How many of us are Republicans?

[NAE NOOKIE]

As a lifelong committed republican I wondered how many folk on here are of a similar opinion. Never mind any economic arguments, you just don't agree with inherited privilege .... I don't mean wealth.

[Beefster]

I'm not sure I'd refer to myself as a committed republican as I've never actually done anything about it but I'd get rid of the Royal Family in a shot.

A system where someone is bowed and scraped to because of a quirk of fate is wrong. It always slightly bemuses me when you see heads of organisations or self-made people act like giddy schoolkids with the likes of Harry or Kate Middleton.

[Peevemor]

I'm neither here nor there - I really have no strong sentiments for or against the monarchy, although I'd no doubt be of a different mind if they had any real power.

France is a republic and, despite the revolution, most historically noble families are still around and many hold very powerful positions - I find that far more sinister than the British setup.

[Pretty Boy]

I'm not sure I'd refer to myself as a committed republican as I've never actually done anything about it but I'd get rid of the Royal Family in a shot.

A system where someone is bowed and scraped to because of a quirk of fate is wrong. It always slightly bemuses me when you see heads of organisations or self-made people act like giddy schoolkids with the likes of Harry or Kate Middleton.

Saved me some typing.

[Sergio sledge]

I'm not sure I'd refer to myself as a committed republican as I've never actually done anything about it but I'd get rid of the Royal Family in a shot.

A system where someone is bowed and scraped to because of a quirk of fate is wrong. It always slightly bemuses me when you see heads of organisations or self-made people act like giddy schoolkids with the likes of Harry or Kate Middleton.

:agree:

[PeeJay]

For me, life in Germany has shown that a republic can work and work well ... the UK would do well to move into the modern world and remove the Royal Family/monarchy - BUT don't send them back here! :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I quite like the concept of an apolitical head of state but I can't stand the hereditary nature of monarchy or the hingers-on or the forelock tugging etc. I think we should pioneer an elected monarchy, 10 year term, no associated royal family etc. The queen could stand for the first term if she likes. :wink:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I would describe myself as republican. Power and privilege based upon accident of birth is a nonsense, and the monarchy are at the apex of the class system that is still in operation. Titles and the honours system are an embarrassment, and I do feel let down when somebody I respect accepts an OBE or some such. The House Of Lords must also be abolished. Social mobility in the UK has been in reverse in the past thirty years, and is another issue that needs addressing via progressive policies.

[danhibees1875]

I'm not sure I'd refer to myself as a committed republican as I've never actually done anything about it but I'd get rid of the Royal Family in a shot.

A system where someone is bowed and scraped to because of a quirk of fate is wrong. It always slightly bemuses me when you see heads of organisations or self-made people act like giddy schoolkids with the likes of Harry or Kate Middleton.

This. :agree:

The wedding and baby nonsense of late has me in amazement sometimes as to how people can get so engrossed by the royal family. In a childish way, the fact that people like them sooooo much has lead to me harbouring a dislike to them purely as a small step towards balancing the scales of care. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I don't really care about the Royal Family but getting rid of them and changing our system of government is fairly low on my list of priorities.

[hibsbollah]

Its simple. If you believe all humans are born of equal 'value', you should be a republican. On the other hand, if you believe in the superiority of one family group based on how well their ancestors performed in wars with other family groups, you should be a royalist.

Its a more important debate than the normal irrelevant rubbish we are fed daily by our political class (see todays Autumn statement for evidence).

[s.a.m]

Its simple. If you believe all humans are born of equal 'value', you should be a republican. On the other hand, if you believe in the superiority of one family group based on how well their ancestors performed in wars with other family groups, you should be a royalist.

Its a more important debate than the normal irrelevant rubbish we are fed daily by our political class (see todays Autumn statement for evidence).


Agree with that, although I find as I get older that I've run out of energy to be wound up about it.
.....Or at least I thought I had, until I was in the supermarket on Sunday, and saw they were selling 'Mail on Sundays' with Prince George calendars :grr: and came over all French Revolution. I was whistling La Marseillaise all the way home. :whistle:

[Colr]

I am a Republican but lots of people are not so what we have is a reasonable compromise. Not really worth the effort to get rid of them.

[Peevemor]

Its simple. If you believe all humans are born of equal 'value', you should be a republican. On the other hand, if you believe in the superiority of one family group based on how well their ancestors performed in wars with other family groups, you should be a royalist.

Its a more important debate than the normal irrelevant rubbish we are fed daily by our political class (see todays Autumn statement for evidence).

Years ago I worked for a firm of chartered surveyors. The majority of their work was estate management. They looked after (factored) every aspect of the landed gentry's property, including farm, forestry, game, fishery and building management. The latter is where I came in and I loved it, working on everything from cattle sheds to a 60 (sixty) bedroomed house. I travelled throughout Scotland and discovered a social system that I thought (maybe naively) had disappeared along with the British Empire. There are still individuals and families who, although they remain largely anonymous to the public at large, have an enormous amount of land/property, wealth and, above all, clout.

I loved the work and the only reason I left was that, unless daddy owned 100k acres of countryside, there was no chance of getting past the bottom rung of the company corporate ladder.

The point I'm making is that, queen or no queen, monarchy or republic, these people will always be there pulling unseen strings.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Years ago I worked for a firm of chartered surveyors. The majority of their work was estate management. They looked after (factored) every aspect of the landed gentry's property, including farm, forestry, game, fishery and building management. The latter is where I came in and I loved it, working on everything from cattle sheds to a 60 (sixty) bedroomed house. I travelled throughout Scotland and discovered a social system that I thought (maybe naively) had disappeared along with the British Empire. There are still individuals and families who, although they remain largely anonymous to the public at large, have an enormous amount of land/property, wealth and, above all, clout.

I loved the work and the only reason I left was that, unless daddy owned 100k acres of countryside, there was no chance of getting past the bottom rung of the company corporate ladder.

The point I'm making is that, queen or no queen, monarchy or republic, these people will always be there pulling unseen strings.

Not if we nationalize the land ;-)

How on earth can a family 'own' huge tracts of the country? It's absurd. It's like saying you own the air or the sky. Nobody own it, it's just there : -D

[Mr White]

Years ago I worked for a firm of chartered surveyors. The majority of their work was estate management. They looked after (factored) every aspect of the landed gentry's property, including farm, forestry, game, fishery and building management. The latter is where I came in and I loved it, working on everything from cattle sheds to a 60 (sixty) bedroomed house. I travelled throughout Scotland and discovered a social system that I thought (maybe naively) had disappeared along with the British Empire. There are still individuals and families who, although they remain largely anonymous to the public at large, have an enormous amount of land/property, wealth and, above all, clout.

I loved the work and the only reason I left was that, unless daddy owned 100k acres of countryside, there was no chance of getting past the bottom rung of the company corporate ladder.

The point I'm making is that, queen or no queen, monarchy or republic, these people will always be there pulling unseen strings.

Just saw a link to this

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring

Sorry link hasn't worked from my phone

[ronaldo7]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring

:aok:

[Mr White]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring

:aok:

:not worth

[sleeping giant]

Not if we nationalize the land ;-)

How on earth can a family 'own' huge tracts of the country? It's absurd. It's like saying you own the air or the sky. Nobody own it, it's just there : -D

:greengrin
Me and you would get on :agree:

How the hell can anybody "own" land?

[Peevemor]

Not if we nationalize the land ;-)

How on earth can a family 'own' huge tracts of the country? It's absurd. It's like saying you own the air or the sky. Nobody own it, it's just there : -D

Good luck getting that through the House of "Commons", let alone the House of Lords.

[Beefster]

:greengrin
Me and you would get on :agree:

How the hell can anybody "own" land?

In the same way as I own my car or house, no? Isn't it practically the same as me owning my back garden but on a grander scale?

[sleeping giant]

In the same way as I own my car or house, no? Isn't it practically the same as me owning my back garden but on a grander scale?

My point is that the land has been here since the earth was formed near enough. It doesn't belong to anyone.

I don't believe we should be able to "own" any land at all. Even your back garden.

[Beefster]

My point is that the land has been here since the earth was formed near enough. It doesn't belong to anyone.

I don't believe we should be able to "own" any land at all. Even your back garden.

I should have used you when I was buying the Beefster estate.

[DaveF]

I'm not sure I'd refer to myself as a committed republican as I've never actually done anything about it but I'd get rid of the Royal Family in a shot.


Need more than one bullet surely? :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

I should have used you when I was buying the Beefster estate.

Eventually , all the land will be "owned" . What will then happen with future generations of humans . There will be no land to buy.
They will need to float :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

What annoys me more than anything else about the royal family is the minor royals on the civil list receiving thosands of tax payers money for doing nothing. Imo full independence should have meant just that. The royal family is a complete irrelevance to our country.

[VivaHiberña]

:greengrin
Me and you would get on :agree:

How the hell can anybody "own" land?

Have you read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf) yet? Your 2nd sentence sums it all up pretty well. :greengrin


What annoys me more than anything else about the royal family is the minor royals on the civil list receiving thosands of tax payers money for doing nothing. Imo full independence should have meant just that. The royal family is a complete irrelevance to our country.

I want to agree but can't. The independence question was rightly about independence. Once independent we could then have pursued a republican agenda.

Reminds of the time I was manning a Yes stall and a man told me he was voting No because the White Paper included keeping the monarchy. Wouldn't listen to anything I said about taking it one issue at a time and refused to answer my question about whether remaining part of the UK was a better way of becoming a republic. Very frustrating, but like I said, they're separate issues in my book even if one would have facilitated the other.