Note to Americans: "Republican" in the U.K. refers to the "movement which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state" [1].
For Non-UK readers, the Wikipedia article is a little dry.
There is little "serious" republican activity within the UK, the general idea is that it is a massive vote loser, with minimal gains as politicians already get elected etc.
There are regular and increasing stories noting Charles' unsuitability for the post (using his position to lobby for his personal preferences in architecture, alternative medicine etc). This is mostly anti-charles than anti-monarch.
Until the Queen marches into Parliament to arrest and behead Cameron, we are unlikely to have any serious debates on Republicanism, and if she actually did that most of us would be on the streets asking her not to just stop at the PM ...
I think the Queen is far too popular for a republic referendum to happen in her lifetime. Granted Charles would certainly help the cause, but I think that if the throne passes to William then his beautiful family will probably fill the gossip pages (and hence the minds of the masses) for generations to come.
On balance, the monarchy does actually provide the UK with an unquanitifiable mystique that you don't really appreciate until you've lived abroad for a while (I've been away since 1998 and I'm just beginning to appreciate the seductive power available to top UK businesses through Royal connections).
I think that if you are a visiting dignitary / trade envoy to the UK and your host swings you an invite from "The Queen of England" to Buckingham Palace for dinner, you've been beaten.
So, despite the seeming overt display of opulence at tax payers expense, they probably do pay their way.
Commonwealth countries won't change either, the leaders now enjoy the faux celebrity being around royals gives them, plus it would take forever to change existing laws of Crown vs defendent, as the arguing and agendas would be infinite if they were to start changing laws, land status (crown land) ect.
Aboriginal treaties will also have to be renegotiated as the Crown wouldn't exist and thats never going to happen
The name for the US republican party has always surprised me, especially because the other party is "democrat". Here in France too, "republican" mostly means "a non royalist administration". Democratic then precises what kind of organization. So, it kind of sounds like US republicans do not stand for democracy.
If I'm remembering my history right, there were two main reasons for the name. It was, in part, a callback to the older, defunct, Democratic-Republican party that had been around in the early US.
It was also a mild dig against the Democratic party, implying that their support of slavery stood against republican ideals.
For extra comedy points, the American Republican party formed largely from the American Whig party, which named itself after the British Whig party, which is today known in the UK as the Liberal Democrats.
I don't know much about early US history, I think I'll dig in, because having democrats being pro slavery and republicans anti slavery is something I wouldn't have expected.
The Democrats used to be pretty racist; before the American civil war, they supported slavery, and afterwards supported segregation, while the Republicans generally opposed slavery (Lincoln was a Republican, for example). As a result, the US South used to be heavily Democrat, and the north was heavily Republican. They basically flipped in the 40's and 50's due to the Democrats support for civil rights and the "southern strategy" (basically: appeal to racism, sometimes subtly, sometimes not, to get votes in the South) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Today's (US) Republican party is nothing like the Republicans from 100+ years ago. It's kind of sad.
In the US, we had six party systems since the revolution. Each time we translation, we get two mostly new political parties which sometimes reuse the names of the defunct parties. Wikipedia has a good description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States
you (GP) could also check out the XKCD of american political history. it has quite a few of the party names that people used throughout (which are entertaining, in a geeky kind of way):
Thanks you all, this has been very instructive. I realize I had a massive misinterpretation about left and right in the US.
That's because, in France, left wing has always been associated to humanism (humans first, economics then) and universal rights (the whole world deserve to have rights), while right wing is most about economics and nationalism.
From what I understand, US left wing is historically about equality for the "real USians" (kind of nationalism of the poors) while right wing, until getting own by far right in XXth's end, was for a very liberal society, be it in term of economics or in term of social rights.
This would explain a lot in the recent NSA reactions, where we were very shocked that the debate seemed to focus on whether or not US citizen were spied, rather than if mass surveillance was a problem at all.
I don't think the parties have changed much. The same moralist convictions that caused Republicans to be anti-slavery in the past are the same ones that make them anti-abortion today, for example.
Is that a crack concerning the state of US politics? :-)
I'm not sure that's quite right, but I see your point. 'Republic' in modern parlance indicates a democracy with an elected head of state. There are many democracies with monarchs, but constitutionally they have little or no power.
Both parties:
1) support larger government with more power
2) support unending wars
3) refuse to go after Wall St. for financial crimes
4) make their entire platform about social issues that shouldn't even be within the realm of government
5) work to exclude 3rd party candidates from the political process
6) refuse to address in ineffectiveness of the unending federal "war on drugs" that has made the US the #1 country in the world for prison population, with over 1% of our population involved in the prison system, over 25% of which are only for non-violent drug charges, a victimless crime that is a personal choice
7) refuse to address corporate personhood which has grossly corrupted the political process
8) refuse to address the revolving door between big business and the regulatory agencies responsible for policing them
9) refuse to address the destruction of our currency by the Federal Reserve system, and how the current fiscal policy greatly benefits a small group of bankers
10) refuse to address the broken copyright and patent systems that have been changed to benefit a tiny number of large corporations at the expense of every member of society
I guess the closest thing we have would be a confederate flag button in the U.S. That flag still seems to be embraced by the area of the country that most wishes to seceed (part of South Carolina).
As for a U.S. "Republican" button, Google basically already has that of sorts in their news; it attempts to determines that you don't respond well to certain news and won't show those items. I don't read Google news much anymore though, because I feel like they intentionally or otherwise are influencing my world-view.
Thanks! Corrected. You're right that it isn't equivalent. There is no substantial effort afaik to only rid one of the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), so the secession movement is the closest I can think of to the UK's Republican party, which really isn't that close at all.
The UK's republican movement doesn’t want to get rid off a branch of government, but merely wants to change how the person to occupy a certain position is chosen. The actual effect of abolishing the UK monarchy on politics would be close to zero.
The Queen still has extensive powers, that she does not use.
For example, all laws must be signed by the Queen, but the last time someone refused to sign a law was around the 1700s, but if she wants, she can still refuse to sign a law.
Also, the Queen can refuse a parliament election (resulting into having no parliament)
Also, she can sell whatever she wants that belongs to the state in a unilateral manner (but I do not know the last time a monarch used this power O.o)
Also she can kick out the prime minister (this power seemly was threatened to be used on Tony Blair when he got excessively trigger happy regarding US wars... seemly threats to use it, made him tone down a bit his hunger for blood).
OK, but 'republicanism' is just the ideal opposed to monarchy (or similar arbitrary or hereditary rule). It's not a peculiarity of UK usage (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia).
When I switch to the UK edition and select "Republican?", the lead story in the right column changes from "Duchess of Cambridge admitted to hospital in early stages of labour" to "The world's best swimming pools." I can't really decide which is more newsworthy.
I was musing on if U.S. news sources did this with particularly partisan content it might promote a less partisan news-space.
Countering that was my reaction upon seeing this: "they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting". Creating echo chambers minimises friction by relieving consumers of having to continuously re-evaluate their positions given the other sides' points.
>they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting
That would deny republicans the satisfaction of clicking on the button as they shout "FUCK YOUUUU QUEEN!" inside their heads.
Like almost everything to do with the british state, this is 90% ceremony, which ultimately serves to prevent us cutting down the royals in the street like dogs in the manner of the continentals.
I think the royal family actually works out as a net positive economically when you factor in the tourism income they generate.
It's also quite nice having someone connected with government that has been around longer than one or two political terms and thus has a wealth of experience to draw from and can an act in a way that's above short term popularism. If you ask even the most die hard anti-monarchists in the UK, I believe most of them would agree that the Queen has done a very good job. They're more concerned with her offspring and what happens when she dies.
Edit: forgot to mention too that the Queen, Charles, Harry, William, Kate and other immediate family members spend an enormous amount of their time directly involved in charity work.
We'd get the tourism anyway - people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years.
What we get from monarchy is an ever expanding line of spongers and hangers on who we're expected to support.
Someone will no doubt be along in a minute to say we don't support them financially as they are the crown and generate wealth that way but I'd argue that was all stolen from the common man anyway (plus there's lots of hidden costs such as policing and security that don't come out of the royal budget)
The French had it right with Louis XVI.
We need a non-political president like the Irish, German and Israeli's have.
people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years.
There was only ever one Shakespeare. There have been hundreds of royal families- the British one is notable because it still exists today. Take that away and they're just one of many, and tourists would be far, far less interested.
I respect that such small charities are bigged up by royals. Who else would? They are important in a small way. Big celebs and politicians go for the big charities, knowing they will get great PR, and they do great.... Both the charities and the celebs. That's cool, but here are our royals looking out for the little guys. Well, frogs...
This is exactly one of the reasons I approve of them. Again, no bias, no selfish PR reason, they can just help out.
They do have a good life, but I don't think they just "sit"- they do a huge amount of charity work, as well as a lot of the kind of soft diplomacy work that few others heads of state can- if Obama visits a country it has immediate political implications. If the Queen visits, it's just a feel-good "enhancing ties" trip.
I've been living in the US for the last five years and have come to appreciate the Royal Family more than when I was in the UK- their apolitical nature means that they are more internationally appreciated than most other world figures.
I don't see why. Making those trips is likely not very relaxing- just because it doesn't involve hard manual labour doesn't mean that constantly moving from city to city and politely gladhanding hundreds of people in a day isn't work.
But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful.
>But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful.
Oh, I did investigated it exhaustively, and yes, nothing comes out of charity work.
It's just a way for people to feel good and situations to perpetuate.
The only work that matters and improves things is doing structural improvents and proving infrastructure.
Charity just make people dependent.
Not to mention that, in say Africa, it is estimated (by charity workers themselves) that the vast majority of charity money go to official's pockets.
Complete rubbish. Royals, and other celebs bring publicity. That bring money. Money solved problems. Take a silly frog charity. Money increases and more frogs are saved. Structure and infrastructure doesn't help frogs much. Sorry people feel good about that.
Honestly, I don't believe you investigated anything beyond reading some bias newspaper. I also think you confuse small local charities and massive charitable attempts to solve world wide poverty. Two very different things. But if you investigated, you would know that, right?
Usually people get involved in charity for ego reasons, and dependence is a problem, but I believe that quietly doing a good deed now and then is fine.
To me personally the royals don't seem super-great or anything, but the alternative of having a career politician as president doesn't sound any better.
And an elected council would be better than an elected figurehead in what way? Just sounds like yet another platform for groups of people to disagree with each other. Fantastic.
Besides, the councilors set the policy that council are supposed to follow. If the council is rubbish, its the fault of the councilors. That is supposed to be the point of electing them, or booting them.
It doesn't quite work like that. Councillors and the council are separate entities. The council is usually a private list of subcontrators these days who work on behalf of the councilors and the directors, nothing more.
It's not that they're crap, but they're powerless due to the contracted out power they have had to accept due to the budgetary constraints that the government have forced on them. They can deal with individual issues fine but there are problems bringing in full scale accountability when you have to shift 99% of work onto other people.
You've probably experienced the subcontrators, not the councilors who due to the low budget are crap.
Next time you get an issue, call your local councilor - you might be surprised!
I value the non political aspect of our monarchy. It is cheap, has only one power for extreme use only and that is to dissolve parliament, and is not part of the nasty political punch up. I value the stability and depth, leading to a decent adviser to an elected PM.
Next, if the monarch asked something of the country as a whole, most people would take their word for it, because there would be no political motive or bias. If a PM did so, it becomes partisan and a debate. We had Blair take us to war twice on his say so. As such, most of the country opposed it and saw it was willy waving or macho-ness, or sucking up to the Americans, and so on. Had the Queen believed in it and come out and said something like, "Look, Im sorry, but with 60 odd years of experience, we have no choice", I think the country would have backed her, if only reluctantly. But the Brits would have thought, "bloody hell, she speaks, and well, OK". And that would be because of the huge constitutional risk doing so would have caused.
Finally, we could in the UK vote in something like a Nazi party. We could then take to the streets and have a violent revolution and kill the nazi's. After all that, the Monarch would still be there as a shield of stability for both us internally, an as an external sort of front. Having won our revolution, Queenie would still be there, and ask the winner, "Ok, now what?"
I prefer all this to every other presidential system, most notable the insane US presidential race. I don't want out head of state to be in that cesspit. I like that it just sits there, all nice and stable.
I care not for all the pomp and ceremony. I hate all the silly gossip. I dont think they need so many homes and hangers on. All that can be up for grabs, no problem. But at it core, I personally, prefer our monarch to any other alternative.
Sorry, but I do not believe that a vote is a universally good thing. Mostly, yes. But not an absolute. Here in the UK I firmly relive we have the two almost perfectly balanced. Democracy can do anything it likes, under a safe shield of our monarchy. If it ever got real nasty and extreme, the monarch can shut it down. We would have a crisis in that case, but we would not go Nazi, or something. I believe that externally other countries and cultures can see we are a thriving powerful democracy, but we also have depth and stability supplied by our monarch head of state.
Not OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person.
"Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development ... An educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what is called a representative government." -- Benjamin Disraeli
The British system of government is far less costly than that of the US.
You pick how you are goverened according to your ethics, not according to how much it costs. I am pro-democracy and I am not a hypocrit. This fact prevents me from supporting a political system based on inherited political privilege, like Monarchy. I am English. I think most British who support the Monarchy do so because they don't want to admit to themselves that there is something wrong at the core about the way their country is governed. If we'd gotten rid of the Monarchy in the past, we'd probably have yearly celebrations about it. But no, we still have them, so we celebrate the opposite instead.
I think you missed the point of my reply - I did not raise the matter of costs, and I agree that they are not the overriding factor.
The Disraeli quote is to the point: the "representational" part of representational government is thorny, and pretty much ensures that a ruling clique is put in place whose interests do not mirror that of the electorate very well.
The constitution of representational democracies always put in place a watchdog over the powers of parliament: in the US, it is the legal system. In Turkey, it is the army. In the UK, it is the monarchy. Many people seem to think that law courts are an obviously superior guarantor of democracy than monarchies, few are able to argue the point well.
We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements.
Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. The tax arrangements with the royal family reflect the unique position as de facto holders of much UK "public" property. This is being sorted out with the separation of Crown Property and the various family member's private property and the definition of state / private events. As this is resolved, the royal family take on a greater tax burden. The Queen has been paying income tax for decades.
People seem to separate the Royal Family from other rich and powerful people in the country. They all got there the same way, playing the game of capitalism (in which inheritance / nepotism is inherent)) better than us. If the UK dropped its monarchy, these people wouldn't just disappear. They would still be massively rich. They would still, fortunately, act as a tourist magnet (although probably to a lesser degree). They would still be plastered all over the papers.
And we'd probably end up replacing them with some voted in leader to the 2nd house. Cue more politicians and even worse media frenzy. Woot!
I think the parent was referring specifically to Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall's curious tax affairs. As you say, the rest of the rest pay tax.
I was going to say that in the UK the two are the same, however it seems we have adopted the USAian usages. Apparently, my knowledge of tax law is stuck in the 70s...
I'm English. I was visiting a friend in Connecticut about 10 years ago. I remember the taxi driver saying that I must be really happy when he found out I was English. I asked why, and he said because it was the Queens birthday. He seemed surprised when I said that not only did I not know this, but that I didn't care either, and that most of my British friends also didn't give a toss about the Royal Family either. I think he had a hard time believing this.
Shame they're not tracking its use, at least just for fun: I can't see an HTTP request going out when I click the toggly link. The Wikipedia page quoted elsewhere here cites a Guardian and Observer (same company) poll reporting 54% support for the abolition of the monarchy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki...