Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2007/July

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)

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)

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)