Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2006/September

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)

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)

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)

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)