Sunday, December 30, 2007
Support for monarchy steady
Despite the anti-monarchist sentiment expressed in barrel loads here, support for the British Monarchy remains high. The 80% support for the Monarchy now, and 70% when Charles becomes King is about the same as in this poll more than 18 months ago.
Michael Shilliday @ 01:34 PM
Had it been that the Glorious Revolution had never happened, then you would not be in a position to make comments?
Go on think about?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:14 PMThe reason the British aren’t breaking down the walls demanding a republic is that they already have one. A constitutional monarchy is 99 per cent republic with a veneer of monarchy. All of the defining traits of the change from absolute monarchy to democracy are present in both modern western republics and monarchies: separation of powers; democratically elected executives; independent judiciary, etc.
Some of the most egalitarian countries in Europe (the Nordics) are constitutional monarchies. The reason why modern Europeans are so sanguine about monarchies is because they are irrelevant.
The Aussies and Canadians have more reason to be upset as it isn’t even their monarchies.
Still, I’m glad I live in a republic.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:26 PMDave @ 08:14 PM:
Explain yourself.
Are you arguing that, in some parallel universe, a failure in the late 17th century by the Whigs to hire foreign adventurist princelings would have frozen British political development for the next three centuries?
More likely, surely, it would have fomented events witnessed in reality in the American Colonies and in the French Revolution.
May I interpose a further thought: we do not need wholly to hypothesize. The interests of (a) the Hanoverians and (b) the Jacobites were, later, so parallel that (a, in the person of George III) paid (b, in the person Cardinal-King, Henry IX and I), a royal pension of £4,000 a year. ‘Nuff said.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:33 PMThe people of Britain wish to have a Monarchy.
They are willing to pay for it by way of taxation and to grant to the Queen certain rights and privileges.
These are not demanded by her but given by parliament acting on the will of the electorate.
There are indeed many advantages to having a Monarchy bereft of real power but which acts in a constitutional manner.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:35 PMNiall Gormley @ 08:26 PM:
1. I largely concur.
2. How long before the Australian referendum?
3. Doncha just lurve these dumb colonials for getting a pointless figure-head of state for free?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:40 PMulsterfan @ 08:35 PM:
<i>… given by parliament acting on the will of the electorate.<i>
Hmm: please remind me of those recent occasions when Parliament has debated the position of the monarch.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:43 PMDespite it’s lack of relevance etc. my belief is that the Monarchy is the stongest glue in the Union bond. Interesting to see that Queenie will be going to the South sometime soon. Perhaps she could wait till 2016?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 08:53 PMMalcom R
Parliament has not debated the issue to any great extent except approve the civil list which goes to show that they are more than happy with the present arrangement.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 09:05 PMulsterfan @ 09:05 PM:
Ahem: not so. May I remind you of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 (a significant date: think Communist Manifesto)? This made even debating republican government for the UK punishable by life imprisonment. This piece of thought-control is still in force; so if this is my last posting, I’ll likely be in chokey.
To answer my own question (which you couldn’t), Tony Benn attempted to introduce a Commonwealth of Britain Bill in the Commons, back in 1991. It was denied a debate.
When the Labour Government took office in 1997, there was considerable backbench pressure for a debate (not only from Labour, but from Plaid Cymru and the odd Scots Nat). Tony Blair doggedly and successfully blocked this (though his lady wife was allegedly none too happy). I have heard it implied that the representation of the Blairs in the film, The Queen, is not completely divorced from reality.
And I hope that this time I managed my tags correctly.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 09:25 PMThe problem isn’t the monarchy, it’s the billions in assets which they are allowed to possess which is obscene, especially in a country with such serious social problems.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 09:37 PMMalcolm R what you say is undoubtedly true but in the case of Tony Benn he was always viewed as a politician who was willing to plough his own furrow and did not have the support to effectively introduce his Bill into Parliament.
I might be wrong as it was such a long time ago but I am sure you can keep me right.
Republicanism is such a strong emotive/political force and yet it does not have a following in UK.
What can the reason be other than people can not give it allegiance.
The ideal time was after the first WW1 but nothing came of the little effort made at that time.
There is no chance now .Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 09:44 PMMalcolm, you should be safe enough....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jun/27/theguardian.pressandpublishing
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:18 PMMalcolm
“How long before the Australian referendum?”
It is not on the immediate list of the new govt. However, it is thought that it will happen in 2009 and no later than 2010.
The last referendum was cleverly manipulated by arch monarchist John Howard - there was a clear majority in favour of a Republic. Knowing this, Howard phrased the proposition so that any potential President would be elected by Parliament (i.e. his party) and not by the people. He knew that people would rather have
the Queen for another few years that a President that they weren’t allowed to vote for.So, the last referendum actually gave the impression that the majority in Australia wanted to retain the Queen as Head of State - they didn’t - she was just the least worst option at that time.
The Pro Monarchy press trumpet the claim that the pro Republican vote in Austalia has declined since then. Some opinion polls do indeed show that but they also show that the pro Monarchy vote has declined as much if not more.
Having lived here for 2.5 years, it is my impression that most Australians do want a Republic (especially the younger ones). The Pro Monarchists tend to be older ones whose numbers are declining.
One only has to see the Commonwealth games in 2006 when the Australian anthem was (quite rightly) played in preference to GSTQ. Despite Howards pitiful complaints about it, the vast majority of the Australian public agreed with it.
The current govt (with a large majority) is unashamedly pro Republican. The newly elected deputy leader of the opposition (a very wealthy and influential character) is actually chairman of the Australian Republic movement.
I have no doubt that Kevin Rudd will schedule a referendum for 2009 or 2010 at the latest. I equally have no doubt that the result will see Australia (rightly) become a Republic.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:38 PMbrendan @ 10:18 PM:
Phew! Thanks, Brendan, that’s a relief. I can sleep soundly tonight.
By the way, has anyone else had a chortle at the Benbecula cylinder? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7164220.stm ]
Am I the only one to think Whisky Galore (with or without the exclamation point, for which detail see my blog)?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:41 PM“Benbecula cylinder?” - I often wondered what happened to Vostok 1.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:45 PMBilly @ 10:38 PM:
And thanks for that lucid appreciation, too.
It reminds me that I was unnecessarily and ignorantly offensive, just on Friday evening, to a guy. I was doing my regular bit about the New Year Honours (mainly on the line that the Order of the British Empire amounted to the Falklands and sweet Rockall). Only half-way through my diatribe, noticing his face, did the obvious strike: he had a gong himself. Aw, shucks.
However, I still find the Dame Nuala thing too good to be true.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:52 PMulster fan if you`re going speak on behalf of the Majority who willing support financially the Windsors please atleast gave some links to the mountain of information or sources which support your beliefs!!!!!
Also does “rights and privileges” include the ability to operate and work outside British Law and the British Constitution, points I`m waiting on the starter of this thread to reply too!
Be kind enough ulsterfan to explain to us what these rights and privileges are? When the British Parliament debated or passed them?
And maybe you can answer why the ex-german Windsor family should be treated better than the ordinary British citizen?Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:43 PMtwinbrook resident,
I suggest you look at the “Bill of Rights”. Law, prior to this, was in the hands of the monarch.That changed thanks to William of Orange. I take it you have the same thoughts on Mr Ratzinger, head of state of the vatican city? It doesn’t seem to be a republic either!Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 12:40 AMTwinbrook, you’re having great trouble grasping that the Law is in the Queen’s name, therefore she cannot be outside the law, she is the law. She is also a central tenant to the British Constitution, and therefore cannot operate outside it.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:01 AMAh yes Billy, the old “Australians really wanted a republic that’s why they voted to keep the Queen routine”, you gotta love it, Queenie won it, you can claim to know the minds of the voters all you want and your opinions and five dollars will buy you a beer in Sydney’s King’s Cross but the fact remains the people spoke and the Queen is the democratically mandated head of state of the Australian Federation.
Maybe - maybe - you’ll win it next time around (like the EU, Aussie republicans never accept the results of popular referendums, instead insisting they be taken again and again until they get the “right” result), but until such times Her Britannic Majesty, by grace of God defender of the Faith, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is the popularly nominated head of state of Australia and any Australian democrat should accept the result and pay the woman the due respect she is entitled to as head of state, then they can go home and chew on their pillows!
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:37 AMIntelligence Insider @ 12:40 AM:
The 1689 Bill of Rights is on-line at (for example) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm and (with a short commentary) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A700372
Either source deserves study before too much comment.
It was a document for and of its time, but it is not some great statement of freedoms: indeed, it is hard to find any declaration of personal rights therein. It is essentially a declaration of the powers of Parliament (at the expense of the monarchy) and of Protestants (at the expense of the detested and disfranchised papists). To assert the Bill of Rights is to defend penal laws. And, certainly, I do not see how all this is “thanks to William of Orange”: it was a diktat offered by the Whigs to William & Mary on a “take it or leave it basis”.
As Michael Shilliday @ 02:01 AM and elsewhere indicates, as things stand, the British remain subjects (consider the word carefully), and definitively not citizens.
In passing, I suggest it is also true that Australia technically does not yet own the full rights (as ordained in 1689) of the British parliament. For example, the Monarch in theory retains the power to over-ride the decisions of the Australian Parliament and Governor-General, and could maintain in office an administration which had lost the confidence of the Australian Parliament. Equally, the Queen-in-Australia (i.e. rubber-stamping the say-so of the Australian Prime Minister) can sack the Governor-General at will or whim. As recently as 1986 the monarch had no obligation to act on the wishes of the individual Australian states (and, let it be remembered, the Queen is Queen of the individual states as well as of Australia as an entity).
It is hard to see what benefits Australians receive from such a strange arrangement, and at a cost of some A$12-15M a year.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 03:51 AMMalcolm, some folks want everything in writing except their fundamental rights.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 05:18 AMHarry
What a load of nonsense!
I deal in facts. I am not disputing the fact that the Aussies voted to keep the Queen last time round. However, having lived here and worked and socialised with the Aussies for some years, I found out exactly what had occurred.
If you bother to check out any authoritative sources on the web, you’ll find that my comments echo most informed analysis.
As to what will happen in the future, no-one can be 100% sure. I didn’t claim to know the minds of all Aussies but I’m happy to say that I’m certainly more knowledgable than you (I guess you get your info from Aussies who are currently living and working in the UK). I get mine from the “horse’s mouth”.
Your patronising comment really shows why so many Australians are so eager to cut the links with the Monarchy. In case you hadn’t noticed, the British “Empire” disappeared a long time ago.
I never claimed to know the minds of all Australians. However, if you care to peruse the bookies odds on Australia becoming a Republic under the current govt, you’ll find that they would all agree with my prediction.
If they’re that bothered about the Queen, why did they refuse to play GSTQ at the opening of the Commonwealth games? The only public outcry about it was when Howard tried to intervene and change it - even he had the wit to crawl away with a bloody nose when he realised that the vast majority of public opinion was against him.
It may offend your preconceptions but, after living and working here, I can tell you that the Queen doesn’t feature on people’s major concerns.
Australia is a strong vibrant country in it’s own right. It doesn’t need a foreign Head of State who has no meaning to the majority of people (especially the younger ones).
If you want to spend a few years living here, working and socialising with the real Australians, then your opinion might be worth something.
However, until you do so, I’ll put you down as another Brit who can’t see that you don’t have an Empire any more and prefers to believe what makes them happy even if the facts say otherwise.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 05:39 AMBilly, I want to save you embarrassing yourself further as you rant about what I may or may not know about Australia. So to stop you making a bigger eejit of yourself than you already have as you waffle on about your vast knowledge of Australian voters’ intentions from a couple of years working in Oz, place your cursor over my name at the bottom of my post. The one in red, see that? Good, now look down at the bottom of your screen, you’ll see my email address appears, have a look at it and tell me again how magnificently endowed with greater knowledge about things Australian you are compared to me.
*I deal in facts.*
You do not, you deal in supposition based on your own political prejudices, backed up by pointy headed political hacks in the liberal media who called the referendum wrong.
I deal in facts; a republic was offered to the Australian electorate, it was debated in a free and fair way and after considering the question the Australian electorate in their wisdom rejected the republic and chose to retain the Queen as head of state. That is a fact, a simple undeniable fact. The whys and wherefores of why the millions of Australian voters made their decision is a matter of conjecture but the FACT remains the republic was rejected, plain and simple.
“Advance Australia Fair” is the national anthem of Australia, Queen Elizabeth is the democratically mandated head of state of Australia, she would have absolutely no problem with the Australian national anthem being used while she is in Australia, the only person getting hot and bothered about it appears to be you, years after the issue was settled.
Maybe in the bars where you hang out Irish Aussies with their well tended chips on their shoulders still cry wistfully into their VB’s about how they want a republic, the vast majority of normal Australians couldn’t give a four XXX about the issue. It may surprise you but the new Australians of Asian descent are certainly not as hot and bothered about the issue as you may think. They left Islamic Republics and Peoples’ Republics and Workers’ Socialist Republics and any other ghastly form of government in the absolute knowledge of who was the head of state in Australia. For many of them the idea of emigrating to a tolerant, British style, parliamentary democracy was the prime motivating reason for their leaving the hellholes they left behind, don’t kid yourself that they are all falling over themselves to see Australia become a republic.
The people of Oz ain’t just whiney Micks anymore, mate.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:14 AMcan you show where the British Monarch IS the central tenet in the British Constitution, even point to any document where this is stated?
I`m having great difficulity with your FUDGING, please try and answer without the need to post nothing but YOUR speculations which seem to be based only in your own imagination and not in any fact…
Search as I have, I haven`t yet found ONE thing that implies nevermind supports your belief that the reigning British Monarch is the central tenet of the British constitution!!!!!
Also as you content the Law is in the name of the Queen so doesn`t this negate The Glorious Revolution and as you rightly know...the British Monarch holds a position of power which is outside the limits of the law....for instance...the reigning Monarch cannot be summoned to testify or serve in ANY court of Law!
Just to recap on an earlier point...why should this Ex-German family the Windsors and all their hanger-ons be supported lavishly at the expence of the British taxpayer and have a lifestyle most can only dream off?
Why do hardworking British taxpayers have to pay for all the extended Windsor clan and again why is the subject of the reigning Monarchs taxes hidden behind the guise of national security....when the likes of major multi-national companies and the likes of for example Richard Bransons tax returns if not open to scrutiny atleast the British nation knows exactly on what they are being taxed…Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:14 AM
