Socialist Live Laugh Meme Abolish The Monarchy T-Shirt

Product Information

Aware of supporters electing to self-censor and hearing reports of others admitting they are too petrified to air their views for fear of being cancelled, the main republican campaign group is actively pushing calls to abolish the monarchy.

It would start by deftly defining the needed constitutional amendment. It would, in my view, state that the office of Canada’s head of state should henceforth be held, not by the head of the British Royal Family, but by the Governor General, until such time as a constitutional conference decides otherwise. Certainly, Smith is right that demanding a British Republic is not to advocate a replay of the French Revolution, and that we already have most of the pieces in place to create a democratic parliamentary republic. But there is something revolutionary about the spirit of republicanism. As he points out, republicanism is essentially the demand for a true liberal democracy: ‘[republicanism is about] more than replacing one head of state with another—it’s about rebalancing power between government, Parliament, and people. … The challenge is to take what we have and make it democratic, top to bottom.’ Republicans should not be so coy about the radicalism of this project. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism. This was a telling insight into how the British people view their relationship with the Royal Family—not much dulled by the fact that, in the end, the Sussexes were “allowed” to retreat from their public duties after agreeing to an exit plan with other senior royals. In a normal society, anyone should be free to plot their own course; nobody’s life ought to be subject to public control. But in monarchical Britain, oppressive social expectation is not unusual. Abandoning one’s station is to be frowned upon, whether rich or poor.Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better? Their official statement goes on to say: "As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognizes success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service."

Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. It often indicates a user profile. Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict.

10. Boujee AF !!!

Charles III is a terrible choice. Partly because Charles I, the English Civil War’s victor, was overthrown by Parliamentarian Forces. He was executed later. Charles II, his son, was restored to the throne of England, but is most remembered for his rampant womenizing. He had at least 12 illegitimate kids. There is also the Jacobite connection with Charles Edward Stuart (the “Young Pretender”), who claimed the title “Charles III.” I find it bizarre that some people from the colonized commonwealth countries do not want to become a republic and like the queen. A lot of places across the Commonwealth suffered a great deal, even in the last century and even during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. In countries like Canada or Australia, indigenous children continued to be stolen and forced to go through 'residential school' systems until the 1990s. States don't maintain membership unless they gain some benefit," said Kennedy. "It will exist as long as the states have an interest. Elizabeth II may have been the most visible supporter, but her death doesn't alter its institutional purpose." But what if we had both? What if we also had a written constitution, a fully democratic parliament, and an elected head of state—that is, what if we had a secular democratic parliamentary republic?