Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 implications of future events 2 discrimination section 3 Polls 4 POV 5 Conservative republicans? 6 Proposed move 7 Requested move 7.1 Voting 8 Why is Northern Ireland different? 9 POV tag? 10 Cromwell 11 Flag 12 Proposed merge of Republican Monarchist Debate 13 Written Constitution 14 Charles 15 Arguments 15.1 Arguments in favor of an Elected Monarchy 16 Thailand Coup 17 Institutional memory 18 Removal of UK 19 Elective Monarchy 20 Republicanism amongst Ulster nationalists? 21 Tourism? 22 Citation needed bias 23 Arguments against monarchy 24 Ammendments

[edit] implications of future events

Under the arguments against the monarchy was the following statement: "The UK is one of the most secular and religiously appathetic countries in the world, yet has a Christian head of state. In the future, this is likely to be even more discriminatory as the demise of religion in the United Kingdom becomes greater." As the last sentence is speculative at best and biased at worst, I have removed it. Current trends away from religion are not enough to suggest those trends will continue. Ærin (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discrimination section

George Bush was not elected because his father was the President. He was elected because We the People of the United States wanted him as the President. This is what we fought the Revolutionary War over, and much American blood has been spilled in the name of this concept. Noble birth has no value on American soil. So, please, British subjects, have some respect for the American Constitution and those who gave their lives for it, and don't imply that the President of the United States has been elected for any reason other than what the Constitution says: We The People wanted him. btw I voted for John Kerry in 2004. However, George W. Bush is still the properly elected President of the United States of America, the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Long Live the American Revolution. 71.121.3.250 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

There have been quite a few changes to the poll percentages over the last few weeks. I would appreciate it if editors could justify any figures by providing their sources on this page before making any more changes. That way we can quickly become confident that the reported poll figures are real poll figures rather than propaganda put out by the republicans or the monarchists. -- Derek Ross 00:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The percentages are changing all the time, so I put the highest and lowest figures in to give an impression of the range of public opinion. G-Man 01:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem with that (in fact I guessed that you might be doing so). All I'm saying is that when new figures come in from new polls, it would give the reader more confidence in the figures, if they knew which poll they came from. -- Derek Ross 05:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Someone wake up around here. Please see the classical definition of republic and republic article. Things have been redefined and you need to get a handle on it and relink some words.WHEELER 21:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been looking through the British republican web sites referenced on this page and I've been unable to find the answer to one question. How do republicans propose to handle the possibility that at the time Britain becomes a republic there might continue to be other countries who have the British monarch as head of state? Most, if not all, Commonwealth realms defer to British law for rules of succession. If Britain ceases to be a monarchy, those countries would be put into a constituional crisis. The Governor-General could not act as the representative of a monarch if no monarch existed.

It's likely that most of the Commonwealth realms will become republics before Britain but with 15 others it's possible that there would be one or two that don't get around to it in time. I'd like to see some discussion of this issue as part of this article.

Ben Arnold 11:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are all the links of this page for pro-republican organizations? In order to obtain NPOV, shouldn't there also be links to those groups with an opposing viewpoint? (Bruce Cabot)

Yes, there should be. I nominate you to find and add them!   8^)   --Spudtater 12:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As regards the position of Commonwealth realms, Malcolm Turnbull of the Australian Republican Movement did say in his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic that if Britain were to become a republic before Australia, its president would become sovereign of Australia. Bit like the President of France being Co-Prince of Andorra?? Quiensabe 14:41 20 January 2006

There is the remotest of possibilities that as a formal Federal Republic with a written constitution Britain could possible reverse the trends of small state breaking away. That would be ironic - Prince Charles dreams of restoring Great Britain to her former glory,1 or so he says on his web page. If his stepping down to create a Federal Republic with an elected head of state and a written constitution were part of the solution it is difficult to imagine he would support that. Sandwich Eater 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This looks a bit POV and unsourced to me, with phrases such as "The campaign group Republic has been taking manipulative advantage of royal events in recent years" and "However, the effect of the jubilee celebrations was diminished following the collapse of the Burrell case and allegations surrounding the household of the Prince of Wales". I'll try and read up a bit more on British republicanism, but I'm not very informed on the subject at all. This article does need some clean up to remove both monarchist and republican POV in the article to make it better reflect NPOV. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't really offer any suggestions on how to improve this article, but I have to say that it reads less like an encyclopaedia entry and more like an advert for the republican movement. I assume there's an article on republics and republicanism in general, and although there is scope for tackling issues around Britain's monarchy in particular (the Constitutional status of Commonwealth countries if the monarch is removed has been mentioned, for example), I can't help feeling that the article is, if anything, more in-depth than it needs to be. That there is a republican movement active in Britain, and that support for a republic currently stands at around XX-XX% of the population, seems to be all that is really required here. - Adaru 13:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the "Arguments in favour of an elected monarchy" appears to be one selected group of ideas of how an elected Monarchy could come about with statements like "They will represent their country for a limited five or ten years because they deserve to.". Why 5 or 10 years? and "We don't need an outdated inherited monarchy to continue using national treasures for state purposes." etc and it specifically refers to the office of US President twice as a de-facto benchmark for republicanism. This is veering towards 'original research' Hence I have stuck a NPOV tag on the section. Pigeonshouse 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

pigeonshouse, ack you wrote this a year ago so you probably won't read what I'm writing. oh well. I was just going to say that, the United States is the only country which has been a free, pluralistic, democratic Republic since 1776. So that would be a good reason for us to be the model of a Republic. There are others, Taiwan, Greece, etc., but they haven't been this way continuously since 1776. Only the USA has. << waving the American Flag >> Yes, we have our flaws, all countries do, but we're the oldest and in the opinion of patriotic Americans, still the best.71.121.3.250 06:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative republicans?

I'm not suggesting that being a conservative and a republican in Britain is an oxymoron, but are there any Tory MPs who have spoken in favour of a republic? Many still find the idea of an elected upper house hard enough to stomach! In Australia there is support for a republic on the right as well as the left, but in Britain, it is almost entirely centre-left, which is why it may be less successful. (Plus the fact that the Queen of Great Britain is a British person living in Britain, whereas the Queen of Australia isn't an Australian living in Australia, which is more likely to rouse nationalist sentiment on the right in that country.) Quiensabe 14:41 20 January 2006

This is from Republic's Imagine magazine "It may come as a surprise to some,but Republic does have members and supporters who are also paid up members of the Conservative party. Following on from Republic’s successful attendance at the Lib Dem and Labour party conferences some attention is now being turned to how best to attract those on the right who are disaffected with the monarchy. Graham Smith explained, “Campaigns like this are won when a substantial section of conservatives are convinced of our cause. One of the tasks ahead of us is to develop ways of communicating our message in a way that will appeal to the broadest political spectrum and therefore attract people from the right, centre and left of British politics.” Graham is asking any conservative supporters to get in touch, to help develop ways of targeting this key audience. “If we can appeal to those elements of the conservative tradition that are in line with republicanism then we can begin to make real progress in broadening our support base,” Graham concluded". I doubt that many Tories are republicans, but it's quite possible in the meritocratic US style republican groups, which probabaly do exist. Paj.meister 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't really occured to that many people if a quick internet search can be trusted. An internet search on torries and republican yields only comparisons between the US conservative party and the Conservative party. Here is an Economist article1 questioning why the success of the US version of the conservative party out performed the UK version so drammatically. There could be many, many reasons for that of course. But no one seems to question the idea that Republican conservatism would have an advantage over aristocratic/monarchist conservativism. The idea of decoupling class warfare from fiscal or social conservativism must not be very common in the UK. Sandwich Eater 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while but there are some trends towards republicanism, but they don't manifest themselves much. However there has been a shift over time and with conservatism in the UK increasingly defined in terms of positions on the state, economics and public services, there is no particular reason why all Conservative members should automatically be monachists. The "From Estate Owners to Estate Agents" is a very telling comment about the change in the party over decades. I should also add that there's a difference between being an ardent supporter of the monarchy and happening to think it's okay/not worth the hassle of changing but not something to go out of the way to help.

As far as conservatives who'd support a republic go, very few regard the issue as being remotely a priority but amongst the reasoning that comes up in conversation:

The actions and style of the Blair government in particular have left many wondering about whether the checks and balances in the system (some of which, like the old composition of the House of Lords, have been removed) really do function as well as previously assumed. Would "President Blair" have been possible if there actually was a President? Of course a written constitution may also solve this and I suspect this would be the preferred option but to be honest neither is remotely near the forefront of constitutional discussion and priorities.

Then there's the perceived inevitability factor. Again recent constitutional changes have not really been inputted by the right and have left them fulminating against the results (the West Lothian Question, the position of the House of Lords etc...) and if the monarchy is felt to be doomed then rather than fighting a battle that will be lost, it may be preferable to be able to have influence over the form of a republic. But of course the extent to which this is regarded as inevitable is highly varied.

Some are worried about the position of the Established Church, especially if/when Prince Charles succeeds. If forced to pick between Church and Crown, some may pick the Church and support removing the Crown as a tactic to preserve the Church. (But since most republicans tend to support disestablishment this is not going to generate common cause.)

Plus some of the personalities involved, particularly Charles, can result in scratching heads.

"Just imagine... President Thatcher!" may be a good slogan for left-wing monarchists, but can evoke a very different reaction in some quarters on the right.

Remember also that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who oversaw the Abdication when making it clear Edward VIII could not have both Wallis Simpson and the throne - what is that if not a limited form of republicanism?

I don't want to mispaint a picture of a small republican core as it's not organised and the various different reasons are based on premises that not all Conservatives would agree with (e.g. reverence for the Church or Thatcher - indeed those two were not terribly compatible). A combination of "it ain't broke so don't mend it" and "don't care" is far more stronger than any active republican feeling. Timrollpickering 08:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why one cannot find republican Tories is because the raison d'être of the Tory Party is to support monarchy. Republicanism and Toryism are fundamentally incompatible. It is like saying one is a "socialist capitalist" or a "anti-environment green".--Johnbull 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but we're not talking about Tories, we're talking about Conservatives and the two terms are not synonomous. The Conservative Party does not have as its raison d'être monarchism as that is not an active issue in current UK politics around which parties divide. (And conservatives in other countries are not always monarchists - the Liberal Party of Australia has its fair share of republicans.) That's a very different thing from socialists and environmentalists. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my point still stands. I certainly do think that the Conservative Party's fundamental tenets are preserving the UK's constitutional traditions and national identity (including monarchy), this is what they have traditionally stood for. Conservatives abroad may well think differently, but this article is about British republicanism and inherent in conservatism is preservation of peculiar, distinct, national traditions and identity. I have never heard of a British Conservative being a republican.--Johnbull 00:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some republican sentiment expressed at http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/andre-lilico-sh.html even if the author is arguing for an "elective monarchy", which no-one can see the difference to a republic. ConservativeHome is not exactly an obscure site. As for the Conservatives' fundamental tenets, in recent years far more emphasis has been placed on economics and individualism rather than defence of traditions that are not under threat, and the increasing internationalisation of ideology has meant that some aspects of Conservatism have become very detached from traditions. Thatcherism, for example, rode roughshod over traditions where they were perceived as wrong, and many Thatcherites would not be out of place in the US Republican Party. I'll just post my comments from that thread:

Certainly whenever people have tried to define what a [UK] "conservative" believes, it is very rare for "principled support for the continuation of monarchy" to be listed. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is by no means the same.

There are some republican sentiments but hardly anyone considers it a priority (that may change under Charles) and potentially quite a lot of apathy who won't fight to keep it when others want to tear it down. Timrollpickering 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcherism actually halted devolution (and reversed the non-Thatcherite Heath's endorsement of it) and halted the abolition of the House of Lords for eighteen years (and Thatcher resurrected the hereditary peerage). That is an interesting link, and I see there is quite a lot of support for the idea that one cannot be a British Conservative and a republican. Trevor: "A central tenant of being a Conservative, is showing loyalty to the institution of monarchy". Malcolm: "am stunned that it should emanate from a Conservative". Bagehot: "if you don't support the British Monarchy you're not a British Conservative". A H Matlock: "Let us remember that we are Conservatives". Ash Faulkner: "Support for the monarchy is not universally conservative, because there is no such thing as universal conservatism. You seem to think there is which, in itself, is unconservative". Londoner: "Do we believe in a constitutional monarchy? Yes. Is such belief a key tenet of British Conservatism? Yes". Richard: "Seeing as the Tory Party was traditionally the party of the Monarchy it's a pity this isn't emphasised more. Was support for the Monarchy explicit in Built to Last? If not it should have been". Sepoy Agent: "I thought this was supposed to be a Conservative blog". I guess it now comes down to point of view since there are those who label themselves Conservative but who actually hold deeply anti-Conservative views.--Johnbull 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher realised what any radical government has realised - devolution and reform of the upper house both redistribute power away from a Commons majority make it harder for a radical government to achieve bold controversial things. (And Thatcher's ressurection of hereditary peerages was limited - of the three she conferred, one should have been conferred twenty years earlier when they were still given out and the other two were to men without sons, so in practice were life peerages. I think Thatcher's motivation may have been rather more about getting a title for her son than anything else here...) Yes people made the case for Conservatives being strong supporters of the monarchy, but as you quote it hasn't been in recent policy documents (or for that matter on membership cards). And some of those posters played the Conservative equivalent of Godwin's Law - "if you don't support this view you're not a Conservative" as a poor substitute for debate. Timrollpickering 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

[edit] Why is Northern Ireland different?

"Unlike in the rest of the UK, republicans in Northern Ireland, whilst also subscribing to the removal of the monarchy and its replacement with a president in respect of Northern Ireland, also usually subscribe to the view that the replacement should be with the institutions of the Republic of Ireland."

There is no sense at all in this sentence. Republicanism is a wide and fractured movement, and while some Welsh republicans merely wish for the opportunity to elect a head of state, there is also a campaign for creating a Welsh republic which is separate from the UK. The above quoted sentence is misleading because it implies that only Northern Irish republicans desire an alternative to the "Republic of Great Britain". In reality a British republic is at variance with the goal of many Welsh, Scottish and even English republicans too. [This is one of the first results on a google search for example: http://www.aign.co.uk/leanne_wood_a060211.html]

This is very true, however I think the main point being made in the sentence is that Republicans in Northern Ireland generally wish to become part of the Republic of Ireland, rather than a "Republic of Northern Ireland" or part of a "Republic of Great Britain". In that sence, Northern Irish Republicans could perhaps more accuartely be described as "Irish Unionists" - i.e. in favour of a united Ireland independent of Great Britain. Of course such a description would ineveitably lead to confusion with Northern Irish Unionists who wish for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. - Michael Gibson

More less.. Irish Republicans wish to be part of a republic with NO political ties to Britain, kingdom or republic. 86.12.251.37 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m sure there are some in NI that believe that perhaps a United Republic of GB & NI would be a less divisive way forward as there are some in England that believe that a separate republic of Wessex, for example, may be the best way forward. I think the point that should be made in the article is not that republicans in NI necessarily have a different view to those in GB but that the USE OF THE TERM republican when in connection to NI has extra connotations that it does not have when used in connection to GB. On a side note perhaps it should be pointed out that one of the key advantages of the monarchy is seen as the fact that people don’t trust an elected politician as head of state (i.e. with police, army etc directly answerable to him/her) and feel safer having parliament ‘kept in its place’ with the guarantee that the monarch can dissolve it and call an election should the situation arise. The most common argument I have found is the “Would you trust Blair or Thatcher as president”.

[edit] POV tag?

Is it still necessary to tag this as a POV article? It seems fine to me, and the dispute was some months past. Wally 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It has definatly improved, however the article still makes very little use of references. Dubious, generalised, claims also need tiding up, statements such as "However, the effect of the jubilee celebrations was diminished following the collapse of the Burrell case and allegations surrounding the household of the Prince of Wales.", require sourcing from mainstream academia/media or else they fall under Wikipedia:No original research.

I think there is also an arguement that only one side of the story (with no counter-arguements) is presented although I am not sure how this can be addressed without including detail which is irrelevant for this article. The wording in certain sections is not very neutral either, with a definate republican POV, although it is much better now than at times in the past. Canderra 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell

The part aboot Cromwell seems really POV. To say he did not accept the crown because it would limit his powers and becdause of no love for republicanism. That's highly debatable.(Halbared 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Most of that entire section is simply a collection of POV statements. Hence the lack of any citations. Canderra 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the objectors' statements here seem quite POV, as no arguments provided, aparat from anti-royalism.

[edit] Flag

There should be something about the 19th century Republican tricolour flag -- see http://fotw.net/flags/gb}rep.html etc. Churchh 08:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Republican Monarchist Debate

Re: the above, IMV the information from the article Republican Monarchist Debate should be merged here. --Lholden 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Brian | (Talk) 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree... I think there is a need for an international one. The Canadian page and many other pages could move the point/counterpoint section to a central article, reference that, and retain UK-specific points et cetera. Sandwich Eater 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments from the discussion on the debate page are pretty compelling. Perhaps it is easier to merge with the nation-specific articles so that editors and reader need not worry about the many differences as they manifest in various nations. OK let's merge it. i think I was the only dissenter. Sandwich Eater 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE - What are the reasons for merging ? The only one thing might say would be so that all information is in one place. I disagree - just a link to a seperate page would be sufficient.

[edit] Written Constitution

Is the adoption of a written constitution linked to the Republican movements in the UK? If so should there be a small section on that with links to the UK Constitution page? Sandwich Eater 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, I know of no groups linked to say "Republic" that advocate such a change. --Lholden 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed the reference to the Bill in the article Commonwealth_of_Britain_Bill. Sandwich Eater 14:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's true, but they aren't one in the same issues. The State of Israel, for example, is a republic with no written constitution. --Lholden 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. One learns something new everyday with wikipedia. I had no idea Israel had no constitution. I can't imagine life without one. But, it appears, the world does keep spinning for both the UK and Israel. Sandwich Eater 23:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles

OK so on the Prince's own web page he admits there is no consitutional role for the Prince. Then he creates one for himself, and then St. James's palace even defends that role. Then I thought there was really not a lot of sourceable material defending his non-role but then CNN has this reference: CNN Link. So I am simply bewildered by this paradox. On the one hand you have monarchists that enjoy the ceremonial role of the broader royal family to attend events and help the queen, and on the other you have this attempt to claim the monarchy is impartial and consitutionally bound. Sandwich Eater 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles hasn't created any constitutional role for himself - he can't. He, and the broader Royal Family, can represent the Queen at her, or her government's, request, and he can undertake charitable work on his own accord; but he still remains a subject of the Crown, not a part of it. It is his mother who is bound by convention to practice politically impartiality, and though one would expect Charles, as the future king, to do the same, he is bound by no law or convention to do so until he takes the Throne.

Beyond that, there's a difference between promoting organic farming or commeting on architecture, and publicly endorsing a political party or supporting a government action. There's also a difference between private communication and public announcement. The Chinese state dinner, however... well, he may have come close to crossing the line with that one, but there's still, technically, nothing wrong with it. --gbambino 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing that his website has lines like "The Prince, as the 21st holder of the title in 700 years, has created a new role through which to serve the nation." as opposed to "The Prince has adopted the followin roles as an ordinary subject of Britain."Sandwich Eater 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

It seems that arguments for the monarchy have been littered with counter arguments and assumptions.

It seems to me that the "Arguments in favour of a republic" are actually just anti-monarchy arguments. Not one says what benefit a republic supposedly has, but all say what a monarchy supposedly is not. Shouldn't the section therefore be completely reworded? --gbambino 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree (wow!) --Lholden 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree - we need to stay true to reflecting primary and secondary sources and we need to watch out for creating original work. My perception is that Republicans (other than a few loud-mouths) are already fond of liberal, democratic constitutional monarchy and proud of Britain's role in shaping that. They see a Republic as the next step and their arguments stem from that. They don't bother so much talking about why a Republic is better than despotism, absolute monarchy, stalinist communism, or fascism - they talk about how it is an improvement over constitutional monarchy. So I agree but also caution that such a restructuring should be accompanied by lots of citations and references. In the monarchy section it might be fair to cite a bunch of the negative, royal-bashing, anarchistic sorts of groups and dicuss the unease that gives monarchists, particularly with the negative experiences of the english civil war and the IRA conflicts. I drew heavily on a monarchist site to draft the original debate argument wherein this sentiment was certainly reflected - the feeling that some in the media are just loud mouth bashers. I would definitely say monarchists seem to feel that there is some hooliganish system bashing that doesn't honour the traditions or value of the existing liberal democratic establishment for its good points. Sandwich Eater 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your're certainly correct, I guess Gavin's point is that the article should make light of the benefits republicans expect from a British republic in arguing for one. --Lholden 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this reference --> http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm. At the bottom there is a "benefits of a republic" section. One could reference the success of other republics but that is difficult, it arouses national pride and it is difficult to prove the structure of government has anything to do with the success or shortcomings of the USA, Ireland, France, Germany et cetera. Sandwich Eater 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a "benefits" section. I propose Gavin could write a "basher" section on the monarchist side! I was tempted to add that such a system might better support differentiation of the political parties in the UK more along the lines of ideals and less along social class lines, which I recall UK republicans claiming, but did not find a reference yet.Sandwich Eater 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the Monarchy argument section have arguments against A Republic and an elected head of state? Sandwich Eater 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that rather than conveying information on any current or historical republicanism movements in the United Kingdom, certain editors are attempting to use this article to push their political views.

It is not that the pro-monarchy section should have arguments against a republic but that other section should not be focusing on arguments for a republic. These editors should also be reminded that Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, not a politics web-site; debating the pro's and con's of a current political issue is for websites which are designed for such.

If Unless one of the contributing editors' can justify the section's existance I am going to remove the section "Arguments_in_favour_of_constitutional_monarchy" and "Arguments_in_favour_of_a_republic", as they are conter to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

Although I wonder do whether the entire article isn't at risk of deletion by a tribunal considering it to be one of the many "political billboard" articles which have srung up recently on Wikipedia. Canderra 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are articles in encyclopedias regarding the conflicts between the 1800s issues between goldbacks and the silverbacks for example relating to currency. Those issues were contentious in their day, but can be reflected on with neutrality now. I would like to be able to go to an encyclopedic source to see a concise, non-polarized review of an issue. If both sides are able to keep it referenced to secondary sources and keep the point/counter-point balanced then it is neutral POV and not original work. I think it is valuable and helpful to be able to learn about something without having to go to partisan websites. I'll post a few examples here. Sandwich Eater 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out this example: Abortion_debate

If wikipedians can balance that they can balance anything! Sandwich Eater 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I had created a Request for Feedback on the original debate article and I believe I satisfied the one feedback provider who responded. His cautions were to aggressively require citations and avoid original work. Sandwich Eater 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very strange if contemporary political debate was regarded as 'unencyclopedic' within Wikipedia. That said, the history section of this article needs to be expanded I think. --Lholden 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It quite simply is unencyclopedic to engage in political debate. Politics is by it's nature subjective, wheras the entire point of an encyclopedia is to present entirely objective facts. Stating when events in the debate occured and who they involved is fine but listing the pro's and con's of each side of the argument means that readers cannot be sure of the objectivity of the article. The Abortion Debate page is a perfect example of an article which belongs at politics.com.

I do find it amusing though to witness the amount of effort some people go to in order to present their POV on Wikipedia, if only they realised how few people actually read articles like this (who don't already have an unswayable POV) then they would realise their time would be a lot better spent joining a relevant political party and being political in the conventional way.

I had thought this article could objectively portray facts relating to the history of republicanism in the United Kingdom but if people are determined to turn it into a political debate page than I guess the article definatly belongs on the academic scrap-pile with the hundreds of other totally unencyclopedic "billboard" articles which inhabit the Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom Category (which appears below but for some reason won't link here).

It would have been nice to have heard your dissent during the merge proposal. We could have kept all of this on a separate page so that the history of the UK part would be separate from a page capturing current debate. Anyway, I think it is nice to see both sides of a position discussed in a forum where both sides can edit it freely. And the history of Republicanism in the UK is not the title. The title of the article also implies that the future is discussed, and that is an inherently political topic. Sandwich Eater 01:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with the above (unsigned comment). Any other encyclopedia would state the arguments of either side in a debate, and wouldn't be limited to a historic portrayl of the facts.

I also find it strange that if the above commenter thinks parts of this article are "unencyclopedic", the whole article should be deleted. --Lholden 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments in favor of an Elected Monarchy

This section violates the following two points from the original research guideline:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Please cite sources (as the other argument sections do) to rectify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.9.235.135 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thailand Coup

Thailand's 19 sept 2006 coup a month prior to a planned election is eerily remeniscent of the fears of the cold-war era prime-minister who feared coup leaders in the UK had tacit support from the royal family. Does Thailand have a written constitution? What impact does this have on the perceived stability of constitutional monarchies globally? Is this an example of a king acting as a "fire extinguisher"? Looks like a big risk to democracy. Sandwich Eater 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Too soon to say. Kings have played important roles in ending coups similar to this; most notably in Spain, Cambodia, and even Thailand itself. I don't see what this has to do with UK republicanism, however. --gbambino 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points on Spain and Cambodia. With regard to UK republicanism the link is that republicans have a tendency to worry that a monarch presiding over a liberal monarchy will revert towards despotism. A big part of a monarchism/republican long term political-science sort of debate is the arguable role of copmeting monarchies in WWI contrasted with a lack of monarchy's equally arguable stabilizing force in the events leading to WWII. So when one sees a lack of argument from a constitutional monarch, or a lack of constitutionalism from the monarch, and a coup a month before an election, one begins pondering the positive or negative impact of the monarchy, whether there was a written constitution, whether the soldiers swore an oath to uphold the constitution (like the USA) or if they swore allegiance to the monarch, et cetera. Then there was the BBC article regarding new evidence that the UK prime minister almost had a Thailand type coup at the height of the cold war. Sandwich Eater 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandwich Eater: They had a written constitution. Gavin's right, on the one hand monarchies do suffer coups; on the other coups have been prevented by monarchs. I think it's actually a question of standing rather than the means by which one arrives at a Head of state. The President of East Timor only recently staved off the total collapse of his state, with the help of Australian and New Zealand soliders... the Beer Hall Putsch was beaten in Germany, etc. Um, what did this have to do with republicanism in the UK? --Lholden 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realize he is right. But I am curious (and I thought discussion pages were OK for this sort of thing) do soldiers in the UK swear allegiance to the crown or to the constitution? In Thailand they swore allegiance to the crown... In the UK, there is the inherent instability warned of by various intellectuals, not the least of which was Lord Scarman see (Scarman Article). Then there is this BBC article (BBC Article) and one sees how close Britain may have come to a coup quietly endorsed by the monarchy just as this one in Thailand appears to have been orchestrated. Sandwich Eater 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a book about it called The Leader which is set in 1935, in which Oswald Mosley and the BUF come to power with the implied consent of King Edward VIII. It's a fantasy, but a probable one. My understanding is that soliders in the UK swear allegiance to the Crown, I would be very surprised if that wasn't the case. --Lholden 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That then could be a more defining difference between the US and UK consitutions, or that of France, Germany, or other secular Republics. Not only is the UK constitution unwritten, the executive branch does not swear allegiance to it. The Monarchy of the UK is only constitutional because political scientists have defined the term "constitutional" very, very loosely. (see UK Constitution). Sandwich Eater 10:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institutional memory

Many years ago I skimmed The Downing Street years for a paper on Thatcher and I recall reading that she found her weekly visits to the Queen helpful because the Queen could impart the experience of having reigned through the terms of several prime ministers. I think I've even read Tony Blair saying much the same thing. I'm too far removed from it now though to feel comfortable adding anything about this to the article. Is this asserted royal contribution to the government's institutional memory worth mentioning? Greyfedora 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can verify it, I think it's fine - obviously it must play a part in the PMs relations with the Queen. --Lholden 08:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's fine. I might be tempted to add something similar for past presidents in a term limit system that are also seen as politically retired. The critical thing is to add a citation. Sandwich Eater 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not make the presidential addition; the Queen has a right to be consulted, past presidents are consulted at the whim of the administration. Septentrionalis 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The monarch can demand an audience with the PM & lecture them on whatever she pleases? I didn't realize that. I can't think of a political reason to complain about it, so unless the PM had some sort of political battle with the palace I can't imagine why they would say anything negative about it. Can you imagine Thatcher or Blair saying something like "I just can't stand being summoned to the palace! It's so boring and the Queen has nothing useful to say!" In the process they would annoy the Queen's supporters and probably gain little from her detractors. I can't imagine a saavy PM complaining about the duty of meeting with the head of state, or any of their constitutional duties. Any pensioner in Britain could chat with the PM about having lived through several PMs. Of course the verb "reign" makes the advice more sage I suppose, and the head of state does conduct a bit of diplomacy and stately relations during their reign that might make them more informed than others. So for those reasons IMHO it might not be so important, but, If you can find the citation it still seems like fair game to me and could be included in the inst. memory arguents. Sandwich Eater 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of UK

I question the accuracy of the editor who removed the UK with the comment that it is anachronistic, and replaced it with "England". I looked at the UK page and I do not see anything relating to the formal abandonment of the word UK and I'm not really clear that it should be changed to England at this point, unless there is something I don't understand about the latest federalist moves devolving state parliaments for Scotland et cetera. Can someone clarify? Sandwich Eater 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think references to the UK are anachronistic as the UK still exists. Personally, I think this page should be called Republicanism in Britain, because a republican United Kingdom would be an oxymoron. Quiensabe 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would be more correct linguistically. But even if the name were to change from 'United Kingdom' to 'United British Republic' it seems to me that we're talking about the nation currently called the UK. Sandwich Eater 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. —Nightstallion (?) 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elective Monarchy

I just thought I would open the discussion on whether or not elective monarchy should be included in an article concerning Republicanism. I can't see that it is hurting anything, though it is a bit off course for a Republic vs. Monarchy article. Sandwich Eater 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

shrugs If you've got any kind of notable info on that, why not... —Nightstallion (?) 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, on the political science definition of a republic, an elective monarchy is a form of a republican state, thus it could be included. However, on the popular sovereignty definition of republicanism, an elective monarchy isn't a republic... and of course then there's the argument that the Presidential system is simply a form of elective monarchy. So really, there is no answer - if there is a proposal that is notable, then it could be considered. --Lholden 01:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole section on Elective Monarchy seems unfounded to me unless someone can properly cite any or all of the arguement. Does anyone object to removing the section entirely? --TrippingTroubadour 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This charge that the section is silly in itself is quite POV. You cannot dismiss the idea of elected monarchy so easily. A number of countries have had elected monarchies. Dogru144 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the idea of an elected monarchy. I'm simply wondering if there is a significant movement for an elected monarchy within the UK. Besides, this section within the article seems like one person's opinion rather than any well-established argument. If it deserves to stay, it at least should be rewritten with expert references.--TrippingTroubadour 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism amongst Ulster nationalists?

Ulster nationalism is admittedly small scale but have any of the groups advocating independence for Northern Ireland taken a stance one way or the other on the monarchy post independence? Timrollpickering 11:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism?

Has there ever been a study on the amount of money the Monarchy brings into the British ecomomy by being a tourist magnet? If so, should something about that be added to the "arguments for the Monarchy" section? Blueboar 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because France has no monarchy and Paris brings in 3 times as many tourists as London does. I doubt if there was no monarchy there would be a drop in tourists as tourists could go in and see the places that are now off-limits due to them being occupied. Tremello22 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As irrelevant and silly a point it is (and debatable if other countries have not problem), it is also one of arguments often made by monarchists (although precisely why the best system of government for a country should be determined by tourist revenue is beyond me...) and probably should be covered as it is one of the issues in the debate. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed bias

in the section relative to the arguments against a monarchy several "citation needed" notices are found, while in the in favour of the monarchy there is not a single citation needed notice, as all of the section makes reference to national sentiments, behaviour and other questionable statements.--neolandes 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against monarchy

In this section there are numerous counter-arguments in the points against monarchy; these should surely belong in the arguments in favour of a monarchy" section.

Since this section of the article is dedicated to argument against monarchy, it surely it is not appropriate to have a counter-argument after each point; I suggest these be moved to the next section "arguments in favour of a monarchy", since the counter points are placing heavy a monarchist bias on the Against Monarchy points.

Eg: - (excerpts with inappropiate text in bold)

Further, republicans argue that 'the people', should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the nominally top job in a state system, permanently. This seems to disregard the legal doctrine that 'the people' are already sovereign due to the fact that the monarch personally embodies the state and the people.

Ceremonial parliamentary events can include a mass of obsolete customs and out of date procedures to enhance the appearance of legitimacy. Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, although these are invariably executed by elected government ministers, and not the monarch herself.

... It is also argued that having an anglican head of state is unrepresentative of a nation where the majority of citizens are non-religious. The UK is one of the most secular and religiously apathetic countries in the world, yet has a Christian head of state. Of course, such laws as these could be changed without abolition of the monarchy.

...so that daughters can enjoy the same rights as sons. However since absolute primogeniture is not used in the UK, females are less likely to become head of state than males. This method of succession not only disinherits daughters, but also her descendants. Again, such laws as these could be changed without abolition of the monarchy, as has happened in a number of other European monarchies.

Prince Charles has spoken or acted in a way that could be interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a State Dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese Head of State; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of certain memos regarding how people achieve their positions which were leaked to the press.[8][9][10] Monarchists, however, point out that Charles should not be held to the same rules of impartiality as a Monarch as he has not yet assumed that role, as there is no formal, historical or parliament-approved role for the Prince of Wales, and thus he remains simply an individual subject of the Crown.[11]

To some British Subjects, the monarchy may be considered an embarrassment, as a concept it is dated and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it can not claim to be a modern nation[citation needed]. However, such events as the Queen's Golden Jubilee and the funeral of the Queen Mother, which attracted crowds of Britons, hundreds of thousands in number, are testament to the belief that the majority of the British public is proud of their monarchy. Monarchists may also counter that other countries, such as Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Japan, are also ruled by monarchs, and yet they, Japan in particular, are considered modern and well-working countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.237 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(kenwood2008)--Kenwood2008 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ammendments

I've made a few ammendments, hope they're ok;

1. Royal expenditure (arguments against Monarchy) hidden costs inclue Royal Security

2. Change from "British Subjects" to "Republicans argue..." in same section as is consistent with previous points

3. Points for the monarchy, have ammended the sentence that said the British, Dutch and Danish monarchies have had 50 year spans with many Prime Ministers - only the British monarch has had this situation, the other two for less (although still substantial) amount of time

4. As noted by another user above, it is an inaccuracy to claim the George W. Bush presidency to have come about solely because his father was President; whilst this certainly might have influenced it, there is no evidence that it was wholly so.--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)