shuggy's blog
I had a friend at school - back when I was a horrible, politically aware teenager, who was a very dedicated British Republican. I was a socialist and he was essentially a Thatcherite. Whenever he talked about it he seemed like a crank. Obsessing over republicanism in a British context is rather eccentric - although I am in favour of abolishing the monarchy and reforming the H of L what difference would it make? Especially if (like my friend) that's all your idea of social reform covers.
To be fair on Evan Harris, I think he probably supports secular schools - he is a member of the NSS after all.
"Add to this the observation that democracies that are also constitutional monarchies have been the most stable"
Surely putting the cart before the horse here? The reason countries are stable has nothing to do with the existence of a monarchy but more to do with the fact the historical and social change has been incremental and non-violent, with the ruling classes in relatively close control of the process.
If further social change and greater equality is to be achieved then the privileges of the royal family and aristocracy are inevitably going to be challenged at some point. Why should they continue to exist in a more democratic and egalitarian society? An argument for republicanism is for a more democratic and socially just country, which is why it should always be made.
"To be fair on Evan Harris".
Why would you want to be? My views on the Dr were fairly firmly set when I found out that he did not have one friend in the Commons; not even in his own party. Tells you all you need to know about the weird freak.
I like the view of a Chinese Imperial diplomat: in England they have perfect religious freedom except that the monarch has to belong to a particular Christian sect. Not quite right, but near.
I suppose that whole 17th century inter-regnum thingy doesn't count? Deposed a king and sensationally cut his head off; but damned if that Cromwell just wasn't Republican enough.
Tch. Prodissints.
Cromwell was NOT a Calvinist !!!!!!
Cromwell was NOT a Calvinist !!!!!!
My, what a lot of exclamation marks here. Not a Calvinist? Yet he did a surprisingly good impersonation of one. We're doing sociological types here - not theology.
You give up too easily. Just because something ain't going to happen doesn't mean discussing it is a waste of time. Monarchy is just plain wrong: all that bowing, forelock-tugging, walking backwards and emoting, is that a grown-up way to behave? Plus it embodies the notion of inequality by virtue of birth. Lots of countries get by without it, I don't see why we can't, although I realise it may take a while for the nation to agree.
"Plus it embodies the notion of inequality by virtue of birth."
Well that is because there is inequality by birth.
I'm better looking, more intelligent, have greater natural social skills, am taller than you, etc, etc. Or vice versa. All given to me at birth. Meritocracy is a cruel and unfair ideology. Let us at least keep the lack of fairness in the open and transparent system we currently have.
"I'm better looking, more intelligent, have greater natural social skills, am taller than you, etc, etc. Or vice versa. All given to me at birth."
Really?
That kid I have chained to a radiator in my basement to whom I feed nothing but pot noodles and individually wrapped cheese slices will be delighted to hear that.
I'm not sure touting genetics as a defence for inequality is such a great idea when we're talking about the royals. Not exactly a winning set of genes they've got going on.
Surely putting the cart before the horse here? The reason countries are stable has nothing to do with the existence of a monarchy but more to do with the fact the historical and social change has been incremental and non-violent
Good point. Specifically monarchies have been associated with the development of parliamentary systems, which I'd argue are better than those modeled on the US style separation of powers. Don't need a monarchy for this. Hmmmm...
Commenting by HaloScan
