I’d read with some incredulity that it is still a criminal offence to publicly argue for the abolishment of the British Monarchy. I’d read the dead-tree version last week, but Roger Darlington reminded me about it on his excellent NightHawk Weblog
So arrest me. I find the idea of a hereditary head of state entirely at odds with a democraticly organised society. Explain to me how the lottery of birth makes even the remotest sense for choosing leaders? I’m still dismayed that we still haven’t got rid of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, despite electoral pledges and manifesto commitments by Labour.
Update 05/NOV/03 Cover up details are available here. Granted, it’s worked in the past, and has a certain attraction for the tourist industry. But the past is the past, and what worked once is not necessarily appropriate for now. Tourism will continue – we should respect our history, and doing away with the monarchy wouldn’t adversely affect it.
One of the biggest ironies about the Monarchy is simply that so much of what is called “Tradition” really only emerged in the Victorian era. We seem to have forgotten that they were at times the most radical reformers, rather than the prudes and conservatives we believe them to be. We should respect our historical ability to reform and change with the times, and reinvent ourselves for a fairer society.
One of the challenges posed by advocates of the status quo is “What’s the alternative?”. A presidential system does not sit well with the parliamentary system we are lumbered with, but I’d argue we already have a president of sorts. Why not formalise it, embrace it, and move to a two house system, with separation of powers and democratic accountability between the executive, legislative and judiciary?
Certainly parachuting in a head of state in the current system, just to replace the monarchy wouldn’t work. Figurehead leaders cut a rather sad and pathetic figure to me – although I’m not quite sure who’d do the majority of the tree planting or tea room openings with a political head of state.
So yes, I’d like to do away with the Monarchy. I suppose I’d be included with the Guardian staff, Roger Darlington, and many others in any arrests that happen if this law really is enforcable. I trust that it is repealed.
Entries (RSS)
June 19th, 2003 at 12:07 pm
Personal updates
As you’ll have seen, I’ve moved my personal (non-techy) entries to one side to better focus this blog on my techy interests. However, I figure I’ll collate them all every now and then over here for any aggregator readers. I’ve been ploughing my way thr…
November 18th, 2004 at 8:52 pm
Interesting that you say we should have a “President of sorts” and are “lumbered with” a Parliamentary System. Most republicans envisage a powerless figurehead President to pick up where the monarchy left off (which, I agree, is fairly pointless), or at best a “moderating” President, like that of Italy or Finland, who is not exactly powerless but does not govern either. I support a system of separated powers, because I see the real problem as being the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – precisely because they “command a majority” in Parliament. I have drafted a Constitution based on the separation of the powers, with a strong second chamber and an executive presidency. If you are interested email me on the above address and I send you an electronic copy.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
With Scottish independence round the corner we will have to ask the Scottish people not long after we get it, if they want to keep the monarchy the answer is very much no thanks. In fact there is less justification for Australians and new Zealanders and other commonwealth countries to keep it as the queen is really the head of a forgiven country that is head of commonwealth countries hopefully if the Scottish get rid of the monarchy the rest of the commonwealth counties will follow suit just because something is tradition does not mean that it should remain forever. In the commonwealth countries getting rid of the monarchy should be a matter of nation pride as it is a symbol of British rule over your countries. To Australians and other commonwealth countries have pride in your own countries and leave the commonwealth which is a joke and nothing more than a symbol of British bullying in the world and stand up on your 0wn two feet.
I have other reasons as a Scotsman wanting rid of the monarchy and that is principles
I BELIEVE IN PRINCIPLES FIRST. I WOULD NEVER IN MY LIFE CELEBRATE THE MONARCHY. THEY GOT THERE POSITION THERE IN BY CHEATING MURDERING RAPING AND SLAUGHTER PEOPLE IE IRISH FRENCH SCOTTISH WELSH. ANYONE WHO CELEBRATES THE MONARCH CONDEMNS THE EVIL ACTS OF THE PAST FROM WHICH THEY GAIN THERE PRIVILEGED POSITION. JUST BECAUSE THE EVIL ACTS HAPPENED NOT IN OUR LIFE TIME DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD OVER LOOK IT. ANYONE WHO CELEBRATES THIS IS FOR THE EVIL ACTS OF RAPE AND MURDER THAT PUT THE MONARCH ON POWER NOW
If support the monarchy, you are support a small group of people however nice they are now, gaining there position because there ancestors where murders rapists liars and ethnic cleansers. The facts of the crimes of the kings and queen in this country are well documented and how there positions where gained by this. Let’s put this argument another shock provoking way. If Hitler won the Second World War and established a monarch afterwards and eventually his decedents become peaceful and popular and absolute monarchy was replaced by a constitutional monarchy one thousand years from now. Do you think that it would be accepted by the masses you bet it would. Morals are decided by who wins wars and the passage of time allows established institutions and their subjects to forget the sins that brought them power in the first place. I am not saying that the British monarch committed crimes like the holocaust. I am making an exaggerated point about supporting the monarch how it is morally wrong. But the fact is that they did commit a lot of evil atrocities in the past and that current monarchy owes their position to this. lest we forget this at our Perl
there are many evil acts of the royal family in Britain
In 1520, when Henry VIII broke with Rome, it added religion to the bias against the Catholic Irish. Under Henry’s daughter, the murderous Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603), the killing fields of Ireland ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated 1.5 million Irish peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and much of their lands seized by English predators, while she reigned.[9]
After the shaky British monarchy was restored in 1660, under Charles II, the vicious propaganda against Irish Catholics continued unabated. Many of the “vilest pamphlets” hyping the threat of a supposed “Popish Plot” against the Crown were printed in Holland.[17]
When James II, Charles’ brother, succeeded him as King of England and Ireland in 1685, the hopes of Irish Catholics rose. His defeat, however, by the forces of William of Orange, at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, on July 12, brought renewed disaster. More confiscations of Irish lands followed and the adoption into law of the notorious “Penal Laws” in the late 1690s. Their net effect was to hold that, “The law does not presume any such person to exist as an Irish Roman Catholic.
William the conquer is said to have deported some of the Anglo-Saxon land owning classes into slavery through Bristol. [citation needed] Many of the latter ended up in Umayyad Spain and Moorish lands. Ownership of nearly all land in England and titles to religious and public offices were given to Normans. Many surviving Anglo-Saxon nobles emigrated to other European kingdoms.
Jews were expelled from England under the reign of Edward I, the reason behind it was far from financial. Despite the fact that the Jewish community dealt exclusively in money lending, it is evident that by the time of Edward’s reign, there was little left of the community to be made useful for the Crown financially. Jews had been harshly squeezed by King John and Henry III, furthermore Edward I had adequate financial resources from the Italian banking company of Riccadi before 1292, therefore there was virtually no financial motive behind Edward’s persecution of the Jews. As such, with the thirteenth century growing movement of anti-Jewish feeling, and with France as the first country to expel Jews from her cities, the expulsion was as much a sop to popular opinion as a recognisance that their coffers were empty. Moreover Edward’s mother, Eleanor of Provence had expelled Jews from her estates in 1275 and it was only in 1290 that Edward formally expelled all Jews from
In the course of King Edward’s persecution of the Jews, he arrested all the heads of Jewish households. The authorities took over 300 of them to the Tower of London and executed them, while killing others in their homes. Finally, in 1290, the King banished all Jews from the country, by the Edict of Expulsion.
Henry as the supreme head of the Church in England; the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542, which brought the law in Wales in line with that in England; the Buggery Act 1533, the first anti-sodomy enactment in England; and the Witchcraft Act 1542, which punished “invoking or conjuring an evil spirit” with death.
the fact is that the present monarchy owes there position to EVIL SINFULLY ACTS. who should we celebrate this institution that is FOUNDED ON EVIL GROUNDS TO CELEBRATE THE MONARCHY IS TO JUSTIFY PEOPLE GAINING THERE PRIVILEGED POSITION THROUGH EVIL ACTS SUCH AS RAPE MURDER TORTURE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
December 17th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
[...] So it’s the Bank notes that are currently fascinating me again. I’ve grown used to them, and much prefer the variety to the English ones. A general lack of royal family imagery is another plus in my view, although one of the bank notes featured a rather pink and purple Queen mother some years back, and they pass (briefly) through my wallet. Last in, first out applies quite strictly. [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
God save the Queen!!!!!!! I can not believe these people, you sit and grumble about past squables when we have to see what the Monarchy says for us now. You obviously havn’t seen the other side of the argument. The Monarchy provides a stable political system which; yes they arent elected,but who gives a damn if they are not, I mean why does everyone want everything to be democratic all over the place. Try living in a republic for 16 years, you sit scared of being dictated every election. A Monarchy is the only voted fully stable political role in politics, the Monarch provides a clear national sentiment and a system of political stability, stop whining and BE A BRIT…p.s if your a forgiener then you cant say a sqit about the Monarchy because its not yours soooo.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
To the previous poster. No, I don’t want god to save the queen. That anthem doesn’t even mention our country or our people. Not very patriotic is it? You might like being a loyal subject but those of us that don’t, would prefer to be citizens.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Oh be quiet, ofcourse its not illegal to support the abolishion of the Monarchy. And it fits fine with Democratic Britain because the Queen is mostly just ceremonial with reserve power to stop CRAZY POWER_HUNGRY POLITICIANS LIKE BROWN AND BLAIR. So you’le say “We don’t need it if its not nessicery” exactly but recreational sex is also unnessicery shall we abloish that while we are at it then. You can’t abolish the Monarchy, its inbuilt into the United KINGDOM constitution, infact it makes up most of the Constitution, abolish that and abolish Great Britain. With Republics comes Dictators and with Dictators comes Autocracy, you’le be crying for the Queen when that happens.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Law lords say it shouldn’t be repealed in accordance with the 1998 human rights legislation. And they say it shouldn’t be repealed because the guardian has already proven its irrelevant and can be done without arrest. I doubt any arrests under the act would hold in the high court, the lords, or at European level.
But we definitely need a republic, a proper democracy. One where the money we use to fund the Royals funds hospitals or schools!
March 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Damnit, I’ve had to post twice.
It’s a shame to see people make such ridiculous arguments. So what if its a part of the constitution?!
It’s still undemocratic, anachronistic, archaic, inherently sexist, outdated, unfair, useless, unrepresentative and unfair.
But if we’re indulging a silly arguments: We’ll also be crying when the monarch exercises their right to dismiss parliament! Anyway, look at Mussolini. He was a dictator, and Victor Emanuel stood by and signed everything. Some king he was…
April 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
To the above, the Crown Estate which the monarchy gave over to the chancellor generates approximately £180 million a year for the treasury – how exactly could the end of maintenance payments and the subsequent return of the Crown Estate possibly benefit the state financially?
April 26th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I’d go for a Swiss-American style Confederal Republic, where you get a complete Bill of Rights protecting absolute free speech; but you also get Counties like Cantons (i.e. with sovereignty) to bring government close to the people (and restrict the possibility of second-home owners and immigration)… another benefit of Swiss style is that MPs have no incentive to just to seek and amass power; you don’t don’t get career politicians and lawyers, you get people with varied backgrounds (i.e. real “diversity”);
http://news-archive.mcgill.ca/s96/2.htm
What better system than to be able to, as a private citizen, initiate a petition to trigger a general election… you don’t have to endure the patronising talk until the next election – you are in control and the people can dictate to the government when the election happens – real democracy!
Why shouldn’t petitions for debates, bills, acts of parliament, or amendments be possible – say 100,000 signatures to force parliament to debate a law; 1,000,000 signatures to hold a referendum on a law… things like that would really re-engage people with politics.
Ultimately though, I think the “republican campaign” is more about an expression of frustration and dissent with the distantness and aloofness of government – is there really much difference between an unelected monarch and an elected dictator (or appointed, like Dr Gordon Brown MP)?!
What good does replacing one queen with another only by a different name?
They can all oppress you because they’ve still got too much power whoever they are!
Surely the issue is that:
1. More power should be distributed to local units (i.e. sovereign cantons/counties);
2. More power to dictate to the national executive (whomever it may be), be distributed to private citizens, through petitions and direct democracy;
3. A Bill of Rights including a 1st Amendment so that everyone can say what they like without fear of prosecution by any government… real freedom!
May 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Watch “Inside the Medieval Mind’ – ‘Power’ by Robert Bartlett which is currently on BBC iPlayer.
If any English worker remains ‘royalist’ after watching that, they must be crazy. The deliberate, sustained and terrible oppression 95% of the population of England by the Medieval aristocracy was, by modern standards, utterly disgraceful. It was slavery. Supporting the monarchy and the aristocracy today is a slap in the face to our forefathers who lived and died under their yoke.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
What I
d like to see is for people who dont believe in the monarchy to be able to opt out of paying for them and those who believe in the monarchy could pay extra !Wed then see how many friends they have.Iknow this is never going to happen but you can dream cant you ?Raise this point with any monarchist and watch them squirm .