Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Republic of Great Britain - think it will ever happen?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:12 PM
Original message
The Republic of Great Britain - think it will ever happen?
You know, demote their Royals so they're nothing more than a fancy name?

Establish a true Republic, where there is no Monarch as head of state?

Seems like a no brainer to me - but I'm a Yank

When I lived in Thailand the royal-worship seemed strange to me too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Royals are not a head of state
they are a figure head nothing more, they have no political power. Hell they don't even vote, because they don't like taking sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah yeah yeah I know, but in all Commonwealth Nations(including the UK) monarch is head of state
On paper only

BUT...if you think about it the Royals are some of the biggest welfare queens in the world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Not unlike much of congress when you think about it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not in the near future anyway, people in the UK like the way it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. More likely Republic of England, Republic of Scotland, Republic of Wales.
I see that scenario is much more likely than a republican federative republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The further confederation of the British Empire...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sure, kid.
Is there anything more arrogant than someone from one culture insisting every other culture look and behave exactly like his?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Everyone judges each other's culture
It's human

I mean, do you really think its right that Saudi Arabia beheads adulterers?

And don't hide behind PC now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Of course we have royalty here, but they just aren't recognized with all of the
pomp and circumstance. Here they work under a secret veil to run the government in their favor and we have a supreme count that endorses it ...

I think they like it the way it is in Great Britain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Most republics have a figurehead president as head of state
That's not really different.

Rightly or wrongly, the feeling seems to be that a figurehead is needed to handle the ceremonial duties of state, while a prime minister does the actual work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. England was a Republic, from 1649 till 1660
It used the Term "Commonwealth of England" but it was a Republic, with Oliver Cromwell as its "Lord Protector".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasProgresive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I'll take Liz II over Oliver (murderous bastard) Cromwell any day. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Anyone who allied with a Cardinal of the Catholic Church can't be all that bad.
In the battle of the Dunes, Cromwell lead his New Model Army on the beaches of France, allied with Cardinal Mazarin against the Spanish forces out of then Spanish Netherlands (Present Day Belgium). The Spanish were supported by the Future British Kings Charles II and his brother, the later King James II.

For more on the Battle of the Dunes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Dunes_%281658%29
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/anglo-spanish-war-flanders.htm

Thus, Cromwell, who was KNOWN not to tolerate Catholics in England proper (Mostly do to the Catholics support for the King against Parliament, and the greater support of Catholics from the poorer elements of English Society) agreed to protect Catholics and their Churches in Dunkirk, which became English as a result of the Battle. The Keys to the City of Dunkirk was given by Louis XIV himself to Cromwell (After the Restoration, Charles II sold it back to Louis XIV to get the money needed to pay off the New Model Army, which had been in arrears as to pay for over ten years. The New Model Army refused to disburse till its was paid, and until it disbursed it was the main power in England).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. As it turned out, it was an Inter-Regnum. HA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. So was the First and Second French Republic
And, the Third Republic only remained a Republic was the then heir to the French Throne refused to be crowned under the Tri-Color, if he had agreed, it would have been the second restoration of the French Throne (If we ignore Napoleon's 100 days that divided up the rule of Louis XVIII). By the time that heir died, the Third Republic was well-established and the push to bring back the King was finished (For the time period, it comes back every so often even in the 20th Century).

In some ways, the Fifth Republic is more an elected King then a true Republic, that is what De-Gaulle thought France needed and what he agreed to when he came back to power in the late 1950s and formed the Fifth Republic after the short lived Post WWII Fourth Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why? Honestly... Why? And how many Brits have you asked your question of?
I've asked LOTS and have NEVER had one say they were ready to see the Royal Family abolished from daily British life. Not one.

Why do you care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. Do you have a problem also with Belgium, Spain, Monaco, et al.?
Edited on Sun May-01-11 06:30 PM by WinkyDink
Spain:


Belgium:


Monaco:


Sweden:


Norway:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I think that Sweden guy lives down the block from me
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. We have our own variation of monarchy in the USA...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. I dunno bout that one but some would say the kennedys were like royalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Yes, but they don't get pushed at me as often.
Juan Carlos should be credited for what he did in 1975.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
20. Bad for tourism...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Wrong. Turning Buckingham Palace into a park and museum would be GREAT for tourism.
Did you know that a UK Legoland attracts more tourists than a nearby royal palace?

Obviously Legoland should be made the titular sovereign of the UK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. You';d have to hire a cast to walk around wearing the gowns and jewelry...
...sort of like Disneyland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
22. The Royals are nothing more than a fancy name ALREADY.
Nothing more than celebrities there, just like we have here with Michael Jackson or whatever.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. YEAH they need a PRESIDENT, SENATE, and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES just like the US of A
and that goes for all those other non-American countries out there. Yee Ha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. No: The weaker the royals, the more popular they get.
They're just harmless celebrities now, even the most ardent Monarchist doesn't believe that they actually determine government policy. Hence, people don't blame them when stuff goes wrong, and they get to throw a big party every now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC