Talk:Republican Monarchist Debate

The starting material for this article is taken primarily from two secondary sources. One is the republican website based in the UK, as listed in the sources, and the second is a monarchist site from the UK that is sponsored by the UK's monarchy. In no case is original work used here and both arguments are presented to maintain a neutral POV. Sandwich Eater 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the International Monarchist League based in the UK does not receive any support from the UK Crown. --gbambino 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
The article needs to be completely rewritten.

Formatting, especially, should be the same throughout, and should follow a more normal pattern then it currently does.


 * Agreed. Sandwich Eater 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't make much sense - it begins as a general article on the arguments re republic v monarchy, then it states (and continues) on the basis that it is an article about the republic v monarchy debate in the Commonwealth realms. It is also very POV, as Gavin rightly points out (in his edits). --Lholden 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose any article about a debate is going to have POV (the arguments of each side being simply their point of view), but some insinuations here were blatant speculation, and others were just inaccurate. However, that aside, it's true that this article purports to be about a debate between monarchists and republicans in general, but focuses only on four countries. --gbambino 00:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noted other problems with the article which need to be addressed if this page is to remain - namely, there needs to be a definition between arguments against absolute monarchy and against constitutional monarchy. I say this because there's a bullet point in the article which refers to history producing some "arguably abnormal monarchs" and then says "see Nero and Caligula."  Nero and Caligula were absolute monarchs who reigned without a parliament or laws limiting their powers.  In a constitutional monarchy an "abnormal monarch" could be replaced by parliament with a regent, or removed all together in favour of another member of the family - as has happened before in at least British history.  This point also relates to monarchs not being accountable - again, it depends on the system of monarchy.  Which republicans are making these arguments, and which type of monarch are they making these arguments against? --gbambino 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why I think the article in question should be merged with Republicanism in the United Kingdom - the text relates mainly to the debate with respect to the UK (as Sandwich Eater stated above). Gavin's point on the type of monarchy is a valid one - since the British debate relates to a constitutional monarchy, the arguments are specific to that form of government. Moreover, I don't think it's possible to have an article that criticises monarchy as broadly. --Lholden 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm coming round to agreeing with this proposal. Either that or edit out all the UK-centric arguments, and differentiate between arguments for and against constitutional and absolute monarchy. --gbambino 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Global vs commonwealth
I suggest either the article is renamed something like "Debate on the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms" if it is to focus on the debate within the Commonwealth Realms or, (my preference, given that such information is already on the Commonwealth Realm article) arguments between republicans and monarchists in general. --Lholden 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The initial article was simply 'monarchist vs republic' but a lot of the material was taken from UK-oriented sites. A subsequent editor tailored the introduction more towards the commonwealth.  I think that the article would be more interesting if it could bring in arguments from other monarchies around the world and have a more global focus.Sandwich Eater 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should focus more broadly on such a debate, but, personally, I'm not aware of much debate taking place in countries other than the four mentioned (even though there really is no debate in the UK, and virtually none in Canada). Perhaps there might be transcripts of parliamentary debates regarding the matter in Barbados or Jamaica. I also know there is a republican group in the Netherlands, and there are monarchist parties in the US, France, Iraq and Afghanistan; though, again, I think actual debate is relatively mute in those places as well. --gbambino 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with UK Republicanism article?

 * Since the article is meant to relate to the debate in the UK, it should be merged with Republicanism in the United Kingdom. --Lholden 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that without the side-by-side arguments from the monarchy camp it would be a POV section of the republicanism page, or, it would lose the value of being able to read both arguments side-by-side in one place. I also saw a special on monarchy on public television recently that featured tonga and a parliamentarian struggling against a slightly more absolutist monarchy.    Also, there is an example of a restored monarchy in Africa that seems to have been very successful.  If we can restore the international nature of the article to include Japan, the netherlands, et cetera I think it will gain value as a separate page.Sandwich Eater 15:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how. Should we merge the article with Republicanism in the United Kingdom, obviously the section relating to arguments put forward by monarchists should stay, otherwise the article wouldn't meet NPOV requirements. --Lholden 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many people read wikipedia in Tonga, the netherlands, Japan, et cetera, but I think we should hold out hope that the page could be internationalized... Sandwich Eater 12:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, That's all good and well, but the reality is that the article in question is at the moment mainly related to the debate in the United Kingdom and most of the points raised (as they relate to other countries) are already covered by other articles, such as the Commonwealth Realms article and the Constitutional monarchy article. --Lholden 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just skimmed along on the Canadian Monarchy Debate type page and it includes points and counter points just as this page does. Question: should each nation have it's own point/counterpoint page or could they be merged into one? The arguments are really all the same and those pages could reference this one. The bits that are nation-specific could be left on the national pages. Sandwich Eater 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've cut the article down now a bit, so that the focus is on the republic v monarchy debate in the UK only. --Lholden 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But, um, I'm not sure there is consensus to localize it to the UK and I found a pithy Otto Von Bismark page I thought I would quote and add to the merriment wherein he blames the abolishment of Monarchy after WWI for the conditions that leadto WWII, despite WWI being fought by a bunch of monarchies. Fascinating.  To me it still looks like one vote to one to try to internationalize the page rather than focus and merge it.  But your edits are still in the history if others want to chime in...  Sandwich Eater 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your arguments above are pretty compelling. Perhaps it is easier to merge with the nation-specific articles so that editors and reader need not worry about the many differences as they manifest in various nations.  OK let's merge it.  i think I was the only dissenter.  Sandwich Eater 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding POV
I entered a request for feedback for this article. I only had one editor respond. His main caution is that debate-type articles can easily become a magnet for POV and that must be vigorously monitored. It is difficult to source most of the arguments made in a debate because so much of it is opinion, eg. "Aristocratic systems demotivate the common man" or "Meritocracy creates a competitive basis in society." Or there are suppositions like "Monarchies could become absolutist more easily than a republic could beceome a dictatorship". What should distinguish the points listed here from POV is that each of the points made should reference or source a published article or campaign, preferably a secondary source that records monarchists maintain X, Republicans maintain Y. (The primary source would be original work or a campaign, the secondary source would be an article describing the primary source such as a news organization reporting on Republican or Monarchist doings). If an editor adds a point or counter point to one of those summarized "platform" statements then they should be ready to source it. Sandwich Eater 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles is a functioning dignitary of state as a member of the royal family
My understanding from the Monarchist websites I've read is that the royal family is seen as an assett that is somehow less divisive or better than a cabinet or other leadership team. Charles and the various members of the royal family are constantly asked to undertake various roles in their capacity as representatives of state. So I'm not clear why my reference to his action with regard to China keeps getting deleted. It is well referenced to the BBC website, clearly that is a reputable source, no one denies it happened, and Republicans clearly take the stance that it is a violation of the impartiality. i am not sure how a monarch could act as a referee if they do not eventually take a stance on something, even if it is extreme (like acting against a dictatorship were one to form). I will clarify that he was not an acting monarch.Sandwich Eater 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of whether or not the event happened, but simply because Charles is not the monarch - yet. Further, there's no evidence Charles was even acting on behalf of the Queen in this instance.  You're confusing the Monarchy with the Royal Family. --gbambino 15:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But monarchists due merge the Royal Family with the monarch, and the monarch uses the royal family to share responsibilities of state.


 * "Having a monarchy and a royal family means that a whole family of people are undertaking valuable ceremonial and charitable duties across the country to a degree to which an executive president or symbolic president just cannot fulfil."


 * This is from a Monarchist website. (http://www.monarchy.net/arguments.htm) The website uses "Royal Family" throughout. And Charles refused to attend a State Dinner with the Head of State of another nation.  Come on!  How can you deny that his roll as a member of the royal family and in the Monarchy came into play - BBC doesn't make note of everyday people abstaining from dinner with the premier of China, and they aren't invited to such state functions.  IT seems difficult to deny that he has royal responsibilities.  But it is a weak argument - he is paid as a member of the royal family, he is the prince of whales, he is a functioning part of the crown and that branch of government formally, and is thus a state dignitary.  I'm sure he could stop taking those payments, transfer his state-granted Duchy to his son, and remove himself from the line of succession.  Then he would be free to be a buddhist tibet-treatment-protesting, GM Food protesting, Austrian Nationalist protesting English Gentleman who could marry whomever he pleases without responsibilities as a symbol and dignitary of state.  I suspect he is tempted at times to just that.


 * If you want the monarchy to be a referree it can't be completely impartial You're better off, IMHO arguing that he stepped in because the executive and parliamentary government have too many economic and short term reasons to appease the Chinese despite their human rights record.  He is able to assert the long term view that these actions are innapropriate because of his separateness from the prime minister, while the prime minister would be unable to stave off many negative consequences of snubbing China.  To me this would be a very rational argument while the notion that he is not part of the Monarchy when he does something you don't like just doesn't work for me.  I will change the reference to specifically note that Monarchists consider him to be acting in a private context when he refused to attend, but I would prefer doing so with a citation or reference to a monarchist site that addresses the issue "However Monarchists contend that as the Prince of Whales, Charles is able to act as an independent subject on occasion(citation)."  Sandwich Eater 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The members of the Royal Family can represent the monarch when asked to do so. However, they are otherwise simply subjects of the Crown like every other person in the country (or countries).  In neither case cited was Charles acting on behalf of the Queen (the only time he could be considered a "functioning part of the Crown"), meaning he was not representing the state - in fact, he was to attend the State Dinner with his mother, not in place of her.  Thus, his opininons as a private individual, in this case, do not ultimately matter when it comes to the impartiality of the Crown. The point that the press try to make a large deal out of Charles' communications with his mother's ministers, or his personal feelings on China and Tibet, means nothing to republican vs. monarchist debates. --gbambino 18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source for this - Does the Prince say this? Is that the official response of the Crown to these allegations of impartiality by the BBC?  As an illustration we can look at a Republic.  The actions of the US Vice President, regardless of the fact that he is not President, still represent the Whitehouse, the State, et cetera.  The VP doesn't go to a state dinner with the President as "just a citizen".  As the next in line of succession to the Presidency, I am sure the VP would take full accountability for his actions.  In fact, I doubt Charles would claim he is not acting on behalf of the monarchy, nor deny that he has responsibilities to the state in these affairs. I would be interested in a quotation wherein he claims to just be a common subject of the crown when attending a State Dinner with the Queen in his role as the Prince of Whales.  I just cannot imagine he would appreciate anyone arguing on his behalf that he is avoiding that obvious responsibility.  In the interview I have seen, he seems to feel the weight of those responsibilities acutely.  So I would be very interested indeed if you could appropriately source the notion that the Prince of Whales and next in line in a line of succession to head of state, a person who receives public support and who benefits from a Duchy granted to his family, would ever contend that he can go to a state dinner as a common subjet.  On the contrary, I suspect the Prince would prefer my argument that he was acting within the boundaries of the Prince of Whales as it is separated from the Prime Minister to take a longer term cultural and moral leadership position without the consequences of a formal government action.  In any event, I hope you don't contrast the actions of the Vice Presisent of the USA with the Prince of Whales in this fashion because the holder of that office would always consider themselves a part of the the executive branch of government and would not run (or be allowed to run) from that responsibility - at least not with the argument that they are acting as a common citizen.

I think the notion that he was acting with cutlural and moral leadership aside from immediate government concerns is a far better argument for Monarchy than that the he could attend a state dinner with the Queen of England as a common subject. To me, it is far easier to make the contrast that it would be impossible for the VP of the USA to do the same thing! Or the fact that a Republic has no mechanism to take such a stance without immediate conflict resulting. Sandwich Eater 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Palace has a practice of not addressing any slander or false allegations in the press. But your own cited website states: "There are some sections of the media whose prime objective sometimes seems to be increasing circulation and making money regardless of any other factors. They regularly embark on sensationalised features based little on facts and more on fantasy which though inaccurate or even completely false have the effect of damaging the monarchy and members of the royal family through attrition."  They then go on to say that much of this negative press focuses on the actions of members of the Royal Family in their capacity as private citizens (loves, parties, vacations, etc.), and not on their personal duties (charities, regiments) or state duties (acting in place of the Queen).
 * A VP doesn't matter in this case; the Prince of Wales is not the Queen's vice-monarch. Your suppositions and guesses about what Charles thinks or feels similarly don't matter here.  The point is, unless acting officially as a representative of the Queen (as he did at Pope Benedict XVI's coronation), he is not representative of the Crown - and therefore not representative of the State.  Otherwise he is a subject, bound only by the same laws and conventions as you and I (assuming you live in one of the Commonwealth Realms).  That the press and people expect the same impartiality from him that the Queen is conventionally bound to have is another matter all-together. But, firstly, as he holds no constitutional or governmental role (unless specifically taking the Queen's place in her absence, and at her request), he is not required, nor should he really be expected, to be non-partisan.  And, secondly, he is clearly entitled to communicate with government ministers and voice his opinion on matters, like any other citizen - even the Sovereign herself does so in her weekly meetings with the PM and through other correspondence; however, this communication should be a private affair, as it is for his mother.  Both points show that his actions have nothing to do with the impartiality of the Crown.
 * I'm not going to discuss this any further until a consensus has been reached as to what to do with this article. --gbambino 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - your argument sounds lucid and you might be right, but I think you should provide a source or citation to some authoritative article, act of parliament, or other support for the non-status of the Prince as a state position and his ability to act as a private subject with regard to matters of state, like the visit of the Chinese Head of State. I think the BBC is more than just some trashy news rag, and a nationalist party in Austria and the Head of State from China are very different indeed than a love affair.  Moral leadership in those areas, as distinct from state governance, might actually be supportive of the monarchy as it stands.  Wherever the article ends up (merged or otherwise) I will agree to deleting impartiality arguments referring to Charles if you can document this point, or bolster the counter argument from the acting-as-a-subject point of view.  Sandwich Eater 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bambino - I found one for you. it wasn't that difficult I just searched on Yahoo for the words "formal responsibiities Prince of Wales" and a few hits came up. This one looks official: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/rol_index.html. His "Royal Duties in Support of the Queen" appear to be self imposed. As such there could still be a lot of debate regarding whether or not he should be 'bound by impartiality' since he takes on 'Royal Duties' as the Prince of Wales. The text clarifies that "In this rare statement of his vision and aims, The Prince of Wales makes it clear he has no 'political' agenda." which I take to mean that he recognizes in appointing these duties to himself that he takes on the same responsibilities for impartiality. A tricky subject indeed. Sandwich Eater 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bambino - here is another one: http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/ideology1.html In this case the author supports the notion that the monarch can go ahead and break with impartiality to protect minorities. He claims that St. James's palace defended the role of the Prince of Wales to voice the concerns of the people, et cetera. I do not know where to search for such correspondence. My conclusion thus far is therefore that the existing literature does not support the notion that the Prince is free from obligation from impartiality or that he is obligated by any formal role, but the palace may support some formal roles. It seems to me, therefore, that the Prince's actions are fair game for criticism by those who feel the Royal Family cannot be trusted to remain impartial and that this has ramifications for the monarchical form of government, if its proponents use impartiality as a supporting vehicle. Sandwich Eater 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this article
Okay, this article is a shambles, mainly (but not only) because the purpose of it is unclear. It needs to be established first whether a) this is to be an article about monarchism vs. republicanism on a global scale, b) monarchism vs. republicanism within the Commonwealth Realms, or c) monarchism vs. republicanism within the UK. What's it to be? --gbambino 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Name
This article needs to be renamed, the current title is incorrect as far as grammar and capitalisation are concerned. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has now been merged with Republicanism in the United Kingdom, and should be deleted. --Lholden 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)