Watching Cromwell again last night, I am left with the thought of how daring it was at that time to create a republic.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Cromwell
zooeyhall — 18 years ago(December 25, 2007 07:33 AM)
Watching Cromwell again last night, I am left with the thought of how daring it was at that time to create a republic. I mean, that was a very radical idea back in those days.
As an American, I sometimes scratch my head at the idea as to why Great Britain still has a monarchy. Other than being celebrities, they just don't seem to do much. And they seem rather expensive to maintain.
Sometimes I think you Brits keep a monarchy as another tourist attraction.
I'm not trying to be impertinent, because Queen Elizabeth seems to be a very nice person. But it would be great if some British readers of this post enlighten the rest of us on why Great Britain still has a monarchy. Is there any Republican sentiment in Britain? Which segments in British society support a monarchy?
AlsoI am curious as to just what form a republic in Great Britain would take. Would you still have a parliament? A prime minister? What would happen to the (former) royalty? Would there be a national referendum on whether the country was to be a republic or monarchy? What would be the likely vote if such a referendum were held tomorrow? -
Hammerfanatic46 — 18 years ago(March 01, 2008 04:00 AM)
Gordon P. Clarkson
While I was once a republican in my Youth,I am now inclined to beleve that the most stable Democracies in the World tend to be Constitutional Monarchies.
The Institution of Monarchy provides a sense of stability and continuity while Governments and Politicians come and go.It is also a non-partisan focus for National Unity.In this sense ,the Monarchy helped Britain through World War Two and in Spain, helped that Nation pass from Dictatorship to Democracy in the 1970s.
The Monarchy remains popular with most people of all classes in the UK I think it is fair to say,although of course,there are some republicans and I think that is healthy.
As You may know,Britain is a Union of Four Nations and there is no Constitutional basis for changing to a Republic .It would be an immensley complicated matter.
In the event it seems likely that The UK may be in a slow process of breaking up (for quite unrelated reasons)anyway,so it is possible that the Currant Monarch may be the last of a United Kingdom. -
Sphinxara — 14 years ago(July 21, 2011 11:03 AM)
While I was once a republican in my Youth,I am now inclined to beleve that the most stable Democracies in the World tend to be Constitutional Monarchies.
Tell that to Switzerland, one of the most stable countries in the world. And a republic. Britain is at present a constitutional monarchy, and we're in a right mess, politically speaking, with people champing at the bit to denigrate the status quo and the decisions our leaders (who hold executive power by virtue of the crown) make.
The Institution of Monarchy provides a sense of stability and continuity while Governments and Politicians come and go.It is also a non-partisan focus for National Unity.In this sense ,the Monarchy helped Britain through World War Two and in Spain, helped that Nation pass from Dictatorship to Democracy in the 1970s.
Monarchists always seem to argue, without thinking, that the monarchy has been crucial for continuity and the stability of the country. For a start, one must ask whether it is right to celebrate continuity for the sake of continuity. One must also ask what exactly it is that has been continued: is it the monarchys abusive attitude towards democracy that were supposed to be celebrating, or its extortionate cost, or its encouragement of an addiction to nostalgia? Continuity for the sake of continuity is not something that should be commended; it should be condemned because it is often counter-productive and prevents progress (how many computer-literate people would continue to use a typewriter instead of a word processor for the sake of continuity)?
To argue that a monarchy is the thing that has provided stability for any country is not just wrong but phenomenally insulting to its people. Why is Britain stable (in comparison to many countries)? Surely it is down to the fact that were economically strong in relative terms. Surely it is down to the fact that there is a general sense of respect and tolerance of people in this country so that most people arent prepared to plunder the buildings of Jews or lynch blacks from trees and vote for extremist parties. Surely it is down to the fact that we have strong allies in Europe and the world and are prepared to cooperate diplomatically. The idea that the monarchy also helped Britain through the War is, I'm afraid, also a complete insult to the real leaders and soldiers who fought and died during the conflict.
As for the monarch providing a non-partisan 'focus for unity'; well, there are two points here. The first question is this: what is the importance of impartiality in an office that has no function or power? Impartiality is required in public office so that we know decisions are taken and powers are used in accordance with public interest and in line with laid down rules and expectations. If there is no role to play it matters not one bit if the monarch is impartial or not. If the monarch were to have no constitutional power she could say and do as she pleases because the politicians could ignore and/or challenge what she says and believes. In fact in terms of being a purely ceremonial figurehead, someone who claims to represent the nation, impartiality could only be argued to be important if the person is unaccountable and appointed from birth, as we would expect them to play act as an impartial figure and remain silent so we can carry on with that pretence. We would do this because we cant hold them to account or choose someone else. So rather than choose someone who actually represents our values and beliefs we require the monarch to stay silent so we can pretend she does represent our values and beliefs. It therefore doesnt make sense to say the office must be hereditary in order to assure impartiality if impartiality is only need if the office is hereditary.
With regard to the monarch somehow magically creating a sense of unity - well, with respect, this is a fairly meaningless statement. Anything can be a symbol of continuity and statehood and anything can provide a sense of unity, principally unity itself. Ultimately stability and unity are the products of a healthy democracy and prosperous society. They have little to do with feudal institutions or heads of state.
The Monarchy remains popular with most people of all classes in the UK I think it is fair to say,although of course,there are some republicans and I think that is healthy.
The monarchy is not as popular as you think. The truth is that we don't know exactly how popular a republican constitution would be until we put it to the British people after a period of full and open debate. Aside from direct arguments about the monarchy, there is a clear demand for a new relationship between individuals and government.
As You may know,Britain is a Union of Four Nations and there is no Constitutional basis for changing to a Republic .It would be an immensley complicated matter.
Many countries have changed their governmental structures in modern history. It's not an insurmountable thing to do, and would, arguably, prov -
PeterCotton — 17 years ago(April 10, 2008 09:50 AM)
As an American, I'd prefer to have a monarchy under Charles I opposed to "republic" under Cromwell where religious minorities are exterminated. Without the principles of liberty, "Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to eat for dinner." - Benjamin Franklin
-
cromwell1641 — 17 years ago(January 09, 2009 10:43 AM)
Depends what kind of a republic you are talking about. England under Cromwell was more of a dictatership in modern terms. One third of Cromwell's army up until he won the war were called Levellers now they are the true repulicans as in they belived in elected head of state. Howerever when Cromwell won the war in 1649 he had all the leaders of Levellers inprisoned or murdered. The when Charles 2 was brought back to the throne in 1660 he had the rest of Levellers's removed. The ones that survied went to live in the 13 colonies, you can guess what happed after that.
-
stvdogg — 16 years ago(June 09, 2009 07:27 AM)
Cromwell himself was part of a religious minority. He did believe in religious liberty for 'everyone who professed faith in Jesus Christ'. He was often disturbed at Parliament's intolerance and although his own tolerance didn't extend to Catholics or Prelatists, it's not right to say Cromwell persecuted minorities; in fact he was one of the only men of his time to advocate liberty of conscience. He even let the Jews back into Britain during his rule as Lord Protector.
I'm the guy who starts the 'worst movie ever' thread on your favourite film's message board. -
keeleboy — 16 years ago(August 18, 2009 10:01 AM)
The vote would be overwhelmingly ignored by a disinterested populous, more than likely, but I think it would vote to retain the royal family.
Firstly, there is absolutely no need to change anything. People aren't starving, we're not particularly oppressed by the Royals in anyway and life simply wouldn't be any different whether we had a pointless elected head of state (like Italy or India) or a stable, fairly popular monarchy with limited (or no) powers like Holland or Denmark.
Secondly, it's not so much a tourist attraction as an institution that has proved popular with the world. What better requirement for a head of state is there? She's recognised all over the globe, and people follow stories of the royalty everywhere (I've seen positive and fawning news reports in republican India as well as monarchical Jordan).
Thirdly, it would require a change in the law in every country where she is head of state, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc.
Most people simply aren't affected by the actions of the royal family. But on state occasions, and for state institutions, people like having royal patronage, links with royalty, relationships with royalty.
And as for being expensive to maintain: each person pays 69p for the upkeep of the monarchy. Pretty cheap when you consider it's an intrical part of our heritage and sense of nationhood. -
michelle_31 — 16 years ago(August 23, 2009 06:52 AM)
Also, considering the USA seem to be in a near-perpetual electoral state (what with the primaries and the year-long buildup to elections), it could be arguled that American-style republicaism is no bargain cost-wise compared to maintaining the British Monarchy.
As well I like the idea of the Monarch being (at least theoretically) capable of putting the brakes on a leader wun amok I have to wonder if Bush Jr. would have been able to get away with so many downright illegal activities if there had been a Monarch able to remove him from office. Granted a Monarch removing an elected PM/President from office would no doubt raise a constitutional ruckus, but it does provide a safeguard of sorts. -
SteveResin — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 02:08 PM)
Firstly, there is absolutely no need to change anything. People aren't starving, we're not particularly oppressed by the Royals in anyway
I beg to differ, as thousands of food banks in Britain will testify. As for not being oppressed by the Royals, I'll counter that we are indeed oppressed financially if nothing else by them. The cost of maintaining this privelaged, outdated concept could be used to fill countless hospitals with nurses and doctors. As for the argument that they "finance themselves through tourism", I doubt the tourists would stop flocking to all the royal historical sites if we became a republic. It's 2015, we put men into space and live in a high speed digital era, it's completely bewildering to me that this absurd monarchism still exists.
Duty Now For The Future -
Master_X_3_1_1 — 16 years ago(September 12, 2009 09:27 PM)
As a Canadian I would say the reason we have a monarchy here is that the only people who care about it are the minority of ones who support it, the rest of the people don't care at all.
"No man is just a number" -
Hammerfanatic46 — 12 years ago(April 10, 2013 07:45 AM)
No in reality they cannot.A PM has to have the support of a majority in Parlliament,the Monarch merely appoints the leader of the party or parties,who have won such a majority.Since the introduction of modern democracy no PM has been dismissed by the Monarch.
Gordon P. Clarkson -
Kawada_Kira — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 12:50 AM)
Monarchy is a legacy of feudalism that should have been abolished everywhere long ago. It's a fundamentally elitist and anti-democratic institution that directly contradicts any concept of democracy. It's centuries out of date at this point. Whether absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy, it's a repugnant, backwards, reactionary institution that should no longer exist.
The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of history.
-Mao Zedong -
zooeyhall — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 06:04 AM)
Monarchy may have its drawbacks. But it certainly cannot compare to the millions killed by one of history's greatest mass-murderers like Mr. Mao (whom you quote so admiringly). Millions killed and repressed in the name of some nebulous and vague concept of "class struggle".
-
Kawada_Kira — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 09:46 AM)
Lol monarchy hasn't killed millions? What was the British Empire, a giant chess club? How many millions were killed all over the Americas, Africa, Australia, the Pacific and Asia by the monarchs of the colonial empires of Europe? How many tens of millions did the Spanish and Portuguese kings massacre in their conquest of the Americas and in the enslavement of the indigenous peoples afterward? How many Africans were killed by the European slave trade? How many Jews and Muslims, and Christians of differing sects, were slaughtered in Europe over the centuries by its monarchs? How many peasants died in pointless wars over which particular king should rule over and exploit them? How many people did the Mongol khans kill when they rampaged across Eurasia? How many serfs and slaves died of exploitation, oppression and poverty under the rule of feudal lords and kings? How many were massacred when the Crusaders, under the direction of Europe's kings, pillaged and raped and burned their way across the Middle East and Eastern Europe? If you're going to blame Mao for people who died from famine due to droughts and crop failures (because apparently he should have waved his magic wand and controlled the weather), then what do you have to say about the engineered famines the British caused in Ireland and India and the millions they killed? What do you have to say about the uncountable millions who died of hunger across Europe and Asia over the centuries while the kings and nobles remained fat and healthy on the food that the starving peasants themselves produced? What do you have to say about the 10-15 million Congolese killed when King Leopold of Belgium ruled the Congo as his personal property (not even the property of the Belgian state, but of the king himself) and turned it into the world's largest slave plantation, working its people to death to the point that the Congo was nearly depopulated? And how many people did the Japanese emperors slaughter across the Asia-Pacific region from 1895 to 1945 in their campaign to turn Japan into the Europe of the East, modeling their own empire after those of the West and building it in much the way the Western kings had done?
Are these the "drawbacks" of monarchy, as you so gently put it? A thousand years of oppression, exploitation and bloodletting within Europe and across the globe, through serfdom, violent repression, torture, slavery, pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, engineered famines, devastating wars of conquest, genocides and colonialism are "drawbacks"? Oh but no "millions killed", no sir, that was the commies
By the way, the Marxist concept of class struggle is anything but vague. Maybe you'd know that if you'd actually read a word of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao before talking about it. As for repression, Mao rarely wielded violence against his enemies, preferring education over coercion. If Mao was such a murderer, then how did people like Deng Xiaoping and his supporters, whom Mao openly identified as enemies of the revolution, manage to survive and take power and reverse all of Mao's egalitarian policies when Mao's body had barely gone cold?
And how many lives did Mao save by establishing a socialist system that provided its people with universal housing, universal healthcare, universal employment? You talk about the people that died in the one famine that took place in Maoist China, but you don't mention the fact that it was the very last in a long line of frequent Chinese famines going back thousands of years *, because the communist land reform that redistributed the land from feudal landlords to the people successfully put an end to Chinese famines forever. Mao's policies literally doubled China's life expectancy, which was 32 when he came to power and 65 when he died. Kinda strange for a "mass murderer" to double his people's life expectancy in the space of 25 years. How many lives did Mao save by such measures? And can any monarchs in history claim similar achievements on behalf of the people?- Under monarchs, by the way, but I guess you only count famine deaths as atrocities when they happen under communists; the hundreds of famines and many millions of deaths under Chinese monarchs apparently don't count, because of the necessary inconsistency of anti-communist logic.
The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of history.
-Mao Zedong
- Under monarchs, by the way, but I guess you only count famine deaths as atrocities when they happen under communists; the hundreds of famines and many millions of deaths under Chinese monarchs apparently don't count, because of the necessary inconsistency of anti-communist logic.
-