'There Is Now a Republican Movement': Anti-Royal Campaigners Get Organised

[cinrit]

A new poll says three-quarters of us are monarchists, with the new royal baby expected to increase the Windsors' popularity. But republicans are not giving up – on the contrary, in fact.

If popularity is measured in mountains of aluminium ladders, union flags, television cameras, bunting, and more ladders – all faithfully disseminated in further mountains of newsprint and website live feeds of closed doors beginning (as the Telegraph's proudly proclaims) at 4am and ending at 11pm, then the monarchy, right at this moment in silly season, appears to be unassailable. And the polls seem to bear this impression out: Ipsos Mori found this week that 77% of Britons wanted Britain to remain a monarchy, while just 17% wanted a republic – this despite the fact that the week also saw a member of a royal household hauled before the public accounts committee to show why it paid no tax on its (very lucrative) business interests. The Duchy of Cornwall, said William Nye, Prince Charles's private secretary – giving Donald Rumsfeld a run for his money in the department of obfuscatory clarifications – is "a private estate, like a private estate, but in many respects is not a private estate. But that does not make it, per se, a corporation." The percentage of people who thought Charles should give up his place in the succession actually dropped, by one point; 52% think he should keep it.

'There is now a republican movement': anti-royal campaigners get organised | UK news | The Guardian

Cindy

[Limabeany]

Quote from the article:
"And then, of course, there is the issue of influence and power. About a year ago, notes Mansfield, "the attorney general ruled that we are not allowed to see the letters that go between Charles and government ministers. Why not? We're entitled to know what a potential head of state is saying." The decision was challenged by the Guardian but upheld in the high court this month. Mansfield thinks the biggest problem lies in "the willingness of people to recognise the parlous state in which we exist now – economic frailty overseen by someone who is not remotely in touch with it. [The Queen] may not have any actual formal power, but she has a lot of influence. What goes on between her and the prime minister when they meet every week? I'm sure they don't just talk about the weather – she's an intelligent woman, she'll have opinions. It's a very British form of power – indirect, diffuse, nobody writes it down, but there it is, year after year, century after century. Democratic governance must be transparent and accountable." The trouble, argues Skinner, "is that the Queen is very popular. She takes her job seriously and does it well, and people respect her for that."

This respect does not necessarily extend to Charles, and whether or not he succeeds, suggests Tony Benn, might eventually be down not to any kind of (polite) revolution, but to another very old form of British power. "The present system is that when the queen dies there is a meeting of the privy council, a strange body made up of ministers and former minsters. I've been a member since 1964, and it's never once met as a whole body. The privy council's duty is to proclaim 'with one heart, mind and voice' that the heir is the successor." This is in effect, he says, a unanimity rule: "In theory, if one of the members objected, [the succession] would be illegal. I think it's a possibility that has to be considered. There are a number of republicans in the privy council – whether anyone would do it, or it would be accepted as valid, I don't know.""

I know those letters will continue to bite him in the butt. He should not have written them. Regardless of the private-citizen fancy flights, he is the Future King.

[Izabella]

I know those letters will continue to bite him in the butt. He should not have written them. Regardless of the private-citizen fancy flights, he is the Future King

:nod:  :thumbsup:

[Orchid]

Thanks for posting this article cinrit :thumbsup:

It's a brilliant article but contains a myriad of points which makes it rather tricky to discuss neatly in one thread.  It may be worth starting new threads dedicated to individual points if people feel they are worthy of isolated discussion i.e. the nature of Charles' succession as decided by the privy council; the myths of monarchy; the tax and income of the Duchy; the private, undisclosed lobbying of Charles etc.

*****

Touching on the survey statistics: notably, if [you] follow the ipsos mori link to the poll it shows that 1,000 adults were polled in July.  As with all polls that take a tiny sampling it's very misrepresentative to state that the findings represent 77% of "Britons" because that label suggests a larger national sampling via, say, the national census. It renders the results interesting but not at all indicative of the national mood in real terms. Including a category on monarchy in the national census or opening a national referendum on monarchy would be truly informative and accurate. I wish they would do this as it would address much of the grey area that we all argue about because of a lack of real data.

But picking out a few pieces from the article:

The biggest change, argues Graham Smith, is not numbers so much as the fact that "there is now a republican movement": Republic acts not simply as a rallying point for the republican-minded, but as an active campaigning body.

Nye's presence at the public accounts committee hearing was the direct result of lobbying from Republic, which as far back as May 2007 was persuading Brian Iddon, MP for Bolton South East, to table an early day motion about the lack of transparency in the Duchy of Cornwall's accounts.

When Visit Britain claimed, before the royal wedding, that the event would be good for tourism, Republic made a Freedom of Information request for documents which duly revealed that in fact royal weddings had no such precedent. "If we look at the marriage of Andrew and Sarah in July 1986," wrote Visit Britain's head of research and forecasting, "we find that across the year as a whole there were 4% fewer visitors to Britain than in 1985, but that in July [1986] there were 8% fewer than in July of 1985. While this and the results relating to 1981 are inconclusive, such as it is, the evidence points to royal weddings having a negative impact on inbound tourism."

The fact that we have a dedicated and nationally recognised political movement running in opposition to a monarchy is indeed a very positive move for republican ideals.  It may be small in comparison to an established history of monarchy's existence but the very fact that it has been formed and exists is significant.  My greatest gripe however with the republic campaign is that it needs to establish a solid and workable solution post-abolition that people can really see working.  At the moment the campaign focuses too much on what is corrupt/wrong with monarchy rather than on what could be good/positive for the country moving forwards in a republic. Naturally [it] needs to do this because it is working to highlight what has historically been ignored/hidden - but to generate a greater balance they ought to focus equally on what a British Republic would look like in the future.

-"I think debating the principles of the constitution, which is what republicans want to do, should not be set aside as merely academic and not political," says Quentin Skinner, political historian and a lifelong republican. "It is highly political to talk about the principles and nature of a democratic constitution."

Completely agree.  It's about time the monarchist / republican debates occurred on a full [modern] political and intellectual spectrum with both sides coming together to constructively debate the issue.  In reality there is no "them vs us" law to the monarchist and republican constituency: we're all members of a national community and should come together with mutual deference to discuss the best structure for our political and social makeup.

More than a century later, after the royal family's "annus horribilis", as the Queen famously described 1992, and the death of Diana, republicanism seemed to have another chance – but the monarchy has concertedly fought back. It has, says Skinner, who, unlike both Smiths, believes republicanism to be in retreat, "very good PR. Bringing forward the young people, replacing the old-timers, the royal birth, the show continues." It's "a kind of opiate of the people. It's like pop stars, isn't it? They're simply in the news because they're in the news." And, perhaps, in a time of deep cynicism and disappointment in so many aspects of public life – bankers, politicians, clergy – they are seen as the least noxious of a bad lot; simple entertainment, even.

This runs parallel to something I've been saying for a while now: that the monarchy are strategic in their bid for popularity and survival - manoeuvring themselves into the most likeable position. It must be considered - even by the staunchest supporters of the family - that the Windsor family are highly ruthless in their PR and image management and that this isn't automatically for the good of the country but rather for the good of one family's heritage.  I'd be interested to here views on this particular topic.

Graham Smith cautions, vociferously, against falling for this narrative. "They've won if we think they're harmless. What they're trying to do with these big events is promote three key myths that need to be challenged" — and which are the chief reasons that 75%-80% figure stays so steady: that the monarchy unites the country, that it is good for tourism, that it has no power. There isn't the evidence to support their argument for tourism, he argues – look at that Visit Britain memo. Furthermore, it is vital to separate the heritage tourism industry, which is thriving, from the antics of Princes Harry, William, et al: "Buckingham palace would still be there without the monarchy."

I agree with Smith in that it is vital to pick these myths apart and assess them in terms of their reality.  It would be incredibly interesting to start a dedicated thread to the myths of monarchy to discuss how true/false people view them as being.

This respect does not necessarily extend to Charles, and whether or not he succeeds, suggests Tony Benn, might eventually be down not to any kind of (polite) revolution, but to another very old form of British power. "The present system is that when the queen dies there is a meeting of the privy council, a strange body made up of ministers and former minsters. I've been a member since 1964, and it's never once met as a whole body. The privy council's duty is to proclaim 'with one heart, mind and voice' that the heir is the successor." This is in effect, he says, a unanimity rule: "In theory, if one of the members objected, [the succession] would be illegal. I think it's a possibility that has to be considered. There are a number of republicans in the privy council – whether anyone would do it, or it would be accepted as valid, I don't know."

Very interesting.  Shall we started a dedicated thread on this topic?  Could we get mileage out of such a discussion I wonder?

[cinrit]

You're welcome, Orchid.  I thought you would find this one interesting. :)

Cindy

[Limabeany]

  :goodpost: Orchid.

I think to a lesser or greater extent people have started to discuss these subjects but such discussions come to a close because they are presumably taking place on the wrong thread. I think some of these points would provide the basis for very interesting conversations. :thumbsup:

[Orchid]

Glad you agree... I'll set up some individual threads later today - it may make for interesting discussions. :)

[Limabeany]

 :hug: :yesss: :happy20: