The Queen is dead.

[Steve H]

I'm a republican in principle, but a mild one, and I'm realistic enough to realise that it's not going to happen in the near future.I'll be quite happy if Charles slims down the monarchy and reduces the amount of meaningless ritual, as he apparently intends to do. What does need radical change or abolition, because, unlike the monarchy it has profound influence in politics, but like the monarchy is unelected, is the House of Lords.

[Aruntraveller]

Given what you reported in your first post on this thread, I suggest you have given insufficient time to explore your initial response.

Don't know where you get that idea.

I think I've been fairly clear on my feelings and thoughts on this matter.

I'm confused. The reasons are clear to me.

The conditioning (some of us - me for one, are finding hard to shake off) we have all experienced about the monarchy allied with some personal affection and admiration for the Queen; vying with the rational, intellectual side of the argument that NS outlines so clearly above.

[Nearly Sane]

Given what you reported in your first post on this thread, I suggest you have given insufficient time to explore your initial response.

Given that you trust trentvoyager's first post, may I suggest your different reaction to the second is simply your bias showing.

[Steve H]

That's perhaps what republicans would call the abolition of the monarchy, if it ever happens (not in the foreseeable future, I don't think).
We need a thread to debate republicanism versus royalism, to avoid derailing the "The Queen is dead" thread. As I said there, I'm a mild republican n principle, whod be content with a slimmed-down monarchy with less meaningless ritual.

[Steve H]

See new thread "The end of an error?" in 'Politics and Current affairs', to maybe continue the debate about republicanism.

[Steve H]

Walt Z. - I'd be interested in a concise explanation for your rejection of republicanism.

[Gordon]

I'm a republican in principle, but a mild one, and I'm realistic enough to realise that it's not going to happen in the near future.I'll be quite happy if Charles slims down the monarchy and reduces the amount of meaningless ritual, as he apparently intends to do. What does need radical change or abolition, because, unlike the monarchy it has profound influence in politics, but like the monarchy is unelected, is the House of Lords.

I'd say that the monarchy, the House of Lords and the role of the C of E as the established church are all symptoms of the same disease - so I'd further say that we disestablish the C of E and remove both the monarchy and the House of Lords.

If there needs to be a second chamber and Head of State then the arrangements for these should be based on a democratic process that the electorate express support for.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't know where you get that idea.

I think I've been fairly clear on my feelings and thoughts on this matter.

I'm confused. The reasons are clear to me.

The conditioning (some of us - me for one, are finding hard to shake off) we have all experienced about the monarchy allied with some personal affection and admiration for the Queen; vying with the rational, intellectual side of the argument that NS outlines so clearly above.

That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.

With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.

I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd say that the monarchy, the House of Lords and the role of the C of E as the established church are all symptoms of the same disease - so I'd further say that we disestablish the C of E and remove both the monarchy and the House of Lords.

If there needs to be a second chamber and Head of State then the arrangements for these should be based on a democratic process that the electorate express support for.

Yes I gathered you were treating British monarchist in light of the disease model AKA the “OI...nutter” approach.

[Gordon]

Yes I gathered you were treating British monarchist in light of the disease model AKA the “OI...nutter” approach.

Then, as is usually the case for you, you 'gather' in error.

[Aruntraveller]

I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre.

You can hazard that if you want. You'd be partially correct.

Why I am so confused is because I can see that the present system is flawed and grounded in privilege based on nothing more than an accident of birth. As has been pointed out so often during the recent suffocating coverage, the Queen was only in her position because of an accident of history, which in itself makes a mockery of the hereditary principle. However, I am also aware that a presidential system to elect someone "above politics" has its flaws in that you can end up with washed-up politicians/film stars, and very often rather than acting as a stabilising influence, as I freely admit the Queen has done, they act as an altogether more disruptive force.

Short of finding eternal life for David Attenborough I'm not convinced there is a satisfactory answer to this constitutional issue.

As to the whole "she was above politics" stick. She clearly wasn't, what with weekly meetings with her PM's and constant meetings with world leaders. It may have been soft, unspoken political power, but it was very real. So that is an influence on politics that we had/have no control over, and is profoundly undemocratic.

I do find myself coming down on the softer side of republicanism for the reason that the idea that somebody should be in the position that royalty is in due to the aforementioned accident of birth makes nonsense of the democratic process.

[SweetPea]

On BBC1, beautiful scenes of the Aberdeenshire countryside as they follow the queen's journey to Edinburgh.

[SweetPea]

An elderly lady has died who has spent an entire lifetime suppressing her sense of self to portray a passively disinterested head of state - I'm a little sad for her, too. I've long been of the opinion that the monarchy does a disservice both to us and to the country, but it's a testament to the Queen's capacity at the role that we still have one. To have navigated the various waters she has without running the ship ashore is a testament to her.

O.

With you here, Outy, Elizabeth gave up her life to serve her country. She may not have known anything else, as is said, but all the same it's a huge commitment to be 'on duty' 80% of your life. No wonder she loved to escape to Balmoral a place of calm and tranquility where she could just be herself.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then, as is usually the case for you, you 'gather' in error.

I think not Gordon, for you yourself brought up the idea of disease.

[Aruntraveller]

Lovely piece by Frank Cottrell-Boyce:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/11/when-we-asked-queen-to-tea-with-paddington-something-magic-happened-most-lovely-goodbye

[Gordon]

I think not Gordon, for you yourself brought up the idea of disease.

I had forgotten your tendancy to fall into concrete thinking.

[Steve H]

That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.

With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.

I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?

That probably sounds quite clever to you, but to most other people, certainly to me, it sounds like pretentious gobbledegook. You can apply a sort of Occam's razor to the question:: Do we need a monarchy? obviously not, since many democracies manage perfectly well without one. Therefore, let's get rid of it!

[Gordon]

That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.

Nonsense - I've never seen an argument in favour of republicanism that involves 'spirituality' (whatever that actually means).

With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.

Shoehorning in 'human spirit' as an aspect of republicanism is meaningless unless you can define and demonstrate this 'human spirt' notion.

I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?

I'd have thought the reason was obvious: we don't get a vote to decide who should be the monarch.

[Gordon]

Looks like the penny has dropped - from the Guardian live blog.

Number 10 have clarified that Liz Truss will not be accompanying King Charles on a tour of the nations over the coming days - an announcement which had raised eyebrows.

Giving new details, No10 said her role was only to attend Services of Reflection in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

“The King is leading national mourning across the UK and the prime minister will join and attend the services,” a Number 10 source said. “The PM is not “accompanying” the King and it is not a “tour.” She is merely attending the services.”

Over the weekend, newspapers had reported the pair would “tour the UK” and Truss’ spokesman had stressed her presence was “not a requirement” but one she felt was important to be present in order to offer support. The Telegraph said the mini-tour called Operation Spring Tide would see them greet members of the public.

First Ministers of Scotland and Wales Nichola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford, as well Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate Michelle O’Neill, will attend the memorial events in their respective capitals.

[Anchorman]

OK; monarchists - and monarchist Christians:
I'm cheesed off with this constant parroting of 'God save the King'.
If I believe that Chrles, like his mother, is Christian, then he is saved through accepting Christ as Lord.
To continually ask God to save him either doubts his faith or God's ability to do so.
Either way it is not Christian.

[Gordon]

I see from reports that there is a lot of 'proclaiming' going on, with lots of costumes and silly hats - not that it makes any difference, and these days we have more effective means of updating prople.

For me this is exactly the type of pointless flummery that is utterly silly

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walt Z. - I'd be interested in a concise explanation for your rejection of republicanism.

I appreciate that UK republicanism has only had seventy years to work up an argument from a feeling to a concise explanation so while we wait I am pleased to offer a concise explanation for my unease of a united republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.(Part one)

1: President (insert name here). This is a well known objection to republicanism whether we are talking about Boris Johnson or Tony Blair. The most popular person is bound to be a celebrity in fact, our democracy in our constitutional monarchy has produced Prime minister Johnson a celebrity. The succession of a ceremonial head of state by birth is definitionally above politics since there is no election or committee decision.

2: We have as much effective democracy as a lot of republics.

3: Many of us have discovered a dimension to life and the place of a permanent reference embodied in monarchy on the death of the queen.

4: It has heightened our connection to history and lifted people to a view of the world world above the consciousness of existence imposed upon us by press, media and the here today gone tomorrow poltician.

5: The four or five year cycle of election reflects no natural cycle.

6: The false impressions given by republicans regarding the amount and quality of democracy enjoyed in a constitutional monarchy and the reduction of constitutional monarchy to ''it's just an accident of birth''. It isn't just that, it's about succession, heirship, what the queen and King Charles would call an apprenticeship,

7: The link between the Tory party and the monarchy is subsiding and has been replaced by Brexit in my view.

[Anchorman]

I see from reports that there is a lot of 'proclaiming' going on, with lots of costumes and silly hats - not that it makes any difference, and these days we have more effective means of updating prople.

For me this is exactly the type of pointless flummery that is utterly silly

     




Might be an ingrained Scottish thing.
After all, the Stewarts were a weak lot - child kings meant that monarch were tolerated, ignored or bumped off.
After 1603, monarchs were absentee landlords - or, in the case of Charles I, completely out of touch interfering idiots - meaning that attitudes in the two lingdoms took differing paths.
Even monarchists here - with the obvious exception of the Orange sect - treat the institution with a wry sense of 'I kent his faither' - and no harm in that.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm....


https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-abolish-monarchy-sign-in-edinburgh-17351692/

[Spud]

I see that pageantagious flummery is in full swing now: my term for what afflicts those who, on being infected with a liking for pageantry, have no resistance to it and who fail to spot that it really is no more than pointless window-dressing and/or entertainment - but with added lashings of faux gravitas.

 

A lot of what is going on is to do with the way it was done before the era of instant news. I quite like the pagaentry but the media seem to have well and truly ruined it by talking about hardly anything else.