Posted 20 hours ago

Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
Joined in 2023

About this deal

These days I take some pride in being considered the most anti-monarchy person one of my friends knows. For the purposes of transparency, I'll state that I've been anti-monarchist for my entire adult life. Graham Smith been involved with the republican cause for twenty years, employed as Republic’s lead campaigner and CEO since 2005. The British Monarchy appears so invincible and unassailable that it’s defenders are getting complacent. The book also sets out a clear blueprint, not just of what kind of republic we should aspire to be – something that is often lacking in other republican texts – but also of the road to that republic.

I am in favour of a republic, but I am not entirely convinced by his arguments for keeping the Westminster system of democracy.Furthermore, if those who decide the allocations of the real and unreal are cruel, mad or colossally wrong, what then? Constitutional reformers who demand an elected upper house, or electoral reform, are often missing one of the main fault lines in our political system: founded on monarchy, we are still governed using the outdated toolkit of a monarchy, regardless of whether or not it is the King himself who wields power. Although he is committed enough to the republican cause to lay down his freedom for it, there is something not altogether serious about the book he has produced. When The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy was published 35 years ago and until very recently, the British monarchy seemed pretty unassailable. There is no engagement with the writings of the German historian Ernst Kantorowicz, who exposed the sophistication of monarchical conceptions of the state.

The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself.How we get there and where we end up are crucial issues that must be addressed if we’re to get people away from the dead-end debates about tourism, celebrity and warring royal houses. Rather than the monarchy defending the constitution and, by implication, the British people, it has been the responsbility of subjects to defend the monarch not from injustice or tyranny, but from embarrassment. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Thus many of the pro-monarchy arguments mentioned sounded very familiar from discussions I've had, e. Royal Consent laws allow for senior Royals access to legislation at the drafting phase to make sure they don’t compromise their private interests.

The Queen was their heat shield, able to deflect even the most serious questions and accusations, unable to do wrong in the eyes of much of the media and political class and, if she did, not someone many dared to criticise publicly. I wish Smith's book had been around much earlier, I would not have wasted time waiting to take up the cause; I would have started years ago. monarchy represents the unelected rule of the disproportionately privileged over those who suffer due to economic inequality.He sets out a vision for the future that I could see easily dismissed by critics because he isn't a politician and so can't possibly know how the parliamentary machine could work. There is a growing appetite for answers to the questions that are raised when people turn away from the monarchy: what’s the alternative, how do I talk about this issue with other people, what are the facts I need to know about the monarchy, and can we really get rid of it? This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority. One of the stronger passages examines the prorogation affair of 2019 and the paralysis that overcame the queen as she struggled to reconcile her role of constitutional backstop with the expectation that the monarch do nothing to impede an elected government. an unwritten constitution is not as flexible as we think, and a written one is much more flexible than we think.

While Nairn's book is dense, academic, and fatalistic (still great though), Smith's is accessible, journalistic, and optimistic. As with many books, I imagine, the publication timing is selected deliberately because it might benefit sales. The book is not only an insult to the royal family and their supporters, but also to the intelligence and common sense of the reader. On the day of Charles III's coronation, he was arrested on suspicion of carrying "locking-on devices" and spent the rest of the day in a cell. While he does admit that the Union may not survive long enough to see a republic, he does appear to, ultimately, want our current political and economic system to stay mostly the same, but with the royal cyphers filed off.Could also be said for the supporters of his point of view but it is effectively a donation in part if it goes unread. They aren't accountable to anyone, and yet between them they are privy to more government secrets than many cabinet ministers. But what is new is a public less tolerant and more critical of that behaviour and the family's loss of their trump card, the Queen. Thomas Paine does get a mention, though one is left with the suspicion that Smith’s acquaintance with him comes via The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations rather than Rights of Man, since he is invoked merely to make the point that the appearance of something being correct doesn’t make it so.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment