Royal Tour: The Republican Perspective and Articles

[Orchid]

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.

[Limabeany]

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:

[Orchid]

 :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:

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[Limabeany]

Cynthia Nixon re gay marriage but...

When 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.

[Lothwen]

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?

[Orchid]

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? 

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?

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.

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. 

[Curryong]

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.

[Limabeany]

 :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.

[Princessinwaiting]

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 .

[Lothwen]

^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

[PrincessOfPeace]

^^^ 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.

[SophieChloe]

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. 

[Limabeany]

 :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:

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[SophieChloe]

Protect her and leave the other hangers on to pay for their own security.   

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[SophieChloe]

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. 

[Limabeany]

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:

[cinrit]

William 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

Cindy

[Orchid]

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:

Telegraph 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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

IT HASN'T been a good week, month or indeed year for republicans.

In 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

[Orchid]

In 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.   ;)

The 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.

She 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

According 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.

[Limabeany]

Queen can be so proud of tourists William and Kate | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express

Wow!  :ahhh: Now there's an underhanded, sneaky, passive-aggressive jab... "Tourists William and Kate"  :happy15: :happy15:

[PrincessOfPeace]

^^^ Did you read the article?? The Daily Express is rabidly pro-monarchy.