Letter: Lack of imagination by those backing republic

The last time that Britain was a republic singing, dancing and music were banned. Present day pro-republicans seem to be burdened with a similarly joyless lack of imagination.

President Cameron?
President Cameron?

The last time that Britain was a republic singing, dancing and music were banned. Present day pro-republicans seem to be burdened with a similarly joyless lack of imagination.

I’d have to be an experienced psychiatrist to understand why they think it would be better to have a president as our head of state, but the ‘what if’ scenarios of such a pipedream can be quite entertaining.

The idea of Presidents Blair, Brown and Cameron spur an instant shudder, but imagine President Thatcher with Norman Tebbit as Prime Minister?

I can’t imagine that the ultra socialism which is the bedrock of the republican movement would have fancied that.

Bob Jenkins,

Stirchley

Comments for: "Letter: Lack of imagination by those backing republic"

Ken Adams

Bob I rather think you are mistaken when you say ultra socialism is the bedrock of the republican movement, unless you are only referring to those people and parties who support a republic in the UK, the idea of a republic is neither left nor right but an alternative method of government which can be either.

This is not about what a nice lady the present Queen is but about her place in the government of this country, if she has no place then what point a monarchy?

The problem we have is that the monarchy is not working as a safeguard for the nation state, the present queen is nothing more than a figurehead behind which dwells a basically republican system.

Basically republic but without the control of a written constitution and without an active head of state to protect the constitution which would moderate the powers of those we elect.

The question which needs addressing is where today in the UK does the ultimate power reside? With the monarch or with parliament/government. I believe it resides with the elected government. But because the queen no longer has any real power to control her government that control must come from elsewhere.

Normally this control would come from a written constitution which only empowers the elected government act within that constitution. Because we lack a written constitution and because they have ignored the constitution we do have, we have a cross party political elite who have been acting as if they had absolute control regardless of the wishes of the people or the good of the nation state.

The 1689 bill of rights limits on the powers of sovereign and recognises the people rights but did not foresee a situation where a political elite could simply ignore those constitutional documents we do have and undermine our rights while at the same time undermining the fabric of the nation state.

Woody

You've upset a few of the natives on here with this topic. I look forward to the sabre rattling...... If only my ancestor were alive now!

Nistagmus

I will repeat;

Supporting the Monarchy is supporting the public degradation of a single family in perpetuity for the purposes of profiting the nation as a whole. As such it may well be viewed by future generations as monstrous, as some view it already. Its main proponents hypocritically espouse the concept of social mobility through effort and reward but *not* for everyone.

It is paradoxically a lack of imagination by Monarchist supporters instead that results in their inability to empathise with the Windsors themselves in that the Royals have no free-will, as the general population of these isles understand it, in what they do with their lives. In days gone by, to be the Royal family required both aptitude and desire to do the job, after all they fought wars to get and retain the role and failure was punished with death or exile. Nowadays, the system is entirely hereditary and neither desire nor aptitude is required, as such it may be viewed as a sentence rather than a choice.

If we believe in the idea of a hereditary 'Alpha' in society, we should in turn see no problem with a hereditary 'Omega' and I suggest that Mr Jenkins should volunteer for the role with the understanding that his children and their children ad infinitum are also being granted the status of pariahs as part of the deal.

As for having a President, that is largely irrelevant as it is not an inevitable conclusion of ending the Monarchy. Whilst having a Monarchy may be viewed by some as 'maybe not perfect but the best system we've got', that stance shows the greatest lack of imagination. Time to get your thinking caps on and work out a better system!

Fiona

I am not sufficiently educated. Who is Mrs Brookes' God Father? If not that of her sister? There is a connection between Blair Brown and Cameron one of them has a son whose Godfather is? Not off subject.