How do countries become republican peacefully?

[AgentProvocateur]

What would it take for the U.K. to become a republic, and how would it happen practically? I’m assuming there would be no violent overthrowing of the RF.

A vote. But the majority don’t want one 🙄

Yes a referendum

Just watch Jamaica. It’s in progress right now.

Ireland left the common wealth by just announcing that from midnight we'd be a Republic and that was it. It was at a common wealth summit or something

To be honest I’m a ‘moral’ republican in that objectively I think royalty is unequal and inherently unjust, but after the shitshow that was Brexit I have zero appetite for any more major constitutional reform. It’ll be expensive, we will balls it up, the outcome will make no difference to the state of the country.

India became a republic in 1947, peacably getting rid of all its princes and abolishing their perks. There was violence elsewhere, but not from royalty.

Historically, fundamental changes in a country's structure of governance tend to happen in the context of great upheaval, such as war or revolution. WWl led to the fall of most of the monarchies in Europe. Those who survived the great wars of the last century are still around today, and none seem in imminent danger.

Of course that's not to say that the British monarchy couldn't be ousted by referendum, but I think it would take a lot to make that happen. For starters, it would have to be initiated by senior parliamentarians and they don't seem to have any appetite for such a dramatic change for the time being at least.

Just tell them we don't want them any more. P45, surplus to requirements, cost cutting exercise, see ya.

i think one half of the media should be pro monarchy and one half anti monarchy, and they should goad people into fighting over it and hopefully drag it out like Brexit.

It’s a really simple process to decide to do it - government either call for a referendum or could simply do it via a vote in Parliament if they felt the political will was there and public sentiment was already clear - but they’d probably do a referendum first on something so big.

The bigger problem is creating the alternative and deciding what everyone wants and wants to fund as a replacement.

The easy question is do you want to be a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy?

It’s replacing all the different bits and making the dozens of decisions that come after that vote which is where the real work starts. And working out how to fund the transition.

The government that starts the process needs to be very secure in office, have no other pressing national issues that are more important to deal with, be able to earmark a significant budget, and work out how to create a team (committee, department, bipartisan department?) to work out the funding and decoupling of the monarch’s influence and ‘branding’ across the armed forces, national law, currency, historical archives and crown estates, as well as coming up with a new head of state option with set job parameters, etc.

It’s the work of decades - of course once it’s done it’s doesn’t have to be done again so that’s not necessarily an argument against it but right now it would be a fairly unpopular option for a majority of people - even if that majority isn’t as big as it used to be. So most political parties aren’t going to touch it with a barge pole if they can help it.

Surely it has to happen. We can't continue with a monarchy forever. The majority of countries have realised how utterly bizarre and unjust it is.

So it would need to be a bipartisan department created to deal with it I think because if a political party could potentially get voted in or out every 4-5 years then you’d need some sort of consistency across at least a decade to make the transition.

It’s a fascinating subject though thinking about how to replace all the different parts.

If we don’t have a King at the top of the peerage ‘titles’ do all the other titles get abolished at the same time? Do all the Dukes stop being Dukes? Do all the Lords and Baronesses in the House of Lords just revert to Mr and Mrs? Do we rename the House of Lords? Who is the last person to get a Knighthood?

Who will be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? The rolling position of the new head of state, or the PM?

Will they just drop an ‘opening of parliament’ ceremony or create a new one?

I feel like George becoming king is unlikely....or if he does he will be one of the last

Interesting topic OP - thanks!

Just to state my position - I'm a mild constitutional monarchist for many boring reasons I won't go into here.

Yes, by a democratic vote - but how that might come about is anyone's guess. An MP or the ruling party at the time would have to initiate the process and presumably campaign for public support.

The mention of Jamaica is really interesting. The Queen always said that she was there to serve the Dominions (Canada and Australia) as Head of State as long as they wanted her - and when they didn't, that would be fine and everyone could remain friends. She loved the Commonwealth and was very keen to keep it going - and I think when it was started, it was a force for good and friendly relations between the UK and those newly-independent countries. Again, the line from the monarchy was always 'We hope you'll want to stay, but no hard feelings if you don't'.

Whatever you think of the concept of the Commonwealth, what is happening in places like Jamaica is actually worrying, I think. These countries - which are on the verge of demanding independence - are being targeted by China with lots of infrastructure investment etc. It's obvious why this is attractive to developing countries, but the quiet take-over by China is sinister and is already ringing alarm bells.

My personal opinion is that the Commonwealth has served its purpose and, with the Queen's passing, should now be allowed to quietly fade away. But to put the other side of the argument - a Commonwealth head did once say that it gives very small countries a place at the table they wouldn't otherwise get, and that they valued that.

But I think, whatever your political opinion, what is happening with the RF just now is not good news for any of us. Whatever you thing of the monarchy, it's been a stablising influence in the UK and the world for a long time, and the fact that it's currently wobbling, on top of all our other troubles - and nightmare scenarios in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, a pair of duds competing once more for the POTUS - isn't something to celebrate. Hostile powers will rub their hands in glee and surely try to exploit the situation.

Sorry for long post, but just to add: I think the monarchy will be brought to an end (not with a bang but with a whimper!!) not by a revolution or even a referendum. I think William isn't keen, basically, and I can't really blame him. I think he will be quite relieved if things go south and happily enjoy a quiet private life.

The Queen and KC were brought up in different times with the idea of life-time service etc etc as a kind of sacred duty, but that's not the case for William.

Maybe the passage of time will do it?

I think a way to start would be more of an organizational and admin shift. So you create a new ‘head of state’ government department who have oversight and budget control over the Crown Estate finances - effectively ending the system of the monarch being in charge of managing the Crown Estate money and being awarded the annual Sovereign Grant. The government will then be in charge of managing the money and using it for the upkeep and staffing of the properties used for Head of State functions Iike Buckingham Palace, and sites of national significance like Windsor Castle.

The monarch and heir keep the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall but must use those funds for all their regular daily expenses and personal staffing. They only get funded from the government department when approved for official ‘head of state’ duties like diplomatic tours or hosting foreign dignitaries etc.

It would be a start of financial transparency to see how much of the annual tax payer burden goes to estate management and historical building structural needs and government requested head of state duties as opposed to what people often assume is a life of lazy luxury for the royal family.

We would then see what the cost for a republican head of state would be in reality.

And if the royals want to do charity work and open things up and down the country and support the people of their country then that all comes out of the Duchy monies too and not the Sovereign Grant.

Keep that for only things you’d get with a non royal head of state - so opening parliament, significant funerals, national disasters, national honours and award ceremonies.

You clearly didn’t learn anything from Brexit. It would be a huge constitutional challenge. Not impossible over decades but it’s not simple.

Constitutionally it is not that hard to do. But you need broad agreement from the country, or at least apathy. Some people think things will never change. But I have seen pretty momentous changes suddenly happen such as the destruction of the Berlin wall and the destruction of communist USSR. Things seem to change quite suddenly.

Great idea! We could commission a bus with the savings we'd make if we abolished the monarchy and drive it around the UK. Perhaps the savings could go to the NHS?

I'd love to see the end of the monarchy now that the Queen is gone but agree we would balls it up horribly.

Prince Philip realised that things could change quickly and that the Royal family had to respond to change to keep their power. I am not sure the younger Royals realise how quickly their position could become precarious.
The practicalities are besides the point. Plenty of countries have got rid of a monarch and quickly adapted. With the exception of changing laws to benefit their family and taking Duchy money and other legal privileges, their positions are ceremonial. Some people would be sad at the loss of the ceremonial role, but life will go on.

But many of the most equal, just an peaceful countries in the world (Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) are monarchies.

That’s true but sudden change like that usually means pretty tough conditions for the average person for a while - it would be nice to think that if we are going to make a big transition like this it would be a chance to do a really good job of creating a replacement head of state, preserving the best parts of our national history, and doing it in a way that benefits the country.

Use it as a chance to really examine why we do certain things and why things are organized the way they are - House of Lords etc and put in place good systems for a modern world.

That’s what I want to see from the Republican movement - ideas for what’s better about the replacement system and how all the different moving parts will work together.

What I’d hate to see is some Boris Johnson style conman job promising billions for the NHS and a utopia that never comes a la the Brexit fiasco.

All it would take is a few big scandals in the age of social media. Then a character like Nigel Farage appearing who is anti monarchy and persuades people we should get rid of them. The anti monarchy discourse would be largely confined to social media, but would slowly build, especially in areas of neglect. And then would erupt suddenly as an enormous issue at election time, taking the mainstream by surprise.