What a glorious time to be a monarchist in New Zealand. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have breathed new life into the Royal Family both in Britain and around the world.. Her Majesty's Realms are alive and well.
QuoteNew Zealand monarchists are no longer the decorative-plate collecting, tea-towel toting fuddy-duddies of yore.
Chloe Oldfield, the vice-chairwoman of Monarchy New Zealand, is just 21. She is excited about this month's royal tour by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and said many young people were similarly enthusiastic.
There had been a "huge resurgence" in the popularity of the royals, the Wellingtonian told Fairfax Media.
Being able to relate to the younger generation of down-to-earth royals, such as Prince William and Catherine, was a driving force.
Their wedding in 2011, and the birth of their son, Prince George, last year, had generated further warmth towards the monarchy, Oldfield said.
More: Changing face of monarchists | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/royal-tour/9888724/Changing-face-of-monarchists)
QuoteLONDON/SYDNEY — He may still be in nappies but Prince George embarks on his first official tour this weekend as Britain's younger royals ride a wave of popularity that is expected to dampen republican movements in Australia and New Zealand.
The eight-month-old prince, third-in-line to the British throne, will accompany his parents the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on a three-week tour of the two former British colonies.
More: British Prince's First Tour Stifles Australia, New Zealand Republicans (http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-british-prince-georges-first-tour-stifles-australia-new-zealand-republicans/1885384.html)
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 with 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. Meanwhile, the impending and eagerly awaited visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who will spend almost three weeks in Australia and New Zealand with young Prince George, has generated intense interest.
More: Royal tour: Is Australia embracing the monarchy again? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10748620/Royal-tour-Is-Australia-embracing-the-monarchy-again.html)
Quote
In another potentially awkward moment, a leading New Zealand politician also warned yesterday it was 'inevitable' the country would become a republic.
Former deputy prime minister Sir Don McKinnon, who was also secretary general of the Commonwealth for eight years, said the country had been moving to renounce the Royal Family 'for a long time'.
'There are 54 countries in the Commonwealth, only 16 are realms [where the Queen is head of state], and I can tell you now that one Caribbean publicly, and three Caribbean privately, are probably going to give up the relationship with the monarchy when the Queen dies. So it is a diminishing group of countries and the important thing is for us to openly and candidly debate the issue,' he said.
Asked when New Zealand might go down the same road, Sir Don added: 'I don't know when....[but] I think it is inevitable.
Read more: Duke and Duchess of Cambridge branded 'irresponsible' over a £260 car seat which has been installed 'facing outwards' in the royal limo | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598259/Duke-Duchess-Cambridge-branded-irresponsible-260-car-seat-installed-facing-outwards-royal-limo.html#ixzz2yA93TLNT)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The comments are much more revealing than the editorial... It does explain the empty streets greeting them today...
Editorial: Young royals get chance to impress Kiwis - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11233357)
[mod]Moved to this thread.[/mod]
Nice editorial balance posed in this topic.
Double post auto-merged: April 07, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
That's what a monarchy must do to continue its survival - that is, appeal to the next generation/s. William and Catherine can do that through image control and that's a reason for the institution putting them on tour, particularly in areas with republican murmurs.
[mod] For ease of posting, all threads related to Republicanism and the Tour of the Cambridges have been merged here. [/mod]
I think we've lost some context in the merge as they've merged in date/time order but never-mind.
:willnavy1: Oh, no! Fortunately, it's early on... A few more posts and :random38: But, how does one prevent this?
I'll send you a PM, but no harm done... as you say, it's early in the thread :random35:
Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll
QuoteSupport for an Australian republic has collapsed to a 20-year low, with just 39.4 per cent of Australians saying they support a republic.
Support was lowest among older Australians and Generation Y voters, with people aged 35 to 65 most supportive of abandoning the monarchy.
An exclusive ReachTEL poll of more than 2100 Australians, conducted on Thursday night for Fairfax, shows 41.6 per cent oppose the country becoming a republic; 19 per cent had no opinion on the issue.
Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.
Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.
Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy national convener David Flint said the findings were a ''time bomb'' for the republican movement, with support among 18 to 35-year-olds at 35.6 per cent. Only those over 65 had a lower rate of support (30.7 per cent) for a republic.
More: Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/republican-cause-takes-heavy-knock-in-poll-20140201-31u1a.html)
Interesting sample poll results.
Among the sample, the "for" vs "against" percentage is fairly even with just 2.2% dividing the camps. As in the UK, it's the 19% who have no opinion / are passive to either political regime which interests me just as much.
Curiously, the article (in a somewhat sensationalist tone) asserts that support for a republic has "collapsed to a 20 year low". What were the support statistics from a similar sample poll previous to this poll then? Does anyone know?
Why don't republicans cite poll numbers? There must be republican polling firms. Surely if the republican movement is so robust republicans would be shouting from the roof tops.
Fact is republicans don't like polls because they show there movement is dead in the water.
I don't think the Republican movement in the Commonwealth is a lost cause as you seem to think, many are simply biting their time until the Queen dies... The allegiance today seems to be more to the Queen than to the Crown...
Republicans are loathed to conduct polls because they show the same results of the Monarchist Press.
Here is one of the few polls conducted by 'The People's Paper'. the Guardian and surprise surprise, even with fiddling with the results the numbers are clear, the few republicans in Britain are a dying breed
QuoteAmong all the gifts that will be presented to the Queen for her Diamond Jubilee, perhaps this will be most treasured.
The monarch's popularity is at its highest for at least 15 years, a poll has found, with affection for the Windsors rising following the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding last year, and ahead of the Jubilee.
Sixty-nine per cent believe the country would be worse off without the Royal Family. Only 22 per cent think the opposite, that Britain would be better off without them.
The 47-point margin between the two positions is the biggest recorded on any of the 12 occasions pollsters ICM have asked the question since 1997.
The results are somewhat ironic given that the poll was commissioned by the traditionally pro-republican Guardian newspaper.
More: In Jubilee year, royal popularity rating hits 15-year high... which must rankle with the republican paper behind poll | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150158/In-Jubilee-year-royal-popularity-rating-hits-15-year-high--rankle-republican-paper-poll.html)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 08, 2014, 05:54:59 PM
Republicans are loathed to conduct polls because they show the same results of the Monarchist Press.
Here is one of the few polls conducted by 'The People's Paper'. the Guardian and surprise surprise, even with fiddling with the results the numbers are clear, the few republicans in Britain are a dying breed
What does this have to do with New Zealand's Republicans?
Windsor has said we are allowed to stray off topic as long as it is close to the topic of the thread. I just provided some republican context.
[mod]This tour, however, and the reports of the perspectives Down Under is a great opportunty to learn about that for all members. There is Republican thread for GB, let's keep these threads focused on NZ and Australia only for the duration of the Tour to avoid having these threads become duplicates of other threads. :thanks:
[/mod]
Fair enough Limabeany :thumbsup:
Good questions asked in this thread! I am curious to see what impact this very long tour with have on the issue and the polls.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 08, 2014, 05:12:46 PM
Why don't republicans cite poll numbers? There must be republican polling firms. Surely if the republican movement is so robust republicans would be shouting from the roof tops.
Fact is republicans don't like polls because they show there movement is dead in the water.
I've yet to see any evidence which substantiates the "fact" that republicans dislike polls and dislike them because they evidence a dead movement. From my experience, the availability of polling statistics varies from source to source, instance to instance, both in the context of pro-monarchy and pro-republican samples.
What's more, if we return to the original article which claims that support for an Australian republic has "collapsed to a 20 year low", this implies that previous republican-based poll results have indeed been available by which to measure the purported recent decline in support. It was the availability of these previous polls that I was enquiring after so as to see for myself how sharp the decline has been.
Quote from: Blue Clover on April 08, 2014, 06:37:56 PM
-...I am curious to see what impact this very long tour with have on the issue and the polls.
Indeed, it would be interesting to see a comparison between the January poll results cited in the earlier article [for example] and a poll conducted after the tour.
I'd be curious to know how ReachTEL determined their demographic for the Australian poll. Covering a wide age range was clearly a factor, but I wonder if area and its political constituency had an impact. As with all polls, I do wish this information would be made available for a thorough analysis of results, otherwise polls are just used subjectively to support a desired view/outcome.
The previous polls conducted in Australia have been by polling firms and newspaper, republican groups don't like to commission polls on the monarchy because the results show lack of support.
Look at what happened when The Guardian did it in 2012, as sighted above.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 08, 2014, 07:21:10 PMThe previous polls conducted in Australia have been by polling firms and newspaper, republican groups don't like to commission polls on the monarchy because the results show lack of support.
It's a sweeping generalisation and a subjective interpretation to suggest that because the mainstay of polls in Australia are commissioned by newspapers and research firms, that this means republican groups "don't like" to commission polls and don't like to do so because of the results. Polls are knowledge/insight and that's always invaluable irrespective of the results. No organisation consciously likes to function under the philosophy of ignorance is bliss.
A more objective analysis of who instigates polls would be linked to the costs involved – republican organisations are not high-revenue organisations and so cannot necessarily commission expensive polls like the high-revenue earning newspapers and funded research firms who need polls to generate headlines and trade/income. Polling is a business after all. What's more, republican funds (from my experience) tend to be channelled into campaigns, staffing, literature, etc rather than polls.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 08, 2014, 07:21:10 PMLook at what happened when The Guardian did it in 2012, as sighted above.
I see that a high-revenue earning newspaper commissioned a survey on the republican mood and that it yielded (from a pool of 1,002 people) a majority support in favour of the monarch, 69:22. The Guardian commissioned the survey to gage a sample political mood to write about. But why do you feel the commission and results support your interpretation that "republican groups don't like to commission polls"? The Guardian's report was accurate and objective with no reference to regret or not repeating the process in the future: Guardian 2012 ICM survey article (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support)
What I have noticed with the link you provided is that it is a report by pro-monarchy newspaper, the Daily Mail. It isolates the statistics to exclaim: "69% believe we would be worse off without the royal family". "22% think Britain would be better off without them". They play up the percentages for pro-royalists effect (fair enough, it serves their agenda)... but not once do they refer to the open-endedness of the" worse off/better off" question that ICM used and the impact of this upon the interpretation and ultimately the answers of those surveyed. It's a significant point that the Guardian at least acknowledge.
The mail goes on to say the "Figure was 48% around [the] time of Diana's death in 1997" implying a simple surge in popularity. But there's a difference between a
rebalancing of acceptance/popularity following a controversial decline in support and a natural change in generational perspectives/support, and a
surge in popularity due to a growing political desire for monarchy. These nuances, despite their imperativeness, are never discussed or analysed and so it's all too easy to simply claim that people are just pro-monarchy and the republican movement is waning.
This can be felt in the Mail's line, "Affection for the Windsors [is] rising". Where exactly have levels of "affection" been measured/ascertained? The ICM survey certainly didn't ask if people regarded the royal family "with affection". And so this is an interpretation of the percentages by the Mail, and it's misleading. Support/acceptance doesn't inarguably equate to affection. I point this out because people seem to accept newspaper reports as gospel - using them to support various claims - without actually unpacking the subjectivity, bias and leads in the writing.
If we're to engage in these debates with the hope of gaining a truer picture as possible of our political climes, then we must embrace every nuance of surveys and the social climate in which they're operating in order to evaluate the meaning of the results as objectively as possible. Otherwise, we're picking out what we want to present to serve [or worse, "prove"] our own subjective agenda, and in that process the pursuit of accuracy is lost and we're all just arguing "sides" without any meaningful purpose.
^^ Wow, great post
Orchid! :notworthy: :flower:
I found this quote as it relates to the discussion interesting:
Quote
Sir Don, 75, a former deputy prime minister and foreign secretary of New Zealand under the conservative National Party, spent eight years as Commonwealth Secretary General.
He predicted that his country, which is already discussing removing the Union Jack from its flag, would not be the only one of the current 15 overseas realms to ditch the Crown.
"I can tell you now that one Caribbean publicly, and three Caribbean, privately are probably going to give up that relationship with the monarchy when the Queen dies," he said.
"So it is a diminishing group of countries, and the important thing is for us to openly and candidly debate the issue."
Prince George and parents fly into New Zealand on first royal tour | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/469016/Prince-George-and-parents-fly-into-New-Zealand-on-first-royal-tour)
That's generous of you, Lady Adams, thank you.
His prediction is certainly interesting, not least because it invites an open discussion on the future of a monarchy within certain cwc's for the next generation.
I suppose these opinions will begin to emerge throughout and immediately after the tour, given William, Kate and George's presence there is primarily to generate interest and support in the "next generation royals".
Australians have given up on the republican dream. I blame the Duchess of Cambridge
Quote...The Republican movement is not dead in Australia, but since April 2011 the concept of Australia as a truly independent and free country has slipped further out of grasp and until Kate farts in public, or gains 15kg, or does anything remotely human, an Australian republic may stay a distant dream.
More: Australians have given up on the republican dream. I blame the Duchess of Cambridge | Bridie Jabour | Comment is free | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/australians-have-given-up-on-the-republican-dream-i-blame-kate-middleton)
So Bridie Jabour credits Kate's appearance and the royal wedding day as the sole reason for Australia having (according to polls at least) a majority mix of pro-monarchy sentiment and apathy. Well there may be something in her assessment here - after all, the royals invest a lot in image-branding which goes a long way to influencing peoples reactionary judgements. But I think a more objective and importantly, inclusive, assessment of all the political, cultural and personal factors underpinning the poll results would go some way to establishing the real - more diverse - reasons behind the polls coming out in majority support for keeping a constitutional monarchy.
From a republican perspective, it's a shame [to me] that these polls seem to be placing republicanism on the fringes of Australia's political priorities, but it will be interesting to see how the issue evolves (if it does) over the coming months/years.
Dita De Boni: Rah rah royals in la la land - Business - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11235884)
Quote
Even if many New Zealanders can accept that republicanism is coming "at some point" - even the royal family is resigned to it, at least as far as New Zealand goes - we lazily pass it off as something that will eventually happen without the slightest effort on our behalf, and only as long as there are absolutely no hard feelings, and Kate still wears Kiwi designers when she's down this way.
William and Kate beguile New Zealand's republicans into amnesia
Royal couple and George wow the crowds, even those campaigning for 'de-Britishised' flag barely a few months ago
QuoteNew Zealand's recent wranglings over its Commomwealth history seemed to vanish in a blur of cakes, flags and bunting adorned with the Union flag, as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge continued their rapturous tour of the Pacific nation.
A couple of months ago, the prime minister, John Key, posited it was time to think about replacing the country's national flag, preferably with a design that wasn't dominated by Britain's colours.
What relevance, after all, did the Union flag still hold in his proudly independent country, he asked. But no one seems to have shared his concerns with Rosie McAllister, 10, and Hannah Ferguson, 11. On Wednesday, the girls iced a cake with the familiar red, white and blue pattern, then waited excitedly for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to pass through their small South Island town of Blenheim.
Nearby, a middle-aged woman wearing a plastic tiara waved another Union flag, and bunting was selling well in the $2 shop. There's nothing like a royal tour to cloud the already murky waters of New Zealand's half-hearted republicanism.
More: William and Kate beguile New Zealand's republicans into amnesia | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/william-kate-new-zealand-republicans-amnesia-prince-george)
Even the marxist paper The Guardian and its dwindling readership know it is hopeless
Huh, I guess there
are vocal Republicans in New Zealand...
Quote
Royal tour: New Zealand republicans stage aerial protest - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10759615/Royal-tour-New-Zealand-republicans-stage-aerial-protest.html)
As thousands of royalist New Zealanders gathered to greet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Auckland harbour today, an aircraft flew over the adoring crowd towing a banner proclaiming that it was "Time for a Kiwi Head of State." It is the latest broadside in the Commonwealth realm's ongoing debate about the monarchy, sparked by this month's royal tour of the antipodes.
Here's the pic of the banner:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02879/royal-protest_2879135b.jpg
Good luck to them if that is the best they can muster. When 'The Guardian' is throwing in the towel, its all over.
It seems the only thing they all agree on is that the Monarchy will remain there until the Queen dies...
I agree with all of you. I am not Australian and do not live under the rule of the BRF in any Commonwealth nation.
I can understand if those Republicans are wanting for QEII to die out of respect for her decades of SERIVCE. Yes, life is not fair.Yes, she is QEII. Yes, she lives a life that some of the richest people in the world do not live.
Yes, she has done her job in role as QEII with strength, courage, grace and she has put in many, many miles in time doing this, LOL!
TO those who disgaree with us the that role,public lives of the BRF, their work for their lifestyle from their people is a gift the payment BRF do is to pubically support UK causes and countries in the Commonwealth. They are sort of good will ambassadors for their keep nd life and for their country.
Back to the ole "working at charities adn causes in secret thing" well, that defeats their purpose with their subjects.
What you said about the peoole ahving soft, crushy feelings now of the BRF is most likely true.
Why are K and W and that baby there on this tour?
To create good will. To show themsevles to their subjects.
To get media attention there .To support come causes/charities there and bring attention to those there by those subjects.
TO go to the people since they people cannot go to them.
To pr, smooze, bullshet the people.
I believe the sentiment among those who go to see them are mostly positive. However, according to some reports, there were a lot of Republican flags at the the last event but that wasn't covered by the media, whose report is unsurprisingly fawning in its entirety... I wonder what it is like in NZ.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 01, 2014, 11:48:47 PM
What a glorious time to be a monarchist in New Zealand. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have breathed new life into the Royal Family both in Britain and around the world.. Her Majesty's Realms are alive and well.
QuoteNew Zealand monarchists are no longer the decorative-plate collecting, tea-towel toting fuddy-duddies of yore.
Chloe Oldfield, the vice-chairwoman of Monarchy New Zealand, is just 21. She is excited about this month's royal tour by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and said many young people were similarly enthusiastic.
There had been a "huge resurgence" in the popularity of the royals, the Wellingtonian told Fairfax Media.
Being able to relate to the younger generation of down-to-earth royals, such as Prince William and Catherine, was a driving force.
Their wedding in 2011, and the birth of their son, Prince George, last year, had generated further warmth towards the monarchy, Oldfield said.
More: Changing face of monarchists | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/royal-tour/9888724/Changing-face-of-monarchists)
Pretty much says it all.
QuoteWilliam and Kate Eeguile New Zealand's Republicans Into Amnesia
Royal couple and George wow the crowds, even those campaigning for 'de-Britishised' flag barely a few months ago
New Zealand's recent wranglings over its Commomwealth history seemed to vanish in a blur of cakes, flags and bunting adorned with the Union flag, as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge continued their rapturous tour of the Pacific nation.
A couple of months ago, the prime minister, John Key, posited it was time to think about replacing the country's national flag, preferably with a design that wasn't dominated by Britain's colours.
What relevance, after all, did the Union flag still hold in his proudly independent country, he asked. But no one seems to have shared his concerns with Rosie McAllister, 10, and Hannah Ferguson, 11. On Wednesday, the girls iced a cake with the familiar red, white and blue pattern, then waited excitedly for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to pass through their small South Island town of Blenheim.
More: William and Kate beguile New Zealand's republicans into amnesia | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/william-kate-new-zealand-republicans-amnesia-prince-george)
Cindy
I think it's obvious that support for the Monarchy comes from the older generations, even on this forum. It's funny that the Republicans are called a 'dying breed' when in actuality, with the passing of the older generations, it is Royalists sentiments that will will begin to wane.
Either way, no one expects any major change yet. It is with the passing of QEII and her contemporaries that change will truly begin to arise.
It really is the complacent, almost mocking stance of Royalists that truly irritates me. Great if you are happy thinking yourself second-class and lesser than a family who has done nothing but been born into it, but I refuse to think the same and I cannot understand why Royalists so clearly disregard the opinions of Republicans. Thank God my country had the common sense to disband of this nonsense almost 40 years ago.
P.S. I am almost certain that George will not be King, or at the very least, not in the way we expect him to be.
^^^ The younger generation is taking up the torch
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 12, 2014, 09:59:10 AM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 01, 2014, 11:48:47 PM
What a glorious time to be a monarchist in New Zealand. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have breathed new life into the Royal Family both in Britain and around the world.. Her Majesty's Realms are alive and well.
QuoteNew Zealand monarchists are no longer the decorative-plate collecting, tea-towel toting fuddy-duddies of yore.
Chloe Oldfield, the vice-chairwoman of Monarchy New Zealand, is just 21. She is excited about this month's royal tour by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and said many young people were similarly enthusiastic.
There had been a "huge resurgence" in the popularity of the royals, the Wellingtonian told Fairfax Media.
Being able to relate to the younger generation of down-to-earth royals, such as Prince William and Catherine, was a driving force.
Their wedding in 2011, and the birth of their son, Prince George, last year, had generated further warmth towards the monarchy, Oldfield said.
More: Changing face of monarchists | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/royal-tour/9888724/Changing-face-of-monarchists)
Pretty much says it all.
Not really. ^^^^
QuoteIt found New Zealanders more or less evenly divided, with 44 per cent supporting a New Zealander as the next head of state, and 46 per cent backing the British monarch to be our king.
The remaining 10 per cent were unsure or refused. It was a telephone poll of 1038 respondents with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent.
What it does show is that support for the status quo is rapidly dying out, with only 26 per cent of 18 to 30-year-olds wanting to retain the British monarchy. Of the rest in that age bracket, 37 per cent supported the direct election of a local head of state, while 29 per cent preferred a local elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Support for the status quo leapt to 41 per cent of 31 to 45-year-olds, 45 per cent of 46 to 60-year-olds, and 53 per cent for those 61 and over. [\quote]
Brian Rudman: Quick snip and we're a republic - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11234694)
So basically only 1/4 18-30 year olds support this, while 2/3 support a local Head of State.
Brian Rudman is a republican and has been spouting the same nonsense for years. If it makes him sleep better at night with his head in the sand, than good luck to him.
Changing face of monarchists | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/royal-tour/9888724/Changing-face-of-monarchists)
Australia will be a tougher Crowd ... it is disgusting that after all the decades Liz spend keeping The Commonwealth together a panty flashing very expensive house wife who hadn't visited New Zeland until now is credited with it being part of The Commonwealth :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: :fuming: ... I knew the press would be ridiculous but let's not board on comical !!!! Other than that the ONLY star here THE ONLY reason the whole thing still exists is LIZ!!! :windsor1: Will and Kate better pray she remains Immortal ...
QuoteSupport for an Australian republic has collapsed to a 20-year low, with just 39.4 per cent of Australians saying they support a republic.
Support was lowest among older Australians and Generation Y voters, with people aged 35 to 65 most supportive of abandoning the monarchy.
An exclusive ReachTEL poll of more than 2100 Australians, conducted on Thursday night for Fairfax, shows 41.6 per cent oppose the country becoming a republic; 19 per cent had no opinion on the issue.
Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.
Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.
Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy national convener David Flint said the findings were a ''time bomb'' for the republican movement, with support among 18 to 35-year-olds at 35.6 per cent. Only those over 65 had a lower rate of support (30.7 per cent) for a republic.
^^^ Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/republican-cause-takes-heavy-knock-in-poll-20140201-31u1a.html)
My question is, why should they continue being part of the Commonwealth? Why not be sovereign nations on their own, with one of their own countrymen (or women) as their Head of State?
PrincessofPeace, I totally respect your opinion and desire to keep the monarchy in England, but why are you so desperate to keep them in the Commonwealth countries? IMO, it's not too far off from British Imperialism, and Colonialism.
:goodpost: Lothwen. We had a more acrimonious split with the mother country and have an excellent relationship with the UK today.
Double post auto-merged: April 13, 2014, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on April 08, 2014, 05:23:46 PM
I don't think the Republican movement in the Commonwealth is a lost cause as you seem to think, many are simply biting their time until the Queen dies... The allegiance today seems to be more to the Queen than to the Crown...
Speaking as an American, I can understand that the various nations of the Commonwealth would want to have their own elected HoS. Spanish speaking nations have their own confederation as well and King Juan Carlos for many years held an unofficial position as a senior member.
The fact is questions are asked and answers given. People can just as easily say they don't want a constitutional monarchy but that isn't the reply given.
If a majority of people want a republic one day then they'll have it, but that day isn't here yet and very few people will vote for change just for the sake of change.
Some of the richest and most progressive countries in Europe are monarchies.
And change for the sake of change is pointless....almost as pointless as a hereditary head of state!!
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:
Unhappy for a term beats unhappy for a lifetime... :wink:
The best argument for constitutional monarchy are the crooked politicians (and yes by definition a politician is corrupt).
Most of the people commenting about monarchies on this forum live in a republic anyway, so no worries :) Enjoy your republic
^^Many of us may live in republics, but we are allowed to have opinions too :hug:
And just because we live in republics now, doesn't mean we will forever. I lived in a monarchy before, and plan to move to the UK later in life. :shrug: We're a global society.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11238138)
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...
: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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-australians-will-embrace-royal-visit-20140407-zqrrg.html)
The Australian 'republican movement' is in about the same shape as Britain's 'republican movement'
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.
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.
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.
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...
Did the Royal tour boost the Republican movement Down Under?
Royal Correspondent Simon Vigar on his highlights from the tour so far.
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.
Only 42%? That is almost 50... :orchid: But, Richard is excited. :happy15:
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605667/Support-republic-slips-lowest-level-popularity-royals.html)
If the lowest point in 35 years is 42%, that is not a good omen for the post-Queen Australian Monarchists.
^I agree.
I don't think there's necessarily overwhelming support for the monarchy as much as there's just indifference.
I thought we don't believe in polls? :P
Cindy
:lol: republicans are very selective
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 ...
:goodpost: Eri... :thumbsup:
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:
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 ...
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:
Quote from: Limabeany on April 16, 2014, 06:56:27 PM
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:
The figure came from a poll, not from someone's hopeful imagination. From the article:
QuoteAccording 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.
Prince George 'the Republican Slayer' due to popularity of royals | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605667/Support-republic-slips-lowest-level-popularity-royals.html)
Cindy
There's so much more to the republican ideology and movement than any basic sample poll could ever begin to unpick, represent or even vitiate. The same is true of monarchism and any political system. Yet focusing intently on the statistics of these minority focus groups and the accompanying grab-tags of newspaper journalists is rarely helpful, or even worthwhile, if the aim is to extend an interesting and enlightening discussion on the issues which emerge from the complex and ever evolving polarity of these cultural and political systems of thought.
I haven't participated much in this tour thread because the journalistic reporting (and the tour itself) has been, in my humble opinion, beyond inane and somewhat predictable in its aim and efforts, and the republican issues that have been touched upon by the press have been limited to the results of short polls and blunt headlines proclaiming the movements' decline/death. Grated, I've been amused to see how much these headlines have unquestioningly delighted monarchists, without recourse to objective analysis or open discussion about the accuracy or reasons underpinning such claims. Predictably, favourable pro-monarchy poll results satiate the monarchists' desire and demand for statistical success and political one-upmanship and that, it seems, is all that's required in the den of a forum thread where proving one's views are right is more important than open debates. But these small polls and headlines don't, in reality, function to serve the truth in terms of the collective and disparate views of any one international community when it comes to monarchy or republicanism. And how can [they] when political systems – in practice and theory, existing or proposed – are far more complex in their makeup than any closed-answer questionnaire and biased journalist hunched over his PC airing his subjective take on world events could ever begin to uncover.
But I blame, in part, the press. They commission/utilise the polls to generate the headlines (leaning on their political bias of course) and then disseminate the results to the public who then use the media's slant on issues as the basis for, and worse – PROOF OF – the tours success / republican decline / monarchical security / Australian sentiment etc etc etc.
:goodpost:
I also have to add, how are the polls worded? Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance? If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care.
The thing is this, anyone can conduct polls. There are many left-wing organisations in Britain that avoid polling on the Monarchy like the plague. They will poll about welfare, hospitals and schools and present their numbers as proof we need more socialism but they avoid polling about the Queen.
There is a reason for this obviously. The Graun is the republican paper of record in Britain, no one buys it and it looses money hand over fist but they are openly republican and hate all things even remotely right-wing or pro-monarchy.
Every once in a blue moon they conduct a poll on the popularity of Britain's constitutional monarchy, the latest being in 2012 and guess what the result were? Now if an openly left-wing pro-republican news organisation like the Graun can't find any of the supposedly millions of republicans in Britain, I'm kind of sceptical of their so called 'movement'
Quote from: Lothwen on April 19, 2014, 02:00:45 AM
:goodpost:
I also have to add, how are the polls worded? Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance? If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care.
Quote from: Orchid on April 19, 2014, 12:01:41 AM
There's so much more to the republican ideology and movement than any basic sample poll could ever begin to unpick, represent or even vitiate. The same is true of monarchism and any political system. Yet focusing intently on the statistics of these minority focus groups and the accompanying grab-tags of newspaper journalists is rarely helpful, or even worthwhile, if the aim is to extend an interesting and enlightening discussion on the issues which emerge from the complex and ever evolving polarity of these cultural and political systems of thought.
I haven't participated much in this tour thread because the journalistic reporting (and the tour itself) has been, in my humble opinion, beyond inane and somewhat predictable in its aim and efforts, and the republican issues that have been touched upon by the press have been limited to the results of short polls and blunt headlines proclaiming the movements' decline/death. Grated, I've been amused to see how much these headlines have unquestioningly delighted monarchists, without recourse to objective analysis or open discussion about the accuracy or reasons underpinning such claims. Predictably, favourable pro-monarchy poll results satiate the monarchists' desire and demand for statistical success and political one-upmanship and that, it seems, is all that's required in the den of a forum thread where proving one's views are right is more important than open debates. But these small polls and headlines don't, in reality, function to serve the truth in terms of the collective and disparate views of any one international community when it comes to monarchy or republicanism. And how can [they] when political systems – in practice and theory, existing or proposed – are far more complex in their makeup than any closed-answer questionnaire and biased journalist hunched over his PC airing his subjective take on world events could ever begin to uncover.
But I blame, in part, the press. They commission/utilise the polls to generate the headlines (leaning on their political bias of course) and then disseminate the results to the public who then use the media's slant on issues as the basis for, and worse – PROOF OF – the tours success / republican decline / monarchical security / Australian sentiment etc etc etc.
Goodness, You two are very clever :hug: :hug:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 02:28:59 AM
The thing is this, anyone can conduct polls. There are many left-wing organisations in Britain that avoid polling on the Monarchy like the plague. They will poll about welfare, hospitals and schools and present their numbers as proof we need more socialism but they avoid polling about the Queen.
There is a reason for this obviously. The Graun is the republican paper of record in Britain, no one buys it and it looses money hand over fist but they are openly republican and hate all things even remotely right-wing or pro-monarchy.
Every once in a blue moon they conduct a poll on the popularity of Britain's constitutional monarchy, the latest being in 2012 and guess what the result were? Now if an openly left-wing pro-republican news organisation like the Graun can't find any of the supposedly millions of republicans in Britain, I'm kind of sceptical of their so called 'movement'
You're right, anyone can conduct a poll, and when you read a poll you have to look at who it is that conducted it in the first place. You also have to realize there are ways to skew the results.
For example, years ago my dad was asked a question. "Are you in favor of raising taxes to support Social Security?" and his answer was "no." Well, when the poll came out, it said that the majority of people polled did not support Social Security. You see where I'm going with this?
My hometown was just listed as the 3rd worst city to live in the US. They polled 484 people, when there are over 100,000 people living in it, and the surrounding area. That's less than 1%
When they say 42%, or whatever, they mean out of the people they've polled. That's not representative of the entire population
^^ My point exactly. If the Graun can't skew the numbers in favour of a 'republic' I don't have much hope for their revolution buts that's just me
This conversation, the Monarchy's role and the Commonwealth's relationship with it will be completely different that they are now after the Queen passes...
Quote from: Lothwen on April 19, 2014, 02:00:45 AM
I also have to add, how are the polls worded? Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance? If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care.
Polls are generally more focused on a primary issue with an associated set of questions, but I suppose if a poll were being undertaken to gage reactions to a broader selection of national issues then a multiple choice survey could be used.
But re: your latter point, I'd hazard a safe guess that matters such as the NHS and economy will always come before monarchy. The monarchy is an ideological, political issue which is distant from, almost disconnected from, the majority of people in comparison to more direct issues of health care and the economy which probably explains any percentages of inertia when it comes to monarchy/republic debates.
But as an aside, I can offer an older example of monarchy being lower on the national priorities list [lord give me strength] via a 2009 readers poll conducted by the Observer and Guardian. It placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54% but just 3% saw it as a priority issue. It's a nice example of poll results being misrepresentative and frankly, utterly useless. Republicans could unquestioningly use the figure to proclaim majority support for a republic. Yet support for "abolishing" the monarchy doesn't automatically mean people don't generally support the institution. As oxymoronic as that first appears it could be that economic considerations are more of a priority to people in a recession hit country i.e they support monarchy in principle but it costs too much to keep. Equally, a 54% sample majority doesn't mean 54% of readers wanted to institute an existing republic model therefore abolishing a monarchy doesn't mean there's 54% support for a republic. Fact is, the complex reasons behind the readers votes aren't apparent - even though it has a high republican readership - and therefore the results cannot be presumed or incorporated into an argument at will to "prove a case".
This is equally true of all these little polls coming out in favour of a monarchy during the Cambridge's tour. X% of 200 people support monarchy. Does that mean they decidedly support the institution and all that it embodies, or that they are apathetic towards it, or even that they support it only because alternatives seem unclear and therefore there's nothing solid to measure it against. Or does it just mean they like William and Kate or they think the Queen is a grande old gal, ergo they vaguely support monarchy. The
reasons behind why support is high is more important that the
figure itself. Hence why I detest polls and find them to be utterly useless in any objective, informed discussion that aims to create a dialogue on the complexities of reality rather than loosely "prove" a vague, elusive point.
With respect, you all need to get past the 'dialogue' stage and start making some noise. I'm 23 years of age and I don't have an iota of worry about any 'republican movement' in Britain. A subject I was born and I subject I will proudly die and of that I have no doubt.
QuoteThe monarchy is an ideological, political issue which is distant from, almost disconnected from, the majority of people in comparison to more direct issues of health care and the economy which probably explains any percentages of inertia when it comes to monarchy/republic debates.
This has always been a blind spot for republicans. There is no debate at all. Britain is already a constitutional monarchy, we hold all the cards. For me republicans might as well debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin because frankly I have no idea how your mythical republic is going to come about. We just aren't going to abolish our monarchy and traditions, we're just not.
I respect your views but you're living in the wrong country if you hope to ever live in a republic.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:16:40 AM
I respect your views but you're living in the wrong country if you hope to ever live in a republic.
Have you ever lived in another country, Princess of Peace? Immigrating is a lot harder than one imagines.
^^You're 23, PrincessofPeace?
I'm curious. What is your basis for wanting to continue having the Monarchy? What does it do for you? I'm curious. As an American, I view your royals as little more than glorified celebrities. They live in castles and manors, and country homes, and have their lifestyles paid for (at least in part) by the tax-payer. People like to say that they bring in money to the country, but even if there wasn't a Monarchy you could still tour the Palaces, and see the Tower of London. France got rid of their Monarchy, and people still like to visit there.
Also, the royals seem to be praised for doing the most minute and mundane tasks. They are praised for going to visit their charities, but what of the people who are involved every day? For example, Kate is called the "Children's Princess", yet in the 3 years she's been married to William she has spent less than 40 hours at her children's charities. Why would you praise her, and say she's a "caring" human being, but completely ignore the work done by the people who are there on a daily basis?
Do you think the royals are better than the rest of the population?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:16:40 AMWith respect, you all need to get past the 'dialogue' stage and start making some noise. I'm 23 years of age and I don't have an iota of worry about any 'republican movement' in Britain. A subject I was born and I subject I will proudly die and of that I have no doubt.
PrincessOfPeace, you'll have to define exactly what you mean by "make some noise".
Your assessment that republican lobbying needs to "get past the dialogue stage" lacks acute political awareness. Every political and cultural system functions and evolves through dialogue. It's what underpins every social debate, every parliamentary act, every state and monarchical function, every revolutionary aim. Scotland, for instance, would not be in the midst of a debate on independence without "dialogue". Dialogue
is "noise" in the "right way" and by that I mean it is open, democratic and, crucially,
peaceful. I certainly wouldn't support any republican lobbying that wasn't peaceful. Republicanism may be revolutionary for the UK but that doesn't mean it has to dominate the political landscape in a "noisy", aggressive way for it to gradually make its mark. What's more, radical political changes need time and the right social climate to really begin to take hold. A parallel to the French Revolution is certainly not on the cards, nor would I want it to be.
As a monarchist it's perfectly reasonable for you to feel secure in the safety of the monarchy in the present day and immediate future – certainly for as long as QE11 reigns. However, the future of the UK's political landscape is never certain and just because the monarchy has existed to the present day doesn't, by rights, determine its future. Nonetheless, whether we live with a constitutional monarchy or a republic framing our politics, you can independently elect whether or not you wish to class yourself as a "subject" of a monarch - past or present - from cradle to grave.
QuoteThis has always been a blind spot for republicans. There is no debate at all. Britain is already a constitutional monarchy, we hold all the cards.
Perhaps your perception of "debate" differs from mine. Lobbying constitutes debate and Republic are an organised group lobbying parliament and inviting the public to engage with related issues. The presence of republican MP's in parliament constitutes a political contention. Newspaper articles on any republic/monarchical issue is a form of debate and political contention. Any republican issue that circulates in the political and public arena constitutes a public debate. Ergo there is indeed a debate occurring within the UK. Whether it is deemed sufficient and effective at the present time and in the current format is an entirely different matter!
Quote...For me republicans might as well debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin because frankly I have no idea how your mythical republic is going to come about. We just aren't going to abolish our monarchy and traditions, we're just not.
Employing reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument.
To address your statement about a "mythical republic", I would say that Plato's Republic is mythical... a potential UK Republic is quite possible! Let's not confuse an unwillingness to engage with a different political model with its real-world credentials and possibilities. If you genuinely have no idea how a Republic may materialise, perhaps you need to consider more objectively the ideals of a republic and their potential appeal in the political and social climate of the UK [in the future], alongside the causes and reasons behind other countries evolving into Republics. Political landscapes and social and cultural ideals do evolve.
QuoteEmploying reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument.
The last thing I will say on this is my 'argument' doesn't need strengthening, again Britain is already a monarchy. It seems to me that your movement is in need of strengthening the argument.
Republicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.
Good luck to you and your comrades and have a happy life. In the meantime its a beautiful time for a monarchist like me to be alive. God Save the Queen and all that good stuff :)
41% of New Zealanders see things differently... :Jen:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
QuoteEmploying reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument.
The last thing I will say on this is my 'argument' doesn't need strengthening, again Britain is already a monarchy. It seems to me that your movement is in need of strengthening the argument.
Indeed, republicanism must continue to strengthen its campaign, as must the monarchy. The Cambridge's aren't on tour for their health - they are campaigning for their popularity, survival and ultimately, their continuance just as any political system - existing or embryonic - must do. Ergo, both "sides" of the argument need to be continual strengthened. And so I continue to see flaws in your argument of impossibility and presumed continuity.
QuoteRepublicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.
Impossible? No. A working progress? Yes. Doesn't every new political movement begin on the fringes of the existing fabric of a society.
In the spirit of goodwill lets agree to disagree for the moment. I honestly respect your views, I just don't think its a realistic endeavour nor do I believe in republicanism, but thats just my opinion
No to lighten the mood, come on you republicans if you can't beat us then you may as well join us :P
By George, they've made me a Royalist
QuoteI'M a bit embarrassed to admit this, given I'm supposed to be an ardent republican, but I'm really looking forward to King William V and Queen Catherine.
On present form, King George VII looks like a monarch worth waiting for, too.
After the endless reign of Queen Elizabeth II, we are likely in our lifetimes to see a slightly more rapid succession of monarchs accede the throne of Britain: that is, Charles IV will be an old man when he becomes king, and his son William will be a middle-aged monarch by the time he takes over.
And I predict Prince William and Catherine, who are attending an Easter Sunday service at St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney City, then heading to Taronga Zoo, will be as stylish and as charming in their 50s, when they finally get crowned, as they are today.
More: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/by-george-theyve-made-me-a-royalist/story-fni0cwl5-1226889100306
In many discussions between monarchists and republicans there'll be a need to agree to disagree as our views are polarized and the politics we support exist in opposition. But it's important to remember that it's the politics that sit in opposition, not the people. Disparity and disagreement isn't a bad thing, quite the contrary. I've no issue with anyone disbelieving the possibilities of a UK Republic or equally disagreeing with [its] political ideologies, but refusing to engage with [its] ideas because they don't correlate with ones own isn't conducive to an open dialogue.
***
Continuing that article, here's the remaining [unquoted] section which outlines reasons to support William and Kate, beginning with "her commitment to the blow dry" and ending with the aesthetics of "their beautiful baby". I'm undecided as to whether the author of this article, Claire Harvey, intended it as a serious piece or a spoof. Answers on a card please.
Quote...But does that make them fit to rule?
Well, here's my reasoning: we have to have a head-of-state of some form. Australians rejected the notion of a president appointed by Parliament back in 1999; which means it'll be at least another generation, and probably several, before we get any kind of republic.
So if we're insisting on having unelected people as our symbolic figureheads, I'd prefer them to be as glamorous, selfless, thoughtful and dedicated as possible. In fact, we'll be on the lookout for a new Governor-General in five years' time: how about the Duke and Duchess?
My new-found royal fandom is not very cool. It's kind of a betrayal of my generation. But here's why I love the Cambridges — republican or not.
Its a spoof but thats what makes it serious. I think the point is at times republicans have a tendency to over think the issue. There are many elements that go into the monarchy. To over look the emotional attachment monarchists have for the family is to miss a big part of the issue.
The biggest hurdle republicans have is to convince an entire nation to throw the baby out with the bath water. You want us to invent a new country. Everything from postage stamps to the names of our aircraft carriers will be changed.
The ills of the country aren't due to the monarchy, they're due to the brain waves we elect to Westminster and everyone knows this. Politicians come and go but the crown endures.
Some people support the monarchy because of its role as constitutional guardian and firewall, others enjoy the pomp and pageantry while still others like the tradition and history and continuity that goes with our hereditary system.
Again, personally I have no clue why republicans think they're going to be able to convince us to give all this up and just add another politician to the mix. Elected and appointed politicians the world over are only a necessary evil. There is a reason snake oil salesmen have a higher approval rating than the US Congress.
If we were a republic tomorrow, everything that is wrong with the country because of screwball politicians would still be there and our traditions and monarchy will be gone and for what? To have some gormless president waving at me from the newly named 'People's Palace' ? Thanks but no thanks.
Quote from: Orchid on April 19, 2014, 04:25:47 PM
QuoteRepublicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.
Impossible? No. A working progress? Yes. Doesn't every new political movement begin on the fringes of the existing fabric of a society.
The Republican movement in America did....
ba da bing! I'm here all week folks
:laugh:
Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin
QuoteTiming is everything they say. And there is now doubt that on this Royal tour to Australia that the starring role of Prince George have been right on cue.
The "Republican Slayer" as even anti-royalists Down Under have dubbed the little prince after his starring role, has put the cause for ditching the monarchy here back years.
As his mother and father spent a night away from his - sleeping under the stars tonight at a "glamping" resort in the shadow of Uluru itself, leaving him in the care of his Spanish nanny back in Canberra, all the talk has been about the impact of "Prince of Cuteness" after photos of him and a Bilby - a Australian marsupial - at Sydney's Taronga Zoo went around the world.
Even Geoff Gallop, of the Australian Republican Movement, admitted, albeit grudgingly, live on air on the biggest television network here that the Royal Family have a "pretty good" PR machine.
But well as Kensington Palace Communications Secretary Dr. Ed Perkins and his team have undoubtedly done on this one in a generation tour, arranging picture perfect photo opportunities, this royal renaissance has nothing to do with spin.
It is the principals, particularly Prince William, who are driving this unique, new style royal roadshow.
More: Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin - UK - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/royal-tour-commentary-this-royal-renaissance-has-nothing-to-do-with-pr-spin-9274076.html)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 22, 2014, 10:54:15 PM
Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin
QuoteTiming is everything they say. And there is now doubt that on this Royal tour to Australia that the starring role of Prince George have been right on cue.
The "Republican Slayer" as even anti-royalists Down Under have dubbed the little prince after his starring role, has put the cause for ditching the monarchy here back years.
Even Geoff Gallop, of the Australian Republican Movement, admitted, albeit grudgingly, live on air on the biggest television network here that the Royal Family have a "pretty good" PR machine.
But well as Kensington Palace Communications Secretary Dr. Ed Perkins and his team have undoubtedly done on this one in a generation tour, arranging picture perfect photo opportunities, this royal renaissance has nothing to do with spin.
It is the principals, particularly Prince William, who are driving this unique, new style royal roadshow.
More: Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin - UK - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/royal-tour-commentary-this-royal-renaissance-has-nothing-to-do-with-pr-spin-9274076.html)
Also from this article:
Quote
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a Liberal and staunch monarchist, has made great hay from this royal visit.
He has been one step behind the royal couple on many of the engagements - introducing them to his favourite Beach Manly, where still surfs and joining them for an Anglican Easter Sunday Service, despite being a Catholic himself.
But the monarchy should not be complacent.
Mr. Gallop is right when he say opinions polls are fickle, they often depend on what questions are asked.
Still the Charles and Camilla factor is an issue.
Republicans believe that if the question was asked: "Should we have an elected Head of State when the next British Monarch comes to the throne?" - they would win the argument.
But if monarchy is to remain relevant is a modern, vibrant, cosmopolitan country like Australia is becoming they need to be a constant presence - not just a glamorous roadshow every 7 years.
I would argue that the royal players need to spend more time than they do in the Commonwealth countries.
Prince Harry coming here for a weekend last year was not long enough. He should be the next to come here and spend time here.
Supporting The Commonwealth - that the Queen has supporting tirelessly since it's inception - is clearly the big policy too for these new royals.
Whether that will be enough for Prince George to one day be King here is doubtful.
But for the moment, these wonderful images of him playing with the endangered Bilby at Taronga Zoo with a proud and relaxed mum and dad looking on won't have done the monarchist cause Down Under any harm.
^^^ We'll have too see. Prince George is still decades away from being king of Australia. Hopefully for republicans they come up with a working plan between now a then.
So far the republican mantra of 'change for the sake of change' is falling upon deaf ears. In the meantime I have decades of Antipodean royal tours to enjoy.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 22, 2014, 11:38:21 PM
So far the republican mantra of 'change for the sake of change' is falling upon deaf ears.
Where have "republicans" publicised/proclaimed a "change for the sake of change" "mantra"?
"Campaigning for a democratic alternative to the monarchy" heads the official Republic campaign group and, from my experience, sets the tone for the republican sentiment. "Change for the sake of change" wouldn't be a sensible or worthwhile philosophy for any political movement and I've never heard of it being a driving force for republicans.
Again, you'll have to provide further details on this "change for the sake of change mantra" that you've brought to our attention.
PoP, perhaps, it is about not living like ostriches and examining what a society needs and may be clinging to but doesn't need or what works to its detriment despite being customary and blindly accepting a status quo that requires people to be subjects instead of citizens at birth without being given a choice... :shrug:
:goodpost:
Excellent point, Limabeany. All societies reach points in their history where values and customs are re-evaluated for a multitude of reasons. Examining political structures in step with the evolving needs and values of a cultural system is part and parcel of a democracy, a developing world and ultimately human nature. It's never a negative thing and I rarely understand why questioning the status quo and exploring alternatives to [it] - whatever "it" may be - generates so much unbending resistance. Perhaps a sense of threat which emerges from the prospect of change or losing something in which one has personally invested something is what causes so much unease rather than creating a collective social curiosity to consider, at the very least, alternatives and possibilities that may work better for a national community.
The fact is [we] could have hundreds of different discussions on the different histories of countless cultural and political "institutions" (a term I use in the broadest sense) in the history of the UK which have come under question because social values and systems of thought have changed. There will always be support, resistance and indifference to issues of change and ultimately, cultural evolution, but the fact that they historically arise suggests that such issues will continue to arise in the future and in turn, demand degrees of change.
And as an addendum to my previous post: Limabeany, thank you for quoting the other section of the article [on page 4] for a broader context of the report. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Limabeany on April 22, 2014, 11:52:04 PM
PoP, perhaps, it is about not living like ostriches and examining what a society needs and may be clinging to but doesn't need or what works to its detriment despite being customary and blindly accepting a status quo that requires people to be subjects instead of citizens at birth without being given a choice... :shrug:
Very egalitarian. republicans love to rally around 'citizen not subject' and it to the true believers it gives them something to occupy their time. In the real world outside of the 'republican movement' most Britons understand its just hot air.
I guarantee if republicans could offer the land of milk and honey, ,monarchists would convert in a second but they can't. All they have to offer is France, America, Italy, China, Ireland, Greece and any other number of basket case 'republics'.
Sort of like when republicans use the word scrounger and repeat it 200 times or 'Vive la republique' , I mean come on.
I understand I'm not going to convince republicans of anything but as I keep stating, I and other monarchists don't have to.
I'm a monarchist living in a constitutional monarchy. For me everything is tickety boo. Republicans on the other hand have a problem I suppose.
Cynthia Nixon re gay marriage but...
QuoteWhen women got the vote they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table...We have no desire to change marriage. We want to be entitled to not only the same privileges, but the same responsibilities as straight people.
I ask this as an American, but what benefit is there for countries like Australia and New Zealand to continue being members of the Commonwealth with the Queen as their Head of State?
I mean, in England you could argue that the Monarchy brings in a good amount of revenue, and that the reason a lot of foreigners visit the country is because they want to see the royals, but that's not really the case for places like Australia.
So why keep the Monarchy there, unless it's just the status quo, and because that's the way it's always been that's the way it should be?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 12:49:55 AM
Very egalitarian.
Why does inviting a social dialogue on systems of government mean, by default, the pursuit of egalitarianism? I realise you say this in the context of a "subject and citizen" phrase, so does this mean that it is, in your view, a vein and incorrect pursuit for an individual to autonomously choose to position themselves outside of the authority of one hereditary figure head and essentially reject one dynasty's claim over an entire populace?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 23, 2014, 12:49:55 AM
I guarantee if republicans could offer the land of milk and honey, ,monarchists would convert in a second but they can't. All they have to offer is France, America, Italy, China, Ireland, Greece and any other number of basket case 'republics'.
What do you define as "the land of milk and honey" in the context of Britain's political and cultural system? If Republicans could offer it [as you pose] what would they be offering exactly?
You refer to "basket case republics", deploying some of the largest and most successful economic and political powers in the world as examples, but it's a rather sweeping, vague term that I'm finding difficult to pin down. Would you explicate what this means?
QuoteI understand I'm not going to convince republicans of anything but as I keep stating, I and other monarchists don't have to.
I'm a monarchist living in a constitutional monarchy. For me everything is tickety boo. Republicans on the other hand have a problem I suppose.
Quite untrue. I would suggest that people who are considering a republic model are very much open to discussing the political and cultural systems of their country, otherwise why would they be participating in a modern dialogue on traditional values and institutions that could easily go unchecked. If anything, a republican mind is an open mind. I wouldn't say republicans "have a problem" because monarchy exists. If anything, the very existence of a monarchy stands as a beacon and template for the renewed and evolutionary ideas to propagate and develop. No society can ever have a future without a history from which to learn from and improve.
You say that as a monarchist living in a constitutional monarchy "everything is tickety boo" but is your society really in such good shape if people are questioning the character and role of a political institution that beats at the heart of their country? There's a difference between things being tickety boo for a sub-set of people (monarchists) and things being tickety-boo because it's as good as it's going to get. And if monarchists take the latter argument, don't you think that it's limiting progress and possibilities of betterment? No society should ever stop reviewing their make-up at the behest of tradition and an unwillingness to engage in politics of difference.
I live in Australia and I can honestly say that, Royal tour or no Royal tour, becoming a republic isn't even on the distant horizon for most people living here. Too many other things to worry about. Changing to a Republic would be a huge expense and there is no appetite for it really.
Every now and again republicanism surges, such as in the 1990's in the lead-up to the Referendum in 1999, then it dies down again. Abbott is pro-monarchy, can't see him organising a new referendum and Bill Shorten, the Opposition Leader, who was grinning away in the reception line for Kate and William with his wife, is unlikely to move in that direction unless he sees the public mood swing that way in the next decade.
:thanks: for your perspective, I agree, this is not something in the near future, but some of us are saying, that although it may seem in the distant horizon now, there are several factors that don't exist now, but will in the future. There will be a transition when the Queen dies, and many in the Commonwealth will take advantage of this period of change to explore the possibility of making their own changes, another is that the Queen has been a deterrent to many to seriously consider this change, since it would be deemed disrespectful towards her but Charles is not cloaked in such respect, so when she passes it will be considered in a more realistic fashion in many places.
Nothing much will change in terms of how the Windsor family live they will continue to be wealthy and privileged like they always have and the other half will continue to live in poverty with the middle class continuing their lives Nothing is going to dramatically change , just that if there is a Republic they won't have to care about how they spend their money and when they vacation :paparazzi: not to mention the papz will be less .
^They also wouldn't receive any money from the tax payer, and right now they do receive at least some. Also, they probably wouldn't be allowed to live in any of their palaces, and you wouldn't have to follow royal protocol when meeting them. So there'd be some major lifestyle changes for them
^^^ Its difficult to say. Former Presidents and Prime Ministers receive a lot of tax-payer funded support long after they leave office.
US tax-payers provide former presidents with security and expenses even though most are multi-millionaires many times over.
Four years in office burdens the tax-payer with basically a lifetime of responsibility.
They have been voted in and make very difficult decisions, which makes them targets for attack - even after leaving office.
Members of the RF are just puppets - IMO.
:goodpost: World leaders who have to make decisions beyond shaking hands for 15 minutes or 45 are different than royal celebrities, which is what all of them excepting the Queen or King are... :shrug:
Whether the sovereign is voted in or not the Queen is still the legal and constitutional head of sate. In the republic Australia was proposing in 1999, the president wouldn't be elected either but appointed by parliament.
Many 'republics' around the world have an appointed president.
Protect her and leave the other hangers on to pay for their own security.
Considering Britain provides around the clock security for convicted terrorists and their families. It isn't much to ask for the Head of State and her family to have protection.
They fall into the realms of "Man bites Dog" stories - few and far between. However, I would personally refuse the likes of them protection, too.
As I said, protect her, but the others...no...I'm sorry, but no.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 26, 2014, 06:57:22 PM
Whether the sovereign is voted in or not the Queen is still the legal and constitutional head of sate. In the republic Australia was proposing in 1999, the president wouldn't be elected either but appointed by parliament.
Many 'republics' around the world have an appointed president.
I don't like either hereditary or appointed... :blank:
QuoteWilliam and Kate's Royal Tour Reaffirms the Ties That Bind Us
In the final few hours of their tour to Australia, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attended a dawn vigil and a service of remembrance by the War Memorial in Canberra on Anzac Day. It was a poignant reminder of the ties of kinship and history that bind this country to the former Dominions and which have been reinforced by the royal couple's visit over the past three weeks. Almost 100 years have passed since the sacrifices at Gallipoli helped forge the national identities of Australia and New Zealand.
But if the conclusion of the Duke and Duchess's visit was fittingly sombre, it has overall been a joyful occasion, made all the more uplifting by the presence of Prince George. Here on show were two of the next three heads of state of Australia and New Zealand – probably for the rest of this century, should they choose to remain Commonwealth realms.
And why wouldn't they? Republicanism seems to be just as much out of favour Down Under as it is here. Anti-monarchists did their utmost to portray the tour as an insubstantial "celebrity" event, but it was far more than that and they know it. The crowds who came to see the young family were perfectly aware that they represent something greater than just a passing fad in a fame-obsessed culture. Quite the reverse, in fact: they personify constitutional stability in an otherwise uncertain world.
More: William and Kate's royal tour reaffirms the ties that bind us - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10789277/William-and-Kates-royal-tour-reaffirms-theties-that-bind-us.html)
Cindy
It's noteworthy to point out that the Telegraph article posted above was written by "The Telegraph View" which is, and I quote the paper itself:
QuoteTelegraph View represents the editorial opinion of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.
... The Daily Telegraph holds a thoroughly conservative editorial position and in this way the pro-monarchy stance is predictable. That's not to de-value the opinion expressed, but it does serve to put it in perspective.
IT HASN'T been a good week, month or indeed year for republicans.
QuoteIn Australia it has emerged that the movement only commands the support of 39.4 per cent of the population, as against 50-60 per cent in the lead-up to the constitutional referendum of 1999.
The reason for this is largely the staggering success of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's Antipodean tour, accompanied by a gurgling Prince George.
It is hard to remember that not so long ago, rocked by one crisis after another culminating in the death of Princess Diana, the very future of the monarchy was in doubt.
These days the outlook could hardly be rosier and that is due not only to the reverence in which the Queen is rightly held but to the younger generation, at ease with themselves and the nation they represent.
More: Queen can be so proud of tourists William and Kate | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/472640/Queen-can-be-so-proud-of-tourists-William-and-Kate)
QuoteIn Australia it has emerged that the movement only commands the support of 39.4 per cent of the population, as against 50-60 per cent in the lead up to the constitutional referendum of 1999.
Wrong. The poll shows 39.4% of
2,100 people support a republic. Not 39.4% of
the population!
The article is measuring the results of ReachTel’s recent sample poll - taken on 24/04/14 using 2,100 respondents - against the results of a National referendum undertaken in 1999! How is this even a vaguely comparable analysis of the past and present political climate? An entire population vs 2,100 people and a question mark over the comparability of the questions asked. I despair for the people who buy into this without a second thought.
A breakdown: 39.4% support a republic; 41.6% oppose a republic; 19% had no opinion. All these stats need qualifying further.
What hasn’t been analysed are the divisions amongst the electorate – those persisting divisions which affected the 1999 referendum. i.e. traditional monarchists vs pragmatic monarchists vs the spectrum of republicans (progressive; minimal change; radical) and the tactical voters and indifferent voters. The point being that these polls A) do not analyse the reasons behind choices; B) do not represent the entire population. Therefore, it’s impossible to say that 41.6% of people who oppose a republic must support the monarchy. What it can do is present the surface reactions of 2,100 people and then be used in a biased format to support or batter political views. ;)
QuoteThe reason for this is largely the staggering success of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridges’ Antipodean tour.
Did the poll ask the respondents if the tour was influencing their answers? If the answer is No, it’s a hopeful claim at best.
QuoteShe has seen the future heir and his wife proving the Windsors are in safe hands.
This statement genuinely made me laugh. Yes, it could be argued that Kate and William have demonstrated (or "“proven"” if I use the author’s words) that "the future" of the Windsor’s
performance led touring skills is in “safe hands”. But if the implication is that the tour has solidified "the future" of the Windsor’s
dynasty/monarchy, then it’s a very questionable statement indeed! The author must have goggles into the future and a passionate disbelief in political evolutions. Or maybe the author is a member of the Adjustment Bureau.
An interesting article taking a very specific angle towards monarchical support - the cult of celebrity: Is the cult of celebrity holding back an Australian republic? - On Line Opinion - 28/4/2014 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16244)
QuoteAccording to the latest Australian Financial Review/Nielsen poll, support for an Australian republic is at its lowest levels since March 1992. The poll provides that 42 percent of Australians favour becoming a republic whilst 51 percent are in favour of staying a constitutional monarchy. However does this poll, and the many like it, which have been conducted over the years, really demonstrate that Australians do not favour a republic or is it something else?
It is hard to conclude that Australians, particularly in the lead up to and in the immediate aftermath of the 1999 referendum were not inclined to favour the transition to an Australian republic. As author and social analyst Eva Cox noted on Q and A on Monday, 21 April, the 1999 referendum demonstrated a resounding distaste for the particular model of republic that was put to the electorate more so than an Australian republic per se.
Similarly the latest poll does not signal the death of republicanism or the rise of monarchism in Australia. Rather it indicates that no institution is beyond the grasp of the cult of celebrity.
The cult of celebrity sees persons who may or may not have made extraordinary contributions or achieved extraordinary outcomes in a particular field of inquiry become the focal point for public discussion. Their words, actions and dress become a public obsession.
However the cult of personality that has engulfed the monarchy in Australia is not limited by anecdotal evidence and recourse to the placement of the columns of the papers' fashion editors. The recent Nielsen Poll also highlighted the growth of the cult of personality that has taken hold of the monarchy in Australia. The poll found that only 35 percent of Australians believed that Australia should 'never' become a republic. In contrast 28 percent said that Australia should move towards a republic immediately whilst a further 31 percent said that the move should commence 'only after Queen Elizabeth's reign ends'.
This last finding in particular shows that though republicanism may be at a low, it does not follow that Australians are monarchists. Instead it is the cult of personality that holds republican sentiment at bay in Australia.
Notably, the author’s political leaning and particular views on the Australian system is unknown.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 27, 2014, 08:36:46 PM
Queen can be so proud of tourists William and Kate | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/472640/Queen-can-be-so-proud-of-tourists-William-and-Kate)
Wow! :ahhh: Now there's an underhanded, sneaky, passive-aggressive jab... "Tourists William and Kate" :happy15: :happy15:
^^^ Did you read the article?? The Daily Express is rabidly pro-monarchy.
^I read the article. I find it interesting that they mentioned that the last time the future of the monarchy looked bleak was when you had the Wales and the York divorces, and then the death of Princess Diana. So basically, the last time there was an overwhelming surge of support for a republic (or at least, disapproval for the monarchy), was when the monarchy no longer provided the fairy tale.
In other words, if William and Kate were to divorce (which is not unlikely, as over 50% of marriages today end in divorce), and if there were to be some sort of scandal involved with that, then support for the monarchy would decrease.
Support for a republic or disapproval of the monarchy even during the 'dark days' of Diana are relative terms at least in Britain.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=122&view=wide
^Perhaps, but in this particular article that's the reference that was made.
I remember that period of time very well as I spent part of it in Britain and part in Australia. I do believe that there was a great sense of disillusionment after the marriages of Diana-Charles and Andrew and Fergie went belly-up.
I'm a monarchist, but if I'm honest I think that some of the magic of monarchy disappeared after the very acrimonious end to the Wales's marriage. I believe a large proportion of the British population were invested in that fairy tale wedding in St Paul's.
Of course nowadays, in the Internet era, that sort of atmosphere can't be replicated. It was a more innocent age, even if it was only a few decades ago. I don't think William and Kate's divorcing, if they ever do, would have the same impact. We are all much more cynical now.
Double post auto-merged: April 28, 2014, 11:10:25 AM
Rafaele Piccolo, the author of the article about 'the cult of celebrity' was President of the Adelaide University Union and is a Convener of the South Australian branch of the Fabianists. So my guess is that he is to the Left in his views! Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Hello Curryong, welcome to the forum!
Your thoughts are interesting. In terms of the "magic of monarchy" do you feel that [its] image/branding invites people to invest in them more than, say, the politics of their role?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 28, 2014, 03:44:58 AM
Support for a republic or disapproval of the monarchy even during the 'dark days' of Diana are relative terms at least in Britain.
Ipsos MORI | Trend | Monarchy/Royal Family Trends - Monarchy v Republic 1993-2013 (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=122&view=wide)
At best all we can determine is that support for a republic / opposition to the monarchy is relative to the numbers polled (500-1000 in the case of this Ipso Mori poll) and not relative to Britain as a whole.
***
Look at the question posed in the poll: "Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?". It invites only a yes or no answer. It doesn't poll the complex conditions under which the UK should switch or remain. I really do oppose polls which approach a complex issue with a one-dimensional yes/no question. It renders the poll worthless.
It's probably to do with the generation that I come from. I don't think of the monarchy in terms of image or branding.
It's watching, as a small child, the Queen going by in a state coach to open Parliament, seeing the Crown Jewels, some dating back many centuries.
It's being in a huge crowd in front of Buckingham Palace at the time of the Golden Jubilee and watching a woman who has devoted her life to Britain and the Commonwealth on that famous balcony. The fervour of the crowd and the link between monarch and people. It was almost palpable.
I'm a history buff and yes, I feel the romance of all the centuries when I think of the British monarchy. It is emotion, yes, and I suppose you would say I am blinded by it. I don't think so, of course! I've lived in Australia for many years now, but I still feel it.
:thanks: for sharing your perspective. Do you feel the same about Charles when you see him?
I see the position, not particularly the person, with senior royals. I think Charles is an extremely hard working individual who has made a remarkable contribution in his public life. I was not on his side where Diana was concerned, but although saddened by her death, her legacy will go on in her sons.
And yes, when Charles is crowned in the Abbey, I shall be viewing it all. I'm a lost cause for republicanism, I'm afraid!
Republicans dismiss polls because they don't show the numbers they want. Lets be clear, if Ipsos Mori published numbers that showed support for monarchy faltering, the republicans would be shouting from the roof tops with the polls posted on their website.
As you're speaking for ALL people who support a UK Republic model, you're very much making a sweeping generalisation and one which inarguably is insupportable. It's rather insulting to claim "republicans dismiss polls because they don't show what they want"? It suggests you're not willing to look at the reasons people "dismiss" the validity of polls.
I don't speak for all "republicans", but speaking for myself, I approach polls with objective caution because of the reasons indicated in my last post and numerous posts before: that being, polls do not do what referendums do. Polls are merely pin hole sized snap shots of a sample number who have been asked to answer closed questions. My dislike of polls applies to all subjects including any polls that suggest a Republic is favoured!