• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could a republican still be a good Citizen of the United Kingdom.

P

Political Commentator

Member
Jesus Christ the Lamb does not expect any favours by the Royal family, nor should they expect any favours in return.

Remember, that the Leader of HM Opposition Jeremy Corbyn is an avowed republican; so too, are Ken Livingstone, Derek Hatton, and Arthur Scargill etc.

Please discuss.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Well sure. I don't support the Monarchy one bit and I'm British born and bred. I would love for the U.K. to be a Republic.
 
Sultan Of Swing

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
Political Commentator said:
Jesus Christ the Lamb does not expect any favours by the Royal family, nor should they expect any favours in return.

Remember, that the Leader of HM Opposition Jeremy Corbyn is an avowed republican; so too, are Ken Livingstone, Derek Hatton, and Arthur Scargill etc.

Please discuss.
Click to expand...
If you believe that is in the best interests of the UK, and hold those beliefs not out of spite but out of a genuine love of country, then I don't think anyone could call you a bad citizen for it.
 
N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Rival said:
Well sure. I don't support the Monarchy one bit and I'm British born and bred. I would love for the U.K. to be a Republic.
Click to expand...
Gah! A monarchy helps a democratic system. They allow for a pillar of legitimacy beyond the will of the masses.
 
Laika

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm a brit and ok with having a Republic, but I think it will have to be part of a larger constitutional settlement. The UK constitution is a mess of archaic laws, including one prohibiting advocacy of Republicanism in the UK (The Treason Felony Act of 1848) but they are not enforced.
 
Iti oj

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Nietzsche said:
Gah! A monarchy helps a democratic system. They allow for a pillar of legitimacy beyond the will of the masses.
Click to expand...
im anti authoritarian by nature, the only legitimacy anything has is that which the masses grant it including the powers of a monarch
 
Aquitaine

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
I'm a Brit and I'd like to see this country become a Republic with a modern, more clear-cut and refined Constitution.
The Monarchy can do one for all I care.
 
P

Political Commentator

Member
image.jpeg
columbus said:
The authority of the monarchy is pretty well established in Scripture. Nothing about elections or republics or the rights of the people though.
Tom
Click to expand...

Judging by your standard then we must therefore concede that Napoleon I was historically more important to the French than Louis XVI, and that Jesus Christ the King of kings will be historically more important than Queen Elizabeth II (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 1:8, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16; Philippians 2:9-11).
 
Last edited:
Sultan Of Swing

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
Political Commentator said:
But there is absolutely no evidence at all that the system here is any better than the one in France, Germany, or the United States.
Click to expand...
There's plenty. First off, the entire civil service and army swears allegiance to the Queen, not to the Prime Minister. This is very important, because the Queen doesn't actually control them, and yet it also takes an element of power out of the hands of a single person, the Prime Minister. It means if a Prime Minister engages in shady business, civil servants are committed to serving the Queen, not him, and theoretically could expose him as their allegiance isn't to him.

The Prime Minister cannot act like a President, and derives his authority from the Queen. The Queen is the head of state and symbol of unity, not the PM, and this prevents the PM from holding too much power, and prevents too much power from flowing to his head, as he is simply not supposed to be the head of state, or act as one, but as a minister and one who manages the kingdom.

As an example, when the Iraq War happened, Tony Blair got a boat-load of criticism for what he did. George Bush also got criticism, but there's more hesitation in criticising a standing President, who embodies the state executive, rather than criticising a minister of the Queen for mismanaging her country.

All in all it effectively restrains the elected leader from having too much power, by investing it into the monarchy, and power which the monarch can't even use.
 
L

limitedyoke

Member
Pretty certain a republican no matter where they went would be just as unhappy as where they are now, keep in mind the grass is not always greener on the other side
 
G

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The Sultan of Swing pretty well sums up my views.

People who complain about our constitution should look at the others on offer. Southern European states are basket cases and the USA is no better than a banana republic. Of course, the Scandinavians are OK — wait a bit, aren't they monarchies?

As for the cost of the monarchy, I'm not even sure it exists. The Queen gets 15% of the revenue from her estates and the Prince of Wales 60%. In other words, she pays 85% tax and he pays 40%. Those payments surely cover their expense accounts. I wonder how much tax the members of the US Congress (average income $1 million) pay?

As for the original poster's suggestion that there's something un-Christian about the monarchy, I wish there were!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top