed rule us. See the earlier item about the cabinet reshuffle. In the event of a hung parliament the Queen would be looked to to resolve the situation (such a situation could easily happen at the next election). She also traditionally invites the leader of the winning party in a general election to form a government – but this is only tradition. There is nothing to stop her from doing differently if she decides she liked the other guy better! She ultimately decides who controls the Commons, and who controls the Commons, controls the country. Also, Gordon Brown has much more sweeping and undemocratic powers than any other European leader as he exercises many of the monarch’s powers on her behalf. If there was no monarch the whole system of governance would become much more democratic. Is Charles going to be as docile as his mother and continue the tradition of not using the very real powers the monarch has? Are you willing to take the risk?
And as for the many ‘there’s no point’ types – we’ll worry about that. It is pretty clear that what you mean is ‘you have no right to an opinion’. Little wonder you are such ardent monarchists then – you clearly don’t believe in democracy.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“Chris Says:
Hmm, so you reckon President Blair would be any better?”
The choice for a democratic Head of State need not necessarily be a politician at all. The point is though, that we the British people would ‘choose’ and not have someone who gets the position simply by being born into one wealthy family.
If we decided after four or five years at election time that we did not approve of our previous choice then we vote him/her out and ‘choose’ someone else. That is called democracy.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Can we leave the tourism argument aside now? It has been dealt with here and is dealt with fully elsewhere on this site – it is a total lie pedalled by the Palace’s PR men. Actually, James, I need plenty of stats on this please. If this is an argument people are going to keep using I think the royals, or one of the many pro-monarchy groups, should get these stats and prove the royals are good for tourism. What we do know is that Buckingham Palace is not even in the top 20 tourist destinations in the UK. People come for the history, the architecture and not the Queen. We actually have much more to offer. Even if people were persuaded to visit the UK by the existence of this ridiculous anachronism, there is no way they create more income than is stolen from us by the royals, and this is no excuse for supporting an institution which makes a mockery of our democracy.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Surely if they ever did try to exert some power then the “act” (or whatever it would be) that you guys are pushing for would come to the fore and would be “passed” (sorry if my lingo’s not bang on). Charles would be shooting himself in the foot as they’d lose the whole lifestyle thing too. I don’t think he’d od that.
So what you’re really pushing for is that the money isn’t spent on the Royals? Or have i got it wrong…
Just out of interest, do we know how much tax goes to them?
October 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Re: Richard’s point…
I reckon the queen would get a lot of people’s votes too…maybe not so much Charles.. who would you guys vote for?
October 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Iain – I don’t think that having to be bribed with unearned wealth and priviledge in order to be persuaded not to use your scarily ditatorial powers is a good basis for a democratic system, do you? In fact, when you put it like that, it shows that we are in a very dodgy situation indeed. Why not just sort it out once and for all and have everyone knowing their place and chosen for office by the British people?
RE the money – no we don’t know exactly how much they cost us because they don’t tell us. We know they cost the british taxpayer £150,000,000 at the very least, but this does not take into account all the extras I mentioned above, including money spent on the undeniably useless minor royals (Princess Michael of Kent, anyone?). Republic are campaigning to have all this above board. A very sensible idea if you ask me. This is no way to run such a great country.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
What ridiculous ‘arguments’ you monarchists deploy to defend the indefensible. Republicans believe in democracy, that is what drives us. I have nothing personal against any of the royal family, I just question why people who have little or no discernible talent should automatically be given positions of great influence over all our lives. We are supposed to live in meritocracy and yet the top job is denied to all based on a medieval concept which should have been consigned to history decades ago.
For all that the power has seeped away from the monarchy, it still retains its place as the head of state. All those connected with it, whether by birth or marriage automatically receive preferment, wield power and influence and accrue undreamt of riches regardless of what they do. That is deeply unfair and undemocratic. Prince Charles gets to opine on all manner of issues and is reported widely. By virtue of their position they get to see government papers and influence government policy and yet they are answerable to nobody, the only interviews they give are purely for PR purposes, they are never called upon to justify themselves.
The monarchy has a central position in our history and heritage it is true but that is no reason for it to remain. We need a new modern constitution and a proper balance of powers. Ancient institutions like the monarchy, the House of Lords, the Privy Council etc block proper accountability in this country and are very convenient for the party in power. Only in Britain does the Prime Minister get to choose when to call an election for instance. He can also appoint a minister and give him a place in Parliament without having to call a by election he might lose. He has these rights as a direct consequence of our outdated but very convenient constitution and the fact that we have a head of state who has no real power and so cannot say no. That is wrong. We have an elective dictatorship and no proper balance of powers and all thanks to the fact we have a queen rather than an elected head of state.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I note that there are comments from several monarchists on this blog. If you people want to continue with the status quo, where we have a virtual lottery in who becomes our Head of State, rather than one chosen by the people from a selection, that is your privilege.
However, I firmly believe that there are a great many people out there who are being denied the opportunity to help take this country into the 21st Century. We are denied a head of state who may be catholic, muslim, Atheist or agnostic, gay or even (perish the thought) a mere woman, simply because they do not have the right parents. We are supposed to be a democratic country, and yet we are denied the basic right to choose who we would like as our head of state.
I have nothing personally against the queen, and would even consider voting for her in an election. But that is the problem right there – I am simply not given that choice because this country continues to honour a centuries old pact. This is why I am proud to consider myself a Republican.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Hi Paul,
Not sure who your response was targetted at but my points haven’t been arguments and I’ve not yet tried to defend anyone. This is my first time blogging, and it seems (like with text messages) it can be quite hard for people to understand other’s tones. Me included!
The Royals don’t seem to good value at £150,000,000, especially if that’s not all the costs involved. It probably costs a small fortune just to administer gathering that much tax money! It’s a bit disconcerting that the accounts aren’t above board.
So if the costs were reduced and the net of the royal family cast to a narrower field, do you think there’s still a place for them? They tend to do some good work in the community. Would a replacement head of state do a similar amount of charity work? And what would their costs be?
Any ideas for this new elected head of state yet?
Oh yeh, on Sophies point; I don’t think we’re bribing them. The point i was trying to make is that I don’t think they could use their “scarily ditatorial powers” without it causing them to be removed. Sort of suicidal for them to attempt that.
Ps I’m not a monarchist, just enjoying the debate and it’s a good way to find out what you believe in. More interesting than just reading about it.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Hi Iain – we’re always happy to debate the issues at Republic.
You ask: would there still be a place for the royals if the costs were reduced? The answer has to be no – in as much as we wouldn’t want to see a Scandinavian style “bicycling monarchy”. It’s still a monarchy after all.
However, in a republic the Windsors would be free to continue their charity work. They can still be patrons, supporters, activists and campaigners. IN fact, they would be more free to do so.
You also ask: “Would a replacement head of state do a similar amount of charity work?” My first response would be that a Head of State is not there to do charity work, they are there to be Head of State. The President may well decide to lend their support to certain charities, however, as Mary Mcaleese does in Ireland.
On the issue of the monarchy’s powers – I’ll quote from our Republic Replies page:
On the issue of who our elected Head of State would be, Republic doesn’t have any candidates in mind and we don’t think it’s helpful to suggest any. It’s for the British people to decide.
However, as a strong and successful nation of more than 60m people I think we can find one good and upstanding person to represent us every few years. It could even be you Iain! The only qualification needed to be president is a democratic mandate.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
From my point of view, the economic arguments for and against the concept of a monarchy are irrelevant. I’m not interested in the most cost-effective way of organizing the position of head of state. I simply want democracy, and democracy at any price.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ah ha! Now we get to it steve!
You should put that on your ‘What we believe’ bit. A nice quote.
It’s good that we’d get the control over WHAT they do as well as who does it. That point has made an impression on me James. And the above board accounting is massively important, but it should follow the first two bits I guess.
I don’t like the sound of ‘Republic’ or ‘President’. I guess those words have been a bit tarnished by the USA (in my opinion). In a silly sort of way that’s probably a reason for people going against what you are campaigning for.
Presidents in other countries seem to have a lot more power than our head of state. If we did have a democratically elected head of state would this change the prime ministers role at all? I guess what i’m asking is if we do get the:
“opportunity to define what powers we would like such an office to have, to plan how we would like these powers to be exercised, and to apportion them with checks and safeguards”
what would the powers be?
October 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Republic has generally campaigned on the president in a properly democratic Britain being an executive with the majority of power being in Parliament, not the head of state.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Iain, I think there’s a debate even among republicans as to which republican model should be adopted, what powers the head of state should have & what the position should be called. These are all legitimate points of discussion & republicans would do well to be open minded about such details. Indeed democratic principles seem to call for these things to be decided by the people by way of an inclusive consultative & democratic process. I think such a consultation should ideally produce 3 or 4 well defined alternatives to the monarchy for the people to choose between in a ballot.
A few comments above touch on the futility of the republican cause in Britain. That strikes me as overly cynical. I think it’s fair to say the U.K. is not on the cusp of becoming a ‘full’ republic in the next few years. It has taken a long time for even republican leaning Australia to get where it is now i.e. still 5-10 years away from becoming a republic. That said, there is no harm in laying foundations now for a campaign which will conceivably become more popular in the next 25 years, as for example Australia and other commonwealth countries (perhaps including New Zealand & Canada) have high profile debates about becoming republics.
There is an argument that goes that Britain is a republic in all but name. I wouldn’t go as far as that, but I would say in many important respects our constitution is republican in character and that continuing the repubicanisation of our system, slowly but surely, is a worthwhile endeavour.
As it happens, and as a republican, I don’t object to the Queen having visited Google. I could easily see that as being an acceptable thing for a democratic Head of State to do. I rather like the Google doodle of Her Maj ^_^
October 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
It’s nice to see we have had a few more visitors to the Republican website, even if they are monarchists. The tide is turning slowly and the monarchy will one day be confined to our history books.
The queen still remains popular, but Charles is not. Harry and William are more like celebs than potential kings which is why if monarchists could vote for the next monarch they would choose one of them in preference to Charles. However monarchists cannot choose who their sovereign will be but one day we Republicans will be able to elect our own Head of State.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
oh my god what a sad bunch of people who run this web site are.
lets face facts, the queen encourages far more bussness than she cost in terms of tourism and commerce, there is no better ambassador for the uk, there is no argument and quoting silly almost made up facts to try and fit your point of view is just plain silly and does not help your cause.
no one is goning to come to the uk to see an elected president get real and most of the people in the uk love having the queen and love the fact that other countries would love to have a royal family like ours.
please get a hobby
October 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Time and again, the same silly arguments from the Buck House PR machine.
The tourism/trade argument is nonsense. Britain thrives and will continue to do so because ordinary people work hard to promote tourism and trade. The monarchy makes no discernible difference to either.
“president Blair”. Wow, that’s original too. The logic is clear: if we get President Blair it’ll be because we want him. If we don’t want President Blair, guess what, we won’t get him. It’s called democracy. King Charles anyone?
October 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“As a Republic board member said to me this morning, if the Queen was really in touch she’d abdicate.”
Am I right in thinking that the fairly liberal estimate of the number of republicans in this country is something such as 12 million (as published on this website http://www.republic.org.uk/news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=163&date__date__year=&date__date__month=&date__date__day=)? If so then, with 48 million people, even by your own statistics, either for or apathetic about the monarchy, then that suggestion is flawed. If anything, Her Majesty would be out of touch with the people by abdicating, since she is a much-loved Sovereign despite the radical changes in society since 1952.
“I take it from your comment that you believe republicans are a minority in this country. You also appear to think that a view is only valid if it is shared by the majority.”
By your own estimate of 12 million, I think republicans are in a minority. Moreover, in a democracy, a view may not be valid but it has precedence because it is the most popular one. “Matt” was not suggesting that the monarchy is more valid because of the 48 million people who support it/don’t care either way in this country, rather that it might actually be quite popular and hence that the Royal Family are “in touch”, or at least perceived to be.
As concerns the President Blair example, that is perhaps taking it to an extreme but Ireland, whose Presidency is so oft cited on this site and other republican ones as a paragon of virtue, has long (and, if memory serves, solely) employed politicians in the office of President.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Monarchists never fail to disappoint and bewilder me. Who are these strange people, whose impassioned defence of an immoral and anachronistic system which coldly subjugates, belittles and manipulates them rings out across the land and down through the ages?
One of the things which intrigues me about monarchists is their encyclopaedic knowledge of the economics of the British tourist industry. The monarchy, they tell us, bring in millions, billions, trillions or whatever it is they say. How do they know this? Was there a class in this at school that I missed? Did they all study it at university? From the lack of actual figures they provide, I can only assume this knowledge is passed down by oral tradition, rather like the belief that it’s unlucky to walk under ladders. Indeed that seems an accurate parallel; it makes no real sense, it isn’t backed up by any recognised statistics, and even although people know all of that, they’re still uneasy about challenging it!
As an earlier writer said, I couldn’t care less if the monarchy ‘brings in millions’ – it is a system that is morally WRONG, end of story! Monarchists would claim the institution stands up for long-held principles, yet their main argument for its continued existence rests on a perception of a bountiful tourism ‘golden egg’ with the rights and wrongs of democratic accountability and hereditary privilege conveniently ignored lest they derail some supposed gravy train from which all Britons, regardless of class, race, religion, geographical location, political beliefs and gender, reap endless generous benefits. (Never mind that this legendary tourism magnet only really attracts precious metals to the London area, leaving the rest of us to rely on the timeless beauty of our landscapes, culture and wonderful people!)
Thus, the only real ‘principle’ at work here is the one we used to call “I’m Alright (Union?) Jack.” With that in mind, it’s easy to see why the archetypal monarchist is affluent, middle-aged, upper or upper-middle class, white, protestant and (most likely South-East) English; these are the people whose interests, to some extent or other, are catered for by the continued existence of a monarch-led class system that need never be troubled by any pesky democratic challenge.
What disappoints and bewilders me all the more is the considerable numbers of willing ‘subjects’ that do not belong to that would-be ‘elite.’ For sadly there are young, working-class, non-white, non-protestant, non-English monarchists. These, to me, are the ‘superstitious’ monarchists, who have been told so often and from such an early age that walking under the republican ladder is unlucky, that they won’t even consider walking on the same side of the street! They hear about Charles’ wine-powered car and the smashingly high tourist income in London (oops – sorry – Britain) and are happy to believe and indeed delight in the emperor’s new clothes.
I’m afraid I see only the naked truth of this immoral, outdated and frankly sinister institution. I see a family afforded huge wealth and privilege as reward for acting as figurehead for an unjust and widely-loathed system of wealth retention and social control by an elite that largely owes its existence to accidents of birth and an unflinching readiness to resort to physical violence. They are at the top because their antecedents won a fight, in other words.
It’s strange how historical distance distorts people’s view of that fact. My grandmother told me a story of a man rambling over countryside who was challenged by the landowner. “Get off my land,” if you will.
“Who says it’s your land?” says the rambler.
“My ancestors fought for this land!” replies the Lord, indignant.
“Fine,” says the rambler, rolling up his sleeves, “I’ll fight you for it now.”
October 18th, 2008 at 7:28 am
So you say that:
“If I were her, I’d leave Youtube and Facebook to someone else and concentrate on grasping that other big development of recent years – democracy. It’s very popular with the kids, you know.”
..despite the fact you have the legal freedom to host this website expressing your views – you claim that we do not live in a democracy?
Wake up!
October 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Since when did the existence of freedom of speech equal true, full and unfettered democracy Dr Jones? You are completely missing the point. It may not be a treasonable offence to criticise the Queen (anymore!) but that doesn’t change the fact that the monarch has very real powers which are bestowed by birth and not ballot. This poisons the whole system of governance from the top downwards and makes it an undisputable fact that as long as the monarchy remains, Britain will not be a true democracy. I think you might be the one who needs to ‘wake up’.
October 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Ohh yeah! Lets change our country’s name from the United Kingdom to the United Republic!
Yeah, let’s ditch the queen and combine the ceremonial role she plays with the political role of Prime Minister.. then we’d have a US-style President and the conflict of interests where respect for the honourable President must come before political criticism which would be considered disrespectful and “unpatriotic”.. sounds like a GREAT idea! Then we’d be as screwed up as the United States!
The role of head of state has NOTHING to do with democracy when the Head of State unconditionally delegates power to the democratic engine that is Parliament and the currently elected Government.
If you cared about democracy then you would be more concerned about making Parliament change the way the second chamber (the House of Lords) works before worrying yourself about ceremonial roles.. Democracy is clearly not what your campaign is about.
October 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Hi BS – thanks for your comments.
On your first point, Republic’s preferred model of republic is that of Ireland and Germany. In other words, a largely ceremonial Head of State with limited (but important) powers – not a US-style executive President.
You assert that the Queen “unconditionally delegates power to the democratic engine that is Parliament and the currently elected Government”. My first response is that in a full democracy, anyone who holds power (whether that is unconditionally delegated or not) should be elected by the people and accountable to them.
But your statement inadvertently highlights why our campaign has everything to do with democracy. In Britain’s odd (uncompleted) journey from feudalism to democracy, power passed directly from the Monarch to the Prime Minister. The role of Parliament as a check on the power of the Government has therefore always been incredibly weak. Because of this strange monarchical system, our Head of State cannot act independently of the Prime Minister. An elected president, conversely, would be able to exercise their limited powers when necessary.
As for the House of Lords, I think it’s fair to assume that many republicans would support an elected upper house, however Republic commits itself just to the single issue of monarchy. We believe it is important to provide a united focus on this one important issue, particularly as there are many other groups and parties campaigning on constitutional issues such as the House of Lords.
So yes, our campaign is about democracy.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Anyone who has made even a passing study of British history knows that power slowly ebbed away from the monarch to Parliament. Latterly it then passed to the executive and in particular the Prime Minister. Thus we have the peculiarity of a PM who can choose when to call an election, who can appoint people to his government and hand them a seat in the House of Lords rather than call an election. All of this is thanks to powers which nominally reside in the queen.
The process of reform hasn’t finished yet. We have an unsatisfactory half way house.
And it is arrogantly assumed by the political establishment that the British people are happy with the present arrangement. When the queen dies will we be consulted before Charles is named her successor? Shouldn’t we have that right? There are a lot of people in this country who profoundly disapprove of the man and do not think him fit to be king. But it will just happen unless we protest and protest strongly. After all when it suits the establishment they can replace a monarch with someone more congenial. It has happened throughout our history, most famously in 1688 in what is termed ‘the glorious revolution’ but also more recently in 1936.
All we ask is democratic accountability and legitmacy. We could even have President Charles Windsor if he won an election. It’s the principle that matters.
Finally please stop this nonsense about tourism. Has it escaped people’s attention that tourists still go to Paris notwithstanding their lack of a monarch for 200 years? People also visit Washington DC, capital of a country that never had its own monarch and is named after a president. Tourists go to see architecture, art, history and culture. They do not come on the off chance they might briefly see a member of our royal family whizz past in a limousine.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
BS, has it escaped your attention that Bush has virtually the lowest approval ratings of any sitting President ever? Not to mention the fact that the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of his own party are openly distancing themselves from him. Your argument that combining the role of executive and head of state places that office holder beyond criticism just doesn’t hold on even a casual survey of the evidence. I can’t think of an American President who hasn’t been publicly and vigorously criticised.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:10 am
Sophie
I do reject the fact you attempt foist *your* idea of democracy on everyone. You try and tell people, as does this website, that democracy is what you define it as. “The people’s Republic of Britain” here we come. (The Communists and Fascists have tried many times before)
The funny thing is that while I’m not really a monarchist, I object to your authoritarian views even more. In fact this blog and all the comments and responses ushers me (and at least one other I know) away from your so-called cause, believe it or not. While you don’t see it – or perhaps even worse don’t acknowledge it – I think this republican movement hails something far less “democratic” than the governance we already have. Therefore after consideration I cannot support your cause.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:26 am
Dr P Jones – I’m sorry to hear that we seem to have ushered you away from the republican cause.
Clearly, we have an idea of democracy (one of full accountabilty, openness and transparency) that we campaign for. It is a vision of democracy in which monarchy – and the hereditary principle – has no place. I fail to see how this is “authoritarian”. Please explain.
Your flippant use of terms such as “fascist” and “communist” suggests that Republic’s vision of democracy is a more mature and principled one than yours.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
I’d really like to hear you explain how our views are “authoritarian”. You’ve not given any examples.
Republicanism is based on the principles of popular sovereignty, equality in law and democratic accountability. Where in this blog or on the website has this been contradicted?