Watching Cromwell again last night, I am left with the thought of how daring it was at that time to create a republic.
-
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.
-