Referendum on abolishing monarchy must be held when Queen dies, republicans demand

Referendum on abolishing monarchy must be held when Queen dies, republicans demand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/british-republican-group-calls-for-referendum-on-monarchy-when-queen-dies-a6993216.html

I am not at all certain how serious this article and topic are, but since it sort of came up in another thread...perhaps it needs its own thread.

As a citizen of the USA I have no dog in the hunt, but actually do like the idea of the royal family.

Well, there were the Kennedy's and Bush's...

I guess need to said how the death of queen Elizabeth, who precede her to run uk. since the queen is 90, she live longer than most popes.

it is a big deal, look at the picture of her grandchildren ( can we said, " children of the corn ". )

we know the royal blue blood, the grandchildren doesn't need to marry any peasants. in the picture, there is enough to marry each others. so you know the phase, " keep in the family ".

in America, who really care what happen the old bat croak wear those hats of her. I think americans are interest in them, despite everything. uk is not even close to compare how America government screw up so badly.

Parliament seen so went old fashion and polite in their affairs. when do they get mad at other countries, and go war.

it is kind of amazing, how much control queen and parliament are that despite everything in uk. everybody love the queen, and trust her.

why can we have a queen like that in America?

but, we are stuck with bozo the clown and peanut gallery from howdy doody.

Who each had far more power than QE2.

Not any more they don't, Chaski. Kennedy was murdered by his own people and the Bush's are just ordinary citizens again. Monarchs wear their crown for life. 1952 to 2017 and counting. Now, THAT's public service.

And if you think Elizabeth has no influence in the world, then why has the Donald been trying so desperately to get his own ride down the Mall in the gold state coach..? Thank goodness he isn't going to get it.



At the last UK poll, the monarchy had a 98.7% approval rating. Name me a politician who wouldn't sell his soul for that..?

With that sort of popularity, do these pseudo-republicans really think they'd win..? Nah. And they know it. This "call" is just an attempt to grab the microphone and bring the issue to public attention for any one of a number of possible reasons.

To deflect attention away from our calamitous government, perhaps..? Ditto Brexit..? Ditto the politicians sex scandal..? Ditto the "Paradise Papers" tax avoidance scandal..?

And even in the extremely unlikely event that such a referendum was agreed to by the UK government (Conservative and very, very pro monarchy) occurred, have these people got any idea of how difficult it would be to achieve..?

All the political parties in UK support the monarchy and they know damned well that fighting a general election on an abolitionist ticket is probably the most sure fire way to guarantee that they lose the election. Massively.

For another thing, such a referendum would not be confined to the UK. Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and the Solomon Islands would all have a legitimate say in the matter and in all of those countries, where votes have been taken in the past, retaining the British Monarchy as their head of state has been massively supported at the polls.

At home, Scotland has declared its allegiance to the monarchy even after independence, should that happen. Wales is staunchly pro-monarchy and I think we can pretty much count on the loyalty of Northern Ireland.

And then there would be the legislative and constitutional issues. For goodness sake, leaving the EU means transferring more than 1900 pieces of legislation to British Law which will take years. These people are asking to throw out not just the law but 2000 years of the history, tradition, custom and statutory development that is the cornerstone of every facet of life in UK.

This attempt at pseudo-republican grandstanding is doomed to failure. Sure, when the Queen dies they will again grab the microphone and make a fuss. There will be more "calls", and of course a great deal of press publicity. But when the Archbishop of Canterbury places the Coronation Crown on Charlie's head, the masses will cry out "God Save The King".

And life will go on with the continuity, national unity and stability that the monarchy brings, intact.



What the Queen sees when she stands on her balcony.



The Donald has to hide behind bullet proof glass.


(I used this picture because there's a St Piran Flag in there..!!)

"Public service" is great, but it isn't political power as a ruler, which QE2 has essentially none.



"Influence in the world" is great, but it isn't political power as a ruler, which QE2 has essentially none.

None the less, I am a fan of the royal family... I hope they are kept in their ceremonial role forever... or at least until we humans make ourselves extinct.

I can live with that Chas.

Power isn't everything. Service counts for more. Perhaps that's their appeal. they're not looking for power, which is all about taking, they want to serve, which is about giving.

(the then) Princess Elizabeth made a speech to The Commonwealth on her 21st birthday in 1947 which concluded thus:

I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.

But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.


What politician would make such a vow..? Much less keep it.

As our president proves every day... all day... making America dumber one tweet at a time... endlessly...

Just to be different, what you have claimed to be true isn't. In Australia we had a republic referendum in 1999. The result was 54.87% against and 45.13% for. So not exactly MASSIVE support. Leading up to the referedum polls consistently showed over 60% of Australians supported the country becoming a republic. What republicans couldn't agree on however was what shape that republic should take. For example, how should the president be elected, what powers should he have etc etc etc. In the end the then PM determined (quite rightly IMO) that Australians needed to know what form a republic should take before they went to the polls. And so the referedum was to decide if the ruling monarch and the governor-general should be replaced by a president who would be elected by a two thirds majority in parliament. Many republicans opposed this version of a republic insisting that the public should elect the president. Unable to get their way these republicans ended up campaigning AGAINST the proposed change!

As an aside, ever since 1987 the Australian Electoral Survey has found that consistently btw 60-65% of Australians are in FAVOUR of a republic. In truth though it's only an important issue for a handful of people. The reality is that the ruling monarch is simply a far away figurehead whilst the G-G is essentially there to attend ceremonies and sign off on laws that pass through the houses of parliament.

Personally I find the world’s fascination with the British monarchy in itself both peculiar and perhaps more interesting than the monarchy itself, which, to say, doesn’t interest me much at all.

Not that my little opinion here is in line with everyone else’s, as it is fairly obvious to even the most casual observer like myself that the royal family isn’t going anywhere. At least it seems that way, seeing one of them on at least one tabloid at the checkout lane each and every week since Diana (probably even back further, but I was only a kid then).

Regardless, with Great Britain now a democracy like the rest of Western Civilization, it’s also obvious the royal family is just a pageant show at this point, with little influence in governmental matters, if any. Public service? Maybe, although it’s hard to revere them for it when seeing as living in such sheltered lavishness, at least from a non-adulator like myself.

Just my take though.

I kinda consider 54.87% against 45.13% to be a majority.

In pretty much the same way that a Brexit supporter like yourself considers 52% against 48% to be a valid mandate to take Britain out of the EU.

Funny thing majorities. They cut both ways.

And a fair one at that, Leon.

It is sometimes difficult to quantify exactly what the monarchy does to those who grow up in a Republic and don't know any different.... and indeed, are quite happy with that. That's fair enough.

I'm not knocking Republics. They're a fine exercise in democracy and hey, we have democracy here too..!! In fact, when Charles I insisted on ruling under "The Divine Right of Kings" and completely ignoring Parliament, it started a Civil War which he lost and ended up being beheaded.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Since then, Crown and Parliament have found a system of practices, processes, checks and controls that actually work. The two sit comfortably alongside each other and somehow this old pile of dirt keeps on ticking.

But the central, overriding aspect of a monarchy is that it is apolitical. Nobody voted for the Queen and by the same token, nobody voted against her. A hereditary monarchy doesn't have the same divisive arguments along party lines. There is no "I didn't vote for you."

The entire country is united under one monarch because NOBODY votes for them. They provide a focus for national unity that is above political division.

You shouldn't underestimate the power of this unity and the strength of our national identity.

And we know who our next king will be. Do you know who your next President will be..? Do you have the benefit of knowing what your next head of state after this one will be like as a person...? We know a lot about the future King Charles III. Those old enough have known him since he was a small boy. He's grown up with us all, in the public eye. He's comfortable and familiar. One of the family.

And we know he will do his duty to us - as apolitical as it is - in good conscience. We ask no more, or less, than that.



Oh, and at the risk of going on a bit, perhaps you might like to consider how many of the laws your country has, were written by English Kings.

The Right to Silence.... the presumption of innocence..... trial by jury.... all founded by Henry II.

Habeus Corpus (actually, that was the Barons, but they forced it on King John) and even the word 'Sheriff' comes from the English 'Shire Reeve', the first form of legally trained judges who heard cases and passed lawfully enforceable judgement in the name of the King, also innovated by Henry II.

Recognise these in your legal system..?

Nice try. Only you stated "where votes have been taken in the past, retaining the British Monarchy as their head of state has been MASSIVELY supported at the polls."

So first up...The referendum in Australia was NOT should the Queen be retained as the head of state. The question was should the Queen and G-G be replaced by a president who would be appointed by a two thirds majority of members of parliament. Surely you can see the important difference between the two.

Had the referendum question simply been "should the Queen and G-G be replaced by a president" then it's nigh on certain the majority would have said yes. In the year leading up to the polls support for the Queen remaining as our head of state was less than 40%. Indeed, as previously stated, all of the polls since 1987 have shown a clear majority favour removing the Queen as the head of state. The question in 1999 however was NOT should the Queen be retained as head of state. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, a number of factions within the republican movement urged their supporters to vote no in the referendum. They did so not because they had a sudden change of heart re who should be the head of state but because they didn't believe the head of state should be appointed by politicians.

Secondly...not only was the vote NOT a question of should the Queen be the head of state but the outcome was only 54.87% against the proposed method for electing a president. I don't see how any person could rightfully claim that 54.87% represents anything being "MASSIVELY supported"

One other thing, you state that "where votes have been taken in the past, retaining the British Monarchy as their head of state has been MASSIVELY supported at the polls." I am curious to know what countries have actually held a vote re whether or not the reigning monarch should be the nations head of state.

"For another thing, such a referendum would not be confined to the UK. Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and the Solomon Islands would all have a legitimate say in the matter"

Any referendum re what form of government should the people of the UK have would be a matter for them and them alone. It's not for the people of another country to have any say in whether or not the UK should have a monarch as their head of state.

As an aside, in theory the UK could vote to become a republic whilst countries within the commonwealth who are constitutional monarchs could decide to keep the ruling monarch as their head of state. In reality this is very unlikely to happen, but in theory it could.