Republicanism in the United Kingdom

Republicanism in the United Kingdom is the political movement that seeks to replace the United Kingdom's monarchy with a republic. For those who want a non-hereditary head of state, the method by which one should be chosen is not agreed upon, with some favouring an elected president, some an appointed head of state with little power. Others support something akin to the Swiss model, with a directorate functioning as a collective head of state.

Part of the Politics series on
Republicanism
Politics portal

Monarchy has been the form of government used in the countries that now make up the United Kingdom since the Middle Ages. However, a republican government existed in England and Wales, later along with Ireland and Scotland, in the mid-17th century as a result of the Parliamentarian victory in the English Civil War. The Commonwealth of England, as the period was called, lasted from the execution of Charles I in 1649 until the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

The main lobby group that campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy is Republic.

Context

Within Britain, republican sentiment has largely focused on the abolition of the British monarch, rather than the dissolution of the British Union or independence for its constituent countries.

In Northern Ireland, the term "republican" is usually used in the sense of Irish republicanism. While also against monarchical forms of government, Irish republicans are against the presence of the British state in any form in Ireland and advocate creating a united Ireland, an all-island state comprising the whole of Ireland. Unionists who support a British republic also exist in Northern Ireland.

There are republican members of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales who advocate independence for those countries as republics. The SNP's official policy is that the British monarch would remain head of state of an independent Scotland, unless the people of Scotland decided otherwise.[1] Plaid Cymru have a similar view for Wales, although its youth wing, Plaid Cymru Ifanc, has an official policy advocating a Welsh republic. The Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Green Party both support an independent Scottish republic.

History

Since the 1970s, early modern English republicanism has been extensively studied by historians, to the point where monarchism and absolutism have now become neglected fields. James Harrington (1611–1677) is generally considered to be the most representative republican writer of the era.[2]

Cromwellian Commonwealth
Main articles: Commonwealth of England, The Protectorate, and Interregnum (England)
See also: Wars of the Three Kingdoms

The countries that now make up the United Kingdom, together with the present Republic of Ireland, were briefly ruled as a republic in the 17th century, first under the Commonwealth consisting of the Rump Parliament and the Council of State (1649–1653) and then under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell and later his son Richard (1653–1659), and finally under the restored Rump Parliament (1659-60). The Commonwealth Parliament represented itself as a Republic on the classical model, with John Milton writing an early defense of republicanism in the idiom of constitutional limits on a monarch's power. Cromwell's Protectorate was less ideologically republican and was seen by Cromwell as restoring the mixed constitution of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy found in classical literature and English common law discourse.

First the Kingdom of England was declared to be the Commonwealth of England and then Scotland and Ireland were briefly forced into union with England by the army. This decision was later reversed when the monarchy was restored in 1660. In 1707 the Act of Union between England and Scotland was signed; the two countries' parliaments became one, and in return Scotland was granted access to the English overseas possessions.

A Dutch satirical view of Cromwell as a usurper of monarchical power

Many of Cromwell's actions upon gaining power were decried as "harsh, unwise, and tyrannical". He and General Thomas Fairfax were often ruthless in putting down the mutinies which occurred within their own army towards the end of the civil wars (prompted by Parliament's failure to pay the troops). They showed little sympathy for the Levellers, an egalitarian movement which had contributed greatly to Parliament's cause but sought representation for ordinary citizens. The Leveller point of view had been strongly represented in the Putney Debates, held between the various factions of the Army in 1647, just prior to the King's temporary escape from army custody. Cromwell and the Grandees were not prepared to permit such a radical democracy and used the debates to play for time while the future of the King was being determined. Catholics were persecuted zealously under Cromwell. Although he personally was in favour of religious toleration – "liberty for tender consciences" – not all his compatriots agreed. The war led to much death and chaos in Ireland where Irish Catholics and Protestants who fought for the Royalists were persecuted. There was a ban on many forms of entertainment, as public meetings could be used as a cover for conspirators; horse racing was banned, the maypoles were famously cut down, the theatres were closed, and Christmas celebrations were outlawed for being too ceremonial, Catholic, and "popish".

Much of Cromwell's power was due to the Rump Parliament, a Parliament purged of opposition to grandees in the New Model Army. Whereas Charles I had been in part restrained by a Parliament that would not always do as he wished (the cause of the Civil War), Cromwell was able to wield much more power as only loyalists were allowed to become MPs, turning the chamber into a rubber-stamping organisation. This was ironic given his complaints about Charles I acting without heeding the "wishes" of the people. But even so he found it almost impossible to get his Parliaments to follow all his wishes. His executive decisions were often thwarted – most famously in the ending of the rule of the regional major generals appointed by himself.

In 1657 Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament, presenting him with a dilemma since he had played a great role in abolishing the monarchy. After two months of deliberation, he rejected the offer. Instead, he was ceremonially re-installed as "Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland" (Wales was a part of England), with greater powers than he had previously held. It is often suggested that offering Cromwell the Crown was an effort to curb his power: as a King he would be obliged to honour agreements such as Magna Carta, but under the arrangement he had designed he had no such restraints. This allowed him to preserve and enhance his power and the army's while decreasing Parliament's control over him, probably to enable him to maintain a well-funded army which Parliament could not be depended upon to provide.

The office of Lord Protector was not formally hereditary, although Cromwell was able to nominate his own successor in his son, Richard.

Restoration of the monarchy

Although England, Scotland and Ireland became constitutional monarchies, after the reigns of Charles II and his brother James II and VII, and with the ascension of William III and Mary II to the English, Irish and Scottish thrones as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, there have been movements throughout the last few centuries whose aims were to remove the monarchy and establish a republican system. A notable period was the time in the late 18th century and early 19th century when many Radicals such as the minister Joseph Fawcett were openly republican.[3]

American and French Revolutions
Thomas Paine (1737–1809): "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that nature disproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion."[4]

The American Revolution had a great impact on political thought in the British Isles. According to Christopher Hitchens, the British–American author, philosopher, politician and activist, Thomas Paine was the "moral author of the American Revolution", who posited in the soon widely read pamphlet Common Sense (January 1776) that the conflict of the Thirteen Colonies with the Hanoverian monarchy in London was best resolved by setting up a separate democratic republic.[5] To him, republicanism was more important than independence. However, the circumstances forced the American revolutionaries to give up any hope of reconciliation with Britain, and reforming its 'corrupt' monarchial government, that so often dragged the American colonies in its European wars, from within.[4] He and other British republican writers saw in the Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776) a legitimate struggle against the Crown, that violated people's freedom and rights, and denied them representation in politics.[6]

Main article: Revolution Controversy

When the French Revolution broke out in 1789, debates started in the British Isles on how to respond. Soon a pro-Revolutionary republican and anti-Revolutionary monarchist camp had established themselves amongst the intelligentsia, who waged a pamphlet war until 1795. Prominent figures of the republican camp were Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin and again Thomas Paine.[7]

Paine would also play an important role inside the Revolution in France as an elected member of the National Convention (1792–93), where he lobbied for the invasion of Britain to establish a republic after the example of the United States, France and its Sister Republics, but also famously opposed the execution of Louis XVI, which got him arrested.[5] The First French Republic would indeed stage an Expedition to Ireland in December 1796 to help the Society of United Irishmen set up an Irish republic in order to destabilise the United Kingdom, but this ended in a failure. The subsequent Irish Rebellion of 1798 was utterly crushed by the British Army. Napoleon also planned an invasion of Britain since 1798 and more seriously since 1803, but in 1804 he relinquished republicanism by crowning himself Emperor of the French and converting all Sister Republics into client kingdoms of the French Empire, before calling off the invasion of Britain altogether in 1805.

Revolutionary republicanism, 1800–1848
British republican flag, originated in 1816, in use until at least 1935.[8]

From the start of the French Revolution into the early 19th century, the revolutionary blue-white-red tricolour was used throughout England, Wales and Ireland in defiance of the royal establishment. During the 1816 Spa Fields riots, a green, white and red horizontal flag appeared for the first time, soon followed by a red, white and green horizontal version allegedly in use during the 1817 Pentrich rising and the 1819 Peterloo Massacre. The latter is now associated with Hungary, but then it became known as the British Republican Flag. It may have been inspired by the French revolutionary tricolour, but this is unclear. It was however often accompanied by slogans consisting of three words such as "Fraternity – Liberty – Humanity" (a clear reference to Liberté, égalité, fraternité), and adopted by the Chartist movement in the 1830s.[8]

Besides these skirmishes in Great Britain itself, separatist republican revolutions against the British monarchy during the Canadian rebellions of 1837–38 and the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 failed.

Parliament passed the Treason Felony Act in 1848. This act made advocacy of republicanism punishable by transportation to Australia, which was later amended to life imprisonment. The law is still on the statute books; however in a 2003 case, the Law Lords stated that "It is plain as a pike staff to the respondents and everyone else that no one who advocates the peaceful abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a republican form of government is at any risk of prosecution", for the reason that the Human Rights Act 1998 would require the 1848 Act to be interpreted in such a way as to render such conduct non-criminal.[9]

Late 19th century

During the later years of Queen Victoria's reign, there was considerable criticism of her decision to withdraw from public life following the death of her husband, Prince Albert. This resulted in a "significant incarnation" of republicanism.[10] During the 1870s, calls for Britain to become a republic on the American or French model were made by the politicians Charles Dilke[11] and Charles Bradlaugh, as well as journalist George W. M. Reynolds.[10] This republican presence continued in debates and the Labour press, especially in the event of royal weddings, jubilees and births, until well into the Interwar Period.[10]

Some members of the Labour Party, such as Keir Hardie (1856–1915), also held republican views.[12]

20th-century republicanism

In 1923, at the Labour Party's annual conference, two motions were proposed, supported by Ernest Thurtle and Emrys Hughes. The first was "that the Royal Family is no longer a necessary party of the British constitution", and the second was "that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished".[13] George Lansbury responded that, although he too was a republican, he regarded the issue of the monarchy as a "distraction" from more important issues. Lansbury added that he believed the "social revolution" would eventually remove the monarchy peacefully in the future. Both of the motions were overwhelmingly defeated.[13][14][15] Following this event, most of the Labour Party moved away from advocating republican views.[13] In 1936, following the abdication of Edward VIII, MP James Maxton proposed a "republican amendment" to the Abdication Bill, which would have established a Republic in Britain. Maxton argued that while the monarchy had benefited Britain in the past, it had now "outlived its usefulness". Five MPs voted to support the bill, including Alfred Salter. However the bill was defeated by 403 votes.[16][17]

Tony Benn in 2007.

In 1991, Labour MP Tony Benn introduced the Commonwealth of Britain Bill, which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected President.[18] The monarchy would be abolished and replaced by a republic with a written constitution. It was read in Parliament a number of times until his retirement at the 2001 election, but never achieved a second reading.[19] Benn presented an account of his proposal in Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain.[20]

In January 1997, ITV broadcast a live television debate Monarchy: The Nation Decides, in which 2.5 million viewers voted on the question "Do you want a monarch?" by telephone. Speaking for the republican view were Professor Stephen Haseler, (chairman of Republic), agony aunt Claire Rayner, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West and Andrew Neil, then the former editor of The Sunday Times. Those in favour of the monarchy included author Frederick Forsyth, Bernie Grant, Labour MP for Tottenham, and Jeffrey Archer, former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Conservative MP Steven Norris was scheduled to appear in a discussion towards the end of the programme, but officials from Carlton Television said he had left without explanation. The debate was conducted in front of an audience of 3,000 at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, with the telephone poll result being that 66% of voters wanted a monarch, and 34% did not.[21]

21st-century republicanism

MORI polls in the opening years of the 21st century showed support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people, but in 2005, at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped, with one poll showing that 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[22] In 2009 an ICM poll, commissioned by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[23]

In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after the Queen's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[24] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[25] In April 2011, in the lead up to the Royal Wedding, an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,000 British adults found that 75% of the public would like Britain to remain a monarchy, with 18% in favour of Britain becoming a republic. In May 2012, in the lead up to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,006 British adults found that 80% were in favour of the monarchy, with 13% in favour of the United Kingdom becoming a republic. This was thought to be a record high figure in recent years in favour of the monarchy.[22]

The main organisation campaigning for a republic in the United Kingdom is the campaign group Republic. Formed in 1983, Republic is frequently cited by much of the UK media on issues involving the royal family.[26][27]

In September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour MP with republican views, won his party's leadership election and became both Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party. In 1991, Corbyn had seconded the Commonwealth of Britain Bill.[28] However, Corbyn stated during his 2015 campaign for the leadership that republicanism was "not a battle that I am fighting".[29][30]

At the swearing of oaths in the Commons following the 2017 general election, Republic reported that several MPs had prefixed their oath/affirmation of allegiance with broadly republican sentiments.[31]

Supporters
Further information: List of advocates of republicanism in the United Kingdom

A number of prominent individuals in the United Kingdom advocate republicanism.

Political parties

As of 2020, none of the three major British political parties – the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the SNP – have an official policy of republicanism. However, there are a number of individual politicians who favour abolition of the monarchy (see above). Tony Benn of the Labour Party introduced a Commonwealth of Britain Bill in Parliament in 1991.[32] Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party from 2015 to 2020, is a republican, but had stated that he would not seek to abolish the monarchy whilst he remained leader.[33]

The Green Party of England and Wales, with one MP in Parliament since 2010, has an official policy of republicanism.[34] The Irish republican party Sinn Féin has seven MPs, but they only participate in local and devolved government, and do not take their UK parliamentary seats.[35] The Scottish Green Party, with six MSPs in the 2016–2021 Scottish Parliament, supports having an elected Head of State in an independent Scotland.[36]

Lobby groups
Main article: Republic (political organisation)

The largest lobby group in favour of republicanism in the United Kingdom is the Republic campaign group, founded in 1983. The group has benefited from occasional negative publicity about the Royal Family, and Republic reported a large rise in membership following the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Republic has lobbied on changes to the parliamentary oath of allegiance, royal finances and changes to the Freedom of Information Act relating to the monarchy, none of which have produced any change. However, Republic has been invited to Parliament to talk as witnesses on certain issues related to the monarchy such as conduct of the honours system in the United Kingdom.

In 2009 Republic made news[37] by reporting Prince Charles's architecture charity to the Charity Commission, claiming that the Prince was effectively using the organisation as a private lobbying firm (the Commission declined to take the matter further). Republic has previously broken stories about royals using the Freedom of Information Act. The organisation is regularly called up to comment and provide quotes for the press, national and local radio and national TV programmes, with much criticism as to the portrayal of the monarchy by the BBC which has been accused of celebrating the monarchy rather than keeping its politically neutral stance on issues related to it.

Labour for a Republic is the Labour Party's campaign for an elected head of state, and acts as a pressure group made up of members and supporters of the party. It advocates abolition of the monarchy in favour of a democratic republic.[38]

Media

The Guardian, Observer and Independent newspapers have all advocated the abolition of the monarchy.[39] In the wake of the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority.[40]

Arguments in favour of a republic

The benefits of a republic

Republicans suggest that republicanism is a constitutional step which answers a number of key issues.

The advocacy group Republic argues:

The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.

It does this is in a variety of ways:

  • Royal Prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.
  • The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.
  • The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when Parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.[41]

Republicans also want to see a constitution that they claim will inspire aspiration (by allowing anyone to become head of state) and political responsibility (by introducing popular sovereignty, the notion that the people are "in charge"). They also claim that they want what is "best for Britain", which includes the best democracy.[42]

Arguments against monarchy

Republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. Such a system, they assert, does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a "modern nation". Some claim that maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.[42]

Further, republicans argue that "the people", not the members of one family, should be sovereign.[42]

Monarchy contradicts democracy
Monarchy denies the people a basic right
Republicans believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a better nation.[43]
Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system
Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.[41]
A monarchy demands deference
It is argued by republicans that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects "in their place".[44]
It is the enemy of merit and aspiration
The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.
Monarchy imposes a state religion
Republicans argue that a monarch who is the head of an established church in an increasingly secular and multicultural society reinforces the notion of hereditary privilege based on the divine right of kings. On the royal coat of arms is the motto in French: Dieu et mon droit (God and my right). The established church in England is the Church of England which has the King or Queen of the United Kingdom as its head. The church is tax exempt and provides the House of Lords in Parliament with 26 unelected bishops as its representatives.
It devalues intellect and achievement
Republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include the Queen's many honorary military titles of colonel-in-chief, regardless of her military experience. There is debate over the roles which the members of the monarchy have played in the military; many doubt that members of the Royal Family have served on the front line on the same basis as other members of the Armed Forces. Examples here include Prince Andrew, whose presence during the Falklands War was later criticised by the commander of the British Naval Force who stated that "special measures" had to be taken to ensure that the prince did not lose his life,[45] and Prince Harry, who was moved to a safe room and placed under guard during an attack on the Camp Bastion base in Afghanistan.[46] It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise than military service. Members of the royal family are fast-tracked to higher ranks in the army.[47]
It harms the monarchs themselves
Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.[48]
Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability
Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken and acted in ways that have widely been interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of the black spider memos, which were released following freedom of information litigation, regarding how people achieve their positions.[49][50][51]

Republicans see a lack of important democratic accountability and transparency for such institutions.

The monarchy is expensive
Republicans argue that it costs a lot to have a monarchy. Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill and lost rental income from palaces and state-owned land) of the monarchy are £334 million per annum.[52] The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year.[53] However, this figure does not take into account royal security, nor the money paid by regional councils to fund the costs of visits by members of the Royal Family, and assumes the "official" figure of £34m per annum to be divided between every man, woman and child in the land. Republic also argues that the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Although monarchists argue that this does not take into account the "hereditary revenues" which generated £190.8 million for the treasury in 2007–2008, republicans assert that the Crown Estate, from which these revenues are derived, is national and State property, and that the monarch cannot surrender what they have never owned.[54] The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland.[54] The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is refuted by Republic, who suggest that the reverse may actually be true – if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London).[55]
The monarchy makes the UK appear "backward"
Republicans argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.[56][57]

Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy

Monarchy can be complementary to rather than a replacement for democracy

Some argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament. However, it was revealed in October 2011 that both the Queen and Prince Charles do have the power to veto government legislation which affects their private interests.[58] The Queen attended a cabinet meeting on 18 December 2012 – the first Monarch to have done so since George III in 1781.[59]

Provides a safeguard against government instability

Some argue that the Monarch's constitutional position (with the little-used power to dissolve or refuse a government) could safeguard against Britain ever becoming a dictatorship; however, Republic has denied claims that the monarchy has this sort of power. Examples of this argument being used often include the 1981 April Fool's Day Coup in Thailand and the El Tejerazo coup in Spain when King Bhumibol and King Juan Carlos I respectively stepped in to restore democracy in their countries. There are however also counterexamples. Monarchy in Italy did not prevent the advent of fascism and the dictatorship of Mussolini. In fact, it helped the Fascists in gaining power.

Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual

The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue[60] that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and[61] confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch's coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture.[62] Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.

Provides a focal point for unity and tradition

Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.[63]

If there were a republic, the costs may remain the same

Some argue that if there were a republic, the costs incurred in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill").[64][65] However, the figure of 69p per person has been criticised for having been calculated by dividing the overall figure by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.[66]

A British Republic has already been tested and failed

Even though no modern republicans advocate a republic modelled on Cromwell's Protectorate, some[67] point out that a Republican Commonwealth of England, Ireland and Scotland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649. Yet by February 1657 some people[68] argued that Cromwell should assume the crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent. Cromwell declined. Within three years of his death the Republic had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of the Scottish James II of England (VII of Scotland), Parliament and others, such as John Locke[69] argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers. (This overlooks a few factors, however – Cromwell's republic was based on the ideals of puritanism and land-based privilege, whilst modern republican advocates have strong links to secularism and expansion of democracy. Cromwell was also not a republican in the strict sense, and opposed groups that were, such as the Levellers).

gollark: Hmm.
gollark: 666 links
gollark: 333 nautical miles
gollark: 103 fathoms
gollark: IT HANDLES FURLONGS?!

See also

References
  1. Alex Salmond (January 2012). "Scotland's place in the world". Scottish National Party. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013.
  2. Wiemann, Dirk; Mahlberg, Gaby (ed.) (2016). Perspectives on English Revolutionary Republicanism. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-317-08176-0. Retrieved 22 June 2016.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  3. White, Daniel E. (2006). Early Romanticism and religious dissent. Cambridge University Press, p. 93 ISBN 978-0-521-85895-3
  4. Foner, Eric (2005). Tom Paine and Revolutionary America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 978-0-19-517486-1. Retrieved 23 May 2016.
  5. Christopher Hitchens (23 October 2007). "Hitchens: How Paine's 'Rights' Changed the World". NPR Books. NPR. Retrieved 23 May 2016.
  6. Honohan, Iseult; Jennings, Jeremy (2006). Republicanism in Theory and Practice. Psychology Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-415-35736-4. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
  7. Butler, Marilyn, ed. Burke, Paine, Godwin, and the Revolution Controversy (1984), p. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-28656-5.
  8. Bloom, Clive (2012). Riot City. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 156–158. ISBN 978-1-137-02937-9. Retrieved 2 March 2016.
  9. House of Lords. "Regina v Her Majesty's Attorney General (Appellant) ex parte Rusbridger and another (Respondents)". House of Lords. Retrieved 11 January 2015.
  10. Andrzej Olechnowicz, The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-84461-4, (p. 190).
  11. Thomas M. Costa, "Dilke, Charles Wentworth" in Historical Dictionary of the British Empire edited by James S. Olson and Robert Shadle. Greenwood Press, 1996 ISBN 0-313-27917-9
  12. Reid, Fred. (1978) Keir Hardie: the making of a socialist. Croom Helm, p. 96. ISBN 978-0-85664-624-9.
  13. Kingsley Martin, The Crown and the Establishment. London, Hutchinson. 1962 (pp. 53–54)
  14. Martin Pugh, Speak for Britain!: A New History of the Labour Party. London : Vintage, 2011. ISBN 978-0-09-952078-8 (p. 170).
  15. Jeremy Paxman, On Royalty : A Very Polite Inquiry Into Some Strangely Related Families ISBN 978-1-58648-491-0 (pp. 206–07)
  16. Denis Judd, George VI. London, IB Tauris, 2012. ISBN 9781780760711 (p. 157).
  17. Fenner Brockway, Bermondsey Story: the Life of Alfred Salter. London, Allen and Unwin, 1949 (p. 201).
  18. "Early day motion 1075". UK Parliament.
  19. "Commonwealth of Britain Bill". Hansard. House of Commons. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
  20. Benn, Tony; Hood, Andrew (17 June 1993). Hood, Andrew (ed.). Common Sense: New Constitution for Britain. London: Hutchinson. ISBN 978-0-09-177308-3.
  21. Borrill, Rachel (8 January 1997). "66% 'yes' vote to monarchy in TV 'phone poll contradicts previous result". The Irish Times. Retrieved 17 February 2019.
  22. "Monarchy/Royal Family Trends – Monarchy v Republic 1993-2013". ipsos-mori.com. 19 July 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2015.
  23. "PM and Palace 'discussed reform'". BBC News. 29 March 2009. Retrieved 29 March 2009.
  24. "Positively princely". YouGov. 25 March 2011. Archived from the original on 27 March 2011. Retrieved 3 April 2011.
  25. "Poll shows support for Royal Family". The Guardian. London. 25 April 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  26. Holly Wallis, Diamond Jubilee v Republican Britain, BBC News, 27 May 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2013
  27. BBC News, Prince Charles hits out at climate change sceptics, 9 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013
  28. "Early day motion 1075". UK Parliament.
  29. Proctor, Kate (13 June 2015). "Labour MPs switch from Andy Burnham to left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in leadership race". Newcastle Evening Chronicle. Archived from the original on 18 June 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
  30. "Who is Jeremy Corbyn? Labour leadership contender guide". BBC News. 30 July 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  31. "Republic — MPs break convention to swear allegiance to the people". Republic. 15 June 2017. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  32. Works related to Commonwealth of Britain Bill at Wikisource
  33. Wheeler, Richard (29 May 2017). "Leadership debate: Abolishing the monarchy is not on my agenda, Jeremy Corbyn says". The Independent. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  34. Could we have the first republican party MPs after this election? – Republic. Published 16 April 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
  35. "Conservative politician urges Sinn Fein MPs to take seats in House of Commons". Belfast Telegraph. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  36. "Scottish Independence – Scottish Green Party" (PDF). Scottish Green Party. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 16 February 2014.
  37. Robert Booth (20 August 2009). "Prince Charles's architecture foundation could face investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2015.
  38. "About". Labour for a Republic. 18 June 2017. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  39. Katawala, Sunder (7 February 2012). "The monarchy is more secure than ever". New Statesman. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
  40. "Readers give their verdict: first fix the electoral system". The Guardian. London. 3 June 2009. Retrieved 22 May 2010.
  41. "What we want". Republic. Archived from the original on 19 April 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  42. "The case for a republic". Republic. Archived from the original on 17 May 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  43. Hames, Tim; Leonard, Mark (1998). Modernising the monarchy. Demos. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-898309-74-1.
  44. Bertram, Christopher (2004). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Rousseau and The social contract. Routledge. p. 160.
  45. Moreton, Cole (17 March 2012). "Falkland Islands: Britain 'would lose' if Argentina decides to invade now". The Telegraph. London.
  46. "Prince Harry under guard during Taliban attack on base". BBC News. 18 September 2012.
  47. "Prince Charles awarded highest rank in all three armed forces". 28 March 2017.
  48. Johann Hari (2002). "Chapter One". God Save the Queen?. Icon Books. ISBN 978-1840464016. Archived from the original on 17 March 2006 – via JohannHari.com.
  49. "Tibet News Network: Charles furore grows with Tibet missive". Archived from the original on 28 September 2006. Retrieved 1 September 2006.
  50. Palace defends prince's letters. BBC News. 25 September 2002.
  51. Assinder, Nick; BBC News: Royals dragged into Haider row. BBC News. 9 February 2000.
  52. "Royal finances". Republic. 30 December 2012. Retrieved 20 August 2015.
  53. Allen, Nick (14 June 2008). "Britain should get rid of the monarchy, says UN". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 28 September 2008.
  54. "Royal Finances". Republic. Archived from the original on 4 July 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  55. "Tourism". Republic. Archived from the original on 22 August 2011. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  56. Blain, Neil; O'Donnell, Hugh (2003). Media, monarchy and power. Intellect Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-84150-043-0.
  57. Long, Phil; Palmer, Nicola J. (2007). Royal tourism: excursions around monarchy. Channel View Publications. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1-84541-080-3.
  58. Booth, Robert (31 August 2012). "Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed". The Guardian. London.
  59. Syal, Rajeev; Mulholland, Helene (18 December 2012). "Queen attends cabinet meeting". The Guardian. London.
  60. "Constitutional Monarchy". British Monarchist League. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  61. "Constitutional Matters". The Baronage Press Ltd. 1995. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  62. House of Commons Library 6 July 2011
  63. Bogdanor, V. (1997). The Monarchy and the Constitution. ch11
  64. "The cost of the British Monarchy? A mere 69 pence per person". The Star. 6 July 2011. Archived from the original on 24 October 2012.
  65. The Press Secretary to the Queen, The British Monarchy website 6 July 2011 Archived 14 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  66. "Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m". BBC News. 29 June 2009. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  67. David Plant, The Rump Parliament, British Civil Wars and Commonwealth website http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/rump-parliament.htm 6 July 2011
  68. A group of MPs headed by Lord Broghill, David Plant, Biography of Oliver Cromwell, British Civil Wars and Commonwealth website http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/oliver-cromwell.htm 6 July 2011
  69. The philosopher John Locke, 'John Locke Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property', Jim Powell, senior fellow, Cato Institute, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 2016-02-08.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) 6 July 2011

Further reading
  • Bloom, Clive. Restless Revolutionaries : a history of Britain's fight for a Republic. Stroud, Sutton. 2010. ISBN 978-0-7524-5856-4
  • Hitchens, Christopher. The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain's Favourite Fetish. 1990. Chatto & Windus Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4481-5535-4
  • Mahlberg Gaby, and Wiemann Dirk. European Contexts for English Republicanism. Farnham : Ashgate, 2013. ISBN 978-1-4094-5556-1
  • Nairn, Tom. The Enchanted Glass: Britain and Its Monarchy. London :Verso Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1-84467-775-7
  • Scott, Jonathan. Commonwealth Principles : Republican Writing of the English revolution. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-521-84375-8.
  • Taylor, Anthony. "Down with The Crown" : British anti-monarchism and debates about royalty since 1790. London : Reaktion Books, 1999. ISBN 1-86189-049-4
  • Taylor, Anthony and Nash, David. Republicanism in Victorian Society Stroud : Sutton, 2000. ISBN 0-7509-1856-X.
  • Wiemann, Dirk and Mahlberg, Gaby (ed.), Perspectives on English Revolutionary Republicanism. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. 2016. ISBN 978-1-317-08176-0
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.