TSR Republican Society
Scroll to see replies
Original post by derangedyoshi
None of them terribly convincing!
That said, I have to agree with Joe and Yoshi here: the matter of name change is a fairly weak argument for keeping it.
"Republic’s board of directors has recently agreed a revised position on the honours system, which continues to state our objection not just to the language of empire but also to the way the whole system has been corrupted.
Republic believes honours should be reserved for those who have performed exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty or who have committed significant acts of bravery. The process should be clear and transparent and not shrouded in secrecy.
We take the view that the current honours system has been corrupted to the point of being worthless, and that clearly the system is used to award political allies and donors and to confer rank on establishment figures and the ‘great and good’. It is also used as a PR opportunity by governments wanting to promote their populist credentials by awarding honours to celebrities. It is an unscrupulous system of patronage and PR.
We believe there should be a wholly new honours system, couched in language and symbolism that reflects our nation’s modern democratic values and culture. The new honours system would have no references to empire, royalty or monarchy. We fully support the need to continue to honour our armed forces by awarding medals for bravery and sacrifice, so we believe that reform of the honours system should include new armed forces medals that have no royal associations.
While we accept that many people deserve public recognition through an honours system we believe the current practice of handing out thousands of gongs to undeserving recipients (often of a higher rank than the more deserving) cheapens any award. We would encourage all nominees to publicly reject any such honour until such time as they are appropriately titled and properly reserved for legitimate purposes.
We accept that it is for each individual to decide if they wish to accept an honour and we won’t make any public judgement about republicans that choose to do so. However we will not recognise those honours or address recipients using those titles or suffixes"
http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=126
Republic believes honours should be reserved for those who have performed exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty or who have committed significant acts of bravery. The process should be clear and transparent and not shrouded in secrecy.
We take the view that the current honours system has been corrupted to the point of being worthless, and that clearly the system is used to award political allies and donors and to confer rank on establishment figures and the ‘great and good’. It is also used as a PR opportunity by governments wanting to promote their populist credentials by awarding honours to celebrities. It is an unscrupulous system of patronage and PR.
We believe there should be a wholly new honours system, couched in language and symbolism that reflects our nation’s modern democratic values and culture. The new honours system would have no references to empire, royalty or monarchy. We fully support the need to continue to honour our armed forces by awarding medals for bravery and sacrifice, so we believe that reform of the honours system should include new armed forces medals that have no royal associations.
While we accept that many people deserve public recognition through an honours system we believe the current practice of handing out thousands of gongs to undeserving recipients (often of a higher rank than the more deserving) cheapens any award. We would encourage all nominees to publicly reject any such honour until such time as they are appropriately titled and properly reserved for legitimate purposes.
We accept that it is for each individual to decide if they wish to accept an honour and we won’t make any public judgement about republicans that choose to do so. However we will not recognise those honours or address recipients using those titles or suffixes"
http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=126
Original post by JoeLatics
Which of the 3 adjectives which you highlighted are untrue, then?
its not if its true, its that there insults
Original post by JoeLatics
"Republic’s board of directors has recently agreed a revised position on the honours system, which continues to state our objection not just to the language of empire but also to the way the whole system has been corrupted.
Republic believes honours should be reserved for those who have performed exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty or who have committed significant acts of bravery. The process should be clear and transparent and not shrouded in secrecy.
We take the view that the current honours system has been corrupted to the point of being worthless, and that clearly the system is used to award political allies and donors and to confer rank on establishment figures and the ‘great and good’. It is also used as a PR opportunity by governments wanting to promote their populist credentials by awarding honours to celebrities. It is an unscrupulous system of patronage and PR.
We believe there should be a wholly new honours system, couched in language and symbolism that reflects our nation’s modern democratic values and culture. The new honours system would have no references to empire, royalty or monarchy. We fully support the need to continue to honour our armed forces by awarding medals for bravery and sacrifice, so we believe that reform of the honours system should include new armed forces medals that have no royal associations.
While we accept that many people deserve public recognition through an honours system we believe the current practice of handing out thousands of gongs to undeserving recipients (often of a higher rank than the more deserving) cheapens any award. We would encourage all nominees to publicly reject any such honour until such time as they are appropriately titled and properly reserved for legitimate purposes.
We accept that it is for each individual to decide if they wish to accept an honour and we won’t make any public judgement about republicans that choose to do so. However we will not recognise those honours or address recipients using those titles or suffixes"
http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=126
Republic believes honours should be reserved for those who have performed exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty or who have committed significant acts of bravery. The process should be clear and transparent and not shrouded in secrecy.
We take the view that the current honours system has been corrupted to the point of being worthless, and that clearly the system is used to award political allies and donors and to confer rank on establishment figures and the ‘great and good’. It is also used as a PR opportunity by governments wanting to promote their populist credentials by awarding honours to celebrities. It is an unscrupulous system of patronage and PR.
We believe there should be a wholly new honours system, couched in language and symbolism that reflects our nation’s modern democratic values and culture. The new honours system would have no references to empire, royalty or monarchy. We fully support the need to continue to honour our armed forces by awarding medals for bravery and sacrifice, so we believe that reform of the honours system should include new armed forces medals that have no royal associations.
While we accept that many people deserve public recognition through an honours system we believe the current practice of handing out thousands of gongs to undeserving recipients (often of a higher rank than the more deserving) cheapens any award. We would encourage all nominees to publicly reject any such honour until such time as they are appropriately titled and properly reserved for legitimate purposes.
We accept that it is for each individual to decide if they wish to accept an honour and we won’t make any public judgement about republicans that choose to do so. However we will not recognise those honours or address recipients using those titles or suffixes"
http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=126
In a way I think this is distracting us from a bigger issue. The language of monarchy is spread throughout our society, and it means next to nothing. I'd certainly support getting rid of it if we also get rid of the monarchy, but as long as there's a monarch, I don't really think it makes a big difference whether various institutions have the word "royal" in front of them.
And (for Scottish people/musicians) it would mean the poor RSAMD/RCS would have to change its name again...
Question for fellow republicans, something to think about. Let's pretend Britain becomes a republic tomorrow. What do you guys think should be done about those institutes and places in our society which are affiliated to royalty and the monarchy?
For example...my alma mater, Queen Mary & Westfield College. Westfield College = no royal connection, Queen Mary College = refers to Mary of Teck, George V's consort and the Queen's grandmother.
As a graduate, I'm not sure I'd like the College's name to be changed. I think it would totally alter the identity and our traditions and history. I don't think that puts me at odds with being a committed republican either. But perhaps you guys might feel that my position is inconsistent. What do you think?
Another example. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In this case, I would have no problem with it simply being The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because it doesn't totally obliterate the identity (i.e. the K&C), whereas removing Queen Mary from my university's name would.
Thoughts?
For example...my alma mater, Queen Mary & Westfield College. Westfield College = no royal connection, Queen Mary College = refers to Mary of Teck, George V's consort and the Queen's grandmother.
As a graduate, I'm not sure I'd like the College's name to be changed. I think it would totally alter the identity and our traditions and history. I don't think that puts me at odds with being a committed republican either. But perhaps you guys might feel that my position is inconsistent. What do you think?
Another example. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In this case, I would have no problem with it simply being The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because it doesn't totally obliterate the identity (i.e. the K&C), whereas removing Queen Mary from my university's name would.
Thoughts?
Original post by Democracy
Question for fellow republicans, something to think about. Let's pretend Britain becomes a republic tomorrow. What do you guys think should be done about those institutes and places in our society which are affiliated to royalty and the monarchy?
For example...my alma mater, Queen Mary & Westfield College. Westfield College = no royal connection, Queen Mary College = refers to Mary of Teck, George V's consort and the Queen's grandmother.
As a graduate, I'm not sure I'd like the College's name to be changed. I think it would totally alter the identity and our traditions and history. I don't think that puts me at odds with being a committed republican either. But perhaps you guys might feel that my position is inconsistent. What do you think?
Another example. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In this case, I would have no problem with it simply being The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because it doesn't totally obliterate the identity (i.e. the K&C), whereas removing Queen Mary from my university's name would.
Thoughts?
For example...my alma mater, Queen Mary & Westfield College. Westfield College = no royal connection, Queen Mary College = refers to Mary of Teck, George V's consort and the Queen's grandmother.
As a graduate, I'm not sure I'd like the College's name to be changed. I think it would totally alter the identity and our traditions and history. I don't think that puts me at odds with being a committed republican either. But perhaps you guys might feel that my position is inconsistent. What do you think?
Another example. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In this case, I would have no problem with it simply being The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because it doesn't totally obliterate the identity (i.e. the K&C), whereas removing Queen Mary from my university's name would.
Thoughts?
Good question.
Abolishing the monarchy won't suddenly stop it from having been a significant part of our heritage and history (Obviously I'd say that history is exactly where it belongs!!). So for that reason, I wouldn't have a problem with things continuing to be named after specific monarchs - I would expect that the Queen Mary would remain, and the Queen Elizabeth in the Queen Elizabeth Hall in Oldham would as well.
The rebranding, for me, would come where it is the monarchy as an institution recognised in the name - the Royal Air Force obviously couldn't continue to be called that in a Republic!
Original post by JoeLatics
So far she hasn't said anything about a referendum on the issue. I'd oppose any change without a referendum
Original post by flugelr
So far she hasn't said anything about a referendum on the issue. I'd oppose any change without a referendum
I suppose they are arguing that they had it in a manifesto that won more than 50% of the vote, so they can change things with de facto democratic legitimacy.
I have no idea about Jamaican politics, but that sort of argument would never work over here, as
a) No party will ever get 50% of the vote!
b) A person's vote is a massive compromise - I'll be voting Labour in 2015 (provided something drastic doesn't happen) regardless of their stance on the monarchy. It's an issue I'm passionate about, and I campaign within the party to change the stance, but it doesn't cost my vote.
Original post by JoeLatics
I suppose they are arguing that they had it in a manifesto that won more than 50% of the vote, so they can change things with de facto democratic legitimacy.
I have no idea about Jamaican politics, but that sort of argument would never work over here, as
a) No party will ever get 50% of the vote!
b) A person's vote is a massive compromise - I'll be voting Labour in 2015 (provided something drastic doesn't happen) regardless of their stance on the monarchy. It's an issue I'm passionate about, and I campaign within the party to change the stance, but it doesn't cost my vote.
I have no idea about Jamaican politics, but that sort of argument would never work over here, as
a) No party will ever get 50% of the vote!
b) A person's vote is a massive compromise - I'll be voting Labour in 2015 (provided something drastic doesn't happen) regardless of their stance on the monarchy. It's an issue I'm passionate about, and I campaign within the party to change the stance, but it doesn't cost my vote.
From what I understand, she 'did an SNP' and barely mentioned the subject of monarchy during her election campaign. It was only after she had been elected that she started really shouting about it.
Original post by flugelr
From what I understand, she 'did an SNP' and barely mentioned the subject of monarchy during her election campaign. It was only after she had been elected that she started really shouting about it.
In that case I'd definitely support the use of a referendum. The whole problem with the monarchy is the lack of democratic legitimacy - creating a new post without it is no good!
Did you folks know the new Jamaican PM has also pledged the restoration of the death penalty?
Clickety-click
Clickety-click
Original post by gladders
Did you folks know the new Jamaican PM has also pledged the restoration of the death penalty?
Clickety-click
Clickety-click
Darn, just when I was warming to her as well!
Live in London? Get yourself down to the Bishopsgate Institute, which is holding a series on Republicanism and the monarchy!. Graham Smith (Campaign Manager of Republic is involved in the debate on the final night.
Also, just to make you aware, there's a major protest on the 3rd June; get yourself down there if possible!!
Also, just to make you aware, there's a major protest on the 3rd June; get yourself down there if possible!!
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by JoeLatics
Also, just to make you aware, there's a major protest on the 3rd June; get yourself down there if possible!!
This won't be like Republic's last major protest on Armed Forces Day will it?
You know, the 'major protest' where 25 people turned up
Original post by flugelr
This won't be like Republic's last major protest on Armed Forces Day will it?
You know, the 'major protest' where 25 people turned up
You know, the 'major protest' where 25 people turned up
Lol, that was planned about 5 minutes beforehand,to be fair! :L
I'd expect it to be much bigger than the wedding event, which attracted over 1,000 people to London - presumably they'll have events around the country this time!
It's been a busy week for the movement.
We've all heard about Gove putting his foot in it - thankfully they seem to have backtracked away from the original idea of taxpayer-funding it (although, given that the queen is, of course, so lovely and charitable, I'm sure she will shoot it down and insist on £60m's worth of donations to charity instead!)
I, for one, wasn't surprised to hear that Chuck had been sticking his nose into it, yet another example of his seemingly never ending desire to get involved.
They Guardian had a few tongue-in-cheek articles about it, asking about who these private donors will be, as well as looking at how else we could spend £60m, and suggesting slightly less costly gift alternatives.
A nice piece in the Indy summed the whole concept of a Diamond Jubilee up for me.
Meanwhile, the excellent British Republican Blog published a nice piece about why Labourites, particularly those on the Left, should be Republican by default.
Finally, whilst nobody here is advocating stalking, is this another case of the royals having a "Photograph me!" one minute, "Leave me alone!" the next attitude to the press?
We've all heard about Gove putting his foot in it - thankfully they seem to have backtracked away from the original idea of taxpayer-funding it (although, given that the queen is, of course, so lovely and charitable, I'm sure she will shoot it down and insist on £60m's worth of donations to charity instead!)
I, for one, wasn't surprised to hear that Chuck had been sticking his nose into it, yet another example of his seemingly never ending desire to get involved.
They Guardian had a few tongue-in-cheek articles about it, asking about who these private donors will be, as well as looking at how else we could spend £60m, and suggesting slightly less costly gift alternatives.
A nice piece in the Indy summed the whole concept of a Diamond Jubilee up for me.
Meanwhile, the excellent British Republican Blog published a nice piece about why Labourites, particularly those on the Left, should be Republican by default.
Finally, whilst nobody here is advocating stalking, is this another case of the royals having a "Photograph me!" one minute, "Leave me alone!" the next attitude to the press?
Isn't our country pretty much republican already?
Although the monarch is technically the head of state, power has handed to Parliament and the PM does most of her duties on her behalf, and the system of Parliament and government is democratic (except for the voting system maybe). The only power she has is royal assent, and it's not like she'd ever reject a Bill.
The House of Lords no longer have hereditary peers
Although the monarch is technically the head of state, power has handed to Parliament and the PM does most of her duties on her behalf, and the system of Parliament and government is democratic (except for the voting system maybe). The only power she has is royal assent, and it's not like she'd ever reject a Bill.
The House of Lords no longer have hereditary peers
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Read & Marking History A-level Essay on American Dream
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A Level History help
- what are your thoughts on the royal family?
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- Have colour thread labels applied consistently/everywhere across TSR
- Monarchists vs Republicans
- Is the world beginning to reject far-left ideology?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Politics A level [US]
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- History Paper 2 America: A nation divided 2023
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- AQA Politics- Cultural Theory????
- Will you be celebrating the King's Coronation?
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- French irp
- Should i vote Labour?
- university of reading lgbt/alt/indie culture
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
