Barbados set to become a republic, cut ties with Britain

[The free romanians]

Problem
Also so you know im from a republican cpuntry at the moment(sadly)

Even worse

Looks like I made someone angry by pointing out the fact that his ideas are anachronistic

Tnx

[Ariddia]

Personally I'm sickened by the idea of becoming just another drab republic, devoid of any character. What would we get out of it? Every five or so years we get to go to the polls to choose from a list of former Prime Ministers and other retired political figures, who are being put out to pasture by the ruling party of the day, to be our president for a few years. I don't see how that's an improvement over a figurehead, apolitical monarch who is raised from birth for a life of public service.

I wouldn't say the change would quite "sicken" me, but other than that: Hear, hear!

(Though of course in the case of Barbados, it makes little or no difference: Their head of state was already de facto the Governor-General. The Governor-General's title has been changed to "President", and she'll now technically be chosen by Parliament instead of by the Prime Minister, which amounts to much the same: The Prime Minister's parliamentary majority will rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's nominee.)

[Immortan Khan]

Problem
Also so you know im from a republican cpuntry at the moment(sadly)

Even worse

Looks like I made someone angry by pointing out the fact that his ideas are anachronistic

Mocking a poor line of reasoning isn't the same thing as being angered by it.

[Disgraces]

Even worse


Looks like I made someone angry by pointing out the fact that his ideas are anachronistic

Mocking a poor line of reasoning isn't the same thing as being angered by it.

Doesn't change the fact monarchies are from aforetime

[The free romanians]

Mocking a poor line of reasoning isn't the same thing as being angered by it.

Doesn't change the fact monarchies are from aforetime

How?

[Immortan Khan]

Mocking a poor line of reasoning isn't the same thing as being angered by it.

Doesn't change the fact monarchies are from aforetime

Which is still poor reasoning. Further, monarchies and republics have coexisted for thousands of years, with each form of government fluctuating in pervasiveness across time.

[The Lone Alliance]

So really nothing changed and this was mostly a symbolic show thing.

[Democratic Socialist State of Barbados]

Problem
Also so you know im from a republican cpuntry at the moment(sadly)To be fair I wondered if the Barbados government got rid of the Queen as a distraction from screwing something else up, I can't see it being a massive issue over there either.

Here
This part

The monarch who’s existence only serves to remind people of a legacy on their island of slavery and white supremacy by the British? Can’t see why Barbadians would have an issue with that.

Most bajans are indifferent to the queen, bajans care more about the issues actually affecting the country such as the high cost of living, crime, water problems affecting various parish, corruption, unemployment and infrastructure.

---

UWI Cave hill did a survey asking if Barbadian know what type of government, most didn't know Barbados was a constitutional monarchy

[Farnhamia]

The fact that there are people that support monarchies well into the 21st century

*looms ominously* You could have made your point without the silly image. I am happy you spoilered it, though. Try to add something more to the thread next time.

[Velosia]

The British monarchy does not depend on your support to exist. It does depend on the state continuing to allow it to exist, which the state does because of the aforementioned weirdos.

Well, until such a time, the continuation of the monarchy is in the interests of both the establishment and the majority of the British people.

If you have no national character without a monarchy then you have no national character. Barbados isn't going to stop being Barbados and transform into Generic Republic #xxxx now that they have a president instead of a Queen. If you think that Britain would, then you must think very little of Britain.

Of course, I don't think that Britain would just fade into the static. We are still one of the largest economies in the world and our cultural influence (thanks to the monarchy in many ways) is arguably still second only to that of the United States. It's just that, like the republican tradition is fundamental to the American identity, I feel that the royal tradition plays a similar role in defining Britishness. Aside from the small blip with Cromwell, the British monarchy has existed for over a thousand years. From Æthelstan to Elizabeth II, not including the Scottish monarchy which extends back even further, it would be impossible for an institution like that to exist for so long without leaving a significant cultural/psychological impact on a nation. You can't deny that the monarchy remains a central part of the British identity.

You don't see how it's an improvement to be able to choose your national figurehead rather than being stuck with King Charles for however long he manages to live? That's if you get King Charles, one can never be sure of who with outlive whom. There's always the possibility, though remote in the extreme, that you might end up with King Andrew, the obvious sex criminal. And if you did, you'd be stuck with him, for however long he happened to live. The paedophile king, a huge improvement over an elected president.

Well, I don't particularly hate the Prince of Wales so I can't say I have any reservations about him ascending to the throne. The monarch and individual are two separate things and, as the longest king-in-waiting in British history, I don't see why he wouldn't know this. He's said as much before, stating that he has every intention of being apolitical when he eventually becoming king. If he cares about repairing his public image (which he obviously does) I don't see why he'd be lying about that.

---

The fact that there are people that support monarchies well into the 21st century
-
Doesn't change the fact monarchies are from aforetime

That just sounds like chronological snobbery to me. Republics, in some form, have existed just as long as monarchies have. From Venice, to Rome, to Athens etc. It's only because of the popular (and heavily romanticised) history of American and French republicanism that has led it to be linked with 'progress' and 'modernity'.

This in spite of the fact that, apart from the United States and Italy, I can't (off the top of my head) think of a single instance where a country was changed for the better by abolishing its monarchy without first having to go through decades of regression and instability. France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Brazil, China, Russia, even England during the Cromwell years, they hardly became bastions of democracy and progress after they saw off their sovereigns.

[Kaiserholt]

Just looked up the Barbados legislature, and...wow. Thirty seats in government, and one in opposition. I would have more faith in the future of Barbados if the legislature wasn't in this makeup.

[Democratic Socialist State of Barbados]

Just looked up the Barbados legislature, and...wow. Thirty seats in government, and one in opposition. I would have more faith in the future of Barbados if the legislature wasn't in this makeup.

29 in government and 1 in opposition in the lower house

[Kaiserholt]

Just looked up the Barbados legislature, and...wow. Thirty seats in government, and one in opposition. I would have more faith in the future of Barbados if the legislature wasn't in this makeup.

29 in government and 1 in opposition in the lower house

Do I really need to go back and edit the 30 into 29, or will my comment be responded to in the spirit it was written?

[Ifreann]

The British monarchy does not depend on your support to exist. It does depend on the state continuing to allow it to exist, which the state does because of the aforementioned weirdos.

Well, until such a time, the continuation of the monarchy is in the interests of both the establishment and the majority of the British people.

If you have no national character without a monarchy then you have no national character. Barbados isn't going to stop being Barbados and transform into Generic Republic #xxxx now that they have a president instead of a Queen. If you think that Britain would, then you must think very little of Britain.

Of course, I don't think that Britain would just fade into the static. We are still one of the largest economies in the world and our cultural influence (thanks to the monarchy in many ways) is arguably still second only to that of the United States. It's just that, like the republican tradition is fundamental to the American identity, I feel that the royal tradition plays a similar role in defining Britishness. Aside from the small blip with Cromwell, the British monarchy has existed for over a thousand years. From Æthelstan to Elizabeth II, not including the Scottish monarchy which extends back even further, it would be impossible for an institution like that to exist for so long without leaving a significant cultural/psychological impact on a nation. You can't deny that the monarchy remains a central part of the British identity.

And whenever you stop having a monarchy, that too will be part of your history and culture. Firing the Queen won't turn Britain into a nation of grey drones without an identity.

You don't see how it's an improvement to be able to choose your national figurehead rather than being stuck with King Charles for however long he manages to live? That's if you get King Charles, one can never be sure of who with outlive whom. There's always the possibility, though remote in the extreme, that you might end up with King Andrew, the obvious sex criminal. And if you did, you'd be stuck with him, for however long he happened to live. The paedophile king, a huge improvement over an elected president.

Well, I don't particularly hate the Prince of Wales so I can't say I have any reservations about him ascending to the throne. The monarch and individual are two separate things and, as the longest king-in-waiting in British history, I don't see why he wouldn't know this. He's said as much before, stating that he has every intention of being apolitical when he eventually becoming king. If he cares about repairing his public image (which he obviously does) I don't see why he'd be lying about that.

Whatever his intentions, it's possible that he'll prove to be a national embarrassment as King. Or maybe William will be a clown as King. Or maybe little George will grow up to have Britain cringing at his every public appearance. And who can say what the House of Windsor will provide to Britain after George.

Of course, an elected president can also mortify a nation, as Trump so effectively showed the world. But elections allow the possibility to reject such a candidate. In Ireland's last presidential election we had three businessmen-turned-reality-TV-host running to be our national figurehead, and instead we re-elected Michael D. Higgins, the elder statesman, an intelligent and articulate man, a poet. Someone who can remind the world that Ireland was once known as the island of saints and scholars. But also someone who doesn't feel separate from or above the ordinary people. We all call him Miggledy. He doesn't do much in our political system, nothing too far from what the Queen does in yours, but he's a figure we can be proud of as a nation, and we chose him, so we can tell ourselves that he reflects well on us. We didn't luck into a good heir, and we don't have to rely on luck when his term ends in a few years. We can make another choice we can be proud of. Or maybe we'll make fools of ourselves and have to put up with seven to fourteen years of mockery. Either way it will be our choice.

[The free romanians]

Well, until such a time, the continuation of the monarchy is in the interests of both the establishment and the majority of the British people.


Of course, I don't think that Britain would just fade into the static. We are still one of the largest economies in the world and our cultural influence (thanks to the monarchy in many ways) is arguably still second only to that of the United States. It's just that, like the republican tradition is fundamental to the American identity, I feel that the royal tradition plays a similar role in defining Britishness. Aside from the small blip with Cromwell, the British monarchy has existed for over a thousand years. From Æthelstan to Elizabeth II, not including the Scottish monarchy which extends back even further, it would be impossible for an institution like that to exist for so long without leaving a significant cultural/psychological impact on a nation. You can't deny that the monarchy remains a central part of the British identity.

And whenever you stop having a monarchy, that too will be part of your history and culture. Firing the Queen won't turn Britain into a nation of grey drones without an identity.

Well, I don't particularly hate the Prince of Wales so I can't say I have any reservations about him ascending to the throne. The monarch and individual are two separate things and, as the longest king-in-waiting in British history, I don't see why he wouldn't know this. He's said as much before, stating that he has every intention of being apolitical when he eventually becoming king. If he cares about repairing his public image (which he obviously does) I don't see why he'd be lying about that.

Whatever his intentions, it's possible that he'll prove to be a national embarrassment as King. Or maybe William will be a clown as King. Or maybe little George will grow up to have Britain cringing at his every public appearance. And who can say what the House of Windsor will provide to Britain after George.

Of course, an elected president can also mortify a nation, as Trump so effectively showed the world. But elections allow the possibility to reject such a candidate. In Ireland's last presidential election we had three businessmen-turned-reality-TV-host running to be our national figurehead, and instead we re-elected Michael D. Higgins, the elder statesman, an intelligent and articulate man, a poet. Someone who can remind the world that Ireland was once known as the island of saints and scholars. But also someone who doesn't feel separate from or above the ordinary people. We all call him Miggledy. He doesn't do much in our political system, nothing too far from what the Queen does in yours, but he's a figure we can be proud of as a nation, and we chose him, so we can tell ourselves that he reflects well on us. We didn't luck into a good heir, and we don't have to rely on luck when his term ends in a few years. We can make another choice we can be proud of. Or maybe we'll make fools of ourselves and have to put up with seven to fourteen years of mockery. Either way it will be our choice.

And people can't be proud of a monarch?

[Ifreann]

And whenever you stop having a monarchy, that too will be part of your history and culture. Firing the Queen won't turn Britain into a nation of grey drones without an identity.


Whatever his intentions, it's possible that he'll prove to be a national embarrassment as King. Or maybe William will be a clown as King. Or maybe little George will grow up to have Britain cringing at his every public appearance. And who can say what the House of Windsor will provide to Britain after George.

Of course, an elected president can also mortify a nation, as Trump so effectively showed the world. But elections allow the possibility to reject such a candidate. In Ireland's last presidential election we had three businessmen-turned-reality-TV-host running to be our national figurehead, and instead we re-elected Michael D. Higgins, the elder statesman, an intelligent and articulate man, a poet. Someone who can remind the world that Ireland was once known as the island of saints and scholars. But also someone who doesn't feel separate from or above the ordinary people. We all call him Miggledy. He doesn't do much in our political system, nothing too far from what the Queen does in yours, but he's a figure we can be proud of as a nation, and we chose him, so we can tell ourselves that he reflects well on us. We didn't luck into a good heir, and we don't have to rely on luck when his term ends in a few years. We can make another choice we can be proud of. Or maybe we'll make fools of ourselves and have to put up with seven to fourteen years of mockery. Either way it will be our choice.

And people can't be proud of a monarch?

Not in the same way. Elizabeth Windsor is not Velosia's queen because of anything Velosia did or could do. Michael D. Higgins is my president, in part because I voted for him. I helped elect him, twice. When Queen Elizabeth dies, her son Charles will become Velosia's king, regardless of anything Velosia does or could do short of literal regicide, and that's obviously not a real option. When Michael D.'s term ends, I'll get to vote on who replaces him. I only have one vote among millions, but I get to have some say in who will be my next president.

[The free romanians]

And people can't be proud of a monarch?

Not in the same way. Elizabeth Windsor is not Velosia's queen because of anything Velosia did or could do. Michael D. Higgins is my president, in part because I voted for him. I helped elect him, twice. When Queen Elizabeth dies, her son Charles will become Velosia's king, regardless of anything Velosia does or could do short of literal regicide, and that's obviously not a real option. When Michael D.'s term ends, I'll get to vote on who replaces him. I only have one vote among millions, but I get to have some say in who will be my next president.

And does the irish president represent the politocal opposition?

[Ifreann]

Not in the same way. Elizabeth Windsor is not Velosia's queen because of anything Velosia did or could do. Michael D. Higgins is my president, in part because I voted for him. I helped elect him, twice. When Queen Elizabeth dies, her son Charles will become Velosia's king, regardless of anything Velosia does or could do short of literal regicide, and that's obviously not a real option. When Michael D.'s term ends, I'll get to vote on who replaces him. I only have one vote among millions, but I get to have some say in who will be my next president.

And does the irish president represent the politocal opposition?

I don't know what you mean by this. What political opposition?

[Kvatchdom]

Not in the same way. Elizabeth Windsor is not Velosia's queen because of anything Velosia did or could do. Michael D. Higgins is my president, in part because I voted for him. I helped elect him, twice. When Queen Elizabeth dies, her son Charles will become Velosia's king, regardless of anything Velosia does or could do short of literal regicide, and that's obviously not a real option. When Michael D.'s term ends, I'll get to vote on who replaces him. I only have one vote among millions, but I get to have some say in who will be my next president.

And does the irish president represent the politocal opposition?

Does the queen represent political republicans and separatists?

[Kubra]

Just looked up the Barbados legislature, and...wow. Thirty seats in government, and one in opposition. I would have more faith in the future of Barbados if the legislature wasn't in this makeup.

Small countries (and barbados is *small*) can generally end up with these kinds of supermajorities, especially with the whole first past the post thing. It's a result *from* Britain, really.

[The free romanians]

And does the irish president represent the politocal opposition?

Does the queen represent political republicans and separatists?

Separatists don't hate a monarch because they are a monarch
BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE A REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNTRY THEY HATE so it is a good symbol

[The Blaatschapen]

Does the queen represent political republicans and separatists?

Separatists don't hate a monarch because they are a monarch
BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE A REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNTRY THEY HATE so it is a good symbol

And what about republicans?

[The free romanians]

Separatists don't hate a monarch because they are a monarch
BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE A REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNTRY THEY HATE so it is a good symbol

And what about republicans?

It depends form country to country

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I find that when people trot out ‘tradition’ as a defence, that’s generally a good sign that we ought to get rid of the thing being defended as quickly as possible.

“We’ve always done things this way” is the argument that you make when you don’t have any real reason why things should be done that way.

[The free romanians]

I find that when people trot out ‘tradition’ as a defence, that’s generally a good sign that we ought to get rid of the thing being defended as quickly as possible.

“We’ve always done things this way” is the argument that you make when you don’t have any real reason why things should be done that way.

There is also the question
Why shouldn't we do that
I think that traditions make cultures richer