Anti-monarchy group 'Republic' stages Jubilee protest on the banks of the Thames

[MichaelMcGuire]

Anti-monarchy protesters today staged a demonstration on the banks of the Thames ahead of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee river pageant.

The protesters, supporters of the campaign group Republic, held banners and placards saying “power to the people”, “citizen not subject”, and “democracy not monarchy” as they called for the abolition of the monarchy.

Republic is campaigning for an elected head of state to replace the monarchy.

They have also called for a new constitution that 'really puts power in the hands of voters.'

Today's protest involved a delegation from the Swedish republican movement as well as representatives of Republic from branches in Scotland and Wales.

Continue reading: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/antimonarchy-group-republic-stages-jubilee-protest-on-the-banks-of-the-thames-7814498.html

[David__77]

1. Good for them. A republican state is a progressive demand.

The idea of monarchy is reactionary and putrid.

[hrmjustin]

2. That would be foolish.

The Royal Family is one of the main reasons that tourism is so strong in the UK. Besides the people of England will never let them get rid of the monarchy.

[David__77]

4. They can separate it from the state.

And, while they're at it, separate the Church of England from the state as well. The monarchy could continue its relationship with the church and as a novelty for those hankering for a taste of feudalism (I don't mean that disparagingly).

[harmonicon]

10. Yeah...

In what other ways do you think equal rights could be subverted in the service of tourism? Clearly some private businesses are more important than things like rights, dignity, equality, etc. Shit, if they got rid of some other laws, I bet there are other industries which would thrive!! So many ideas in here...

[efhmc]

13. Agreed.

[MattBaggins]

58. I'm thinking that whole "tourism" meme is like trickle down economics

just repeated ad nauseam until people think it's not just true but common sense.

[Jabez]

66. That Would Be Foolish

A downright lie. In a recent poll the only royal tourist attraction was Windsor Castle which came 77th. Whereas Legoland Windsor was seventh. You clearly do not have any facts to support your absurd claim. As for removal of the anachronistic monarchy - the people will decide of course, but during a time of austerity, Republican membership has increased substantially because of the asinine over spend on the wedding and the Jubilee. We are working tirelessly to educate our children to recognize the absence of real democracy and misinformation propounded by the palace spin doctors.Moreover, excluding themselves from the Freedom of Information Act has created suspicion - what have they to hide? People visit England, Scotland and Wales to enjoy, its culture, buildings and scenery - and could not give a toss whether a 'Teutonic' royal appears on the scene smiling a sickly smile or waiving a limp hand. Once Republic UK membership reaches a few more thousand it will have history changing financial support to seriously alter matters. At the moment the mainstream media is closeted up the derriere of the royals, but that will change. It may be that Wikileaks or Anonymous will move things along quite quickly once they unearth 'secret' information that should be viewed in the Public domain.

[MichaelMcGuire]

3. Can't disagree with that (nt)

[malaise]

5. Wish I were there

[MisterP]

6. another event by the useless, backward, inbred drags on British society

also, the Royals are planning a Jubilee

[Kolesar]

7. Despots promote religion to control the masses

Dare not defy the will of the unelected ruler since God himself made him your Lord.

Fuck that. The Queen should dissolve the royal family on principle.

[harmonicon]

11. It's not her call - it's up to God. Duh!! (nt)

[hrmjustin]

18. Why? The British love their queen.n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

25. our media keeps telling us that we do.

[hrmjustin]

29. I do not go ga-ga for royalty but some do.

The Brits want there queen and that is their right. She makes money for the country.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. I disagree, they are economic parasites

They are already billionaires, but get £60m each year grant from the Treasury (which does not include the security budget), their vast landholdings are not subject to property taxes and their corporate concerns are excluded from corporation tax.

[hrmjustin]

37. well they still won't het rid of them. n/t

[Jabez]

78. I do not go Ga Ga ...

Well that can only be an assumption. One of the issues that confronts democrats is that the royals persistently refuse to allow full-blown access to their accounts. Clearly you have a 'secret' source - please be good enough to reveal it to us so that we can inform the tax-payers in Britain, who think otherwise.

[DeSwiss]

8. Don't Jubilee've It!

- Perfect.

K&R

[Gregorian]

9. I heard someone say

the rain was Diana pissing on the queen.

[harmonicon]

12. I heard someone say...

that Diana and all of her ilk were nothing but worthless leaches on society, and that the world would be a better place without them.

[cwydro]

47. You do know

that both Harry and William serve in the military, as did their father and grandfather?

[Jabez]

76. cwdro

Yes, but what has that got to do with it. I served in the military as well and witnessed the death of four of my mates. At the time I had no choice but to swear allegiance to our appalling unelected monarch; I don't think it necessary to explain the unwelcome consequences surely if I had not? I would much prefer it if we had a democratic oath that focussed on people and country and not a single unelected person in perpetuity.Nevertheless these two royal pampered brats were given privileges denied other servicemen and women. For example, using a helicopter for private pleasure while stationed at an active base in this country!!!! And as for Prince Harry - what was it he said while at Sandhurst? Not verbatim, but "I will never leave my men..." That is a joke - why? because he was on the next jet pronto to leave the Middle East and return to his boozing in England, once things got a bit hot! And no, I can assure you that with his combat gear on, not even daddy or granny would have recognized him. So much for that facetious argument from the media and 'top-brass' that he would draw fire on to his men.

[Berlin Expat]

14. Heh. Good for the supporters of

republicanism (small r, that is).

Watching the British have a massively obsequious sentimental, mawkish self-congratulatory orgasm over the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha..........oops; did I write the name that shall not be mentioned? I'm sorry, I meant the House of Windsor, is really the limit.

But as many people have pointed out, the majority of the British are generally supportive of the institution of monarchy, and very supportive of this particular monarch.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when Charles becomes the reigning sovereign. Of course, there's speculation that he may be King for a day or so and then abdicate in favor of his son Prince William, but who knows?

I wonder if the British will still be so enamored of their Royalty then?

[derby378]

15. Only problem with this protest is...

Great Britain already tried its hand at being a republic under Oliver Cromwell. Didn't work out so good for them. Finally, the populace begged for a surviving member of the Stuart line to step up to the throne and re-establish the monarchy.

Our attempt at creating a republic has had much more success. Maybe these protesters should emigrate and resettle over here, instead?

[daaron]

23. That was a long time ago.

Surely even Britain has evolved a little since the time of Cromwell?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. Not quite

The Monarchy of 1660 was a long way away from the Monarchy of 1649.

Charles II got the throne based on the premise that he butted-out and let Parliament run the show. After Charles II died and his brother James II gained the throne, he was deposed because he wanted to reign like his executed father.

[poverlay]

16. Apparently it's just me, but I like the monarchy. I think they're a great. In general... N/T

[NYC Liberal]

17. Whatever floats their boat.

It's not my country. I think my biggest problem with the monarchy if I were a Brit would be the cost more than anything.

[vaberella]

51. Of course they are. Feeding off the taxes of the people.

Which gives them first class luxuries, getting to go to the best schools money can buy and only living the life--- we fantasize about. When majority of the country actually have some sort of royal blood but work like dogs to maintain this Queen. In essence...I blame the citizenry for supporting their royalty. On the flip side...I have more contentious issues with the citizens who have it the remaining loyalists in America that bow down to this sort of system. And yeah, there is a good bastion of loyalists in America...they normally call themselves Republicans.

[Jabez]

69. Money Gobbling Royals.

Well if people in America support royals and the monarchy I would not refer to them as Republicans. Surely they are betraying the very system that got rid of these dreadful royal profligates years ago.

[Jabez]

67. Poverlay

Presumably you like unelected royal politicians and tyranny, oh well there is no accounting for a few peoples views.

[hrmjustin]

19. God save the queen and her subjects and God bless America! n/t

[Jabez]

68. hrmjustin

Do you live in America as a citizen NOT a subject? As far as blessings go - if God wants to bless the old, wrinkled, privileged by birth, scrounger so be it. But, she didn't pay any tax for more than three decades. Once the public got wind of it, she had to cough up, but only after she agreed. Well Britain's tax system is HER inland Revenue Tax Collectors. Oh what an irony! Millions of her 'subjects' now object to being called subjects and are seeking real citizenship, not this phony stuff.

[Nye Bevan]

20. These people have about the same support as pro-monarchists in the USA (nt)

[intaglio]

21. An interesting perspective on British republicanism

from Jack of Kent's Blog

Nonetheless, switching a “united kingdom” to a republic would be a complex and slow process, and it is one unlikely to be done by any government one can imagine.

The current generation of politicians cannot get round to reforming the house of lords.

Indeed, they cannot even modify a honours system ridden by “knights”, “dames” and the “British Empire”.

So republicanism will remain as a frame of mind, a sense that things could be better organized, rather than as a serious political programme.

And this taming of republicanism is not the least of the queen’s achievements, though one suspects it will not be one of her eldest son’s.

[UTUSN]

22. R#14 & K for, now THIS is a "jubilee" thread after mine own heart!1 Parasitical "royals"!1 n/t

[MichaelMcGuire]

24. In Scotland we call it "Jobbyilee"

[Anarcho-Socialist]

27. republicanism gets little heed in the media

The British networks pump-out Royalist propaganda in a way that is embarrassing.

[hrmjustin]

30. Brits want to keep their monarchy.

She makes them money with tourism. It is their history.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

31. their effects on tourism is negligible

people come for the history and the sites.

[hrmjustin]

35. I dissagree but we have our opinions. n/t

[JackRiddler]

41. This is untrue. It's not opinion. It's falsehood.

The royals do fuck-all for tourist revenues. No sites associated with the current royals are in the top 10 of UK destinations. It's hard to believe such a prima facie absurdity so consistently gets credence, except that myths predominate in most things.

Now turning Buckingham Palace into a Museum of the Former Monarchy - that would be a draw. (Like the Tower.)

[hrmjustin]

42. Why is everyone so anti-monarchy here when...

...the people who live under the monarchy are clearly not anti-monarchy.

[laundry_queen]

49. My theory

The US was founded because they wanted to break away from the monarchy. The UK has almost always lived under the monarchy and it was a source of strength for them during certain times (WW II). I think there is a profound difference of thought that is pummeled into their heads from the first day of school. People like what is familiar to them, what they grew up with.

I also see a lot of American exceptionalism where a lot of Americans think their brand of democracy is the only "right" kind, the 'best in the world' and they still have a hankering to impose it on everyone else. It's a deep ideological divide.

As a Canadian, I have no issues with the monarchy as it is currently. I think the pros and cons make it a wash. So long as the family wants to continue, I don't see it as an issue.

[JackRiddler]

54. My theory...

is that the UK monarchy is the living symbol of centuries of genocide in Ireland, India, the Americas and Africa.

If majorities of UK/Canada/Australia citizens are idiot enough to continue honoring this degenerate clan and paying for their expensive upkeep, they are free to do so - and the rest of us are free to abhor the underlying philosophy that some should "reign" over "subjects" by virtue of their coincidental birth, because a mythical God said so.

So by all means, argue for the monarchy, but let's dispense with the nationalist canard that one is not allowed to have an opinion if one is not already British and already for the monarchy.

We'll see what the Scots think of this ridiculous theater for billionaires soon enough.

[laundry_queen]

56. That's right.

The US has NEVER killed other innocent people in other countries in the name of their own God. Please. "God bless America" indeed.

[JackRiddler]

57. Both true and irrelevant, as you surely know.

If you ever catch me condemning the British empire while praising the US version, let me know.

[Starboard Tack]

60. I couldn't agree more.

Why break something if it works. The constitutional monarchies of Europe are also the most stable societies. It took Britain a long time to evolve to where it is today. Americans think the Revolution was about the monarchy. It wasn't, it was about money. And it's been about money ever since in American politics. Money is King.

[JackRiddler]

53. Another meaningless talking point. Majorities don't decide right and wrong.

Majorities are never permanent. Majorities are not all people. Majorities are often wrong.

In the recent past, majorities of US citizens supported discrimination against gays and were for the continued prohibition of marijuana (both of these stances seem to have changed).

So why did people disagree with the majority opinion in those cases? They should have just shut up!

Majorities in Saudi Arabia may think women shouldn't be allowed to drive. Why do I criticize that, when I'm not Saudi Arabian?! How dare I?

So, besides these kinds of elementary logical fallacies, and the falsehood that "it's good for tourism," do you have an argument for monarchy? Apparently not!

[Jabez]

79. Why is everyone so anti.....

Once the truth is publicly aired views and support will change. Did you know that the Royal BBC banned any nasty comments being broadcast about the Queen a few days ago. That type of extreme prejudice is one of the major reasons why the gullibled Brits have been fooled over decades to view monarchy is the be all to end all. Although it does illustrate the RBBC acknowledging that not all Brits are beyond criticising this highly political monarch. Details of the RBBC's censorship was revealed in a leaked email by the way.

[vaberella]

52. Utterly and so does our media. n/t

[dmallind]

28. as silly symbolism as the monarchy is

The royals have absolutely no power and no influence on legislation. fiscal policy or anything else of importance, but do bring in gobs of tourists to a place that would attract few without them. Barring the whole pomp and circumstance hooey there is nothing in the UK that is not surpassed in far more convenient locations.

[MichaelMcGuire]

34. They have power to influence in the house of lords.

Whether the Royalty is what brings in more money is greatly debatable. The nearest neighbour without Royalty is France but they have millions of visitors to various buildings which used to house their Royal family and the number is larger than the number visiting Windsor castle or Buckingham palace. Btw they cost us money in lost revenue (example) loss through taxes exemption.

[hrmjustin]

36. The Brits will never get rid of them.

Long live the Queen.

[MichaelMcGuire]

38. Don't be so sure.

[Sea-Dog]

39. What do you fucking want them?

its OK to be some American telling people how great royals are cos she waved at your arse once.

[hrmjustin]

40. Put it up to a vote.

She would win.

[Sea-Dog]

43. and learn what that there is a majority of simpletons

just like in the US

[hrmjustin]

48. well you got me there my friend. n/t

[Jabez]

72. Sea Dog

I have paraphrased this comment in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury - thanks Ray.
"This moronic and anachronistic age in Britain thinks better of gilded mediocre royal fools, than of a threadbare saint in wisdom's' school".

[malaise]

44. You are wrong

All the so called superiority of royals, those with titles versus the great unwashed masses aka commoners is perpetuated by these ridiculous archaic nonsense known as monarchies.
Fuck all of them everywhere on the planet.

[Jabez]

70. Royals so called superiority

Yes spot on. They even expect men to bow and women to curtsy. There is a website that puts this self centered horde in perspective: www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk

[malaise]

74. Thanks for the link

Welcome to DU

[JackRiddler]

55. That's ridiculous. They are billionaires who are held up as the

rightful heads of state by birth and divine right, promoting the vile history of genocide known as the British Empire, and you want to tell us they "have absolutely no power."

Obviously they have the power to keep an untaxed fortune of 20 billion dollars in public properties (all their castles and estates and such independently of their "private" individual fortunes). To call them "powerless" is an insult to the billions of truly powerless people on this wretched planet.

You want to apologize for publicly-financed billionaires, divine right and hereditary rule, go ahead. But you're not entitled to make up the facts.

[Poll_Blind]

33. .

PB

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. Hear, hear! "God told me that I own everything including you".

What a pile of poo.
K&R

[cwydro]

46. Far less of them

than the multitudes celebrating the Jubilee.

Long live the Queen

[vaberella]

50. These are my kind of people. Down with Royalists and Loyalists. n/t

[white_wolf]

59. The very concept of a monarchy and a "House of Lords" pisses me off.

People may think that the monarchy and nobility hold no political power, and that may be true, however the principle of the matter is what bothers me. The very existence of a nobility implies that there is a small group of people that, by virtue of blood, are somehow better than me or you. It basically says that these people have the right to rule over their subjects.

[Jabez]

73. white_wolf

This is all part of the problem - people are indoctrinated by Britain's time warped media to believe that they, the royals and the monarchy is a political. Not so! The National Anthem, Oath of Allegiance, HER or HIS this. For example The Queen's Speech, not the Speakers Speech please note. Virtually everything about these nasty royals is tainted with governance of the people.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Emphasis on "GROUP" How many? I wonder 15, 20?

Bunch of party poopers.

[MichaelMcGuire]

62. Reports of 1200.

I largely support their right to protest on any day, regardless of their numbers. "All men are created equal" (Thomas Jefferson) but there is a reminder that in the UK that is not the case.


Edit found
"Around 1200 republicans descended on central London on Sunday for a large scale protest against the monarchy at the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant."

http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=502

[Starboard Tack]

63. I totally support their right to protest any time.

The monarchy is absolutely ridiculous in theory, but it tends to work in practice. One of the ironies of life. We elect enough idiots into office, why not deal with the idiots who are raised an trained to do the job. I doubt that many envy them. I love Thomas Jefferson, but he was wrong and the US is no different in that regard. Only difference in the States is, it's more about wealth than genes, but not always. American politics and corporate power is full of dynasties. The beauty of a constitutional monarchy is that it is essentially incorruptible, completely harmless, yet there when needed.

[MichaelMcGuire]

64. There are numerous republic's which work in practice just fine.

The quote from Jefferson isn't about his flaws nor that of Americas. But it is whether you believe that all men (or women) are equals, that anyone (in theory) can become the head of state voted by the public and simply not just born into head of state.

Another lie which keeps being repeated is that they hold no power. It simply isn't true, for a start the Queen is head of the Church of England, which has bishops in the House of Lords. Which can and do effect legislation, and have rallied others against legislation.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Becoming head of state is hardly about being equal.

Equality is a noble thought, but highly impractical in human society which is innately hierarchical. Being head of state is very different to being the political leader. I prefer the separation.. The C of E thing is not good and will pass into history very soon, as will the House of Lords as we know it. It has already changed considerably during my lifetime. The House of Lords has an effect on the timing of legislation, not the ultimate passage and I think we all have the right to rally others for or against legislation.

[Jabez]

71. Bunch of party poopers.

If you are referring to Republic UK. Wrong. It will not be all that long now before the democratic Republic UK has a very,very large annual sum to spend on their democratic views, getting in contact with a misinformed public. Perhaps a multi-millionaire who does not give a toss about an antiquated royal award. Empire this and Empire that - "cor blimey" as a cockney Londoner would say, "the fugging Empire no longer exists mate". Sadly the British Establishment are still indoctrinated with all that colonizing tripe, and it does stop this nation from progressing. Just look at the House of Lordy Lordies for an example, and all that rabbit fur worn round to necks, as well as gold buckle on their shoes, oh bobby shaftoe!

[Starboard Tack]

75. Republic UK is a contradiction in terms. LOL

[Jabez]

77. Republic is a contradiction in terms.

Thanks ST, please be good enough to come up with acceptable alternatives. LOL.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Republic and Kingdom are contradictory.

Maybe you aren't aware of what the K in UK stands for. Evolution is the only alternative, which is coming along just fine thanks. Republics do not have the best track record. What's important is safeguarding against tyrants and preserving democracy, which the UK is pretty damned good at, having had lots of painful practice.

[Jabez]

81. Republic and Kingdom

Yes of course I realize what the K represents. I do not believe that we have the type of 'democracy' that I and millions wish to see. I agree with evolution, but the Royals and the government are working like demons at the moment to ensure that the Union is not broken up. Just look at the millions of Union flags currently on display. When Bliar came to power he ensured that his well-wishers waived the UF because he is a devoted but misguided Unionist. I am not. I wish for an independent Wales and Scotland and the eventual integration of NI into the Republic of Ireland. Bliar in fact miscalculated regarding evolution, not realizing that it would have a snow balling effect, and eventually lead to independence, as is the case with Scotland now. The question of national defense can be resolved, a boring and unnecessary 'argument' that unionists always put forward. Whether you believe that Republics do not have the best track record or not, the same can be said for Monarchies. Of course it depends on how people interpret the word Tyranny. There is a splendid book, now out of print I understand, although used copies are available at Amazon and on Ebay entitled: Monarchy olitics of Tyranny & Denial. It gets to the nub of the problem with ample illustrations (cartoons) and descriptive text, explaining why we should consider the 'British' monarchy a tyranny but also the fact that Britain can never have a people friendly democracy until monarchy has been booted into oblivion, or 'Making Monarchy History', as thousands of banners stated at the recent Tower Bridge protest. Perhaps we ought to separate the different Republican organizations that now exist into Republic Wales, Republic Scotland and Republic England.