Republicanism versus Monarchy in Great Britain

[jerseydevil]

This is for Butterbeer. I think the "Charles to Marry Camilla" was a valid thread, but it was going more into Republicanism versus Monarchy. This is a subject seperate from the UK Politics thread - which deals with mostly the parliament and issues such as fox hunting.

Here people from Great Britain (and anyone else who cares) can freely discuss the issues of the Monarchy and whether or not it is still legimate and should be retained, or if it is no longer of any use and should be abolished.

Go at it.

[Nurvingiel]

Nice thread JD, since UK politics is at the moment occupied with the May 5th election.

This is an interesting issue. It seems that a lot of British people want to get rid of the monarchy, and many people also want to keep it.

How would this be decided?

This question is relevant to Canada, Jamaica, Australia, New Zealand and any other country who has the British monarch as the head of state... if we get rid of the monarchy (as the head of state, I don't mean dump 'em in the Themes! ), who will we have as the head of state?

Will we elect a head of state? Will that person be the same person as the head of government? Or will the head of government appoint a head of state?

The USA's President is the head of state and the head of government, while Germany elects a Prime Minister and a President IIRC.

Wikipedia has some interesting articles on the subject:
Head of state
Head of government

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the decision i think that would be best would be to have every party put forward a candidate, not necessarily the party leader, but it could be, plus any independent's that wish to stand, and just have an election as per
head of gov't would still be leader of the party that forms the gov't, unless the presidential candidate was party leader, and that person won pres election, in which case it would go to deputy party leader
this would be interesting as it opens up for the head of state to be possibly in opposition to the head of gov't

[Radagast The Brown]

Nurvingiel - JD points (and can't post himself, for 10,000th post reasons) that the President of the US is not the head of government. There's no head of government in the US - head of government is sort of having the control over the government, and the president doesn't have any control as he can't do anything without the congress (and vice-versa).
The President's "job" is to represent the US internationally and be the commander in cheif of the armed forces.

(as said, that's pretty much what JD says. Just in other words.)

[Nurvingiel]

Aaa! I forgot again. Heh.

Okay, is there any system in which the President is also the Head of government/the governmental body?

So the American President is only the head of state then..? Does that mean "president" is just the name for an elected head of state, as opposed to an emir or a monarch or whatever?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

yes, president is head of state in a republic, monarch in a monarchy et al

[Butterbeer]

well i'd like to know from Sun Star what her thoughts on the Monarchy really are and what she considers a good or legitamate argument for dissolving the Monarchy would be?

[Count Comfect]

Despite JD's quite cogent arguments, the US President IS generally referred to as head of both state and government. That's a bit off-topic though.

On-topic, my medieval history class is just touching on the early roots of republicanism/parliament in Great Britain. Late 13th century, with revolts against Henry III. Although, of course, the monarchy still retained control. I wonder how they let it slip away... oh wait, someone got their head chopped off.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Well as much as me and my Irish brethern love the English Monarcy, ( ), I'll throw this into the pot.

Given that the Monarch's role in both government and society is largely a symbolic one, there seems really little reason to alter the status quo. After all, whilst the Monarch does hold the ultimate executive power, it is the government under the Prime Minister (aka The Kings/Queens First Minister) that runs the business of the country.

Given that the people of GB are quite democratic in outlook, this "surrendering" of executive authority, may seem strange to outsiders. Yes the Queen has the power to disolve the government. To some who are less assured of their freedoms, this may (and has done) seem like a tyrannical oppression of a democratic people. Indeed I suppose it is.

Keep in mind that Britain is NOT a democracy, but a Constitutional Monarchy. Democratic specifics prevalent in other nations cannot be applied.

The Monarchy has the Executive Authority merely because the people allow the Royals to keep it. I argue that should Charles assend the Throne and then start declaring war on China, home of the largest Army in the World, for no other reason then he disliked the taste of his steamed fried rice, that he would not remain King for long. Revolutions are started by such arbitrary abuses of power, and indeed for less. Taxation without representation springs to mind.

The Executive holds power only so long as it does the people's will, or it would be overthrown. Its kind of a trade off, with the English letting the Executive Power go to an hereditary Monarch, so as the Monarch knows not to abuse it.

[Spock]

The title "head of State" is one assumed by foreign parties when thinking of other governments and their leaders; or so I've found in my travels. It isn't a designation by the country in question nor even a postion in most cases, just an assumption or assignation by those speaking.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

The title "head of State" is one assumed by foreign parties when thinking of other governments and their leaders; or so I've found in my travels. It isn't a designation by the country in question nor even a postion in most cases, just an assumption or assignation by those speaking.

just a quick one Spock:
do you think Charles should have married camilla?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

just a quick one Spock:
do you think Charles should have married camilla?

Yes. However, that said, it would have been better for them and the country if it had happened 30 yrs. ago. For two people to be in love that long and suffer (and I am a HUGE Diana person) it is good to see them together.
It says volumes about how Diana raised her sons, that they can accept Camilla after all that has been made known to them and the world.
The Queen wouldn't have permitted it 30 yrs ago and for that all have suffered. Had they been able to fortell, so much pain would have been avoided. I know I repeat myself but it is a touching and disturbing subject to me.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well i'd like to know from Sun Star what her thoughts on the Monarchy really are and what she considers a good or legitamate argument for dissolving the Monarchy would be?

I support the monarchy. However, good arguments for dissolving it are:

a) a democracy needs an elected head of state. The monarchy is hereditary and doesn't take into account an individual's suitability or desire for the job.
b) while the powers of the Crown and the PM remain unfixed except by convention, the slow slide of power towards the (not directly-elected) PM is undemocratic. Royal prerogative is the reason why Tony Blair didn't have to consult Parliament over war with Iraq.
c) the powers of the monarch to dissolve Parliament, give Royal Assent to legislation, etc. should be held by someone with a mandate and checks on their authority.
d) the monarch holding the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England makes separation of church and state impossible, doesn't reflect the range of religions in Britain, discriminates against Catholics (by law, and other religions by convention), and unrealistically imposes a religion on the monarch him/herself.
e) the monarchy is expensive, and we shouldn't subsidise people who were simply born to privilege.
f) it makes Britain look old-fashioned in the eyes of the world, and re-inforces the common belief that we are a class-bound society.

Personally I don't think these arguments outweigh the arguments for a monarchy, but I have sympathy with (b), (d) and (e).

[Draken]

A brief summary of Britain's one flirtation with Republicanism, in the style of Little Britain's Lou and Andy.

Lou: Right then, which sort of government would you like now?
Andy: That one.
Lou: Well, you've picked out Republic. I don't know if you'll really like that!
Andy: Want that one.
Lou: But you've always said Republicanism in Britain would be an artifice that in sweeping away the traditions of the Magna Carta and the gradual retreat from an absolutist monarchy could well replace them with a populist tyrant...
Andy: Yeah I know.
Lou: So how about a nice Kingdom instead, eh?
Andy: Want THAT one.
Lou: Alright... Republic it is...

(Brief pause while a Republic starts.)

Andy: Don't like it. Want a Constitutional Monarchy with executive powers remaining nominally with a hereditary monarch but the Treasury controlled by an elected parliament.

(Lou looks exasperated)

(End of Republic)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by sunstar

Personally I don't think these arguments outweigh the arguments for a monarchy, but I have sympathy with (b), (d) and (e).

i am sorry, but these arguments greatly out wigh any argument to keep a bunch of free-loading spongers, whose only purpose seems to be £££££ from tourists, we live in a mdern world, and such antiquated aristocratic class systems must be abolished as soon as they possibly can, all hail thge red revolution

*returns to lurking*

[sun-star]

Fair enough. Were there any any anti-monarchy arguments I omitted to mention? I didn't include 'it's out of date in our modern world' because I like history and all things ancient (democracy is one of the oldest systems of government, you know ) so personally I never see the age of something as a point against it

[Spock]

Well I had a thought and then remembered the following and forgot it entirely.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
..........Monty Python

[Nurvingiel]

I mean... if I went 'round, proclaiming myself emporer, just because some moisten bint threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Originally Posted by sun-star

Fair enough. Were there any any anti-monarchy arguments I omitted to mention? I didn't include 'it's out of date in our modern world' because I like history and all things ancient (democracy is one of the oldest systems of government, you know ) so personally I never see the age of something as a point against it

Well I do agree with this. I thought your anti-monarchy list was well thought out as well. What are the pro-monarchy arguments? (Aside from tourist dollars, as Chrys mentioned.)

As for subsidizing the monarchy, this could end without actually getting rid of the monarchy. I think the term is bicycle monarchy. They are ordinary folks born into the role of monarchs, rather than fabulously wealthy folks born into the role. I don't know that much about it though, but it seems it would work. Of course, then what would be the incentive for doing a job you don't want (if you don't want it anyway...)? Well, that might be a reason to get rid of the hereditary aspect.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Draken

A brief summary of Britain's one flirtation with Republicanism, in the style of Little Britain's Lou and Andy.

Lou: Right then, which sort of government would you like now?
Andy: That one.
Lou: Well, you've picked out Republic. I don't know if you'll really like that!
Andy: Want that one.
Lou: But you've always said Republicanism in Britain would be an artifice that in sweeping away the traditions of the Magna Carta and the gradual retreat from an absolutist monarchy could well replace them with a populist tyrant...
Andy: Yeah I know.
Lou: So how about a nice Kingdom instead, eh?
Andy: Want THAT one.
Lou: Alright... Republic it is...

(Brief pause while a Republic starts.)

Andy: Don't like it. Want a Constitutional Monarchy with executive powers remaining nominally with a hereditary monarch but the Treasury controlled by an elected parliament.

(Lou looks exasperated)

(End of Republic)

Pure class!

I would add to sun-star's list that it makes us subjects, not citizens. We don't therefore have any constitutional rights. It also reinforces the near-feudal class system in this country which still grips us (and holds us back).

IIRC, there was a vote in Parliament over whether to send troops to Iraq, which Blair won thanks to Tory support.

Cross-post: I too would like to see the pro-monarchy arguments. Maybe someone who is anti-monarchy should put them forward!

[The Gaffer]

Arguments in favour of the Monarchy:

1) It works. We did kill our King in 16-oatcake, but as Draken hilariously points out, got some loony god-botherer instead (a sort of 17th century Dubya, but without the congressional oversight) which turned out to be worse (especially for Ireland).
2) It's apolitical. Monarchs do not get involved in politics and therefore aren't soiled by climbing the political greasy pole.
3) It's independent. Being Queen (or King) means that you're not in anyone's pocket (see 2).
4) It personifies the state. This gives the army something personal to go out and get themselves killed for. (Doing it for an abstraction, such as a flag, always struck me as a tad melodramatic.) When you meet the person it's therefore like meeting Elvis and the Pope all in one.
5) Emotionally, it unites the people of Britain and the Commonwealth.
7) It sells newspapers and gives people something to gossip about.
8) It freaks out the tourists, especially Americans.
9) For all the above, it comes pretty cheap (Civil List costs are pretty low really).