 sj |
||
|
||
BS: english republicans
|
|
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Crane Driver Date: 15 Apr 02 - 04:06 PM I was thinking of something along the lines of Tolkein's Minas Tirith (before the king came back) or indeed Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork, where there is a head of government, of sorts, who gets on with running the place, but the head of State, the centre of ritual and the giver of continuity, is an EMPTY CHAIR. Damn sight cheaper to run. And the tourists would flock in to see it. There should be a song in this, anyone? Harvey, you started this, you finish it! |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Fiolar Date: 15 Apr 02 - 05:10 AM While perusing today's Guardian newpaper, I came across a little item which said that a niece by marriage of the Queen Mother had died last year. "Funny," I thought, "I didn't recall any press notices or processions or eulogies by the great and the good." Paying a bit more attention to the item, it stated that she had been reported to have been given a pauper's funeral when she is understood to have died in an old people's home in Surrey after spending 60 years in a mental hospital. I wonder how many of the royals were in attendance at that ceremony. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:54 PM Read Pratchett for a refreshing view of monarchy. Lords and Ladies if I remember rightly. In Lancre the elected government refuse to decide on any important issues as that is the job of the King. The King has done it for thousands of years so why should he try to get ordinary people to accept some of his responsibility now? Rule a country? Not my job mate! Fits in with my view of Monarchy vs Democracy. Firstly we work on the basis that all politicians are completely barking mad. I mean, they must be. Who else would WANT that sort of responsibilty eh? Then we progress and say yes but to become politicians in a democracy they need to be elected. These madmen are, therefore, given the go ahead by us? Who is daftest??? So. The only sensible alternative is a dictatorship. The one we had for aeons was monarchistic and it seemed to work OK - Just look how much of the world we ruled! The only sensible and proven viable governmental model is a dictatorial monarchy. If it works - great - we all win. If it doesn't - well, at least it aint our fault...;-) Cheers
Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Paul from Hull Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:41 PM Hell, Mr Mcgrath, it would make an even worse Minesweeper Captain than ol' Jug-Ears did, though! *G* Actually, I'm no Republican, so, in something like the words of 'the Fast Show' - "You didnt see me 'ere, right..." *G* |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM Now that makes more sense. What gets up my nose is the idea of some head of state whose been honed in a focus group, or earned Buggins Turn by being a good boy in the party, or buying his way in with advertising, in the American fashion.
Dispensing with having a head of state at all seems much preferable. Except that if you still had a head of government, in practice he or she would take on the role.
For purely ceremonial purposes it'd be possible to have a ritual head of state, like the the Straw Bear of Whittlesea. Once again, the folk world shows the way. I can quite imagine the Bear at a State opening of Parliament...All right for a couple of years people would think it was a bit odd, but it wouldn't take long and it'd be a much loved tradition, and no sillier than the other ones. (And "sillier" is not meant as an adverse criticism. The silly bits are the best bits.) |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Crane Driver Date: 13 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM Can someone please answer me one simple question - WHY have a Head of State at all? Do we really need to see a particular person acting as representative of the nation? Can't we conceive of a nation made up of all its people, without the need of a figurehead? And no Guest, we're not disloyal to our country, it's just that we can separate that from loyalty to one person or family, who will ultimately have to make way for someone else anyway. There is no perfect way of selecting a Head of State. So why have one? Just a thought. Andrew |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gareth Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:17 PM Forunately we WELSH acept these matters with long practise. Edward III presented us with a Prince, born in Wales, who spoke no english (his infant son).
Of the Two English Kings of Welsh Birth we have Gareth
'Tis the tramp of Saxon foemen, |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:01 PM Myself I think it's the "earned" privilege that is the real poison. In real terms most of it is totally undeserved - but even if it was "deserved" that wouldn't really make it better. It might even be worse, because the privilege and inequality would be more secure.
At least lottery winners know that they are just lucky, and birth is just one lottery among others.
Steal a lot and they lie down and worship you, that's true. But to be king you normally have to be a descendant of thieves rather than a thief yourself. And the real power lies with the thieves rather than the descendants of thieves.
Royalty are the decoration on the tree of privilege. If the tree gets brought down, the decoration comes down too - but taking down the decoration by itself is no help in bringing down the tree. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: alanabit Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:14 PM I would be interested to hear how you can justify that statement Guest. My own objections to the institution of monarchy are based on the fact that it represents a part of a system in which people owe their influence to an accident of birth rather than any concrete achievement, suitability, industry or talent. The fact that some of them are industrious, devoted and occasionally even able is neither here nor there. Nor is the actual monarchy itself the main problem. It is the unearned privilege of people to whom I am expected or even required to be deferential which really puts my back up. "Steal a little and they throw you in jail/Steal enough and they make you king". The class system is essentially the legitimisation of theft by dint of antiquity.
|
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:53 PM Well its nice to see someone who counts themselves rich responding. As to your point i'm not sure it makes much sense politically; but the fact remains the Commonwealth of nations and Prince Charles have been working more towards changing these unbalances than the United Nations....So the monarchy seems to work hard in this regard. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: brid widder Date: 13 Apr 02 - 06:46 AM If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following. There would be: 57 Asians 21 Europeans 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south 8 Africans 52 would be female 48 would be male 70 would be non-white 30 would be white 70 would be non-Christian 30 would be Christian 89 would be heterosexual 11 would be homosexual 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States. 80 would live in substandard housing 70 would be unable to read 50 would suffer from malnutrition 1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth 1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education 1 would own a computer When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent. The following is also something to ponder... If you woke up this morning with more health than illness…you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week. If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation…you are ahead of 500 million people in the world. If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world. If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy. If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all. Oh yes ...we are rich....so no guest that's not what it's about |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Fiolar Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:54 AM Guest - A Thousand Years of Monarchy! Mmm - interesting. Looking back on history of the monarchy, I always assumed that many of the so called kings got where they were by either subterfuge, force of arms or good old fashioned murder. Take William the Conqueror; Henry I: Henry IV; Henry VII and William III. Some of the others got where they were by being fortunate at the right time. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 11:09 PM Linda darlin' you're rich? Want to get married? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST,GrayD Date: 12 Apr 02 - 08:21 PM This is the stuff us commoners are really looking for. Stuff the republic, how did you get rich? How do we get rich? Give us the facts, just give us the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Linda Kelly Date: 12 Apr 02 - 05:58 PM its a position you're entitled to guest-but what makes you think some of us aren't incredibly rich? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM No, the Queen Mum was actually born in Scotland, but spend her first few years mostly in Hertfordshire. The Scottish thing came up again during the Great War, which she spent up there in the family castle turned army hospital.
If you've got to have really rich people around, on balance I'd sooner the ones who won it in a lottery (including the lottery of birth) than the sharp elbowed crooks who make a fortune by various sneaky ways, and think they deserve it.
Focussing on royalty as a start of a move towards equality strikes me as starting at the wrong end. And of course that's not what a lot of people have in mind anyway. It isn't the inequality they object to, it's the idea that there should be any monarch other than money. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST Date: 12 Apr 02 - 02:20 PM I think English Republicans are extremely boring people who are jealous of anyone who is rich. Thats why they want to eliminate a thousand years of monarchy; just to install elected dictators who will probably have them shot anyway. Cause lets face it, who would want such a bunch of disloyal fucks anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Linda Kelly Date: 12 Apr 02 - 02:10 PM I think the Queen Mother was born in Herfordshire but that aside -sign me up and ship them out!! I think Thora Hird or Alan Titchmarsh for President - what do you think! |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: RoyH (Burl) Date: 12 Apr 02 - 06:07 AM Gervase, I'm with you mate. Burl. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: The Walrus at work Date: 11 Apr 02 - 08:53 AM I like the idea of a Monarchy - It gets right up the noses of republicans W |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST Date: 11 Apr 02 - 08:19 AM The British might do well to look to examples close to home, like Ireland. There the president has largely ceremonial significance like the queen/king in Britain, ie signs the legislation, greets foreign heads of state when they arrive, has the kiddies over to the Park for fun and games. It seems that many Brits think booting the monarchy out is just too radical a change for them, no? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gervase Date: 11 Apr 02 - 04:36 AM Rant?! You should hear me when I'm really wound up! But to calm the fears of those who worry about a 'President Thatcher' (or whatever bogeyperson happens to send shivers down the spine), surely a head of state does not need to have executive powers. His or her role could be purely titular and representative, embodying in the office rather than the individual the notion of nationhood - as in the Army, where you salute the commission, not the daft Rupert who's holding it. Reaing between the lines, many of the arguments against having an elected head of state seem to be rooted in a mistrust of democracy. Understandable, maybe, given that the mass of the population would probably vote for capital punishment if it got the chance, but the powers of a head of state could be heavily cirumscribed to prevent abuses by raving populist dictators. Such checks and balances, from Magna Carta to the 'Glorious Revolution', have already lead to our rather bizarre constitutional monarchy, so why not take the process to its logical conclusion? If the head of state (let's call them president for want of any other term) was elected and consitutionally shackled, then we would get the chance to ditch them every four or five years if they weren't to our liking. On that basis, I wouldn't mind betting that the current Prince of Wales would stand a racing chance of getting elected as our first head of state. Personally, though, I'd rather see Tony Benn - with Roy Bailey as his deputy, of course! As for Tony sticking one of his cronies into the office; he didn't seem to be able to pull that off in Wales, Scotland or London, and at the moment he seems to be living such a schizophrenic existence - up the arses of both Dubbya and the Palace - that not even he could pull that one off. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: brid widder Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:48 PM I'm not sure an elected head of state is likely to be anymore better than one in that position by an accident of birth...maybe if we need to be persuaded to vote that position is more open to corruption. However I would sooner be a citizen than a subject too and despite what my passport says I am sure there are members of that highly privilidged family who still think we should know our place. Fancy dress parades might be OK for tourists and for children but they have bugger all to do with running a country... I think ancestry is irrelevant to the position of head of state...America has not to my knowledge had native American president, nor Australia an Aborigine...most of us don't need to look too far back to see our folks came here from somewhere else it's just that the Windsors have hardly started unpacking. So far in Britain we still have a Royal family, they do a job...some of them better than others, they are accountable to no-one, they can choose to work hard or disappear from public view as they wish their income seems unaffected.....they might be considerably richer than me but it does not make them better than me, or than you or worthy of the adulation no... worship we have witnessed over the past few days. In Sweden apparently the king catches the bus...I bet the Swedes don't have discussions like this! We are living in the twenty first century pretending it's the middle ages...my liege?...my arse! |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: brid widder Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:47 PM I'm not sure an elected head of state is likely to be anymore better than one in that position by an accident of birth...maybe if we need to be persuaded to vote that position is more open to corruption. However I would sooner be a citizen than a subject too and despite what my passport says I am sure there are members of that highly privilidged family who still think we should know our place. Fancy dress parades might be OK for tourists and for children but they have bugger all to do with running a country... I think ancestry is irrelevant to the position of head of state...America has not to my knowledge had native American president, nor Australia an Aborigine...most of us don't need to look too far back to see our folks came here from somewhere else it's just that the Windsors have hardly started unpacking. So far in Britain we still have a Royal family, they do a job...some of them better than others, they are accountable to no-one, they can choose to work hard or disappear from public view as they wish their income seems unaffected.....they might be considerably richer than me but it does not make them better than me, or than you or worthy of the adulation no... worship we have witnessed over the past few days. In Sweden apparently the king catches the bus...I bet the Swedes don't have discussions like this! We are living in the twenty first century pretending it's the middle ages...my liege?...my arse! |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gareth Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:38 PM Despite Gervases rant I beg to point out that the English have not had an English monarch since the death of Richard III at Bosworth in 1485 (date ???). But speaking as a Welshman with reasonably Leftish ideals I do support the idea of a constutional Monarchy. Consider :- President Nixon. Regan. Bush Junior. or President Thatcher, Benn (formerly Viscout Stangate) BTW and total thread drift, the death of Mrs Elizabeth Windsor senior leaves a vacancy for the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (historically a 'CZAR' for the calling up of vessels and seamen for the Royal Navy in times of (UK) national peril). Could I humbly suggest Sir Edward Heath as the new Lord Warden - distinguished military service, local conections (from the Isle of Thanet), and a love of Sailing. And best of all it would get right up the nose of that bloody woman Baroness Thatcher !!!!! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: SDShad Date: 10 Apr 02 - 06:18 PM Well, now, Ringer, that's the problem with not knowing. *grin* My maternal grandmother's Rogers side, with the exception of one marriage to someone who was either Cherokee or Melungeon in the 1700s, and one to someone of (probably) Norman Irish origin in the 1800s, has remained pretty damned Anglo-Norman since arriving in Virginia the 1600s. Whatever it counts for, the Rogers clan (or, if you go back far enough, Fitzroger) were at least "English" for a good bit longer than the Hanover/Saxe-Coburg-Gothe/Windsors have been, having fled Norman Sicily and/or Italy in the 1200s. Anyone know how many Hanoverian monarchs have actually married a "native" since George I came along? And my paternal grandfather was at least a quarter Baxoje (Ioway Indian to everyone else). Of course, the rest is a mishmash of Irish, Scottish, "Ulster Scots," Swiss, Palatine German, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, Jewish, Flemish, German-Russian, and God knows what else, and I'm probably more German than anything else. So who's to say? Chris |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Herga Kitty Date: 10 Apr 02 - 06:01 PM None of the Queens we've had over the last 500 years or so expected to ascend to the throne - Elizabeths I and II, Mary, Anne, Victoria - they were only the default options when no male heirs survived. It's a moot point whether the current Queen was brought up expecting to ascend the throne - she only succeeded to the throne (as did George VI) because her uncle abdicated. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Crane Driver Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:49 PM One point I've not seen made so far is that the great affection being shown for the QM actually disproves the Monarchist assertion that someone has the right to be head of state because of their birth. The QM wasn't born royal . She was elected to the post, admittedly by a limited electorate (of one, who married her). In fact, if you look back through British affairs at least for the last 500 years, all the monarchs who are judged by history to have done a decent job weren't brought up expecting to ascend the throne . All the ones born to the job so far have turned out to be plonkers, at best. Makes you think, hopefully. Andrew |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Herga Kitty Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:45 PM Billy - you don't seem to have noticed that most of the hereditary peers got kicked out of the House of Lords, over a year ago. The ones who are left with voting rights were voted for by their own then peers, or were nominated as Life Peers by the leaders of political parties (Tony's cronies, MPs kicked upstairs, that sort of thing). There's an argument going on (though not very vocally at the moment) about how you could fill the House of Lords with elected representatives without undermining the authority of the House of Commons. Republics have their own problems about separation of powers and which elected arm should have priority over another elected arm. At least the UK has a rule that the elected House of Commons wins over the House of Lords if they wait for long enough. The Queen just signs the Act after it's been passed by Parliament. OK so the monarch sometimes has to make a decision when there's no Prime Minister or Parliament in session, but not very often (and the Lord Home incident was 40 years ago). There's something to be said for keeping a hereditary monarchy with members bred to wave at crowds and cut the ceremonial ribbons.
|
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:58 AM But of course the Greek Royal Family weren't Greek either. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Ringer Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:53 AM I know nothing of your origins, SDShad, but I rather suspect that the Queen is more English than you are American, let alone than you are English (in terms of generations born in respective patriae). But Phil the Greek... |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:41 AM But they've never gone in much for English kings or queens here since Harold got it in the eye. (They don't go in for English Prime Ministers much either, Thatcher being an exception that goes some way to explain why.) |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: SDShad Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:33 AM Hell, Gervase, I rather think I'm more English than the wee German lairdies, and I live in South Dakota! Shad, of a really long list of ethnic origins.... |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:28 AM The spellchecker I use is one called Hotlingo Most ofvthe time when I remmebert to use it it's great. Just every noiw and then it comes up with crazy suggestions.Sometimes, as in this case when it gave "lumpish" as an alternative to Murdoch, crazy enough to be sensible. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Fiolar Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:18 AM He,he,he - I love you lot. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gervase Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:15 AM Me Welsh? I may have some strange habits, but being Welsh isn't one of them. I'm a mongrel mix of English, Irish, French, American and whatever, but I don't think there's any Welsh in there. Certainly more English than the current Royal family, anyway! |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: SDShad Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:10 AM Just a quick historical nitpick on the inclusion of Hitler in that list: Adolf Hitler was never legitimately elected Chancellor in and election conducted correctly under the terms of the constitution of the Weimar Republic. In the last general Reichstag elections before he became Chancellor, only two months before, the National Socialists actually lost a fair number of seats in the Reichstag, and their power and influence were considered to be on the wane. In a power vacuum in January 1933, after the resignation of Chancellor von Schleicher, President Hindenburg appointed the corporal Chancellor, because the Junkers thought they could control him, use him and the popularity he held in certain quarters. As soon as he was in power, however, he proved them wrong. Ethnic and political persecutions began almost immediately. Within a month, the first concentration camp at Ornienburg had been established. A month after Hitler's appointment, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and pinned it on political opponents. Hitler was immediately granted "emergency powers." Five days later there were new elections, and with suppression of opposition parties that might block the Nazis from forming a government already underway, the Nazis were able to form a majority government--but only after disallowing all Communist deputies elected to the Reichstag. But by then, the Weimar Republic had already ceased to exist. So the boy finally won an election, but only by first obliterating the Republic and terrorizing any political opposition. Doesn't seem to count to me, no matter how popular he quickly became. Oh, and Kevin, what the hell sort of spellchecker do you use? :-) Chris |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST,Billy Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:29 PM I see on the news tonight that a million Londoners turned out to watch the queen mother's funeral procession. I hope some of them were there to make sure that she was finally off the public purse. She may have been born in Scotland (into privilige in Glamis Castle)and lived 101 years of privilige paid for by the state (i.e. the working classes) but she was not held in high regard by the Scots. The Times reported that she was always smiling during her duties and visits and why not? She had no worries, tons of money and influence all her life. Why, in this new millenium, do we still allow a monarch to be the head of our nation and allow this entire web of inbred, half-mad and inter-married aristocracy to serve as the upper house of the Parliament? The house of lords is mostly populated by reactionary and self-serving upper-class twits whose only claim to be there is birthright. What a crock of an excuse for a deocracy! If the queen dies (soon I hope) and Charles takes the throne, we are faced with having two of the dimmest bulbs as titular heads of the UK and the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: DonD Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:42 PM Sweden, Norway, Denmark and theNetherlands seem to be good examples of the way to go. The first step would be to impose a whopping (or Wapping?) inheritance tax when the Queen leaves us. Redistributing that wealth would make a dent in the economy. But didn't the princes and princess look cute in their sailor suits? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST,#2 Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:05 PM Well, I know this will be lost on our Brit cousins, but--here in the US, we have a nightly entertainment news program called "Entertainment Tonight". Tonight, they are reporting that her mummsiness held dress rehearsals for her funeral--but wait! Get this! They also reported that she videotaped the rehearsals as well! Any similar reports your side the pond, or is this merely an American nitwit--oops, I mean network--scoop?
|
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: DougR Date: 09 Apr 02 - 07:25 PM Harvey Andrews: Oh but that you were right! I sincerely wish that all U. S. Republicans were "right wingers" if that is what you call conservatives. However, not all Democrats are "left wingers," either. Just too many. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:08 PM "English republicans? Yes please - include me in."
I thought you were Welsh, Gervase. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gervase Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:13 PM According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we're still subjects - and my gripe is about being a 'subject' in the sense of owing fealty and loyalty to a person rather than my country or my countrymen. To have to pledge obeisance and allegiance to her sovereign majesty Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors never sat easily with me. Bloomin' bunch of krauts! Up the republic! Citizen Camembert |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:02 PM Gervase - check your passport. It hasn't said 'Subject' since 1688. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gervase Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:49 AM English republicans? Yes please - include me in. Being a mere 'subject' has always grated. Somehow the appelation 'citizen' is more satisfying. And being a republic doesn't mean ditching the pomp, frills and flummery - look at what France manages to put together for the Bastille Day parade in Paris every July; not half bad, I'd say. However, arguing with monarchists is, in my experience, a futile exercise. Like devout Christians, their devotion seems based more on faith than reason and is thus as unassailable. Better, perhaps, merely to erode the role of the monarcy by degrees - gradually removing political influence and patronage, disestablishing the church and ending up with a simple figurehead as head of state. Then, when the day dawns when we have the opportunity to elect a head of state, the prospect won't frighten the horses. It does seem bit unfair to take a pop at Charles though - he may be an adulterous, tree-hugging Mr Pooter, but his heart seems to be in the right place (unlike his rather racist, right-wing and reactionary grandmother - but don't get me started...) and initiatives like the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Youth Business Trust have been a genuine force for good for many thousands of disadvantaged young people in the UK. Meanwhile, here's to you Mrs Robinson... |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: harvey andrews Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:19 AM The English are subjects of the Monarch.No elected member of Parliament can take their seat without pledging allegiance to the monarchy. The representatives of Sin Fein, the political wing of the IRA elected to parliament at the last election have refused to do this.The Prime Minister has to be asked to form a government by the Monarch. A famous example of this was when the Queen plumped for Lord Home as Prime Minister instead of others considered better qualified. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST,Amy Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:41 AM Is the monarchy still considered head of state? I thought it was just a formality anymore. Aren't Parliament members elected? What about Prime Minister? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: harvey andrews Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:34 AM No Amy. U.S.Republicans are right wingers, English republicans are predominantly leftwingers who want an elected head of state rather than an unelected hereditary head of state. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST,Amy Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:58 AM Are english republicans similar to U.S. Republicans? |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:54 AM Idi Amin - played an accordion, not too well. But once he made it to the top everyone said he played it brilliantly.
An English Republic would presumably mean no more United Kingdom. That could have its attractions.
A sensible compromise might be to have a ceremonial Head of State elected, but call him or her King or Queen, instead of President, which is a drab title carried by too many unpleasant people. An elective monarchy instead of a hereditary one. My candidates would be Prince Charles or Rolf Harris. (Or Martin Carthy.)
But changes like that ought to come out of a real demand by a mass of ordinary people, not wished on us by the media and commercial elite. If Rupert Murdoch is for something my gut feeling is to be against it, and I gather he's for a republic. (My perceptive but somewhat bizarre spellchecker has just queried "Murdoch" and suggested it should be "lumpish".) |