A republic? Never! Britain’s quiet monarchy will continue to endure

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
This month marks the 350th anniversary of the Restoration of the British monarchy and the coming to the Throne of Merrie Monarch King Charles II.

To mark the occasion, the Royal Mint plans to issue 150,000 commemorative £5 coins.

Throughout the 1650s, in the aftermath of the English Civil War, England had been a republic.

There were actually three civil wars. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third war (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. Charles was beheaded in 1649. The Civil War ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651 (after that battle, the future Charles II hid from the Roundheads by hiding in an oak tree). The Parliamentarian soldiers were known as Roundheads, and the Royalist soldiers were known as Cavaliers.

There were many reasons - political and religious - for the cause of the English Civil War, the main one being that Charles I ruled as an Absolute Monarch (although only "Absolute" compared to other English monarchs, as England unlike, say, France, had not had a proper Absolute Monarchy since the creation of Magna Carta).

After the war, England became a republic and a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell and then his son Richard (the only dictators ever to rule England).

But Richard, who came to power after his father's death in 1658, was a weak leader, and resigned, leading to major problems in England over who should next lead.

The obvious solution was to bring back the monarchy, so King Charles II returned from exile in France in 1660 to claim the Throne of England.

Nowadays, there are certain people who claim that monarchy is an irrelevance, and that Britain should become a republic again, and that it's only a matter of time before that happens.

But the truth of the matter is that it's a myth that the Royal Family are unpopular and the fact that the Royal Family have no political relevance also works in their favour.

There's also a uniqueness about the British Monarchy, whereas a British Republic will probably be as mundane as other republics.

Even Britain's republican Labour government dare not propose scrapping the monarchy, scared that it will anger voters (royalists vastly outnumber republicans in Britain).

In short, it's unlikely that Britain will ever get rid of the monarchy.

Britain’s quiet monarchy will continue to endure

Wed, 2010-04-14
Submitted by Dominic Sandbrook
BBC History




This year marks the 350th anniversary of the Restoration of the monarchy in the colourful figure of Charles II.

Few periods of British history have more of a hold on the collective imagination, thanks to the vibrant reputation of Restoration comedies, the poetry of Dryden and Rochester and of course the hedonistic personality of the king himself.

To mark the occasion, the Royal Mint plans to issue 150,000 commemorative £5 coins. But of course the Restoration of the monarchy was never inevitable.

Had Oliver Cromwell lived longer, had his son Richard been made of different stuff, or had the New Model Army’s generals worked more closely and coherently together, Britain might even now be a republic.


Much-loved Queen Elizabeth II: Unlike other European countries, most notably France, Britain (previously England) has never had a proper Absolute Monarchy in recent centuries (even under the Stuart monarchs), thanks to King John's signing of the Magna Carta in 1215

So modern-day republicans’ hearts must weep when they flick through the pages of Samuel Pepys’s diary recounting Charles II’s triumphant landing at Dover on 25 May 1660.

After years of austerity and a brief spasm of disturbing instability, many ordinary people were clearly ecstatic to see the return of the king. Charles greeted a vast “crowd of people, and the horsemen, citizens, and noblemen of all sorts” who came to see him. “The shouting and joy expressed by all,” Pepys wrote, “is past imagination.”

Three and a half centuries on, however, we are often told that the monarchy’s place in British life is less certain than ever. Recent polls suggest that only four out of ten people are keen for Prince Charles to succeed his mother, while a similar proportion would prefer Prince William to take over.


The monarchy was restored in 1660 with the coming to the Throne of Charles II


Dictator: Cromwell ruled England with an iron fist, even banning theatres, football and Christmas

And beyond that lies a lingering sense among some people that Britain should do without its most famous institution altogether (Europe's oldest political institution).

Search the left-wing Guardian's messageboards (a depressing experience, admittedly) for the words ‘monarchy’ and ‘irrelevant’ and you find enough examples to fill a book.

For those expecting the second half of this column to predict the monarchy’s demise, however, I bring disappointing news.

For one thing, it is a myth that the royal family is particularly unpopular. Not even at their lowest point, around the death of Diana, did they have to put up with the kind of scatological criticism directed at the grotesquely overweight figure of George IV.


George IV's coronation in 1821. George's lifestyle reflected the extravagance and excess of early 19th century Britain by gorging on too much food and having the most expensive and lavish coronation the country had ever known.

Even Victoria went through a period of deep unpopularity after the death of her beloved Albert, reaching a climax in 1871 when pamphlets attacked the royal finances, and the Liberal meteor Sir Charles Dilke publicly called for a republic. We often forget, in fact, that many monarchs have been loathed by most of their subjects: by these standards, Prince Charles is a national treasure.

The other republican delusion is that since the monarchy is less ‘relevant’ today than before, it is doomed to a slow but inevitable death. And yet it is almost impossible to think of a historical precedent for a monarchy simply withering away. In almost every case where people got rid of their native monarchy, they did so after defeat by a foreign power or armed revolution – and neither seems likely any time soon.


2010 UK Restoration of the Monarchy £5 Brilliant Uncirculated Coin

For Britain to abolish its monarchy, the House of Commons would have to approve a government-sponsored bill to scrap it. Quite apart from the sheer implausibility of the modern Labour party upsetting patriotic working-class voters with such a controversial measure, it is hard to see why they would squander their legislative energies on such a complicated reform. If the monarchy is so irrelevant, why waste so much time and effort trying to get rid of it?

The truth is that when other countries kicked out their monarchs, they did so precisely because they were NOT irrelevant. Nobody in revolutionary France or Russia doubted that Louis XVI and Nicholas II were politically relevant; that was why they had to die.

Even the Italians booted out Victor Emmanuel because of his political associations with fascism.

By comparison, our royal family’s lack of political relevance is its greatest asset.

Scrapping the monarchy is not an election issue in 2010; indeed, it has never been an issue in living memory. My guess is that it never will be. The republicans had their chance 350 years ago, and thank goodness, they blew it.

bbchistorymagazine.com
 
Last edited:

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Perhaps you didn’t actually read a word of what’s up there, DurkaDurka.

The constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and for the other Commonwealth Realms as well, of course) hasn’t been an absolute monarchy in decades; our Commonwealth Realms are governed by the democratic voices of the people, with the relationship between the Sovereign and subjects adding an additional guarantee of democratic government for our benefit.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Perhaps you didn’t actually read a word of what’s up there, DurkaDurka.

The constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and for the other Commonwealth Realms as well, of course) hasn’t been an absolute monarchy in decades; our Commonwealth Realms are governed by the democratic voices of the people, with the relationship between the Sovereign and subjects adding an additional guarantee of democratic government for our benefit.

Paradox, I'm well aware that we are not governed by an absolute monarchy. Regardless, the monarchy is still a steaming pile of crap where we give our allegiance to inbreeds sitting in fancy palaces.

The sovereign guarantees nothing, they are figureheads.

The fact that you refer to Canadian citizens as subjects is quite disgusting, it reeks of classism BS & indentured loyalty to your master.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Perhaps you didn’t actually read a word of what’s up there, DurkaDurka.

The constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and for the other Commonwealth Realms as well, of course) hasn’t been an absolute monarchy in decades; our Commonwealth Realms are governed by the democratic voices of the people, with the relationship between the Sovereign and subjects adding an additional guarantee of democratic government for our benefit.
That you think we live in a democracy says tons about your credibility. The aristocracy still rules, except that now we call them captains of industry. The ruling class only lets you think you live in a democracy but in fact you are only allowed to vote for their patsies.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
The sovereign guarantees nothing, they are figureheads.
The principle of The Queen’s Peace guarantees us a peaceful environment, which is why the Police are able to detain people without charge for a short period of time when the peace is broken; this is an essential feature of our Canadian philosophy of peace, order and good government, and it is derived (as are many other Canadian things) from our constitutional monarchy.

The fact that you refer to Canadian citizens as subjects is quite disgusting, it reeks of classism BS & indentured loyalty to your master.
Canadian citizens are Canadian citizens; I am referring specifically to the Sovereign-subject relationship, because that’s what it’s called, and that’s how one refers to all of the benefits and responsibilities thereof.

yea i agree, im tired of this being subjects to the britsh crown bull.....
Then it’s a good thing we have The Crown of Canada, and not the British one.

That you think we live in a democracy says tons about your credibility. The aristocracy still rules, except that now we call them captains of industry. The ruling class only lets you think you live in a democracy but in fact you are only allowed to vote for their patsies.
All members of our Government are responsible to our elected representatives in the House of Commons; so yes, we have responsible government because the government is responsible to the elected. We also have the tremendous advantage of bringing a more seasoned view to the legislative debates with the input of the Honourable the Senate of Canada. We have an extremely effective system, that takes advantages from wherever it can but also weights the decision-making with our democratic chamber. We should be very proud of the constitutional framework that we’ve developed under our constitutional monarchy.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
All members of our Government are responsible to our elected representatives in the House of Commons; so yes, we have responsible government because the government is responsible to the elected. We also have the tremendous advantage of bringing a more seasoned view to the legislative debates with the input of the Honourable the Senate of Canada. We have an extremely effective system, that takes advantages from wherever it can but also weights the decision-making with our democratic chamber. We should be very proud of the constitutional framework that we’ve developed under our constitutional monarchy.
You and coldstream sound like one and the same person, defending your chosen institutions with political double speak and nonsense.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
The principle of The Queen’s Peace guarantees us a peaceful environment, which is why the Police are able to detain people without charge for a short period of time when the peace is broken; this is an essential feature of our Canadian philosophy of peace, order and good government, and it is derived (as are many other Canadian things) from our constitutional monarchy.

You give far too much credit to the Queen, the fact that Canada is a peaceful nation is due to the citizens, not some document brewed up 200 years ago.

Canadian citizens are Canadian citizens; I am referring specifically to the Sovereign-subject relationship, because that’s what it’s called, and that’s how one refers to all of the benefits and responsibilities thereof.
Seems far too similar to the Master-Slave relationship for my liking.


Then it’s a good thing we have The Crown of Canada, and not the British one.
We share the same figurehead. Two peas in a pod
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
You give far too much credit to the Queen, the fact that Canada is a peaceful nation is due to the citizens, not some document brewed up 200 years ago.
Every event in the past two hundred years has contributed to the Canada that we are today, and this includes the contributions that our successive monarchs, the Office of the Governor General, and the Offices of the Lieutenant Governors have made to Canadian society and living. I did not say that The Queen had personally caused peace in Canada, but rather that the constitutional principle of The Queen’s Peace is directly related to our constitutional monarchy.

Seems far too similar to the Master-Slave relationship for my liking.
As you would likely hold the Government-citizen relationship. Sounds like a problem with authority in general.

We share the same figurehead. Two peas in a pod
We most certainly do not.

The Queen of the United Kingdom acts on the advice of the United Kingdom’s Privy Council, whereas The Queen of Canada (and Her Majesty’s Governor General) acts on the advice of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. Our constitutional monarchies are completely independent institutions, related to one another only insofar as each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms consents.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC

I’m always amused by the intense disgust so many Americans seem to have for anything even remotely related to the monarchy, when it really doesn’t have a shred to do with them. Americans had a choice, centuries ago, on whether to proceed ahead as a constitutional monarchy, with all of the benefits thereof, or whether to become a republic. Americans made their choice, and the political deadlock they experience today is one of the consequences thereof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eh1eh