As you’ll probably be aware by now, I am avidly Monarchist. I am often confronted, in my day-to-day role as editor, with various myths about republicanism in the UK. The supporters of a UK republic would have you believe that their numbers are vast, though in reality, every poll shows that republican support is well under 20% in some cases.
Earlier this year I did an article called 5 Anti-Monarchy Myths busted, as a follow on from that with some new anti-republic points for you to think/debate over – here are 5 more ‘facts’ that republicans want you to believe.
Republicans frequently say that Monarchy doesn’t bring in tourism revenue for the UK. A primary piece of ‘evidence’ for this claim is that Buckingham Palace doesn’t even feature on the most popular tourist attractions. What they neglect to say, however, is that the Palace is only open to visitors for two months a year.
If we take Buckingham Palace’s annual visitor count for 2011/12 (as quoted on Republic’s website) of 613,000 and times that by 6 to get an average if Buckingham Palace was open all year round, visitor number would in fact be around 3.67 million annually.
Based on this, this would actually place Buckingham Palace as the number one paid visitor attraction in the UK, based on the table from Visit England.
Aside from this point alone, Republic also exclude the indirect revenue from Monarchy such as commemorative memorabilia, sales of magazines and newspapers featuring Royalty, visits to the areas around royal residences (and the purchase of food and drink there around) and transport revenues.
This is my absolute all time favourite republican sentiment. They’re so avid to make you believe their point of view that they change their argument based on how they feel. One moment they’ll tell you that the Monarch has no real power and therefore should be abolished because she is useless, the next minute they’ll say she has way too much power and must be stopped.
The fact of the matter is the Royal Prerogative (The Queen’s official state powers) are frequently exercised by Ministers of the Crown and not by Her Majesty herself.
They actually allow for a much better system than if we didn’t have a Monarchy as certain powers are contained within the Royal Prerogative which can help in a crisis or simply for expediency when required. such as the ability to dismiss ministers, withdrawing passports, calling elections and the making of treaties.
Republic say that Monarchy doesn’t offer stability to the UK at all. They declare that the USA and Switzerland are ‘two of the most prosperous countries in the world’ and are both republics. What they don’t mention is that Switzerland only comes in at 9th. Before that comes seven countries with Monarchies and just one republic (Finland at 7th) on the latest survey.
Clearly they’re being heavily selective with their mentioning of countries.
They also ask for Monarchists to explain how Monarchy offers stability to a country, so here we go: having a Monarch as head of state means that their is a constant face to the country, which doesn’t change every 5 years in elections. Being as it is a non-partisan office, The Queen is someone the nation can look to as a personification of the national identity, which is not possible with a president who belongs to a political party and is only representative of a selection of the population. Through political upheaval and times of national emergency, the people always look to the Sovereign for guidance, representation (an icon of national resistance during WW2) and as a universal symbol of constance which no president or elected head of state could do.
No it’s not. For at least the last 20 years, support for a British Republic has remained at a constant low point. If anything, in the last few years, republican numbers have dropped.
Polls show that support for a British republic is, at latest count 17% – as opposed to 77% support in favour of the Monarchy. In the last 20 years, republican support has never gone above 22%, despite the ‘efforts’ of pressure group republic for the last decade (or however long it is) to try and change this.
People appreciate the Monarchy because of its value to the nation. When people come to the UK from overseas, they’re not interested in seeing where George Osbourne lives or where Ed Milliband married. They come to this country in many cases to see all the places used by the Royal Family – they want to see where Prince Harry lives, where William and Kate got married – and that says something for the vast interest in monarchy around the world.
Does it though? In case republicans haven’t realised – Monarchy doesn’t ‘demand deference’. This is not the 1600s and you won’t get thrown in the tower for refusing to bow to The Queen. In fact, the official royal website advises that there are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting the royal family and they won’t get offended if you don’t bow. It’s about doing what you’re comfortable with.
As for the classism argument, how can classism be entrenched in British society when anyone can become head of the government, we have a completely fair and equal justice system, our laws enforce equality for everyone, everyone has the same right and when Monarchy itself actually brings people from all different backgrounds together in times of celebration.
photo credits: Royal Central, SouthEastern Star ★, Chris Breeze, Defence Images and Jason Simpson
Some questions I would like to ask: 1.When groups within a country want to blame a foreign power, they seem to blame the whole country, not just the head of state. This makes some sense when the perceived head of state is a president, even if not elected. But how does it make sense to blame family members such as the Princess Royal or the Duke of Cambridge for what the elected British Government does, or did in the 1980’s? 2. Do the Royal family have the right to vote in British elections? Just asking.
The Royal Family are in the unique position of being able to represent the nation, whilst also not being involved in politics in such a way as to become a ‘scape goat’ for example.
The Royal Family do have the right to vote but none of them do for obvious reasons.
Thank you for your reply
If we look at the non-republics in the Commonwealth, people are killing themselves to get in literally. The queues at the borders of the Monarchic Countries are in the wrong direction for us to want to change anything. Now if you look at the republics even the ones heavily subsidized like the Irish one (which messed up Ireland and put Irish against Irish) we can see that the queues are in the opposite direction, so we shouldn’t change anything. What is more the people from the failed republics come here and bring with them their ideas and cultures which have failed them. Unfortunately republicans are not clever enough to leave such baggage behind, and they blame the Monarchy for everything wrong under the sun, but what they say with their mouth is contradicted by what they do with their feet.If they are so keen on a republic.. then go to a republic.
As an American, I would welcome the stability of the monarchy instead of the three ring circus that is American politics. It would be nice if we had a head of state here that was above the fray and respected by both parties.
I’m just going to make a point about entrenching classism. What the hell is wrong with entrenching classism? I my humble opinion, Britain’s current problems are totally down to the lack of class in modern society and the fact that (because of the Civil War) we allow people who have the brain capacity of a wheelie bin a vote and a say in who runs their lives: people who are so stupid that they can be manipulated easier than plasticine. We’re talking about the tracksuit wearing set that wander around town with their several children that are all being paid for by us taxpayers. People whose brains lie firmly in their reproductive organs. Now, is my opinion “classist” or “realist”? The unfortunate thing is that whichever party of corrupt wannabe kings is in power need to appeal this (and I make no apology for using this word) TRASH in in order to govern. So, Britain has developed sympathetic soft socialist left wing that sees these people as victims of classism instead of what they really are: victims of their own stupidity: people who are so uneducated that they don’t understand the difference between a “Right” and a “privilege”. (My view, it is not a human right to have children, it is a privilege). Now, I’m not saying that all upper class people are the be all and end all. Absolutely not. My argument is that millions of people in Britain are so classless and stupid, yet they are allowed to decide who runs Britain, yet they are too thick to control their own lives. So Martin, exactly what is wrong with entrenching classism? Discuss
I don’t need any facts about “Republicism”. I have seen all I want to see. I look at our once great country and the “man who would be king” – Cromwell ( it should have been Cromwell who lost his head for treason. A statue of this bad trouble making bastard still stands outside parliament now as a tribute to what? The man who banned Christmas methinks). And his parliament who were so lost without this total tosser that they couldn’t cope. So what did they do in 1660? They restored the monarch Charles II to the throne to save their arses.
To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.
Join 663 other subscribers