The swedish royal family is significantly less extensive, overfunded and ridden with controversy than our own. Hoever the recent opinion polls from the SOM institute show support decreasing to an overall low of 56 % despite the recent bounce in popularity created by the wedding of Crown Princess (and 197th in line to the British throne) Victoria.
The opposition is well-organised and highly politicised, with most left-wing parties and groups featuring desposing the royal family on their agendas, and the Republican Association growing in membership.
The Daily Mail, perhaps in an effort to undermine the republican movement, or perhaps in an effort to feature lots of pictures of women in gowns, focussed chiefly on Stockholm joining in the fun of the wedding, relegating campaigners to outsider status.
The New York Times took a different approach, ending by speculating on the fate of the king if a Swedish republic is ever declared.
Could this be the start of a European-wide (or world-wide, if we`re including Australasia) movement to oust the royals?
Suzy
I do hope so, though in Britain this won’t be just yet, the Queen is solely holding the approval ratings of the Monarchy high, but given she’ll probably live older than her mother, we’ve got a while before there’s any real challenge.
Good point, we might have decades to wait!
I for one hope we never get rid of the monarchy. Imagine the havoc that could be wrought if we’d have had Presidents Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron…. Also we can all get behind the Queen whatever our party colours, an elected President would alienate at least half the nation. That doesn’t sound very appealing to me or the other 79% of Britons who wish to retain the monarchy
Evidently, it’s only Lizzy keeping the approval ratings high (unlike her potential successors), give it 50-75 years and this by-product of the middle ages might well be gone
A president would be unable to wreak havoc if their competencies were as restricted as those of the monarchy. In Germany, Turkey, and dozens of other countries the presidency is a largely ceremonial role used simply to represent the nation and as a check on the power of the PM/chancellor.
Also we clearly can`t all get behind the queen, especially those of us who have a problem with strong class divisions and the idea of an inherited right to fabulous wealth.
And yeah I reckon Max is right, Charles is a lot less popular.
“Also we clearly can`t all get behind the queen, especially those of us who have a problem with strong class divisions and the idea of an inherited right to fabulous wealth.”
I’m afraid that rules out the PM, the Chancellor and the mayor of my city. I know who I’d rather get behind.
I’m not sure that the election of Christian Wulff in Germnay will act as a potent check on Frau Merkel. I’m yet to be convinced that a better system is available. If so many people have a problem with the monarchy, why has this not translated itself into opposition in the commons?
As it happens, Prince Charles has cut his expenses by 14% in one year alone. I’m not sure how many MPs were ‘elected’ to abuse their expenses in the way that they have.
I can’t see a better replacement for our current head of state.
Good God. I find myself in agreement with Jack lol. There really is no alternative. To quote a line from one of my favourite films “An elected legislature can trample a mans rights as easily as a King can”. If an elected President will be purely a symbolic role why can’t we just keep the current symbolic head of state. The difference between our current Head of State and the heads of state of Germany and Turkey is noone knows who the hell they are and noone really cares. The British Monarch however is world renowned. She keeps Britain relevant and her wealth is not as “fabulous” as you’d have us believe. Of course shes welathy, of course she has privelage but its not like she can live her life the way she wants to. Shes public property and forgive me but you can’t put a price on your freedom. Shes nothing more than a “prisoner in a palace”.
“prisoner in a palace”, hardly. At any part of her reign she could’ve abdicated. This means that she has the choice of head of state & if she ever were to leave she’d still hardly be out of pocket.
If we ever want to separate church and state the monarch cannot remain the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”, as the official title goes. Unless she/he is no longer involved in government (however peripherally), then she/he can do what they want, join Scientology for all I care.
We are probably long overdue to disestablish the Church of England in any case. If that’s impossible at the very least the 26 Lords Spirituals that still remain should be removed or, if the government is afraid of causing offence else wants to allow the Spirituals to save face, given honorary titles which hold no real power and are dissolved upon their deaths. We do actually want to separate church and state don’t we? … Or do we? I’m pretty sure we do, though I reckon the rightists of the Conservative Party would argue against it. Especially Ann Widdecombe; she’d definitely oppose it, possibly even start a campaign, well someone would, they always do.
As to removing the monarchy entirely, it would likely cost, at present levels at least, far too much in terms of lost income from tourism. I heard the figure of one billion pounds spoken, but I’m unsure of it’s accuracy. Some claim others would come to look at the buildings where the monarch and royal family formally lived, but it isn’t the same.
You know, I’ve always thought the monarchy was like, to borrow an analogy from somewhere or other, a jar of marmalade in a cupboard. You can take the marmalade out of the cupboard. But where’re you going to put it?
““prisoner in a palace”, hardly. At any part of her reign she could’ve abdicated.”
She knows she couldn’t really do that.
On separation of church and state, I’m not sure that I’m that bothered. Having a head of the C of E who never expresses an opinion on a religious issue is probably a good thing. The US has church and state separated in its constitution but I think we can see that it is the reality on the ground that counts.
The system works so why change it? You should not mistake change for progress. Sometimes change for changes sake is counterproductive.
You’ll find Jack that she could abdicate & become a hippy in India for all I care, this is the 21st century, there’s absolutely nothing stopping her. & Dan the Soviet War economy certainly worked during WW2 but it doesn’t mean its the right thing to do or have
Thats a hollow comparison. The Soviet Economy HAD to change because their people were poverty stricken and the communist system collpased under the weight of its own contradiction. This combined with Western resolute pressure from Thatcher and Reagan meant it was inevitable it was going to collapse. The Monarchy however has no such problem. The world adores it, many in Britain respect it and the impact of its loss would be immense. I know many people who do not feel strongly in favour of the system of Monarchy but they feel strongly in favour of keeping for one simple reason; the costs outweight the benefits and there is no viable or desireable alternative.
Erm, that’s all very relevant Dan…to the 1980s, but I was referring to the Soviet War Economy in WW2 and how successful it was, but certainly wasn’t the right thing to do. And, “its loss would be immense.”, it’s the 21st Century not the middle ages, people could easily cope.
“The world adores it” – there are a lot of republicans out there Dan…. most of the non-european world in fact. And maybe they think it’s cute for us but wouldn’t want it for themselves, which is kinda telling.
I probably agree with Jack. In my mind there is no reason for any individual to pay reverence for any earthly figure, Pope or Monarch. I don’t think there is any real legitimate reason behind the monarchy, especially considering it is, in fact, a hereditary body that frequently has broken its own rules whenever it has suited the individual in possession. Principally, I am probably a
Republican.
At the same time, the monarchy is not that massive a drain on the nation’s resources, has advantages in terms of tourism and is therefore, arguably, not that big a problem in the current climate. There are bonuses to having an unelected and non-partisan Head of State and there is, currently, not an alternative to which I am particularly attracted. QEII seems to do a decent enough job, and I have nothing personal against her and dislike some republicans who base their arguments on conspiracy or personal insults. I will recognise her, currently, as monarch as is her position at present, without having any real love for the position itself.
Hence call my republicanism a passive republicanism.
I have no doubt that eventually the “modernisers” will prevail and the Monarchy will fall. I also have no doubt that one day Britain will get its democrtically elected President… you better hope its not a fascist because what possible constitutional safeguard will we have then? We elect a fascist, we’re stuck with a fascist. Germany found out the hard way what “democracy” can do. I hope we never have to.
Although, of course, neither Mussolini or Hitler were voted in as heads of state, so that argument does not really stand up.