To all subjects of monarchs: Does anyone favour the republic?

Well I can only speak from a Spanish perspective, which is somewhat unique in Europe:

Spain, as anyone who's come across a team rivalry discussion on BS has seen, is highly divided by regional nationalities and political (left v right) class.

The monarchy (and particularly Juan Carlos I) is the only thing that is keeping the Spanish state from flying off into small republics. To replace the monarch with a president would entail political and economic risks that most people, even those who aren't hard-core supporters of the Monarchy, are unwilling to take. Besides, being a parlaimentary system, the prime minister is the head of the government anyway. Any presidential system would have a president with only ceremonial powers (like many parlaimentary republics). Besides the king has more legitimacy and popularity than any potential president.

Any president would have to (at least appear to) keep above politics. This is almost impossible for ANY politician to do (remember Gee Dubya's promise during the 2000 campaign?)

In Spain its even more sensitive due to the fractures which I described above. Who could be president?

José Maria Aznar - the current conservative PM? (too conservative and centralist for many).

Felipe González - former socialist PM? (too left wing for some, centralist for others, and too many political scandals for most).

It would never be one of the regional heads (Jordi Pujol of Cataluña or Arzalluz of the Basque Region). And Manuel Fraga (Galicia) is too conservative (a la Aznar).

Thus, the moarch seems to be the only one that has enough legitimacy throughout Spain to serve to represent the head of state.Besides, the monarchy in Spain doesn't cost anything like the high ceremony of the British royal house.

As for why the people like the Monarchy, well ask yourself why so many Americans idolize the JFK presidency (camelot and all that) and the Kennedy family?

People seem to like glamor and power. Reading about royal weddings, births, deaths, among glamorous royals is more fun than among scum politicians (Newt Gangrich, Bill Clinton, the Bush family, etc), Its just not the same I guess.


BTW on a side note. One British author (I can't remember who) wrote of one of the aspects of Aristocracy was that "They die well" (meaning that they die in an appropriately high-class way). In this way the Kennedys do fulfill that function.

Plane crashes, assasinations, locking up demented members of the family...

They die very well indeed

 

I think that it is mainly people from Massachusetts that idolize the Kennedys. Most people I know could care less.

 

Then why all this damned outpouring of grief when JFK jr. died? And it wasn't just people in Mass or NY that were buyng the People Magazine spcial supplements.

 

Re: Re: To all subjects of monarchs: Does anyone favour the republic?

I can respond to this. The Irish (which I am) have always been a somewhat wretched people. No power, no wealth, and for a long time, no country. Along come the Kennedys and they have all of the things Irish people traditionally lack; power, wealth, prestige. And Irish Catholic Massachusetts loved them for it. I can't speak for non-Irish people, but that's why Irish Americans love them to this day, they're everything we wish we could be. That said, I'm a political conservative and I can't stand them. Part of their power is that they get away with murder, literally. They flout the law, they're unrepentant. I consider them an embarrassment. I think most Irish people are deluded by that mystique.

 

Going back to the original question

I like having the queen as Head of State.

Essentially she provides a feeling of a neutral embodiment of the country whilst allowing you tostill hate the politics of the Government;
As an example, I have read that many Democrats are were finding it hard to give examples of why George W Bush was not a good president without appearing to be attacking the head of the country in a time of war.

In the UK we wouldn't have that problem.

Obviously ther are other issues with Monarchies (democratic defecits etc) however, on balance I prefer the current situation to President Tony.

OHOH, I would like to see the UK introduce some of the federal ideas and local democracy that the US seems to manage so well.

 

Well, I'm not against monarchy like the one we've got in Spain today, but I think I wouldn't mind having a federal republic, either. But I think there's a long way until this is possible here.

 

The monarchy is outdated in Britain. They have qbought up a lot of land recently, so in the event of a republic, they have lots of assets to flog to the state so they can fleece us some more. The current Queen is known to be knowledgable and very committed to her role, which is good, but once she's dead, I'd like the whole lot downgraded to normal citizens like myself.

The structure of the political system should then turn into a highly devolved unitary state with England, Scotland, Wales and (occaisionally) N.I. having their own parliaments. I also want sweeping reforms to standardise the structure of local government, and to rid it of the 'junket Jimmys', and egotistical little jobsworths.

I think the current system needs to give the President a bit more practical power to counter the strength of the government, and in particular, the PM. This President has to be above the petty party politics of the House of Commons, and in an ideal world wise and thoughtful.

 

A hell of a lot of people in the UK are Republicans and want the monarchy abolished.

But if you think about it. The UK's head of state "The Queen" is head of state with over 50 countries around the world including Canada and Australia etc.

The Queen is head of the Commonwealth for example. Who exactly would be head of the commonwealth if the queen wasn't? Tony Blair? Then everyone would be asking a lot of questions that would probably destroy the Commonwealth.

Another thing is that it's supposed to be a hell of a lot cheaper to have a Monarchy than a Republic. Which probably explains why Canada and Australia haven't decided to have their own President yet.

Another reason why the UK has a Monarchy is because it brings a hell of a lot of tourism to the country.

And another reason is that the people who rule the UK are snobs and the highest of the Snobs is the Monarchy.

Another reason is sovereignty, culture and history.

My opinion is that their is no difference really. Although I don't agree with the monarchy being head of state of England. The person in power is Tony Blair and he could just call a referendum next wednesday to see if we would want to get rid of the Monarchy.

 

And that would affect someone in some way?

I just don't see how this is possible.

Lots of people go to the United States. Lots of people go to France. You could turn Buckingham Palace into a museum and probably get even more money.

Nothing a guillotine or two wouldn't cure.

Unless I miss my guess, he could probably toss Liz and the brood out this afternoon. He might face a vote of no confidence, and he might give the Tories a campaign issue, but I don't see an armed uprising.

Plus, you'll be spared defrocked arm candy palling around with arms dealers who are too thick to know how a seat belt is supposed to work. "Sir" Elton John got a lot of bank out of Di and Dodi doing their epic James Dean imitation, but by and large the House of Windsor is less helpful to Western civilization than the House of Pancakes.

 

Dan I was going to reply to your post, but then I wondered what exactly was the point you are making? Your just wrote a load of crap that didn't make sense to me.

Why does the UK have to reform to have a Republic? What good would that do? We've had the same government before the US was even a country. So why change it now?

 

Unfortunately, Spain's experience with Republicanism (1870-1874 and 1931-1936) is notable for its lack of success.

First Republic - political in-fighting and (local nationalisms) cantonalism, ripped the country apart.

Second Republic- Political crisis between extreme left and extreme right plus regional nationalisms which resulted in three years of Civil War and almost 40 years of dictatorship.

Given the delicate nature of autonomist and regional-nationalist feelings today, I believe that getting rid of the monarchy would result in similar political chaos.


To those who seem to like the Idea of a president. Isn't it the case that with ceremonial parlaimentary presidents (with the exception of France) that the head of state is often chosen by the Parliament, not by the voters directly?

Do the people vote for the President in Germany or is he chosen by the Bundestag (either way he really doesn't do anything does he)? What about Italy?

I know that in the Second Spanish republic the President was elected by the members of the parliament.

 

im sick of having a monarchy.

the queen sucks and they should all jump london bridge. i am sick of being a subject of the queen.

does anyone know wether the rule if i kill the queen i bacome king is still in place??

 

That is why I say there's a long way until it is possible here.

 

Likewise, I'm sure.

 

Well, I live in a nation where we have an appointed leader who happens to be the son of a previous leader. And he happens to have the power to do whatever he wants, ignoring the laws of the land, so the nation is not a republic. At least he will be gone in a few years.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it

Switching from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is easier said than done. It's not like you'd have the great minds of the day like the American founding fathers writing your new constitution, it would be today's politicans. Why do you think Australians who are mostly republicans, rejected a republic?

 

Re: If it ain't broke don't fix it

Because they didn't want Rupert Murdoch to be thier next president.

 

Re: If it ain't broke don't fix it

The proposed Republic would have had the Aussie parliament appointing a President i.e. no real enhancement of democracy. This was a calculated move by the monarchist Conservatives who were in power at the time of the referendum.

 

as for the Kennedys, they can kiss my ass. i happen to be from Massachusetts , the Cape in fact, near the Kennedy Compund in Hyannis, and I seriously dislike them. America was looking for a young charismatic couple, and the Kennedys essentially cheated their way into the presidency. the book the John F wrote was actually the work of ghost writers, the fact that it topped the best seller list was because papa Kennedy bought the book and stored it. i don't buy this "Camelot " crap, i really don't. it was far from it, and Jackie was living Hell on Earth the enitre time.

Back to the original question. i think that England should step into the 21st century. enough with the queen and parliament! get over it! that is SO Elizabethan. from where i stand, y'all would do so much better with a republic. be it known that I do respect Tony Blair on many fronts except his foreign policy where he refuses to bite the bullet either way. believe me, i watch the prime ministers questions on TV quite frequently.

 

The way I see it, if you're going to have a republic, in Australia say, it sould probably be structured like our government. The President should be independent of the Parliament; indeed he should be the head of government and dispense with the Prime Minister. Although I'll leave it to you whether or not to adopt the electoral college.* My problem with the UK is that there's no constitution, no seperate judiciary, no judicial review. The only thing restraining Parliament is tradition. There should be constitutional guarantees for the rights of the people and balance of power between the branches of government. For the present, I don't understand why the Queen doesn't have any responsiblities. Do Republicans really object to the Monarchy? Or just the fact that they don't really do anything? The Royal Assent should mean something and the Queen should attend cabinet meetings.

*I might've known that this would come up in this discussion. The electoral college is implicit in the understanding of a federal republic. I don't know how it is in other countries, but each United State is quasi-autonomous in law and feeling. We all feel like Americans, but most of us are also loyal to our State. In a federal system, the states have certain rights apart from the central government. And the electoral college (as well as the Senate), insures that more populous states can't dictate to lesser ones. Al Gore understood that it was electoral votes that determine the Presidency, so should've everyone else. So stop with this crap that Bush was appointed.

 

Can I get a hell yeah?!

 

The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Considering that there is no branch of government which is elected on straight popular vote, and considering states rights are more than adequately defended both in the Senate and in the 10th Amendment, it's past time that the Presidency become what people thought it was - elected by the will of the people.

There's no longer any excuse for the electoral college. People forget that there was a real possibility that Gore, and not Bush, would have been the popular vote loser and electoral college winner - and people also forget that right-wing talk radio was gearing up to denounce the electoral college for thwarting the will of the people. They would have been right - so I wonder why they didn't follow through on their hallowed principles?

"Fixed your post" - no matter how long it's been, it always comes back to us like an old, dear friend.

 

Not really,

Republicans in Britain don't really care anymore. Some even believe that a Monarchy is better than a Republic. The person in power should get away from all the media.

In England, the Queen gets all the attention, while Tony Blair is left with the decisions. It's seems better that way. As for People's rights, if there was a referendum tommorrow anyway, the Monarchy would win.

The Queen is the representative of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 50 others. She isn't just the representative of Britain, most people miss that fact. The Queen, is the Queen of Canada, she is other people's Queen. She is just a representative and doesn't have any real power.

I suppose people in Britain look at a Republic as a right-wing anti-socialist goverment. While a Monarchy is left-wing socialist government. Over the last 30 years Britain has seen that the best form of government for them is a socialist. Not just that, history has found that Monarchy's last longer than Republics.

If it isn't broke why fix it? There is no REAL reason why Britain should change it's form of government? the UK is a tiny little Island and is 4th largest economy, which low inflation, low unemployement etc, everything seems to be working fine.....Why move to a Republic and reform just so every four years people can choose who stays in power? We do that anyway......He's the Prime Minister Tony Blair and he is the REAL person in power.

You know why it's call PRIME MINISTERS QUESTION TIME?

Because they ask what the PRIME MINISTER will do next on everything domestic or foreign concerning Britain, they ask the PRIME MINISTER what will he do.......You know why they ask him and not the Queen? Because the person who makes the decisions is the PRIME MINISTER.