Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Republican Society

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    *Ahem*

    Welcome to the TSR Republican Society.

    We believe in a true, fair, and equal democratic system in Britain.

    We are against inherited position and privilege, and believe that the monarchy should be put where it belongs - into the history books.

    We believe that there are millions of British people good enough to become the Head of State, and that the British people as a whole are good enough to find those people.

    We believe that we should be able to tell our kids that maybe, if they are good enough, and if they work hard enough, just maybe one day they could become our Head of State.

    Please use the 'Ask A Republican' thread for questions!!
    Republicans - show your support at The Republic Campaign website!
    • 72 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Excellent thread, I'm proud to be a member of this society.

    I yearn for the day where we will live in a constitutional British Republic and have a democratically elected head of state.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How is the British Monarchy "racist", according to your group description? There is nothing to stop a Prince of Wales from marrying an ethnic minority, producing a mixed race heir, the mixed race heir marrying an ethnic minority, and so on. There is no rule stating that a British Monarch can only be white, or that the Royal Family can only marry white people.

    I think using the term "racist" weakens your agenda, because it's simply attempting to provoke an emotional reaction.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to echo the fact that this is an excellent thread, and that I'm proud to be a member of this society.

    Just to explain the position of Republicans better (for example none of us wish for William and Kate have to have an awful marriage which ends in divorce etc) and importantly, debunk the numerous myths which often surround keeping a monarchy (such as tourism for example), I thought I would post the below article, as it protrudes to partly to what I stand for in joining this group;

    (Original post by The Independent)
    Republicans are not the Grinch, trying to ruin the 'big day' for William and Kate. We are proposing a positive vision

    Okay, let's cut a deal here. If Britain can afford to spend tens of millions of pounds on the royal wedding, we have to spend an equal amount distributing anti-nausea pills across the land – to all of us who can't bear to see our country embarrass itself in this way. Don't let the Gawd-bless-you-ever-so-'umbly-yer-Majesty tone of the media coverage fool you. Most British people are benignly indifferent to the wedding of William Windsor and Kate Middleton. The 20 percent of us who are republicans, like me, have it slightly worse. We will suffer that face-flushing, stomach-shriveling embarrassment that strikes when somebody you love – your country – starts to behave in a deeply weird way in a public place.

    Of course, when two people get married, it's a sweet sight. Nobody objects to that part. On the contrary: republicans are the only people who would let William Windsor and Kate Middleton have the private, personal wedding they clearly crave, instead of turning them into stressed-out, emptied-out marionettes of monarchy that are about to jerk across the stage. We object not to a wedding, but to the orgy of deference, snobbery, and worship for the hereditary principle that will take place before, during and after it.
    Related articles

    In most countries, parents can tell their kids that if they work hard and do everything right, they could grow up to be the head of state and symbol of their nation. Not us. Our head of state is decided by one factor, and one factor alone: did he pass through the womb of one aristocratic Windsor woman living in a golden palace? The US head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps. The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps. Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?

    No, it's not the biggest problem we have. But it does have a subtly deforming effect on Britain's character that the ultimate symbol of our country, our sovereign, is picked on the most snobbish criteria of all: darling, do you know who his father was? Kids in Britain grow up knowing that we all bow and curtsy in front of a person simply because of their unearned, uninteresting bloodline. This snobbery subtly soaks out through the society, tweaking us to be deferential to unearned and talentless wealth, simply because it's there.

    We live with a weird cognitive dissonance in Britain. We are always saying we should be a meritocracy, but we shriek in horror at the idea that we should pick our head of state on merit. Earlier this month, David Cameron lamented that too many people in Britain get ahead because of who their parents are. A few minutes later, without missing a beat, he praised the monarchy as the best of British. Nobody laughed. Most monarchists try to get around this dissonance by creating – through sheer force of will – the illusion that the Windsor family really is steeped in merit, and better than the rest of us. This is a theory that falls apart the moment you actually hear Charles Windsor speak.

    The claims then drift even further from reality. We are told that the Windsor family is great for tourism. In fact, of the top 20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one is related to the monarchy – Windsor Castle, at number 17. Ten places ahead is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man our head of state.

    Then we are told the monarchy is a "great defender of democracy". As a logical proposition, this is almost self-refuting: to protect our democracy, we must refuse to democratically choose our head of state. But more importantly, for people who talk a lot about "respecting" our history, it is startlingly historically illiterate. The last monarch but one – Edward VIII – literally conspired with Adolf Hitler to run this country as a Nazi colony. It's only pure luck that he happened to have fallen in love with an American divorcee and had already quit the throne. That's the point about monarchy: you get whatever happens to squelch out of the royal womb. It might be a democrat, or it might – as it was two monarchs ago – be a vain and vicious enemy of democracy. To suggest it will dependably and always be one or the other is daft.

    We have also invented a strange series of mental tics to protect the monarchy. Mention a republic and lots of people give the Pavlovian snap-back: "Hah! So you want President Thatcher do you? President Blair?" There is an odd assumption behind this. Did the presence of a hereditary monarch stop Thatcher or Blair doing anything they wanted to do? No. Nothing. Did it even stop them acquiring regal airs? No. Obviously not. This is simply an instinctive spasm of deference - don’t trust us with picking the leaders! Make sure there’s an aristocrat watching over us, stopping us getting funny ideas! How have these notions lingered in our national DNA for so long?

    Deep down, the impulse to choose our head of state trumps our aristo-deference. A YouGov poll last year found that 64 per cent of British people want William and Kate to be next in line for the throne, ditching Charles entirely. So, my fellow Brits, let's think about this. By a clear majority, you want to set aside the hereditary principle, and choose our next head of state. I agree. There's a word for that: republicanism. If you wanted to elect William Windsor as our President, fine. That's a democratic decision, not a monarchical one.

    There's going to be an attempt over the next fortnight to paint republicans as the Grinch, trying to ruin the "big day" for William and Kate out of a cocktail of kill-joy curmudgeonry and mean-spiritedness. The opposite is the truth.

    The monarchist spin-machine, the tabloids and the tea-towel industry have created a pair of fictitious characters for us to cheer, while the real people behind them are being tormented by their supposed admirers. Think back to the 1981 royal wedding and you realise how little we know about these people we are supposed to get moist and weepy over. While millions wept at the "fairytale wedding", Diana was ramming her fingers down her throat, Charles was cursing that he didn't love her, and they both stood at the aisle raging against their situation and everyone around them, while the nation cheered.

    Similarly, from beneath the spin, the evidence is pretty clear that William and Kate will be smiling at us through gritted teeth. We now know from several impeccable sources that for a long time as a young man, William raged against the monarchy and wanted no part of it. He once screamed at photographers: "Why won't you just let me be a normal person?" Alistair Campbell's diaries show that William is "consumed by a total hatred of the media", who he believes – pretty accurately – ruined his mother's life and contributed to her death.

    This hasn't faded: he jibed in his most recent interview that he always aims to "outfox the media". But he knows the monarchy today is a rolling media road-show selling nothing but itself. That's why, in her last interview with the BBC's Jennie Bond, Diana said William had told her longingly that she was "very lucky to be able to give up your HRH" – her royal status. Republicans want to set this couple free to have good, happy lives in the Republic of Britain – which they would clearly take as a blessed relief.

    When we republicans object to the hollow pantomime, we are not being negative or nasty. We are proposing a positive vision. Britain is full of amazing and inspiring people – so many that if we were to choose a ceremonial president, as they do in Ireland, we would be spoiled for choice. I can't think of anything more patriotic, and more deserving of a tumult of Union Jacks waving at a thousand street parties, than the belief that every child in Britain should grow up knowing that one day, if they do everything right, they could be our head of state. And I can't think of anything less patriotic than saying that the feudal frenzy of deference and backwardness we are about to witness is the best that Britain can do.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As far as monarchist defences go it's pretty piss poor.

    1. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall - the government-owned crown estates operated for the benefit of 'Er Majesty God Bless 'Er Soul - do operate at a profit, but being owned by the state, and not the crown, means that we get to keep them in their entirety should we become a republic (althogh hopefully the absurd vestiges of "Dukes" "Barons" and "Earls" will be done away with all together - Lords should be elected, and of the same rank; perhaps some democratic use can be found for the other titles - elected leaders of county councils perhaps) and make even more of a profit off of them because the costs attached to a ceremonial presidency would be less, although the exact amount is very debatable.

    2. Tourism? So we are a theme park for the amusement of others? Why should we be denied a full democratic state for the benefits of a few gawping yokels? Not only that, but I am appalled by the suggestion that all £7bn of tourism to the UK is based on the monarchy. People don't go to London and Edinburgh, and definitely not outside of those two cities, to see monarchic vestiges, they come because our castles are pretty big, numerous and intact (Dover and Warwick are hardly in regular use by the monarchy) because we are the land of Shakespeare and Marlowe, and because the UK is the sum of more parts than a few outdated aristocrats. I refuse to let the monarchy define us - we are so much more than that.

    3. Yes, the Queen has no political power, however I actually find it worrying that the power of Parliament has no checks and balances aside from a pretty toothless and spineless judiciary. All this talk of, say, giving Parliament the power to declare was is very dodgy - having all power invested in one office is a dangerous notion. However I would also find it unacceptable to restore crucial constitutional powers to the monarch - giving the monarchy more power is just as absurd as giving Parliament as much power as it can gobble up. A largely ceremonial president would have the democratic surplus required to allow the restoration of crucial balancing powers from Parliament.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    As far as monarchist defences go it's pretty piss poor.

    1. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall - the government-owned crown estates operated for the benefit of 'Er Majesty God Bless 'Er Soul - do operate at a profit, but being owned by the state, and not the crown, means that we get to keep them in their entirety should we become a republic (althogh hopefully the absurd vestiges of "Dukes" "Barons" and "Earls" will be done away with all together - Lords should be elected, and of the same rank; perhaps some democratic use can be found for the other titles - elected leaders of county councils perhaps) and make even more of a profit off of them because the costs attached to a ceremonial presidency would be less, although the exact amount is very debatable.
    Actually...the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are owned by the Queen and the Prince of Wales as persons, not as office-holders, and so they would not be handed to the state in the event of a republic. There's a reason why they're not treated as part of the Crown Estate.

    And can you explain how a ceremonial president would be cheaper?

    2. Tourism? So we are a theme park for the amusement of others? Why should we be denied a full democratic state for the benefits of a few gawping yokels? Not only that, but I am appalled by the suggestion that all £7bn of tourism to the UK is based on the monarchy. People don't go to London and Edinburgh, and definitely not outside of those two cities, to see monarchic vestiges, they come because our castles are pretty big, numerous and intact (Dover and Warwick are hardly in regular use by the monarchy) because we are the land of Shakespeare and Marlowe, and because the UK is the sum of more parts than a few outdated aristocrats. I refuse to let the monarchy define us - we are so much more than that.
    I don't use the tourism argument myself, but I see no problem with having the monarchy be a tourist attraction or have it define ourselves - the monarchy is a huge part of our history, after all, and has had no problem with encompassing all sorts of positive aspects of Britishness.

    3. Yes, the Queen has no political power, however I actually find it worrying that the power of Parliament has no checks and balances aside from a pretty toothless and spineless judiciary. All this talk of, say, giving Parliament the power to declare was is very dodgy - having all power invested in one office is a dangerous notion. However I would also find it unacceptable to restore crucial constitutional powers to the monarch - giving the monarchy more power is just as absurd as giving Parliament as much power as it can gobble up. A largely ceremonial president would have the democratic surplus required to allow the restoration of crucial balancing powers from Parliament.
    I don't see that, really. Firstly the British Parliament is one of the more assertive legislatures in the world. It's a different kettle of fish from the American presidential system, of course, which makes checks and balances overt. The parliamentary system is more covert, and relies on political parties and grassroots democracy to rein in the executive (and by and large does a fairly good job).

    I'm absolutely opposed to a politicised, active president, as it removes one of the key strengths of our constitution - a democratic means of resolving institutional disputes. By having Parliament supreme through the Commons, it ensures there is a real and effective tug-of-war between the will of the people and the necessity of executive government. Moreover an elected president wouldn't unite the people, but would do a jolly good job of dividing it, much as the present government does.

    I'll grant you that the Royal Prerogative needs reforming - but that doesn't necessitate abolition of the monarchy.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    As far as monarchist defences go it's pretty piss poor.

    1. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall - the government-owned crown estates operated for the benefit of 'Er Majesty God Bless 'Er Soul - do operate at a profit, but being owned by the state, and not the crown, means that we get to keep them in their entirety should we become a republic
    Where is your evidence supporting that what you describe will be the outcome? Which expert on Constitutional Law has advised you?

    And, what distinction do you make between the crown and the state? You do realise that the crown is the legal embodiment of the various organs of governance?


    A largely ceremonial president would have the democratic surplus required to allow the restoration of crucial balancing powers from Parliament.
    And if this ceremonial president is of the same political persuasion as the largest party in Parliament?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeLatics)
    democratic system in Britain.
    What does the Monarchy have to do with democracy?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)

    2. Tourism? So we are a theme park for the amusement of others? Why should we be denied a full democratic state for the benefits of a few gawping yokels? Not only that, but I am appalled by the suggestion that all £7bn of tourism to the UK is based on the monarchy. People don't go to London and Edinburgh, and definitely not outside of those two cities, to see monarchic vestiges, they come because our castles are pretty big, numerous and intact (Dover and Warwick are hardly in regular use by the monarchy) because we are the land of Shakespeare and Marlowe, and because the UK is the sum of more parts than a few outdated aristocrats. I refuse to let the monarchy define us - we are so much more than that.
    NBC expects 50 million Americans to view their coverage of the royal wedding. Let this indicate how significant the royal family is to America's fascination with the UK.
    Americans make up the bulk of tourists to the UK, the Tower of London (owned by the monarchy) being the most visited site (2 million).
    If you have ever been outside Edinburgh castle or Buckingham Palace you will have noticed the amount of Americans crowding the place. This is no coincidence. The royal family plays a significant role in the UK's appeal as a tourist destination to the USA.
    Dover and Warwick castles are not heavily visited by international tourists in comparison to other sites.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Excellent thread, I'm proud to be a member of this society.

    I yearn for the day where we will live in a constitutional British Republic and have a democratically elected head of state.
    This.

    I'd also urge all fellow Republicans to try and get involved with a Not the Royal Wedding Street Party.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    NBC expects 50 million Americans to view their coverage of the royal wedding. Let this indicate how significant the royal family is to America's fascination with the UK.
    Is that why NBC has drastically cut their coverage of the event, citing a lack of interest amongst the American public as a reason? Or more specifically, "The US public's interest was not what they thought," sniped an NBC insider. "Kate and Prince William are both really boring to the general American public." As an American myself moreover, I can tell you that aside from the gossip mags (such as Hello, OK, USA Today etc) and the middle-aged women who read such publications, VERY FEW care about the wedding :rolleyes:

    Americans make up the bulk of tourists to the UK, the Tower of London (owned by the monarchy) being the most visited site (2 million).
    If you have ever been outside Edinburgh castle or Buckingham Palace you will have noticed the amount of Americans crowding the place. This is no coincidence. The royal family plays a significant role in the UK's appeal as a tourist destination to the USA. Dover and Warwick castles are not heavily visited by international tourists in comparison to other sites.
    There is not a single shred of evidence to back up the claim that the monarchy brings in tourists. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. Moreover, the British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille).

    Do your research and stop talking such nonsense :rolleyes:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)



    There is not a single shred of evidence to back up the claim that the monarchy brings in tourists. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. Moreover, the British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille).

    Do your research and stop talking such nonsense :rolleyes:
    Domestic tourism is irrelevant in this discussion.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flugelr)
    What does the Monarchy have to do with democracy?
    The unelected Monarch is the Head of State, rather than someone who's been democratically elected. I'd say that has a lot to do with democracy.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    Domestic tourism is irrelevant in this discussion.
    This isn't about just domestic tourism - please do feel free to provide actual evidence, which documents international tourist numbers by each tourist site. Money from tourism is money from tourism.

    Moreover, good on you for ignoring the rest of the post (i.e. questions/arguments you couldn't argue or provide a retort against) :rolleyes:
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    2. Tourism?
    While we're on the issue of the Monarchy and tourism, I think it's also worth pointing out that - in terms of the top tourist attractions in the UK - the highest placed of the Royal-themed tourist attractions is Windsor Castle, in there at a measly 10th place. It's pipped by such attractions as Legoland and Chessington. :teehee:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    While we're on the issue of the Monarchy and tourism, I think it's also worth pointing out that - in terms of the top tourist attractions in the UK - the highest placed of the Royal-themed tourist attractions is Windsor Castle, in there at a measly 10th place. It's pipped by such attractions as Legoland and Chessington. :teehee:
    It's 17th (see post 12 above)
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I sort of agree with Republicanism really, but just to play devil's advocate: what's the massive difference in telling your kids they could one day be the head of state, to telling your kids they could one day be Prime Minister?
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    It's 17th (see post 12 above)


    This remains the issue with reading a point, taking note of it and then failing to remember what exactly it was: you use the first result for statistics from Google, and it's invariably out of date!

    On the plus side: makes tourism even less credible as a pro-Monarchy argument.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    I sort of agree with Republicanism really, but just to play devil's advocate: what's the massive difference in telling your kids they could one day be the head of state, to telling your kids they could one day be Prime Minister?
    Sorry, but, can you be more precise with your question?

    It's unclear whether you're asking what's the difference between anyone aspiring for their children to become the Head of State as opposed to the PM or whether you're asking what the difference is between the current Monarch telling their children they could reign, as opposed to anyone not of Royality telling their kids they could become the PM.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 2, 2012
New on TSR

THE world university rankings 2014-2015 revealed

Will they affect your uni choices?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.