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.

Oh but think of all the media jobs lost and MN threads unwritten! The horror

But the Monarch should overrule the PM when s/he wants to do somethingnillegal ( suchbascthevproroguing of Parliament).

If tend to think a lot of Brexiters were small-c conservatives who love Queen and country and The Britsh Way (certainly many of the ones I knew ticked these boxes, but I know also Brexiteers who had a different world view). I do wonder how they would have reacted if the late Queen had refused to sign and sent Johnson off with a flea in hos ear.

I tend to think a lot of Brexiteers were small-c conservatives who love Queen and country and The British Way

Pretty certain there was a poll that said Brexiteers would happily consign the monarchy to the dustbin if it threatened there beloved Brexit. I doubt there is a rizlas thickness between them and their MAGA cousins.

But they literally can't. They are totally useless at holding government to account. The last king who tried that ended up with his head on the chopping block!

There are lots of benefits to the constitutional monarchy we have. You don’t have to be a grovelling royalist or even like the RF to see it and to think we’d be culturally and economically poorer as a republic.

So this is what I mean by - when we do become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy - that we need to take the opportunity to really look at what we want and how we want the checks and balances to work.

Do we have a head of state who is mainly our diplomatic figurehead and leader of big national moments but no power of law making or breaking and no power over the government.

And if so this is the the time to rejig the power and influence of the House of Lords (or whatever it becomes when we have no Lords) - so that we have a second chamber which can really hold the sitting government to account.

I'm pretty sure the Georges flexed their political muscle, and the later monarchs weilded a softer power.

But QE II allowed Johnson to act illegally without challenge. She failed, in that moment, at her most important role.

I do wish Republic would focus their campaigns more on the system as a whole and less on heckling the Windsors.

I understand the strategy is to try to make people so disgusted with inherited privilege that they rise up in support of a republic but I want something to root for rather than rail against.

so that we have a second chamber which can really hold the sitting government to account

This is such a difficult one. We see in the US how the democratically elected second chamber completely stymies the democratically elected president and first chamber so that there is this pathetically childish stalemate.

Absolutely the Lords is an anachronism but it sure works better.

If William and Kate just decided that they and the children had had enough and went to live in the South of France, no one could actually make them rule could they? Guessing he wouldn't do that though or we'd end up with Harry and Sparkles? Would they want it? Jeez, would it be Andrew after them god forbid 😳

@Prydddan if Harry had really been serious about his great love of conservation, he could have asked Charles to use the 30 million spent on his wedding to buy him an estate, fund it's rewilding, etc. Charles was giving him millions before his marriage. No amount of money will be enough for him. He's pissing through his US cash right now.

You can only abdicate for yourself so if William said he didn’t want to do it it would be George - who would be able to abdicate at 18, then Charlotte at 18 and then Louis at 18. Then yes we get Harry.

It was the UK taxpayers that paid for the wedding, not Charles. Other than that I agree with you.

I read an interview ( or the transcript of one once, can't remember where,so don't do the citation thing) where Harry expressed a desire to go live a simple life, no nannies, etc. I don't think that is what M had in mind when she came trawling London for a catch.

I agree, and I also agree with @HeddaGarbled . Our entire system is in desparate need for a complete overhaul. We have massive voter apathy, with some people almost taking pride in never having voted. Then the First past the post electoral system which gives us a government elected on huge majorities by 35% of people who actually voted, to the House of Lords, to the Monarchy.
I agree that the House of Lords does work better, and they do scrutinise the government, but that work is done by probably 100-150 peers. The rest of them (there are over 800 in total-the second largest second chamber in the world!) turn up whenever they fancy £250, and want to prance around in Ermine. Its stuffed full of cronies and political party donors and shady people. It needs to be completely slashed into a quarter of peers, paid to be there and actually work to scrutinise legislation. If I was dictator for a week, and we couldn't cope with PR for the Commons, Id have it for the Lords, based on a party list, 200 tops. No appointments, no hereditary peers, ditch the knights of the British Empire nonsense ( replaced with an award that doesn't reference Empire, 70 years after the end of it) . The German second Chamber is not directly elected, I believe, but is selected by parties. Then the Monarchy sits on top of all this, based on nothing but an accident of birth. They are the most high profile anachronism, but they are not the only problem. Even the Monarchy itself wouldn't be a problem if everyone who was supposed to protect us did their jobs. Governments allow them to exempt themselves from legislation, Parliament does not even publicise these and subject it to debate, the judiciary wave through hidden wills and documents, the press collude with them to hide their secrets.

I don't know why Harry has to brought up in a debate about republicanism. He lives in a country that overthrew his great x whatever grandfather 200+ years ago to become a Republic. As you should know, if you are a bemused American.
In any case, why do you think Charles' siblings are there? Because The Monarch gets the money, then hands it out to all their children. They are all there for the cash handouts from the Monarch.

Australia had a referendum about 25 years ago on becoming a republic. It failed because people fell to squabbling about how we would choose a president. No politician has really wanted to touch the issue since.

Yes, single-shot referendums are a great way to nobble an idea without actually telling people to fuck off.

What should have happened was two referenda. One for the principle - do we want a bunch of unelected spongers highlighting the inequality in society: yes or no ? And then if it's a "no" a period of putting together proposals for a replacement.

You know, like grown ups do.

This was in fact the exact course of action one Jacob Rees Mogg proposed for Brexit.

There is the possibility of inching towards a republic by slowly passing laws in the commons. As have learned by now, a majority there translates into "the will of the people" (as long as your dictionary makes "the" a synonym for "some")

Great post
My thoughts exactly

@RoyalDramaLlama I was responding to an earlier comment that implied that assets should be divided more equally so that spares get more money. As we all know, Harry is a spare and at least in the US, it is clear that he needs a substantial amount of money to fund his life style and resents his annual personal security bill. I was saying that he got money from Charles.

@Prydddan I think isn't saying that here. They are saying that, instead of the current system where we have adults all dependent on the Monarch handing them out cash like we do at present, there should be a trust fund independent of the Monarch ( I think). I think actually that has to be the way to go, so that Charlotte and Louis are able to be cut loose from the Royal apron strings and not have to rely on handouts from their dad/brother, meaning they really are able to make their own decisions about their future with a wad of money behind them. If their father can't be bothered with the ribbon cutting, there will be no ribbon cutting for them to do. Constitutional changes to Harrys status would mean constitutional status to all subsequent heirs. I think that's why they haven't stripped Harry of his title. Because it means that if Louis misbehaves he would be stripped of his. Charlotte won't get one because she's a woman. So that needs changing first. I think to say no spares will get titles or pass them to their children. I can't see William doing that though. He wants it as badly as Harry wants it.

That used to be the case. There were specific amounts given to each Royal Family member. Queen Elizabeth lobbied the government for one lump sum to be given to her, to distribute as she wished.