Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2006/October

Institutional memory
Many years ago I skimmed The Downing Street years for a paper on Thatcher and I recall reading that she found her weekly visits to the Queen helpful because the Queen could impart the experience of having reigned through the terms of several prime ministers. I think I've even read Tony Blair saying much the same thing. I'm too far removed from it now though to feel comfortable adding anything about this to the article. Is this asserted royal contribution to the government's institutional memory worth mentioning? Greyfedora 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can verify it, I think it's fine - obviously it must play a part in the PMs relations with the Queen. --Lholden 08:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's fine. I might be tempted to add something similar for past presidents in a term limit system that are also seen as politically retired.  The critical thing is to add a citation.  Sandwich Eater 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not make the presidential addition; the Queen has a right to be consulted, past presidents are consulted at the whim of the administration. Septentrionalis 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The monarch can demand an audience with the PM & lecture them on whatever she pleases? I didn't realize that.  I can't think of a political reason to complain about it, so unless the PM had some sort of political battle with the palace I can't imagine why they would say anything negative about it.  Can you imagine Thatcher or Blair saying something like "I just can't stand being summoned to the palace!  It's so boring and the Queen has nothing useful to say!"  In the process they would annoy the Queen's supporters and probably gain little from her detractors.  I can't imagine a saavy PM complaining about the duty of meeting with the head of state, or any of their constitutional duties.  Any pensioner in Britain could chat with the PM about having lived through several PMs.  Of course the verb "reign" makes the advice more sage I suppose, and the head of state does conduct a bit of diplomacy and stately relations during their reign that might make them more informed than others.  So for those reasons IMHO it might not be so important, but, If you can find the citation it still seems like fair game to me and could be included in the inst. memory arguents.  Sandwich Eater 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of UK
I question the accuracy of the editor who removed the UK with the comment that it is anachronistic, and replaced it with "England". I looked at the UK page and I do not see anything relating to the formal abandonment of the word UK and I'm not really clear that it should be changed to England at this point, unless there is something I don't understand about the latest federalist moves devolving state parliaments for Scotland et cetera. Can someone clarify? Sandwich Eater 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think references to the UK are anachronistic as the UK still exists. Personally, I think this page should be called Republicanism in Britain, because a republican United Kingdom would be an oxymoron. Quiensabe 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose that would be more correct linguistically. But even if the name were to change from 'United Kingdom' to 'United British Republic' it seems to me that we're talking about the nation currently called the UK.  Sandwich Eater 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)