[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

[Shooting Star]

40% of the land in UK is still owned by the descendants of Norman overlords.

Have you read Guy Shrubsole’s “Who Owns England” by any chance?

 

[faoileán]

I am probably the opposite of some posters on here it seems: I used to be a republican, now I’m just about pro-monarchy.

I remember having a heated argument on FB (where all great debates are held, of course, second only to NSC) with my pro-monarchy friends on the day of the Royal wedding in 2011. A year later I was in London protesting the jubilee with the group Republic. In truth, it was quite an embarrassing protest: there were roughly a couple of hundred of us, in contrast to the tens of thousands of people who travelled to London that day to celebrate the jubilee. If the million who marched against Brexit couldn’t change that, there’s not much hope for republicanism being able to make much headway, irrespective of the voters on polls such as these.

Ten years on and my republicanism has waned and I’d vote to keep the monarchy if there was a referendum today. I still empathise with many of the arguments of republicans and if you created a country today, it’s almost nailed on that you wouldn’t establish a monarchy. However, there’s too many other issues that loom larger in the public imagination at the moment that just seem more important than changing our system of government, and as this thread goes to prove, electoral reform and reform of the House of Lords would come higher up the list than looking at who should be Head of State. Additionally, the argument for a monarchy that has swayed me in recent years is the realisation that a Queen/King usually spends his/her whole life preparing for the role from childhood, and then the rest of their life perfecting and performing it until they die (or abdicate). That just couldn’t be said if it was an elected position (unless you had some REALLY pushy parents). The Queen is a model of this in my opinion.

Charles’ reign could sway me back to republicanism, but I reckon I’ll spend all of it waiting eagerly for William to become king.

I was waiting for your killer argument for keeping the monarchy but that just kind of fizzled out. It seemed to boil down to "these people are bred to rule over us"

 

[drew]

Get rid of all the royals and we could have someone like Johnson as our head of state. Changing the rules and ethics to suit himself.

 

[Sirnormangall]

I am probably the opposite of some posters on here it seems: I used to be a republican, now I’m just about pro-monarchy.

I remember having a heated argument on FB (where all great debates are held, of course, second only to NSC) with my pro-monarchy friends on the day of the Royal wedding in 2011. A year later I was in London protesting the jubilee with the group Republic. In truth, it was quite an embarrassing protest: there were roughly a couple of hundred of us, in contrast to the tens of thousands of people who travelled to London that day to celebrate the jubilee. If the million who marched against Brexit couldn’t change that, there’s not much hope for republicanism being able to make much headway, irrespective of the voters on polls such as these.

Ten years on and my republicanism has waned and I’d vote to keep the monarchy if there was a referendum today. I still empathise with many of the arguments of republicans and if you created a country today, it’s almost nailed on that you wouldn’t establish a monarchy. However, there’s too many other issues that loom larger in the public imagination at the moment that just seem more important than changing our system of government, and as this thread goes to prove, electoral reform and reform of the House of Lords would come higher up the list than looking at who should be Head of State. Additionally, the argument for a monarchy that has swayed me in recent years is the realisation that a Queen/King usually spends his/her whole life preparing for the role from childhood, and then the rest of their life perfecting and performing it until they die (or abdicate). That just couldn’t be said if it was an elected position (unless you had some REALLY pushy parents). The Queen is a model of this in my opinion.

Charles’ reign could sway me back to republicanism, but I reckon I’ll spend all of it waiting eagerly for William to become king.

I agree. Is there a compelling case for change at this time given numerous more important issues? I wonder if they’re having the same monarchy v republic debate in Russia. There are far worse places to live in the world.

 

[nicko31]

The absolute contempt of the average British voter on this thread is astounding.

Some of the electorate has very rarely voted the way I personally would like, but I don’t really blame the voters. It’s the system that is at fault, as I said in my last post, 56% of voters voted against the Conservative and Unionist party in the last election. All the time we have FPTP as our electoral system, we could get Governments with huge , unearned majorities.

The posters criticising the average voter, who do they think these people are,some sort of sub human species who can’t manage to tie their own shoelaces? Our gutter press has to harbour a lot of the blame for the current state of affairs,as should our education system that has taught people not to question the accepted point of view. If the British public is guilty of anything, it’s naivety,and the willingness to accept without question the establishment narrative.

There's still a lot of deference in our country and sadly people are vulnerable to manipulation.

Our system needs reform from FPTP to HOL to the role of the monarch...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm instinctively opposed to Monarchy, and get thoroughly peed-off with the facile "we need them for tourism" argument - as if no-one ever visits Paris or New York!

But, another elected leader: Tony Blair? Nigel Farage? Ricky Gervais? Miranda Hart? Yuk.

In spite of my instinctive Republicanism, I'd go for a compromise; keep the Monarchy, but slim it right down by getting rid of all the junior c-list Royals, flunkeys, and the Royal Estates (Balmoral, Sandringham, etc).

You’ve managed to choose two estates which don’t belong to the Crown but to the family. Prince Albert bought Balmoral forQueen Victoria in 1852, and Queen Victoria bought Sandringham in 1862.

As Brightonians we should know that Queen Victoria gave the Royal Pavilion to us, because she bought Osborne House in the IOW instead.

 

[The Clamp]

No need to make it a republic but we absolutely need to strip the royal family of their assets and wealth and make them live a far, far, far, far more modest life that includes much more charity work, a lot more employment and a **** of a lot more tax.

As much praise as Her Maj gets, I think she's a pretty useless waste of space. She's sat back and done nothing as the Tory's have trashed the UK. She clearly doesn't give a toss about her "subjects". More concerned with saving her paedo son's bacon.

And the planned Jubilee celebrations are a misjudged waste of much needed public funds.

In fact I have changed my mind. Get rid. They are a bunch of noncey old layabouts. **** 'em.

 

[GT49er]

I was waiting for your killer argument for keeping the monarchy but that just kind of fizzled out. It seemed to boil down to "these people are bred to rule over us"

Just proving that for some people their minds are already irrevocably made up, and no 'killer argument' will ever exist as far as they're concerned, eh?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Get rid of all the royals and we could have someone like Johnson as our head of state. Changing the rules and ethics to suit himself.

So a Boris couldn’t be born to the royals and be head of state? We just got lucky with Liz.

 

[BadFish]

I was waiting for your killer argument for keeping the monarchy but that just kind of fizzled out. It seemed to boil down to "these people are bred to rule over us"[/QUOTE]

Maybe this is why the Tories keep winning elections?

 

[chip]

There's still a lot of deference in our country and sadly people are vulnerable to manipulation.

Our system needs reform from FPTP to HOL to the role of the monarch...

I think we need to start with the HOL first, it's a hideos anomoly full of cronies. I'd also bar lawyers from the commons. Personally, I like the idea of the HOL being replaced with a jury-like system decided by lottery. At least that would be representative (although we don't really like all views being represented, do we?).

 

[Clive Walker]

Yes - the queen and the royal family are pricks. Hate them.

 

[Clive Walker]

We know with some amount of certainty that the next 3 heads of state (possibly 70-100 years plus) will be :

Male
Christian
White
Heterosexual
Privately educated

We have no say in that whatsoever.

If you feel that is is a good representation of democratic multicultural Britain then good for you. But I don’t abd think a ceremonial position can be replaced with sonething much better suited to modern day Britain. The idea of hereditary hos is very old fashioned and odd.

Give me Johnson or trump as long as they are fairly voted in they can be fairly booted out. Not much we could do if Charles becomes a maniac!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The government was elected by a majority. Not by a class system. Blame the idiots who voted for them. I agree the class system is totally wrong but getting rid of the monarchy will not get rid of elitist schools etc.

I agree, but I would also contend that the continued existence of the monarchy and all the stuff that surrounds it helps maintain the elitist schools as part of the class system.

I had a conversation with a friend years ago around an Election Day when he said that he always votes Conservative because “they know how to do things” - a notion which to me seems ludicrous currently, but which shows/showed how ordinary people can be duped by the mystique.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Very good point (even though the contra point is also defensible).

Personally, thinking about it, I would rather have Johnson as head of state than as PM. Makes me thing of Zaphod Beeblebrox, and his election as president of the universe.

That's wooshed me totally , as I never heard of a Zaphod Beeblebrox?
Googled him....but never watched hitch hikers at all, do you have another comparison?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

NO.
I see very few "Presidents" that i think i could follow with any more affection that i do for the Queen or do a better job.
The cost of the sovereign grant isnt much more than the cost of an elected head of state.
As others have said we would end up with a Trump or a Johnson on a bigger Ego trip.
What does it solve.

Do a better job? How difficult is it to sit on a throne all day?

 

[Deleted member 2719]

We know with some amount of certainty that the next 3 heads of state (possibly 70-100 years plus) will be :

Male
Christian
White
Heterosexual
Privately educated

We have no say in that whatsoever.

If you feel that is is a good representation of democratic multicultural Britain then good for you. But I don’t abd think a ceremonial position can be replaced with sonething much better suited to modern day Britain. The idea of hereditary hos is very old fashioned and odd.

Give me Johnson or trump as long as they are fairly voted in they can be fairly booted out. Not much we could do if Charles becomes a maniac!

But people who have come here or bred here know our heritage, so it's their choice to live with it, just like it's our choice to live with a tory or labour government.

I dont get the constant whinging and complaining.

It appears you have an issue with the list above?

For example what is wrong with a white male Christian who likes women and has been fortunate enough to get private education?

 

[Bakero]

But people who have come here or bred here know our heritage, so it's their choice to live with it, just like it's our choice to live with a tory or labour government.

I dont get the constant whinging and complaining.

It appears you have an issue with the list above?

For example what is wrong with a white male Christian who likes women and has been fortunate enough to get private education?

Heritage suggests it has some kind of value. Monarchy is a relic.

 

[Silverhatch]

The Queen is from a different age. Her longevity, public service and acquired generational wisdom despite all her obscene privilege is worthy of respect. But the entire thing nods to empire and colonialism. It is a bedrock upon which establishment institutions like the HOL, Eton, the Conservative party and FFS the COMMONS anchor themselves too. It needs binning off in its current form. If it’s about tourism and pomp and ceremony - sell it to Disney.

 

[cunning fergus]

The right answer.

I’d like an elected president to lead an elected House of Lords (we would need to change that stupid name).

The President would get a 5 year term and would need to be independent of political parties (but not politics in general). They would need to be nominated rather than throwing their hat in. I’m thinking of people such as Sir David Attenborough taking the role, the best of us rather than the worst of us (Boris Johnson for example).

The President would lead the new elected house of peers in examining laws passed in parliament and then do all that ceremonial stuff.

An interesting choice…….I am assuming Sir David Attenborough OM GCMG CH CVO CBE FRS FSA FRSA FLS FZS FRSGS FRSB will be a more straightforward President Dave Attenborough on the nomination form?

That’s the good old multi millionaire, Cambridge University educated, privileged Dave, whose brother was also a knight of the realm and whose wider family are now liberally sprinkled about in the artistic establishment.

My money is on Doreen Lawrence OBE………y’know the one who got handed a seat in the HOL……..or whatever it will be called in the new Republic.