Posted on 03/30/2019 5:02:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Donald Trump did seek out Princess Diana after her divorce from Prince Charles.
It really is.
Topics such as “Civil War 2” and “Breaking up the USA” have gone from fringe talk to serious conversation.
Like you wrote in a previous post: “It’s a sad thing to see a country self-destruct.”. Yes, but we’re just about there.
Well look, I think it’s clever and I’m clever for thinking of it. ;-)
More importantly it might be something that is feasible. As almost no one on the right there is a republican they only way you’d get abolishing the monarchy was if a hard-left government got in and rammed it down the throats of the country, our conservative counterparts in the UK don’t want the structure of the government changed any more than we won’t to abolish the electoral college. This is about them not us.
If you think about it it would give you most what you want while preserving much of what traditionalists want to keep. The Regent would be no more “useless” than the President of any parliamentary system. It’s an artful compromise that minimizes upheaval while still getting rid of Chuckie and Megan Markle.
“They’d have to change the name of the country anyway if they didn’t have a king, since they’d no longer be a KINGdom. “
Wrong. Spain was the Kingdom of Spain under Franco from 1947 on. The Kingship was vacant but theoretically existed.
Don’t poo poo the costs (cultural as well as financial) associated with changing the name of a major country.
Macedonia (FYRO) is now “North Macedonia” and Swaziland is now “eSwatini” because the idiot King thought people were confusing his nation with Switzerland. It cost Swaziland 6 million, a significant expenditure for a pissant country.
Of course you could just go full “Centari Republic” (in reverse) and keep the UK name as a Republic but that’s dumb.
If you want to get picky you could forget the “regent” part and make it and just make it an elected monarchy (those exist in history and still with the Pope).
In my option what I’m proposing vs. “a republic” is a distinction without a difference. The point is to get rid of the damn heredity royal family.
GB is dying. Sad to see but it’s plainly obvious every time I visit. It’s former colonies will complete the colonization of the mother country before this century is done.
True but for all the lofty ideals (that were important historically for British democracy), Cromwell was a military dictator who styled himself “Highness” and was succeeded by his son (whose fall was fascinating, he was considered so unimportant that no one even tried to cut his head off). So it WAS a Republic but in the same way North Korea is. ;p
I mean it says it all in the name of the 2nd constitution, The “Humble Petition and advice”. That’s like saying “How about this, Lord Oliver? Is this ok with you?”
You’re applying a 2019 mores to a mid-170th century political situation.
Many of the forms & titles were retained because the winning Puritan faction couldn’t come up with anything else they thought the people would accept. Not only did they feel threat and pressure from the Monarchists (who eventually won with the Restoration of Charles II!) they had enormous pressure from the “Levellers” and the very radical “Diggers”. During the Putney Debates Cromwell was actually the moderate voice and even supported retaining the monarchy. In my opinion Cromwell & his government ended up being the compromise between all the extremes. It was a government that was never sure of its own legality because of the way it came into power. (I guess it caused much dissonance in the English legal mind !) Its very wrong to claim it was North Korea. Much of the negative history written about Cromwell comes from historians who were sympathetic enemies English royalists & Catholics. If you step back to the 25,000 foot level comparing Cromwellian atrocities to other European atrocities both catholic & Protestant Crowell doesn’t fare that badly. It was a rough age!
I view Cromwell and his Commonwealth as a very important step to the formation of our Republic. (Which we are in the process of throwing away!) A flawed step yes but crucial.
Excellent points, thank you. I was flawed in only evaluating by what came later rather than what came before.
I would argue with Impy that Cromwell's government was itself "soft Republicanism", because as it has been noted, Cromwell abolished the monarchy and refused to be crowned, but nevertheless basically behaved as a King-like untouchable leader in his role as "Lord Protector" of England.
Even the USA technically took two Republics to figure out how to make the system stable and long term, just read up on the "Articles of Confederation" we originally created and the resulting Shay's Rebellion.
The fact that Republics were extremely rare in the 1700s as opposed to the norm in the early 21st century is lost on the "ABOLISH THE 17TH AMENDMENT!!!!" crowd, who love to scream at the top of their lungs that the founding fathers empathized our nation being a Republic. Well, of course they did, in 1776 that was something very unique and special about the United States. Today, it's "so what, so are 200 other nations". They also seem absolutely in denial of the fact that many Republics today are oppressive dictatorships, so their delusional argument that having a Republic by itself magically guarantees "the rule of law and the rights of the individual will be upheld" is simply wrong. I can't even get those yahoos to admit the Republic of North Korea is a Republic, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.