Socialist Live Laugh Meme Abolish The Monarchy T-Shirt

Product Information

Russell Brand is known for speaking about his views. The Comedian spoke to thousands of demonstrators gathered in Parliament Square to protest against austerity and spending cuts in London, June 20, 2015. Mary Turner/Getty

Levin said that Charles II, in fact, was a unifier of the restoration. While it is beautiful and can provide continuity, he still has to be the king of everyone. It was remarkable that his mother, Queen Elizabeth II (the monarch whom people can relate to), was so impressive. This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate. Certainly, Smith is right that demanding a British Republic is not to advocate a replay of the French Revolution, and that we already have most of the pieces in place to create a democratic parliamentary republic. But there is something revolutionary about the spirit of republicanism. As he points out, republicanism is essentially the demand for a true liberal democracy: ‘[republicanism is about] more than replacing one head of state with another—it’s about rebalancing power between government, Parliament, and people. … The challenge is to take what we have and make it democratic, top to bottom.’ Republicans should not be so coy about the radicalism of this project. Which takes us to the ‘how we will’ part of abolishing the monarchy. It will be achieved, says Smith, by forcing the public to come to its senses about the chasm between its own values and those of the crown, perhaps by giving everyone a copy of this book. Eventually, the government will be unable to ignore public clamour for a referendum on the monarchy’s continuation. Then, the crown will simply be voted out of existence. Smith is hazy on the itinerary, but that doesn’t stop him looking forward to a time when the ‘champions of our most cherished shared values’ appear in place of the king on stamps, and the likes of Carol Ann Duffy are put to work writing a republican constitution. If you were hoping that the fall of the Windsors would at least mean no more tampon metaphors, think again. For People Who Devour Books Getting rid of the monarchy, or simply rescinding it of its ceremonial duties, would constitute “a huge change,” says Hazell, in large part because it would require a complete shakeup of the way the British state is governed. Unlike in the U.S., where the elected President acts as both the country’s head of state and its head of government, Britain’s parliamentary system splits those responsibilities between the monarch, whose role as head of state is inherited at birth, and the Prime Minister, whose role as head of government is decided by the British public (or, in the case of the current occupant of 10 Downing Street, a select group of Conservative Party members).

9. Live, laugh, love x

The only way the monarchy could actually be abolished is through an act of parliament, which would probably re quire a public referendum. The legislation would also have to be signed by the sovereign. Greece and Bulgaria are both examples of where this has happened. Of course, the other (extremely unlikely) option would be an all-out revolution. British comedian, actor, and writer Russell Brand has been critical of the monarchy in the past, and in a 14-minute video posted to his YouTube channel on September 9, he described the queen as: "A constant presence, in this constancy we find a certain stability. But if we examine it, it's also a symbol of our inability to bring about real change. I have always felt this way about the monarchy. Even as a little kid I couldn't quite get what's the purpose of having an institution that seems so archaic and only furthers the divide between the ultra-rich, the ultra-privileged and us, the 'commoners.' Or rather the 'subjects.' I think the monarchy should be abolished because the whole idea of hereditary monarchy is an outdated anachronism that is not fit for the 21 st century. The whole premise of the Monarchy is that bloodline is more important than the democratic will of the people, I believe that instead of giving Charles the 'god-given right' to become Britain's head of state that, instead, the people should decide who the Head of State should be through a democratic process. People in Britain are 'subjects' rather than citizens and the country will never be truly egalitarian if this dated institution continues to exist. More surprising still, given that he leads a group called Republic, Smith appears to have little familiarity with the 2,500-year-old tradition of republican thought. Where are Plato, Machiavelli and Rousseau? Where are the Levellers, the Radical Whigs and the Founding Fathers? Thomas Paine does get a mention, though one is left with the suspicion that Smith’s acquaintance with him comes via The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations rather than Rights of Man, since he is invoked merely to make the point that the appearance of something being correct doesn’t make it so.

People blur the line between her as a person who did a lot of amazing things and her as a queen, and that’s where they get defensive,” she said. For the rest, anti-monarchists scored between 42 per cent in Ontario and 46 per cent in British Columbia. There is some evidence that these numbers understate the evolution of opinion since the poll was taken. Also, if you hate the royal family so much, why keep your titles? But there’s no escaping the fact that James Holt has got a valid point. Also discussed on social media is what the death of Queen Elizabeth II means for the future of the Commonwealth of Nations, the political association of 56 states. Some on social media have suggested the organization should also be axed – while others have called for keeping the monarchy in place as a way to maintain the Commonwealth. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism.

Anyone who has an understanding of British history will know that his two named predecessors weren't the most successful or beloved," said Kennedy. "One can question whether it was the most appropriate name, but to most of the British public it probably doesn't matter." This jubilee would make a cheerful ending to all the royal folderol. What better time to return the sovereignty promised in Brexit to the people to whom it belongs. Elizabeth the Last should get a historic send-off, her golden coach and crown retired and her six palaces opened as fine museums. (No, tourism is no excuse for monarchy: Versailles gets many more visitors, and so does Legoland down the road from Windsor Castle). The Royals play a huge role, and it isn't just London, it is Windsor, Scotland and throughout the country," Levin noted. "The British monarchy isn't just historically important, it remains so today." The arrests were an affront to the very idea of British liberty. Graham Smith, the head of Republic, has denied that he and his fellow protesters had any equipment which would have allowed them to attach themselves to anything. But even if they did, they would have simply been victims of legal rather than illegal illiberalism. Social media makes it harder than ever to censor people's experiences, and as this develops, more and more voices will be heard. To become a republic we not only require an uprising from the people, but dissent from public figures and people in positions of power.

If there was one resounding takeaway from Harry’s candid and at times, painful memoir, Spare (and I am not talking about descriptions of his frostbitten todger) is how utterly trapped he was and his family still are. Other republicans admit they feel bullied into supporting something they don’t believe in. “I feel unable to express an opinion without being branded disrespectful, so therefore I’ve been funnelled into complying with the country’s grief,” said Aisha, who also requested a pseudonym.

'The Royal Family Has A History Of Violence And Oppression'

The tradition to take a different regnal name began when Queen Victoria – Elizabeth II's great-great-grandmother – ascended the throne in 1837. All prior monarchs had used their first baptismal name as their regnal name. However, when Victoria was born her uncle, the Prince Regent (future King George IV) had specifically prohibited the royal names of Charlotte, Elizabeth, or Georgina. She was subsequently named "Alexandrina" after her godfather, the Russian Czar Alexander I. For most of her childhood, she was known as "Drina," and up until her coronation, many in the general public didn't know what her official "regnal" name would even be. She could have been Elizabeth II, but instead opted to use her second name, Victoria.