[gladders]

(Original post by Ben Butler)
Of course it does, we are all expected to bow down to these kings and queens that we can't even elect.

When was the last time you were made to bow down to the monarch? Because it's news to me.

Where was the republican coverage from the BBC? There wasn't any. Yet this is supposed to be an impartial organisation that we pay our license fee for. Pathetic.

It is impartial. Republicanism is a marginal faction in this country, and the monarchy is overwhelmingly popular. The BBC would be biased if it gave republicans an equal hearing with monarchists.

Imagine this: if the shoe was on the other foot, and Britain had been a republic for the past 60 years, and the country was celebrating its 60-year republican anniversary. 10% of the country remain monarchist and complain that the BBC are being biased by not covering their point of view. Would you expect them to be taken seriously?

Like heck.

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by gladders)
the monarchy is overwhelmingly popular

I think you'd have to concede this it is in fact the monarch who is overwhelmingly popular, rather than the monarchy itself.

There have been times in the last 100 years when it was considerably less so. Interestingly, many of those who count themselves monarchists appear less committed to the hereditary principle itself, hence you can muster a majority who would prefer that it skips a generation and goes straight to William.

Of course, the second you start looking at suitability, the whole system goes out the window. On that basis, I think things might look a bit different after the present occupant bows out.

Btw, unfortunately I'd run out of recommends but I would have done so for your last response to mine; excellent post matey.

[Ben Butler]

(Original post by Carter78)
The level of coverage that the BBC gave to the Republican movement reflects the strength/size of the Republican movement.

Very little.

Why should the BBC give disproportionate coverage to a minority group? Should they also ask Louis Theroux to film a 10-part documentary series about Tiddlywinks players?

I think you are underestimating the size of the Republican movement. There are thousands of them. It's a little more than a minority movement and a lot of people might not bring their feelings across but are Republican.

[Ben Butler]

(Original post by gladders)
When was the last time you were made to bow down to the monarch? Because it's news to me.



It is impartial. Republicanism is a marginal faction in this country, and the monarchy is overwhelmingly popular. The BBC would be biased if it gave republicans an equal hearing with monarchists.

Imagine this: if the shoe was on the other foot, and Britain had been a republic for the past 60 years, and the country was celebrating its 60-year republican anniversary. 10% of the country remain monarchist and complain that the BBC are being biased by not covering their point of view. Would you expect them to be taken seriously?

Like heck.

Your argument is flawed. The BBC have to give equal weighting to political parties and world events, yet when it comes to the Jubilee - they are incredibly biased and Republicans have a far greater argument than some of the other issues they cover.

[gladders]

(Original post by MostUncivilised)
I think you'd have to concede this it is in fact the monarch who is overwhelmingly popular, rather than the monarchy itself.

There have been times in the last 100 years when it was considerably less so. Interestingly, many of those who count themselves monarchists appear less committed to the hereditary principle itself, hence you can muster a majority who would prefer that it skips a generation and goes straight to William.

Of course, the second you start looking at suitability, the whole system goes out the window. On that basis, I think things might look a bit different after the present occupant bows out.

Btw, unfortunately I'd run out of recommends but I would have done so for your last response to mine; excellent post matey.

Thanks

Although I have to disagree: I think most people understand that monarchy is hereditary and accept Charles as the next in line (in fact his approval rating is fairly high, although not as much as his mum). Otherwise it would be quite easy for someone to capitalize on this and call for a referendum now on ending the monarchy on the death of the Queen.

[gladders]

(Original post by Ben Butler)
Your argument is flawed. The BBC have to give equal weighting to political parties and world events, yet when it comes to the Jubilee - they are incredibly biased and Republicans have a far greater argument than some of the other issues they cover.

They don't have to give equal weighting at all. They're meant give equal weighting to viewpoints which are mainstream, which republicanism isn't. Again: if the shoe was on the other foot, I seriously doubt you'd be calling for equal viewing of the monarchist minority.

Why aren't you complaining about the lack of equal exposure for the BNP or the English Democrats?

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by Ben Butler)
Your argument is flawed. The BBC have to give equal weighting to political parties and world events, yet when it comes to the Jubilee - they are incredibly biased and Republicans have a far greater argument than some of the other issues they cover.

I personally don't necessarily buy the "equal weight" argument, but some of the output from the BBC has been absolutely shameful; Andrew Marr's insipid, grovelling piece on the Queen resembled the worst sort of propaganda about "Dear Leaders" and so on.

I don't blame the Queen for its production, but the BBC and the Palace should be ashamed.

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by gladders)
They don't have to give equal weighting at all. They're meant give equal weighting to viewpoints which are mainstream, which republicanism isn't. Again: if the shoe was on the other foot, I seriously doubt you'd be calling for equal viewing of the monarchist minority.

Why aren't you complaining about the lack of equal exposure for the BNP or the English Democrats?

I think that's a rather ungallant comparison; racism and republicanism are not analogous.

Having said that, I also don't believe that there needs to be "equal weight" in coverage for things like the Jubilee, otherwise it descends into a farce attempting to give equal weight to any and every assertion and second of coverage.

[gladders]

(Original post by MostUncivilised)
I think that's a rather ungallant comparison; racism and republicanism are not analogous.

Never said they were. I was comparing the preponderance of republicanism with the preponderance of support for the BNP. I could have replaced BNP with communism or anarchists, or people who are very good at chess, for that matter.

Having said that, I also don't believe that there needs to be "equal weight" in coverage for things like the Jubilee, otherwise it descends into a farce attempting to give equal weight to any and every assertion and second of coverage.

Pretty much my view, yes. And you're right: if there was a fault, it was with the Beeb, not with the monarchy. I think the Beeb did as well as it could though.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Ben Butler)
I think you are underestimating the size of the Republican movement. There are thousands of them. It's a little more than a minority movement and a lot of people might not bring their feelings across but are Republican.

I agree that the BBC should have done more, perhaps by holding a primetime debate on the issue of the monarchy vs republicanism or something similar.

However I do think that the Republican movement is a minority within the UK (every survey confirms this). Nevertheless the size of the movement doesn't really bother me. Minority movements can easily be ahead of the Zeitgeist and hold the morally superior position in any debate. The monarchy is not an institution that will last forever and the Republicans of today will be a majority in 50 to 100 years time.

[gladders]

(Original post by Carter78)
However I do think that the Republican movement is a minority within the UK (every survey confirms this). Nevertheless the size of the movement doesn't really bother me. Minority movements can easily be ahead of the Zeitgeist and hold the morally superior position in any debate. The monarchy is not an institution that will last forever and the Republicans of today will be a majority in 50 to 100 years time.

Hmm, don't be so sure. I imagine a hundred years ago people were predicting that socialism would be top dog.

I agree, however, that nothing lasts forever. One day the monarchy will fall. But I couldn't say its successor will necessarily be republican, or even democratic, and that certainly won't last forever.

[Carter78]

(Original post by gladders)
Hmm, don't be so sure. I imagine a hundred years ago people were predicting that socialism would be top dog.

I agree, however, that nothing lasts forever. One day the monarchy will fall. But I couldn't say its successor will necessarily be republican, or even democratic, and that certainly won't last forever.

Well, I take your point. However socialistic tendencies (welfare state, free health care etc) are certainly "top dog" nowadays, even if capitalism rules the roost economically.

Do you think that strands of republicanism will entrench themselves within British society even further? - Or do you think that the fact that the Queen is effectively neutered by Parliament shows that strands of republicanism are evident enough already?

[Dennerers]

(Original post by Cinnamon_Twist)
Yes/no and reasons please.
Personally, I don't think it does as our Queen has no real political power.

No she has no real power, she can't undermine anything. She is an expensive necessity.

[Lunch_Box]

Yep.

[gladders]

(Original post by Carter78)
Well, I take your point. However socialistic tendencies (welfare state, free health care etc) are certainly "top dog" nowadays, even if capitalism rules the roost economically.

I would agree, but I don't necessarily equate state operation of certain things as being evidence of socialism. The incredible wealth gaps which seem to be quite tolerated would inform me that we're definitely a lot less socialist than we were in the 60s and 70s, for example.

Do you think that strands of republicanism will entrench themselves within British society even further? - Or do you think that the fact that the Queen is effectively neutered by Parliament shows that strands of republicanism are evident enough already?

I think we're essentially a crowned republic - power is in the hands of the elected - and that any criticisms of the monarchy have zero to do with this issue. I think this is why republicanism is so small in this country - people have nothing to gain from its removal.

[historygirl]

I'm sort of on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, we have a constitutional monarchy - not an apsolute one. Acts performed by the monarch, such as approving laws, are really just a tradition. A de jure demonstration of power but not de facto. Thus, the monarchy doesn't undermine democracy.
However, having a woman who was lucky enough to inherit her position in life as a head of state isn't exactly democratic. There is something amiss in supporting a family who hold their position by hereditary priciple. Why should we have such a thing? The Queen may well work hard in the context of the work she does; is politically neutral and has experience but all these things are about she herself, not the actual principle of monarchy. So, perhaps she isn't the problem but rather the hangers-on and the principle of monarchy (even though it is constitutional) is.
Therefore, I can't really give a yes or no answer to this but... I am inclined to say 'no' for this particular question on the matter at least. Had it be worded differently, then my conclusion would be different.

[gladders]

(Original post by historygirl)
However, having a woman who was lucky enough to inherit her position in life as a head of state isn't exactly democratic.

I have to politely disagree: democracy is silent on the principle of inheritance. I think the term you are looking for is meritocratic - and democracy isn't meritocratic, either.

I think it's valid to question the meritocratic application of monarchy (although I think it is defensible), but to say it's undemocratic is meaningless.

[Carter78]

(Original post by gladders)
I would agree, but I don't necessarily equate state operation of certain things as being evidence of socialism. The incredible wealth gaps which seem to be quite tolerated would inform me that we're definitely a lot less socialist than we were in the 60s and 70s, for example.

Fair enough.

(Original post by gladders)
I think we're essentially a crowned republic - power is in the hands of the elected - and that any criticisms of the monarchy have zero to do with this issue. I think this is why republicanism is so small in this country - people have nothing to gain from its removal.

Exactly, I don't see why they need to rock this boat when there are so many more important (and existent) social injustices in this world to worry about.

What I really don't get about Republicans (maybe I've just had a few too many hysterical interactions on this forums with Stefan1991 etc) is their apoplectic rage at our constitutional monarchy/crowned republic. I've had Republicans on TSR tell me that the Queen wouldn't think twice to order tanks into the streets of Britain to kill everyday citizens.

[Piprod01]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...racks-planning
Undemocratic or just being a douche?

[Piprod01]

(Original post by Carter78)
Exactly, I don't see why they need to rock this boat when there are so many more important (and existent) social injustices in this world to worry about.

The fact that there are bigger problems doesn't stop it being a problem.

What I really don't get about Republicans (maybe I've just had a few too many hysterical interactions on this forums with Stefan1991 etc) is their apoplectic rage at our constitutional monarchy/crowned republic. I've had Republicans on TSR tell me that the Queen wouldn't think twice to order tanks into the streets of Britain to kill everyday citizens.

The simplest and most obvious problem is that it is just a stupid idea (Birth right? Chosen by God? lol). Another is that it prevents proper separation of church and state.