The Queen is dead.

[Nearly Sane]

Citation needed.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists

[Nearly Sane]

Citation please.

A citation for me remembering something? Well the post you replied to is that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.

You do not have to be a brexiteer to use their tactics on how to move from being the minority position to being the majority(if not the overwhelming majority).

[Nearly Sane]

You do not have to be a brexiteer to use their tactics on how to move from being the minority position to being the majority(if not the overwhelming majority).

What tactics are you talking about? Are you saying that these are only used by those who start in a minority position?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What tactics are you talking about? Are you saying that these are only used by those who start in a minority position?

The tactics used by Farage and UKIP to turn the topic of withdrawal of the country from a minority concern into a 52% referendum majority. UK republicans are in a similar minority and with a desire to turn a whole country. I presume the same tactics are necessary to the same task.

However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.

I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.

[ProfessorDavey]

Citation needed.

Not sure that NS's hyperbole that "And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number."

However brexit supporters are markedly more likely to support the monarchy than remainers.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf

Poll from just a couple of days ago.

Leave voters support the monarch by 78% to 13% who oppose
Remain voters support the monarch by 60% to 27% who oppose

That's a fairly sizeable difference - remain voters are more than twice as likely to be republics than leave voters.

Hardly surprising given that tories and older people disproportionately support the monarchy and ... err ... tories and older people disproportionately voted leave.

[ProfessorDavey]

However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.

No I didn't - stop misinterpreting me.

I said that the monarchy could only be abolished constitutionally with the consent of the monarch (by directly consenting to leave or by not refusing to give royal assent to a bill that changed to constitution to remove the monarchy). Otherwise the only other route would be revolution.

Of course it is most likely that a monarch, hypothetically in the face of a government backing removal of the monarchy with general consent via a referendum, would recognise that their time is up and consent to go. However my point is that were they to refuse constitutionally we couldn't do anything about it lawfully and we couldn't change the constitution without the monarch consenting either.

[Nearly Sane]

The tactics used by Farage and UKIP to turn the topic of withdrawal of the country from a minority concern into a 52% referendum majority. UK republicans are in a similar minority and with a desire to turn a whole country. I presume the same tactics are necessary to the same task.

However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.

I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.

That's not an answer to what those tactics are. And ignored my second question.


As to the rest of your post, as so often you seem utterly confused, you've made reference to as yet undefined tactics which you cited as changing a minority position into a majority position, i.e. tactics that worked. You then say people have used those undefined tactics here and not convinced you and therefore those undefined tactics don't work.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure that NS's hyperbole that "And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number."

However brexit supporters are markedly more likely to support the monarchy than remainers.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf

Poll from just a couple of days ago.

Leave voters support the monarch by 78% to 13% who oppose
Remain voters support the monarch by 60% to 27% who oppose

That's a fairly sizeable difference - remain voters are more than twice as likely to be republics than leave voters.

Hardly surprising given that tories and older people disproportionately support the monarchy and ... err ... tories and older people disproportionately voted leave.

could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only 27% of remainers are republican.

[Gordon]

I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.

For crying out loud, Vlad: I suspect nobody here feels that they are in any sense required to "sell" you anything.

You're just indulging in your trademark evasive and confused blustering.

[Nearly Sane]

could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only 27% of remainers are republican.

You can but you seem to be straying into ad populum territory if you are using it to show anything about the validity of the arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not an answer to what those tactics are. And ignored my second question.


As to the rest of your post, as so often you seem utterly confused, you've made reference to as yet undefined tactics which you cited as changing a minority position into a majority position, i.e. tactics that worked. You then say people have used those undefined tactics here and not convinced you and therefore those undefined tactics don't work.

Either you ''sell'' the republic to a presently sceptical public or there won't be one.
Rubbishing the people who you need to convince isn't a very good tactic.

[Nearly Sane]

Either you ''sell'' the republic to a presently sceptical public or there won't be one.
Rubbishing the people who you need to convince isn't a very good tactic.

So this 'rubbishing' is not one of the Brexiteers tactics then? Or is it? As so often, you are not making coherent points.

[Nearly Sane]

It's what she would have wanted

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can but you seem to be straying into ad populum territory if you are using it to show anything about the validity of the arguments.

I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic. I have suggested an example republicans could follow in their bid for a republic.

[Nearly Sane]

I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic. I have suggested an example republicans could follow in their bid for a republic.

That's a non sequitur to my post.

[Steve H]

could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only 27% of remainers are republican.

So what?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic.

Your arguments of typically rather muddled and poorly argues Vlad, but you have surpassed yourself on your claimed rebuttal to my points.

So apparently the argument against a republic centres around the fact that we can execute our monarch should we choose (actually lawfully we couldn't as we no longer have the death penalty) and it is unfair that someone born in Austria cannot become head of state of the USA (which isn't an argument against a republic but an argument against the constitution of the USA). But presumably for your narrowly defined argument to hold any kind of credence, you'd be confident that Arnold schwarzenegger could become head of state in the UK ... oh, wait, err that's not right. And nor realistically can 99.99999% of the UK population, assuming that only the top five in line to the throne could ever realistically become monarch.

[ProfessorDavey]

could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only 27% of remainers are republican.

The point was whether leave voters were more likely to be monarchists than remain voters, and the answer is 'yes'.

I never said, nor implied, that remain voters were somehow majority pro-republican. And nor have I ever indicated anything other than that the UK retains a majority (currently a pretty large majority) who support the monarchy.

However that level of support - a little over 60% - is not as great as the unflinchingly pro-monarchy media coverage would imply. I suspect anyone watching the coverage would presume that support for the monarchy would be far higher than 60-ish%.

Also the direction of travel - support for the monarchy has dropped by approx. 10% in the 10 years since the diamond jubilee in 2012 (and that is based on current post-Queen's death polling, which probably temporarily inflates monarchy support). That is a big decline and the sorts of declines we've seen with other institutions, notably religion. And I suspect the underlying reasons are the same - generational replacement, pro-monarchy/religious (delete as appropriate) generations dying and being replaced by younger generations who are less pro-monarchy/religious (delete as appropriate). If that is the case, we can expect further drops in support over the next 10 years as the most pro-monarchy people die and are replaced by the least pro-monarchy.

[Anchorman]

The Dug barks.
Gaun yersel, Paul......
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/notes-from-normal-island/

[jeremyp]

Actually constitutionally the powers of the monarch are far greater than that, we simply work on trust (rather than constitution) that the monarch will not exercise those powers.

So for example constitutionally a monarch could refuse to sign a bill into law. Constitutionally a monarch could have refused to accept Johnson's resignation, or have refused to appoint Truss as PM.

But we all know it will never happen. Even if it is not actually written down anywhere, our monarch effectively has no real power.

So the powers of the monarch go well beyond the merely ceremonial and while we operate simply on trust that the monarch won't exercise those powers we cannot guarantee that a future (bad) monarch might do so, in which case we'd be in constitutional crisis.

And constitutionally, we cannot get rid of a monarch that has gone rogue - we can try to change the law via parliament, but that would ... err ... require royal assent that a monarch constitutionally, can refuse to give.

So how are you planning to get your republic?

I think you are wasting time and energy on this. The system isn't really broken. We could maybe formalise some of the conventions but, realistically, the monarch isn't going to go rogue as you put it.

[ProfessorDavey]

But we all know it will never happen.

Do we - it can happen unless we actually make it constitutionally impossible to happen. If not, then we are simply basing matters on trust.

Even if it is not actually written down anywhere, our monarch effectively has no real power.

He/she actually does - that they choose not to is merely a matter of trust and were they to choose to exercise the constitutional powers they actually have, we'd be in a constitutional crisis. Surely it would be better to ensure constitutionally that they do not have those powers rather than keep our fingers crossed that they don't use them.

So how are you planning to get your republic?

This isn't an issue I'm going to die in a ditch over. But rather like secularism (I'm in favour of this too) I think time is on my side. Over time public opinion will gently shift and ultimately we will look at the notion of choosing our head of state on the basis of who's womb they popped out of as bizarre, anachronistic and ill-fitting with a modern democratic nation. Will this happen in my lifetime - probably not, but that doesn't mean that the direction of travel isn't going in one direction, even if its rate of travel is slow.

We could maybe formalise some of the conventions but, realistically, the monarch isn't going to go rogue as you put it.

How do you know - the monarchy could easily have gone rogue in the 1930s - we probably dodged a bullet because Edward wanted to marry a divorcee (something that wouldn't lead to abdication now) - had he not have abdicated, who knows what his influence would have been on UK relationships with nazi Germany. The current lot seem particularly dysfunctional in many respects and how would we feel had it been Charles and not his brother with the rather too close relationship with Epstein. Could easily have happened.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Dug barks.
Gaun yersel, Paul......
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/notes-from-normal-island/

Interesting article which raises some interesting points provided you get beyond the one-eyed nationalism.

Something the article discusses which I've also thought about is the notion that so much of what we have seen over the past week has been justified, uncritically, on the basis that this is centuries old tradition and protocol and therefore 'just is what happens' so to speak. Yet actually scratch below the surface and quite of lot of the decisions being made are actually without precedent, and if you can breach prior tradition in that respect, why not in other respects. So as examples.

1. Public lying in state - centuries old tradition - nope, only since 1910 - Edward VII was the first and actually this was based on the funeral of Gladstone.

2. Immediately making William Prince of Wales - nope. Of course Charles spent 17 years as heir to the throne before he became Prince of Wales. Ah, you'll say, but that was because he was a child, protocol dictates that you become Prince of Wales when you become the heir unless you are under 21. Nope, wrong again - Edward VIII became Prince of Wales at 16, Edward VII soon after birth. Making William Prince of Wales one day after the death of the pervious monarch, is as far as I can see, without precedence - typically, weeks, months or even (e.g. Charles) years.

3. New monarch making public address to the nation and touring the nations prior to old monarch's funeral - as far as I can see this is without precedent. The Queen made no such addresses nor travelled outside London (other than to accompany the body back from Sandringham) during the period before her father's funeral (albeit she did have to return from Kenya, arriving back the day after her father's death). So Charles addressing the nation and touring Edinburgh (OK the body was there), NI and Wales in this period is without precedence.

So Charles has ridden roughshod over precedence in a number of ways (far enough, that's his choice), but let's be honest, his trip to Wales today isn't something based on precedence, but his decision, presumably to try to cement the notion that he is King as early as possible.

Yet having ignored precedence he then folds back into it when appointing his Counsellors of State (de-facto deputies), somehow implying that he has no choice over appointing Andrew (disgraced), Harry (no longer active royal - disgraced, well depends on whether you read the Daily Express) and Beatrice (who on earth is she), rather than including Anne (almost certainly preferred by the public and more suited). If he can make choices in other areas that area consistent with precedent, why not in this case.

[Nearly Sane]

...

Yet having ignored precedence he then folds back into it when appointing his Counsellors of State (de-facto deputies), somehow implying that he has no choice over appointing Andrew (disgraced), Harry (no longer active royal - disgraced, well depends on whether you read the Daily Express) and Beatrice (who on earth is she), rather than including Anne (almost certainly preferred by the public and more suited). If he can make choices in other areas that area consistent with precedent, why not in this case.

My understanding is that the counsellors being the spouse and next 4 in line to throne is specified by legislation

[ProfessorDavey]

My understanding is that the counsellors being the spouse and next 4 in line to throne is specified by legislation

Is it? Perhaps it is - evidence please.