Monarchy or Republic?

DadaKopf

This is just something that occurred to me over the past week or so, leading up to the Queen's Jubilee and a debate that took place on Question Time tonight.

Would the UK be better off with a Monarchy or a Republic?

I have a few thoughts on the question. Personally, I'm a republican but I don't think it makes sense to just get rid of the royal family at the moment. Putting the issues of the World Cup aside, it looks like the Jubilee seemed to galvenise a sense of British identity and tradition that's needed at this time. There's so much interference occuring in British society that there's a desire to make everything whole again - this, really, is the whole idea behind huge ceremonies like coronations and jubilees. It's, surely, not exactly the pomp and circumstance that matters as much as what it stands for. It's what people know and it's what they want.

To just replace that with a president wouldn't make much sense to the British. Countries that created republics have generally really, really wanted it - even fought for it. There'd be a total lack of vision, aspiration, tradition - a president would be a completely empty symbol. What would be the point?

So, in the end, my thoughts on it are that though I'd like to see Britain as a republic because I feel the monarchy is a huge waste of resources, it's needed for equally important cultural reasons and so it has to stay.

I'm just interested in this because the meaning of the monarchy often has a lot to do with issues of economic and social upheaval (which is happening now) and also issues surrounding political legitimacy, which looks as if it's going through some turbulent times.

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Hi Dada
(Long time no speak )

I'm a great believer in the concept of a Meritocracy and obviously the idea of a Monarchy flies in the face of that. If you want to be a head of state you should have to earn it and not be handed it on a plate because your parents married your German cousins.

The Brits are so hung up on the Toursim and historic aspect of it that I dont think it will ever be done away with, but merely through funding etc. be diminished over time. TBH, its their own business and if they like being run by an effective dicatorship then let them do as they wish.

The past couple of weeks have realy erked me with this Jubliee lark all over the news. All I can say is that I'm very glad I'm not a taxpayer forking out cash to have Mrs Hohenzollern (her real name of course) being driven around in gold plated bentleys and royal trains just so she can get some sympathy from the British Public about how she cant afford to keep her extended leaches (aka family) on the civil list.

Let them keep the monarchy...they deserve it.

origen

monarchies that are overthrown in favour of republics are usually oppressive - therefore they are overthrown. normally this oppression takes the form of foreign rule in a country - as we had in ireland. in england there is a constitutional monarchy, that is to say, it does not take any part in the day to day running of the country (does mc alese?). why would the english get rid of their monarchy? because of money? ask yourself, do we demolish old buildings to make way for new ones or do we keep them even if we make a loss? depending on the age og the house, the latter is the case - money should not be the guiding light unless the aim is cultural annihilation, as we have in america. what is the difference between their queen and our president? in my view, neither are of any pragmatic use, in my view, they are more similar than a lot of republicans care to admit, in fact, bar the fact that here they are voted in, there is no difference. that is an important difference? if there is no political clout then howso? for us to impose a republic on england, or to judge what is better for them is to do what they did to us and that is simply turning the tables, without moving forward

sceptre

Originally posted by 80project
Hi Dada
... very glad I'm not a taxpayer forking out cash to have Mrs Hohenzollern (her real name of course)

Ah, now now. Technically that change to "Windsor" was legally binding (though would you name yourself after your house?).

So it's Mrs Windsor (not Mrs Mountbatten or Hohenzollern as Phil adopted the former name and then he took her name after they were married rather than the other way around - big argument with George VI over that one)

origen

u didn't really say much of any consequence there - but by pointing out that obvious point i have added to the scrap heap so i will leave it at that

seedot

OK, here's an argument to ditch the royals - not because they're nasty people but becuase being a subject sucks.

I lived in the UK during the silver Jubilee. I was only a kid and all the parades and street parties (it did happen) created a sense of community. Good thing in my eyes.

But now I'm a grown up, I wouldn't go to the parties. Because they celebrated a monarch - who embodied the state, and who was different to me.

This wasn't just cos i'm Irish. I am most decidedly not aristocracy. And if the 'state' is something to do with the aristocracy, then I have no power or control over it.

But me, I'm a citizen - proud and loud. And I take great delight in reminding brits of various hues, Canadians, south africans etc. that they are still subjects. And it's a good thing to have a revolution.

smiles

Whats the real difference?

Our president doesnt really do that much other than stand around and look pretty, pretty much the same as the british royal family (excert the pretty bit)

Sure aren't the british royal family German originally?

<< Fio >>

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by smiles
Whats the real difference?

Mary McAleese is *elected*, she didn't just inherit the title as head of state. Personally thats my problem with monarchies.

--
Yep the Queen is German.
Word through the grapevine is she was gutted when Robbie Keane slipped one by Ollie Khan the other day;)

DadaKopf

Originally posted by seedot
OK, here's an argument to ditch the royals - not because they're nasty people but becuase being a subject sucks.

But now I'm a grown up, I wouldn't go to the parties. Because they celebrated a monarch - who embodied the state, and who was different to me.

This wasn't just cos i'm Irish. I am most decidedly not aristocracy. And if the 'state' is something to do with the aristocracy, then I have no power or control over it.

This is the thing - I'm not so sure that the British public see the monarchy as being the cream of a whole ruling aristocracy. This is probably because of the dumbing down of the monarchy and a huge change in the nature of ownership and transfer of property, the rise of the mobile middle class etc. Sure, I think it's great that we're citizens and not subjects, but does this really apply to the UK anymore?

So I'm still asking the question: what would happen to Britain if they were removed? Countries and nations need myths to justify themselves, with us it's our history of freedom fighting, for the British the monarchy plays a similar role.

But yeah, this is a crucial issue: we see ourselves as citizens but do the British really perceive themselves as subjects? Even unconsciously?

Chaos-Engine

Thats the thing Dada... I'm not sure that the British public really knows what the monarchy means to them. Yes their are individual ideas. BUt no one seems to care that a family has the inherit right to rule the UK and British Empire(they still think they have one).
The British identity has been shaken so much in the last 50 years that the Brits don't really know what being British is really.
They think it is worshiping Queen and country. Their culture is stagnint and they in some small way know that. It worries them...
Questions like "What does it mean to be british?" really trough things up into the air.

First ask this question:
"Do the British public know what being British is??"
Second:
"Is it possible to be British without a monarchy?"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by 80project
Mary McAleese is *elected*, she didn't just inherit the title as head of state. Personally thats my problem with monarchies.

There’s a fine line between election and inheritance. Look an the Irish Dail - how many there effectively inherit their seats.

To be honest, the subject of monarchy is one that is too emotive to discuss rationally in Ireland. The anti-monarchy (as opposed to pro-republican) viewpoint will always cloud the discussion (There isn’t even an honours system in Ireland, FFS).

Monarchy and aristocracy will before long become fairly irrelevant and go the same way of the patrician and equestrian classes of Rome (actually, it already has for the most part). Aristocrats are not stupid, despite the stereotype: In the post World War I order, they’ll mix their blood lines with the up and coming business and political elites of the next few centuries. They won’t be called kings or counts or marquises, and may not officially pass on their positions by right of primogenitor - but the result will be the same.

Families rise and fall. Always have, always will.

seedot

At the very least going through the process of a revolution means the people have to define how they see themselves and the state.

I think part of what is wrong with 'Britishness' is the lack of any really meaning in the term. The New Labour 'constitutional' crusade could devolve power to Scotland, Wales and Northern ireland without ever dealing with things like the lack of a constitution or a clear mandate for any particular structure. 'Britain' is meaningless in part because nobody who supports the union is willing to put a clear definition on it.

Getting rid of the monarchy (or even having a real debate about it) would force the British, and more particularly the English, to have a go at proposing a constitution that is not based on the arguments that certain families had in the 12th century.

As for the Corinthians points - you don't have to limit yourself to Ireland - have a look at the US presidents. This is human nature (wanting to give power and privilege to our children along with the other things we provide). Again, I don't see this issue as being one of monarchy - but rather the relationship of any person to the state that rules them.

origen

the problem with the "elected" argument is that , since neither the monarchy in england nor our president has any political clout in the day to day running of the country, it does not matter whether they are elected or not - it does not really affect us in the same way as a prime minister except when the monarchy is the government - akin to a dictatorship. if the role of the constitutional head of state is purely to "sit around and look pretty" then a monarchy is perhaps better - with a monarchy there is tradition and history - be it good or bad it is there - whereas an elected president is a powerless blow-in who perhaps does not represent us to the world as comprehensively as would a monarch.
a lot of these arguments seem to stem from a general dislike of the english, based oh history that has, for them, passed. they like us, but we remain embittered.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Thats the thing Dada... I'm not sure that the British public really knows what the monarchy means to them. Yes their are individual ideas. BUt no one seems to care that a family has the inherit right to rule the UK and British Empire(they still think they have one).
The British identity has been shaken so much in the last 50 years that the Brits don't really know what being British is really.
They think it is worshiping Queen and country. Their culture is stagnint and they in some small way know that. It worries them...
Questions like "What does it mean to be british?" really trough things up into the air.

First ask this question:
"Do the British public know what being British is??"
Second:
"Is it possible to be British without a monarchy?"

OK well speaking from a little bit of experience here I know exactly what the monarchy means to me... a defunct establishment that defends itself on the grounds of cultural identity and dignity. Well I personally don't want to be culturally identified with oppression and autocracy, and the fact that that autocracy is supposedly in the past is entirely relevant - it should stay in the past. I'm not going to fall for arguments about tourism; I take no pride in the fact that millions of tourists want to see Buckingham Palace. Hell if that's the level we're at, why not just build an enormous phallic model in the middle of London, that would equally draw large numbers of tourists.

Gee Chaos, I never knew my culture was stagnant, my eyes are well and truly thrown open. Then again maybe not.
Also thanks for telling me what I think being British is. But you're wrong. I for one (and I'm not an "individual view") don't think British culture should involve the praise of a German woman and her Greek husband based solely on her achievement in the field of being born and his achievement in getting married.

Fear of change is probably the real problem at the end of the day. Maybe if a political party is formed by some people with real initiative, the desire to represent the British people as a whole rather than their individual issues, and the willpower to actually act, then maybe Britain can start going somewhere other than down a drain. But thats a bit like wishing for world peace; the job requirement for a prominent politician pretty much anywhere in the world right now doesn't really allow for good intentions or honesty.

Personally I hope a TV producer comes up with a British version of The West Wing, then I too can imagine I am represented by lovely people with the best intentions :rolleyes:

To answer your questions Chaos;
1) I believe being British is being born in Britain
2) It's possible to exist without a monarchy, thats the point.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Zaphod B
1) I believe being British is being born in Britain

Oh dear... big can of worms... :rolleyes:

Zaphod B

OK how about being British is being born to British parents... clearly we need more of a definition. But at the end of the day there's a land mass here called Britain and people are born and live in it, so identifying them should prove no more difficult than identifying people in any other countries... all I know is there are many countries without Monarchies and their citizens don't wake up in the middle of the night screaming "I don't have a monarchy! Who the hell am I!?" now do they

dermo101

I've written a new British National Anthem to commemorate the Jubilee.


This is Queen Elizabeth the Last, and
I’m a survivor
I’m not gonna give up
I’m not gonna stop
I’m gonna work harder
I’m a survivor
I’m gonna make it
I will survive
& keep on survivin’

God Deliver us a Republic of equals
God deliver us a peaceful Republic
God deliver us a Republic.
No more kneelin’, scrapin’ and bowin’
No more Lady Vic in her Nick
No more of the Gay Prince takin’ the Mic
God deliver us a Republic.

I’m a survivor
Where’s my helicopter ?
It’s time for us Royals to exit in the chopper
And Let Britain start a new Republican Chapter.


No more kneelin’, scrapin’ and bowin’
No more Lady Vic in her Nick
No more of the Gay Prince takin’ the Mic
God deliver us a Republic.


________________

GreenHell

I don't really think on a practical level that removing or replacing the monarchy in England would have any effects on society, I mean what do they do only sign in new laws, show up at races, present trophies, use up 50 million on English tax payers money.

I think English society isn't as dependant on the crown as it was say 15 years ago, when their economy was in a bit of a mess, then they had this symbol to relate to, to make them proud to be English. But right now I don't think anyone would really care apart from the nationlist side of English or even the loyalist side of british community.

Of course if the crown was replaced I'm guessing the effect on the british political system would be fairly big, replacing peers with someone who actually is elected.

tHE vAGGABOND

There’s an interesting letter in the Economist this week (page 18, letter titled "Long to reign over us")

In its 3rd paragraph its says "out of the 10 nations rated by the UN as the freest and most tolerant in the world, the first six are all monarchies - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Britain and Canada"

That just got me thinking about this very subject. I would normally dismiss monarchies, and have *no* time for the Queen and her family over here. But maybe it’s not all that bad? At the end of the day Mary up in the Park does feck all for 7 years (and prolly 7 more) So we get a vote on who will do feck all, with no powers, every 7 years and people over here do not get a vote. What is the eal difference.

If were talking Civ3 tho, I'm with a Republic all the way

bonkey

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
In its 3rd paragraph its says "out of the 10 nations rated by the UN as the freest and most tolerant in the world, the first six are all monarchies - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Britain and Canada"

I know its off-topic, but its interesting that the great bastion of "freedom and democracy" diesnt make the top 6, where their northern neighbours do.

jc

tHE vAGGABOND

USA has the CIA, FBI etc etc poking themselves into your business, no one else has

seamus

A report was released yesterday on the cost of keeping the queen, and where the money is spent - it came to £8 million. OK, that's not loads, but would be useful in hard times. (£11,000 on cutlery and dishes - WTF??). And that guy who was living in what was pretty much a palace for £60 a week? Madness. I just find it funny that a country where most people refuse to pay for their medical treatment (ie use the NHS), have no problem with 8mil being taken out of their tax (~58p/year), to pay for what are essentially high-class, unemployed bums.

The usefulness of the queen in a sense of national moral and identity is a different story though, and may just outweigh those costs

tHE vAGGABOND

Mister Daly your talking thru your hole!

most people refuse to pay for their medical treatment

Some parts of thge health service is free. not all of it. You can still go private if you want decient service and dont want to wait six months. Almost everyone still has to pay a small amount for prescriptions etc etc

Its much better than the medical card system at home. Here everyone can get treated free. You may have to wait and stuff, but no matter your circumstances you can get good treatment. But if you want to upgrade you can. I think thats better than having some magical deadline when if you earn more than 12,000 (or whatever) you have to pay 20 a visit to see your doctor with your kid(s) and 20 to sit in casualty in a hospital for 6 hours.

As I said, I dont give a feck about the queen but lots of people do. Its amazing the amount of Aussies and Yanks you meet and top of their lists of things to do is all the royal stuff.

(Howya BTW, Im home next weekend, you should tag along with your brothers one night and we'll all get fu<k3d up!)

Elmo

If the UK gets rid of the Queen as head of state will the have to change the name of their Country.

ie The Bestest Republic In the Whole Wildest World Bar None

Great Republican Blist Where the Irish Can Be Brits without the oath or a stupid National Anthem

The New Anthem Could be God Save the Republic, Can you imagine Ian Pasiley Sing that. LOL.

Elmo

1) I believe being British is being born in Britain

I dont like saying this but most people who live in the Republic of Ireland can become british, that is if you are of a generation were your grandperants were born before 1922.

Just think of that I actuall think that anyone born before 1952 the year we declared that we were a republic may thus be British Citizens?????

This means both my perants are Brits god no I must now go kill myself. Born to British blood fortunalty I can now provide my off spring without that humiliation.

No offence to any British.

Actually didnt the Act of Union Not say Ireland And Great Britian = The United Kingdom Oh thank god my Perants arent actuall british but then this means that neither is any one in Northern Ireland they are just Irish people living in what is now call The United Kingdom of Great Britian And Nothern Ireland.


No offence to the Brits intended.

mike65

Originally posted by Elmo


I dont like saying this but most people who live in the Republic of Ireland can become british

Several small children killed in mad rush to British Embassy...

Is'nt this a non-topic?

Mike.

Elmo

Sarcastic comments of my orginal post actually stated the non-topical issue of this tread.

For those of you think of becoming british

THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN

major_bono

The Clarence Hotel, Kevin Barry Quay, Dublin 2
__________________________________________________

My message to Queen Elizabeth the Last on her Jubilee is:


Hello missus….your goose is cooked.

Forfeit the crown and be a good lass,
Put your daughter, sons and grandsons all out smokin’ grass !

_______

I also salute the new British National Anthem.


This is Queen Elizabeth the Last, and
I’m a survivor
I’m not gonna give up
I’m not gonna stop
I’m gonna work harder
I’m a survivor
I’m gonna make it
I will survive
& keep on survivin’

God Deliver us a Republic of equals
God deliver us a peaceful Republic
God deliver us a Republic.
No more kneelin’, scrapin’ and bowin’
No more Lady Vic in her Nick
No more of the Gay Prince takin’ the Mic
God deliver us a Republic.

I’m a survivor
Where’s my helicopter ?
It’s time for us Royals to exit in the chopper
And Let Britain start a new Republican Chapter.


No more kneelin’, scrapin’ and bowin’
No more Lady Vic in her Nick
No more of the Gay Prince takin’ the Mic
God deliver us a Republic.


Bono.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


I know its off-topic, but its interesting that the great bastion of "freedom and democracy" diesnt make the top 6, where their northern neighbours do.

jc

I find it more interesting that after their atrocities committed in Indonesia and East Timor, their petty dispute with Portugal over the lives of people they considered primitives; their powerful stake in Royal Dutch Shell who destroyed Nigeria with their interference- after all that, Holland made the list. Probably because the UN inspector rating them stayed only in Amsterdam, and assumed all Dutch people think like Dam'ers.

Britain's arrogant attitude towards its former colonies exhibited through the Commonwealth should exclude them also I feel- not to mention their extensive arms sales to an Indonesian army actively oppressing East Timorese culture. Their legal system, devoid of a written Constitution or a binding set of statutory rights/privelages allows terrible and damning things to happen within their legal system. External judicial review is something that until recently they refused to countenance. These things strike me as grossly intolerant, yet Britain also make the list.

I don't believe that the US deserve a spot in the top 10, never mind the top 6. However, I would argue that Germany deserve a place in that grouping for their military neutrality even with respect to peacekeeping, and for the extraordinary manner in which their government has accepted refugees. It is the only mainstream European government with more than a handful of seats going to the Green party. Yet they were undoubtedly excluded due in no small part to their history of half a century ago. At which point in time Canada wasn't a nation and the Dutch + British empires were even more oppressive.

The message here is that such lists are ultimately subject to human bias, as much as the standards used to judge that list would inevitably contain bias. The populist means used to publish that list also smack of pop-culture politics, but that's hardly suprising coming from the UN now is it?

On the issue of a monarchy- it matters very little- both systems have pros and cons. While a President is elected, any electoral process inevitably involves a fair amount of grandstanding, posturing, gesticulating, and kow-towing to the issues- things that the monarch hasn't to do. A completely apolitical head of state is the attraction of a monarch. A monarch cannot be called pro-executive persay, as he/she will act in the best interests of the country rather than return to political roots. Monarchs are not required to be popular- this can prove to be an advantage at a time where Brittney and Buffy are popular, and George W. and Jacques Chirac get elected. But one head of state is as good as any other afaik- pros and cons to be sure, but you'll never please everybody with either position these days.

Occy

dermo101

Fair play to you Bono…..are you sure that you haven’t drank a little too much of that Summer wine ?.


Does anybody know where I can hire an Elephant ?.



Dermo.

major_bono

Yo Dermo,

why do you require the Elephant ?.



Bono.

Richard

Originally posted by seedot
But me, I'm a citizen - proud and loud. And I take great delight in reminding brits of various hues, Canadians, south africans etc. that they are still subjects. And it's a good thing to have a revolution.

I don't know why you take great delight in this - they are citizens not subjects.

People with UK passports are now British Citizens! This has been the case since the early eighties.

South Africa is a republic, it has a president, and its citizens are South African citizens. They are not British Citizens or British Subjects!

Neither are Canadian Citizens British either! It so happens that the Queen of Canada is also the Queen of the United Kingdom but Candians are no more British than Bertie Ahern.

Just because the head of state of a particular country is QEII doesn't mean that the citizens are British. Certainly they aren't if the country is a Republic that is a commonwealth member.

And lets not forget that the Royal Family makes a profit - they give more to the British taxpayer than they take from it. A fact very few seem to know...

BJJ

?