TIME FOR A REPUBLIC NOW?
By Duncan Richard Shaw
Madrid, 9 September 2022
Amidst all the (globalized) grief at the passing away of Elizabeth II, I would just like to ask you one simple question: wouldn’t a republic be better?
Cheaper, more logical, cheaper, more egalitarian, more ‘advanced’, modern, democratic?
Less elitist, unpredictable (nobody knows how Charles III will interpret his role), sexist, racist (according to Meghan Markle)?
It’s true that only 22 per cent of British ‘subjects’ (myself included) would prefer an elected head of state at the moment, but that number has been growing in the past 30 years: with all the idiocy surrounding Charles, Diana, Camila, Andrew, Harry…
And the number of British republics may well increase in the next two weeks, when people see the expense of the funeral and the coronation – not to mention the carbon footprint….
Yes, tourists love the monarchy. I remember on my first visit to London, at the age of five in 1967, having to push our way through packs of Norwegians, Germans and Italians to catch a glimpse of Buckingham Palace and the changing of the guard.
But the country which attracts most tourists is France not Britain (tenth on the list), and we all know what the French did with their monarchy in 1789…
Isn’t it true that the ‘intelligent’ countries (France, USA, Germany, Italy, Greece, Russia, etc) have all adopted a republican system?
For my sins, I’m actually the ‘subject’ of two monarchies (I have both British and Spanish citizenship). Moreover, I actually have three kings to support with my taxation (one British and two Spanish) – not to mention their countless relatives, hangers-on, camp followers, servants, drivers, security guards…
I have never been asked, in Britain or Spain, whether I prefer a monarchy or a republic. Could we have a referendum one day, please?
I will concede that Elizabeth carried out her role with quiet dignity. But what exactly was her role? Britain’s ridiculous ‘unwritten constitution’ has, obviously, never spelled that out. Which means that her finances and taxation were never clear, and that she had a well-concealed capacity to alter any projected law which might affect her privileges and wealth.
The film The Queen showed just how opaque and confusing her constitutional role really was. Did Prime Minister Tony Blair have the right to insist that Her Majesty attended the funeral of Diana, in 1997, or not?
The film showed just how difficult, not to say impossible, was the job of being an ‘apolitical’ constitutional monarch.
I have always believed in the sovereignty of the people rather than that of a monarch, ever since reading Plato’s Republic at the age of 12.
In 1981, to avoid all the idiocy surrounding the wedding of Charles and the unfortunate Diana, I escaped to America: to work as a ‘soccer coach’ at a hilarious teenage summer camp.
I always point out to my students both the pros and cons of a monarchy, without overlooking the fact that (just as Immanuel Kant had predicted more than a century earlier) monarchical pride was a massive factor in the advent of World War One in 1914; instead of calming down the tense European situation in the ‘July Crisis’, the three cousins (George, William and Nicholas) actually pushed for a military ‘solution’…
So: am I right to prefer a republic to a monarchy? Who wants to defend the system of monarch?
As always: your comments, please…
Of course, the republic makes much more sense, especially in the XXI century but l agree that this matter should be decided via a referendum. I am not sure, however, that the political elite wants to call a referendum soon. Talking about the pros and cons of monarchies and republics, l remember the ridiculous case of Bulgaria in 2001 when the former King Simeon ll became the new Prime Minister. Curiously, after leaving office he insisted on being referred to as a king even though he had to renounce his royal claims and title in order to become a Prime Minister in 2001.
You are right a republic is more logical in all terms but in the case of Britain monarchy is a turist attraction. Difficult to imagine Britain without monarchy.
I agree British should have a referendum, especially now when Elizabeth II has died.
You asked: time for republic now?
Perhaps not yet. Who will substutude royal family being the greatest British entertainment material ? Oh well, joke aside , as far as I know majority (not all of course) of British people view their current monarchy as a force for peace, national unification , belonging and what it is to be British. All good stuff so far.
D.Shaw: "wouldn’t a republic be better?
Cheaper, more logical, cheaper, more egalitarian, more ‘advanced’, modern, democratic?"
Sure, but without militarization, fanaticism, guns"rights", organized religion, putinizm, dictatorship... would be also more logical, cheaper
, ....right? Nor a pragmatic argument. Especially when you mentioned Russia as an intelligent republic I truly lost you. A numerous number of republics are book examples of undemocratic systems of government like Russia, China Republic, DDR in the past. God forbid Trump like Republic, as the saying goes :).
I certainly think British people will abolish monarchy one day and it won't turn into the above mentioned "Republic".
The logical conclusion of events over the past 400 years from English constitutional history is to see a London based republic. Given the inveterate conservative nature of the English, however, I fear this may take another 400 years!
With this in mind, perhaps Plato’s benevolent dictator from the Republic might be a better option. We could offer Caroline Lucas the role.
What's best for the interests of Britons? What's best for British economy? What's the actual sentiment among Brits on having or not having a monarch? I'll try to give an answer to all these three questions.
In my opinion both a monarchy or a republic are good options to represent the interests of the country, providing that the actual monarch or head of state does things right and he or she is well trained and motivated for the job.
In regard to the nation's economy, either option is equally expensive, I think. It doesn't matter whether the expense comes from a monarch or from the president of a republic. Brits would have to chip in either way.
In the end any possible change of the current status quo will be based on emotions. Will Brits go for a referendum anytime soon? It doesn't seem to me that's the way the country is heading to, but who knows? Maybe things change in the coming future. It all depends on what people really want.
I agree - I think they are a waste of money and serve no real purpose except for attracting tourists to London. Tell that to my Mum, though; she's a royal gossip addict!!
The monarchy has its pros and cons.
Pros:
In the UK and Spain the monarchy is a factor of bond between people.
The monarchy, at least in England, atracts a lot of tourist that means a huge amount of profits.
There is no election cost.
Among the cons are the Royal families and their relatives often have a very expensive lifestyle.
All things considered, it is better to keep the sistem as it is, in the above mentioned countries.
The monarchy has its cons and pros.
Cons: Royal families and their relatives often have a very expensive lifestyle.
Pros:
In the UK and Spain, the monarchy is a factor of bond between people.
The monarchy in England atracts a lot of tourist that means a huge amount of profits.
There is no election cost.
So all things considered and for the time being, it is better to keep the system as it is in the above mentioned countries.
The best defence of constitutional monarchy is essentially the Winston Churchill case for democracy - there are plenty of things you can say against it but it has still performed better than the alternatives. As Ed West summarises here https://edwest.substack.com/p/the-rational-case-for-monarchy a comparison between constitutional monarchies and its absolutist and republican rivals shows a clear pattern.
Your chances of staying alive and unmolested have generally been far higher with a ceremonial monarch. There are plenty of exceptions, of course (the USA, most strikingly) but it is striking that the anglophone countries have a very strong record in establish relatively stable democracies: India, Australia, Canada being obvious examples.
As Orwell pointed out, support for the monarchy has always strong in traditional working class communities. Is this 'false consciousness' as Marx described beliefs he didn't like? Or an identification with an institution that symbolises a shared history.
Finally, the world remains enthralled by and largely affectionate towards the House of Windsor. The Irish, the French and the Americans may be solidly opposed to the idea of the Crown but they watched the funeral in huge numbers and I suspect do the same for the next series