Republicanism

Germany is truly beautiful, Charlotta. We've only visited a couple of times, but will be returning this year for a few days. The first time we went, our tour-bus driver's sat-nav let him down rather! We were in the Black Forest and ended up on a logging track, heading upwards through hills (at night-time) - taking very tight corners here and there. He managed to turn the bus at the top of a hill, and on heading down again, met a tiny Fiat - the look on that driver's face will stay with me for a long time.....horrified fascination may describe it - a large blue bus with white-faced, grey-headed passengers staring out...!

I was visiting my brother in Germany and we stayed in Potsdam, near Berlin. This is the seat of the German royal family and we visited an exhibition about Friedrich II in the castle he built in 1756. Potsdam is a lovely city - was in East Germany till 1989. It is in the river Havel lakes and is surrounded by castles which we know from Grimms Fairy tales! The Communists didn't fell trees either so all over there are woods and avenues of tall ancient trees.

You see few British tourists but English is spoken. It is really a pity that due to the anti German feelings still propagated by the cheap press that the Brits don't know what a beautiful country Germany is. Now worse due to them being in the semi final at football.
Glad to be back on GN.

Hi, Charlotta! Have you been somewhere lovely?

Nice to have you back charlotta

Hope you had a nice holiday.

I'm back again after a holiday - away from the internet as well. I have always been a republican as my mother was one. Before we even knew the word. Back in the 50s my mother continued her gardening when all the street passed by on their way to see the queen who drove past the top of the road.
I was too young to fully understand and didn't like having a mother who behaved differently.

I began to feel sickened by it all at Diana's funeral and knew so many people who said the same, but we were ignored by the media who had a field day and filled their newspapers and TV programmes without having much work to do.

Things haven't changed much and as long as she lives they won't. She will probably out live us all.
Nice to be back.....

Look what happened to Charles I.

Dunno, nag, but I kind of reckon they'd have to if the monarch threatened the authority of parliament. Only one way to find out: bring it on, as when says.

Bags isn't the monarch only subservient to parliament through recent custom and practice? I agree, bring it on and let Charles try throwing his weight around and we'll soon see a constitution that becomes more republican than at present.

Sorry, Bags, but can you really see any government trying to oust a monarch?

Actually, it might bring things to crisis if he is. Carry on being stoopid, Charlie.

The monarch is 'subservient' to parliament (rubber stamper). Any monarch that tried to push its weight around too much would get kicked out. Surely Charles isn't that stupid.

absent I take your point, but there is no law to prevent the monarch interfering in politics, and we don't have a written constitution. Charles has said on more than one occasion that he sees himself as an activist and there is a concern that his prerogative of 'advising' the prime minister when he succeeds the throne would become unbalanced in his favour if we had a weak prime minister.

In terms of society accepting privilege and power being assumed by anyone with a penchant for seizing such opportunities, we are a gullible nation if we don't challenge these issues. Look how quickly Europe has assumed powers that our country once had. I would happily integrate with a democratic, republican Europe, but not one that has oppressive leaders and cultures even less fair than the UK.

We also need a like button! like and agree with your comment absent

when The monarch doesn't really have power and has influence only if the PM is willing to listen and pay attention. However one wonders if the PoW's endless green-ink-style letters simply wear down their recipients' resistance. My concern is more to do with society's acceptance of privilege, whether by birth, appointment, money or whatever, resulting in a blind eye being turned to unfairness, injustice, inequality, etc, as well as social mobility (which should perhaps be renamed social paralysis, these days). That is what I meant earlier about street parties and the pageant being bread and circuses. The happy masses are distracted – for far longer than just the one weekend – from serious concerns about the state of the society in which we live and the direction in which it is going.

absent you're right. How can any individual who has no notion of what normal citizens live like be placed in a position of power over them?

I think it is quite worrying that in addition to an hereditary monarchy and an unelected second chamber, the idea of meritocracy (as if it were a good thing) seems to have taken hold. This bodes ill for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and is likely to reduce our already declining level of social mobility. I also find it interesting, if curious, that a man who has to have half a dozen eggs boiled for his breakfast so that he can find exactly the right texture and who employs someone to squeeze the toothpaste on to his toothbrush, should suddenly enjoy a rush of popularity and support for his future kingship.

Back to thread. I agree with ariadne and others who have expressed the same/similar views. The monarchy is an anachronism.

Oh but anno, that's half the fun! (rising to bait and being fished )

Annobel

I was sticking to it Ariadne but someone took exception to my mode of expression. We need to refer it to pedants' corner. I promise not to rise to the bait again. [penitent emoticon]

Can we not stick to the thread, just for once? Please? (asking nicely because don't want head bitten off)

How I wish we had a tongue in cheek emoticon. The nearest thing is but it doesn't quite do it.

I don't like it either, jingl...(unless the person saying it is an American Jew)

Time-out, jingl. or

As I understand it, the Oath of Allegiance, to which all military personnel swear, is to the Queen, and not to any government. So it is a sort of fail safe, which, in theory, precludes a government controlling the military. (??? Afghanistan?!) Does it work?

In a way, the principle is a good one, but in a written, democratic constitution, the Head of State need not be a person of accidental, hereditary privilege and wealth, but one chosen by the people.

The pageantry is fun and interesting, but also emotive, given its links. It could be kept alive in an historical events calendar.

Democracy means that those who have more should not have the immediate right to dictate to those who have less. Wealth does not mandate power. (CF CofE, RC church, etc. etc. but that's another issue.