Royal Tour: The Republican Perspective and Articles

Started by PrincessOfPeace, April 01, 2014, 11:48:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 6
User actions

Yangkueifa

#50
April 14, 2014, 02:20:05 AM
The royal families are at least partially self funded. Elected HOS in a similar system would be a fully subsidised figurehead.

Would an elected hos be as popular and be able to garner as much goodwill as the hereditary royals as seen in tours such as these?

How many presidents ( in countries with a british styled democracy) are as respected, popular and influential as compared to the royal family?

Has anyone noticed that the figurehead presidents in these countries have very few engagements and are also not effective in boosting morale in the armed forces as compared to royalty?  Especially if the princes traditionally serve in the military.

Jenee

#51
April 14, 2014, 02:26:58 AM
Quote from: Sandor on April 14, 2014, 12:12:50 AM
An elected head of state sounds wonderful in theory, but what if you don't like the person elected?
Well yes, you can shrug and wait a few years...
but while that person is in office, you will definitely feel unhappy.    :cry:

No system is perfect and no head of state (elected or otherwise) will ever be able to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But having a head of state that sits in a largely ceremonial role and could potentially cost the tax payers more than what he/she brings in is (IMHO) illogical. And the idea that one family is essentially "better" than all others is archaic. You'll never catch me curtsying.

On top of all that, in having a monarchy we are forcing this one particular family to live in a gilded cage- sure if William was really as reluctant a royal as the press makes him out to be, he could take himself out of the line of succession... But would that really do any good? He would still be a quasi-celebrity and would never get to live in peace. His descendants may thank him for it, though.

It's 2014 and the UK is a modern, western nation. There should be choice- a choice in who the head of state should be and a choice whether someone wants that responsibility or not.
"It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live" -Dumbledore

PrincessOfPeace

#52
April 14, 2014, 03:22:47 AM Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 12:46:59 PM by PrincessOfPeace
I tell this to republicans all the time, Britain like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Norway etc is a constitutional monarchy.  If there is such a clamour for a republic the easiest thing to do is elect a republican parliament with a mandate to abolish the monarchy. Easy peasy.

But as we all know there is no clamour for republicanism, heck there is barely a 'republican movement' let alone any political representation in Parliament.




Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2014, 12:46:58 PM


Royal visit will boost NZ tourism - PM

Quote]Prime Minister John Key says he expects the international exposure from the royal visit to be a boost for tourism and a special package was put on for the royal reporters following the couple to win them over to New Zealand's charms.

Mr Key said more than 120 international media were covering the visit, on which the royals had partaken of several tourism opportunities, including jet boating in Queenstown and sailing on the Waitemata Harbour.

Mr Key is also Tourism Minister.

"The focus of more than 120 international reporters and photographers means pictures and stories of New Zealand are being beamed around the world as the royal tour is reported overseas. As Tourism Minister, I know how valuable that is."
More: Royal visit will boost NZ tourism - PM - Life & Style - NZ Herald News

Limabeany

#53
April 14, 2014, 12:54:20 PM Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 01:44:23 PM by Limabeany
Support for the Status Quo is not the same as support for the Monarchy, it only means means that people are too busy to be bothered to think about that. It doesn't necessarily mean they think it is perfect but that it is well enough for now... I think, Elizabeth's passing will say, exactly how much support there is across the Commonwealth for keeping the Monarch as Head of State, regardless of who that may be... Sometimes, change (like a change in Monarch) motivates people to consider other changes since one is already happening...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

TLLK

#54
April 14, 2014, 02:10:33 PM
 :goodpost: I have to agree Limabeany. IMHO these discussions are cyclical. You can expect them to occur every decade or so. Even among other royal families the subject comes to light during times of political/economic instability or  when a milestone event occurs with a member of the royal family.

PrincessOfPeace

#55
April 14, 2014, 02:38:05 PM
When Queen Elizabeth II passes Charles becomes King instantly. "The King is dead long live the King". I can't speak for the realms but the opinion polls show support for the monarchy increasing in NZ and AUS. As for Britain we're a constitutional monarchy, get over it.

Are Americans going to hold a referendum after Obama's term to bring back the royal family? Of course not.

Britain is a monarchy because the people through their elected representatives want it that way.

The funny part of this discussion is republicans have no organisation, no political party and no media or press support but yet some poor souls think we are going to abolish monarchy just for the sake of abolishing it.

Limabeany

#56
April 14, 2014, 02:45:13 PM
Actually, there is the time between when HM dies and he is crowned and until people get used to him, I don't think he has the backing for a smooth transition along the Commonwealth or even in GB. I think many changes will be forced upon him because he isn't revered and won't be as defended as the Queen so people will take advantage and pummel him with proposed changes to his powers. I don't think it will be at all smooth sailing for Charles, and sadly too, because he certainly has the interest, desire and heart to make a diference and, in many cases, IMO, for the better.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

PrincessOfPeace

#57
April 14, 2014, 09:34:33 PM
QuoteBack in the days when an Australian leader brazenly put his hand on the Queen's back and a royal visit was dismissed by the media as "an image fading", the so-called "captive republic" appeared on the verge of finally breaking free of the shackles of the British monarchy. But today's Australians, it seems, have come to like their chains.

Fifteen years since the nation conducted a heated debate about the republic that ended with a bitterly fought constitutional referendum, the topic is greeted by a profound indifference. At last year's federal election, a party representing republicans received just 2,997 votes - far less than that received by the pirate party, the sex party or a party for smokers' rights.

As around the world people conduct national struggles and vie for greater independence, Australians have been snuggling ever closer to their foreign head of state. A poll in February found support for a republic was at 39 per cent - a 20-year low. The impending and eagerly awaited visit of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who will spend almost three weeks in Australia and New Zealand with young Prince George, has generated intense interest and is likely to only further dent the republican cause.
More: Why Australians will embrace Royal visit


The Australian 'republican movement' is in about the same shape as Britain's 'republican movement'

Jenee

#58
April 15, 2014, 10:54:10 AM
Republicans don't need their own political party. Of all the very important issues the government faces each day, to have a party whose main focus is abolishing the monarchy is ridiculous (and irresponsible). Thank goodness it got less than 3000 votes!

I wanted to add to my previous post that I think that cultural traditions are important to uphold. The monarchy is deeply rooted in British culture. Less so in commonwealth nations like Australia and Canada. I think the idea of England becoming a republic is much less likely than Australia or Canada. The people are not so tied to the idea of monarchy.
"It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live" -Dumbledore

Windsor

#59
April 15, 2014, 11:12:39 AM
Yes, you are right. But then, perhaps the people who do cherish their heritage in countries like Canada and Australia would still wish to keep the Monarchy as it is an intricate part of their heritage, though not necessarily part of their culture.

Jenee

#60
April 15, 2014, 06:22:07 PM
I think that as long as the majority of people either support the monarchy or don't care, then the status quo will survive. It would be a tremendous effort to abolish the monarchy, and I get the impression that as long as the monarchy doesn't cost TOO MUCH and as long as the royals are a TOTAL nuisance the status quo will remain. 
"It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live" -Dumbledore

Limabeany

#61
April 15, 2014, 07:59:02 PM Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 08:01:14 PM by Limabeany
I agree, Jenee, in many cases it is more about okay with it rather being fond of it. I think the Commonwealth has a different relationship and vision of the Monarchy across the Commonwealth than they do in GB. In GB, many people tie their pride in their country with the Monarchy, which, in my opinion, is misguided, GB is great and attractive without it. But, it's like Kate's eyeliner, she is beautiful without it, it is outdated and mostly unnecessary, but she doesn't see it and clings to it like dirt to fingernails... I think many countries in the Commonwealth will leverage this change to change the relationship and/or bid farewell... Let's face it, the royal celebrities are really for rent, given the right financial relationship or transaction with GB and you may request and get a visit, no need to be tied to it otherwise...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

PrincessOfPeace

#62
April 15, 2014, 08:59:36 PM
Did the Royal tour boost the Republican movement Down Under?

Royal Correspondent Simon Vigar on his highlights from the tour so far.

Lady Adams

#63
April 15, 2014, 10:57:04 PM
Psst...Princess of Peace, this should make you happy:

QuoteRichard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter
Over here in Australia, support for a republic has slumped to its lowest level for more than three decades ahead of the royal visit.


A Fairfax-Nielsen poll shows 51% of Australians opposed to a republic. Only 42% support abolishing the monarchy, compared to 58% in 1999.
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Limabeany

#64
April 16, 2014, 01:21:56 AM
Only 42%? That is almost 50...  :orchid: But, Richard is excited.  :happy15:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

PrincessOfPeace

#65
April 16, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
Prince George 'the Republican Slayer': New Australian poll shows desire to get rid of monarchy is at lowest point for 35 years as Kate, William and baby fly to Sydney 

QuoteAs William, Kate, and George land in Sydney today, they will arrive to a country ready to open them with open arms.

Support for a republic in Australia has dropped to its lowest level in three decades, with more than half of Australians in favour of keeping the royal family as heads of state.

According to a Fairfax-Nielsen poll, 51 percent of Australians believed the switch to a republic was unnecessary and only 42 percent were in favour of a republic.

This is down from 58 percent in favour of a republic in 1999, when a referendum on the issue was held, and represents the lowest ebb in pro-republican sentiment in the country in 35 years.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and their son Prince George, are thought to be responsible for the resurgence of support for the monarchy. Prince George was dubbed 'Prince George the Republican Slayer' on Australian breakfast television on Wednesday.
More: Support for a republic slips to lowest level due to popularity of royals | Mail Online

Limabeany

#66
April 16, 2014, 04:15:21 AM
If the lowest point in 35 years is 42%, that is not a good omen for the post-Queen Australian Monarchists.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Lothwen

#67
April 16, 2014, 04:26:03 AM
^I agree.

I don't think there's necessarily overwhelming support for the monarchy as much as there's just indifference. 
You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

cinrit

#68
April 16, 2014, 10:32:27 AM
I thought we don't believe in polls?  :P

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

PrincessOfPeace

#69
April 16, 2014, 02:56:01 PM
 :lol: republicans are very selective

Eri

#70
April 16, 2014, 03:27:03 PM
Well Liz send Harry and now Will and his family in Australia in a short amount of time so things might not be as rosy as are now painted to be  ... we all know that once Liz proves Mortal things will take their natural course and there is no cute baby or amount of spin that can stop that ...

Limabeany

#71
April 16, 2014, 06:54:44 PM
 :goodpost: Eri...  :thumbsup:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Limabeany

#72
April 16, 2014, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 16, 2014, 10:32:27 AM
I thought we don't believe in polls?  :P

Cindy
Polls, is one thing, the whimsical interpretation of a royal fan like Richard is another. Only 42%?  :happy15: Clearly there is more than one group who is selective...  :teehee:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Eri

#73
April 17, 2014, 07:54:35 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on April 16, 2014, 06:54:44 PM
:goodpost: Eri...  :thumbsup:
Remember the press will be ridiculous for the duration of The Tour but once Will and Kate board a Plane home things will take their natural course ...

Limabeany

#74
April 18, 2014, 10:20:35 PM
Well,  there have been fawning sycophantic articles claiming: Prince George was seen, Kate laughed, Kate cried, Kate wore X, Kate smiled, Kate talked, William accompanied Kate... And not much else has come out of this tour...  :sneeze:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 6
User actions