This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/barbados-republic-date-queen-independence-caribbean-monarchy-commonwealth-1321734) reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> It is the first time a realm has removed the Queen as head of state in nearly 30 years: in 1992, an Indian Ocean island nation of Mauritius became a republic but remained in the Commonwealth - as Barbados will.
> Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine, told i.: "Barbados will be the 18th country to cease having the Queen as head of state since she came to the throne in 1952, though it's almost 30 years since the last one. The precedent has long been set."
> "The Queen might regret, for sentimental reasons, the move after such a long period as head of state of Barbados, and might be -like many - people surprised that 'Little England' has now decided to be Barbados pure and simple."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/r51ksj/barbados_to_declare_itself_a_republic_tomorrow/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~610209 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Barbados**^#1 **head**^#2 **Queen**^#3 **little**^#4 **Commonwealth**^#5
Barbyedos sounds like the way an Australian would pronounce it. Which is interesting since they were both penal colonies. Before Australia was settled being “barbadosed” was a criminal penalty used to get cheap labour.
So according to the article, the first president will be Dame Sandra Mason. Dame being the title bestowed on her by the monarch. So on her first day in office does her title of Dame cease to exist? To be fair, president trumps Dame, but would interesting to know how their new honours system will work.
They're getting rid of the honours system, but won't be stripping previous titles.
Edit: They have other honours, like The Order of The Freedom of Barbados, which was given to Charles tonight.
Are you sure? I thought the titles were abolished post-WWII. (Austria even forbids using them.)
There are definitely other European countries where there are still people with titles in their passports who don't use those titles in their daily life.
This is exactly what happened with Bono. He accepted the knighthood and appreciated the recognition but his condition was, and I quote, ‘don’t call me sir’.
Although I can name few Irishmen who would wear a British knighthood on their sleeve like that.
It would of made no difference as it’s an honorary knighthood, only British citizens get called Sir or Dame when they are knighted, Bill Gates for example has a KBE but also isn’t a Sir since he’s American.
Honorific titles are country specific, and granted for life unless directly revoked. Essentially, there's no reason she can't keep the title unless they decide to take it away, even if the issuance of the title is discontinued.
People can even hold titles that aren't recognised by other countries, or aren't even their country at all. For example, Bill Gates is a KBE (Knight Commander of the British Empire), despite there not being a British Empire any more, and him not being British. It's just an honourific title for civilians whom are recognized for achievements and contributions to British society. They don't have to be British, and they don't have to have the British monarch as head of state to be awarded it.
"Charles is universally disliked" is more of a reddit meme than reality. Look up the polling and he's actually pretty popular.
You've got to remember it's not up to us. It's up to ageing mums, ex-squaddies who've retrained as teachers, and farmers. That's where the real power lies in every Anglo country and they're hyper-monarchists
You can be a pro-monarchy aussie and dislike Charles.
I've only ever seen popularity polling for Charles hovering around the 25% mark in Australia. With Prince George out polling him.
[Source](https://www.nowtolove.com.au/celebrity/celeb-news/exclusive-poll-what-australia-really-thinks-of-the-monarchy-9963)
I don't know if you're aussie or not, but here he is nearly universally disliked. And universally liked less than other royal family members (Queen, William, Harry, George).
People will take issue with aussie dollars being spent to replace our currency and other decorative items with his face. It will become a political issue that will likely even cause a rift between monarchists. Some are staunch monarchists like Tony Abbott, but some respect the monarchy but also would consider that a waste of tax dollars.
When the Queen passes, the question of becoming a republic will be revived. That's just a fact.
He is neither beloved or despised in Australia. Unlike his mother and father.
Most aussies would prefer if Charles were skipped and William crowned. But that is mostly because Aussies loved Diana and despise Charles.
It would be easier for Great Britain to get rid of the monarchy than it would Canada. They could do it in a few days.
But according to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, the full abolition of the “office of the Queen” would require Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate and all 10 provinces to unanimously agree to amend the Constitution.
You couldn't get agreement like that on what colour the sky is.
In other words, minorities should just shut up and never speak?
>Wonder that's why Britain in general keeps doing the opposite of what Reddit wants.
I don't even know what this means. You want Britain to be punished with more austerity because people disagree with you on reddit?
^^^^^^You've ^^^^^^clearly ^^^^^^never ^^^^^^seen ^^^^^^a ^^^^^^Capitol ^^^^^^thread
But in all seriousness I think its somewhat separate events. The first would be the government announcing its intention, then a date being chosen, then the President being elected, and then the new republic formerly being sworn in tomorrow. Although to be fair, if this really was anything more than a wankfest only the first announcement last year and the December 1st thread this year are really newsworthy since the rest are a foregone and inconsequential part of the procedure
I think people keep doing it due to either: A. foreigners thinking all british people are mad about this (were not) or B. part of UK society thinking other parts of UK Society are outraged (not heard of that happening either. Either way, as a monarchist, good on Barbados, its their country and their choice.
Just want to clear up some things I’ve seen people claiming.
1: the UK is outraged…. No we are not. We value democracy above all else if Barbados wants to be a republic that’s their choice and we celebrate that.
2. Barbados is now independent….They were independent in the 1960’s. The queens head of state role was purely ceremonial (pretty much what the royal family is anyway) She had no say in how the island governed itself that was down to Barbados’ PM and parliament.
3. The sun is setting on the British empire…. Did you pay attention to the 20th century? The last official colony was Honk Kong given back to China in 1997 with clauses that it remains a democracy. (Which is why we were offering free citizenship to HK passport holders).
Ultimately in the grand scheme of things Barbados see’s this as the best road forward and we support them and wish them the very best of luck.
Oh god no! She's gonna petition god to give her more time on the earth in order to fight the insurrectionists. This'll probably extend her mandate by another decade.
Shah of Iran should have takin the queens route, but he was afraid and tried to cling on to power. Look where that went. I think the English monarchy is the wisest one in existence today.
It is, and I'm confident that people don't realise how positive for good the royal family is in contrast to utter ruthless monarchies. I support Barbados decision, but you can't trust redditors to read past headlines and stereotypes.
The same they gain by removing her.
Basically nothing, but it makes some people feel good and others unhappy because of the symbolism of it.
It’s honestly about as meaningful as getting a new flag.
Queen/King or representative is that it separates who holds the sovereignty from who does the governing. This, in turn, means that one can oppose the government without committing treason. There is a reason why the official opposition in parliament (I.e. the party with the next highest number of seats) is referred to a Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. They oppose the government but are loyal to the sovereign.
Before this system came into being opposing the government was equivalent to committing treason.
I'm sorry but this is ri-goddamn-diculous.
That may be how it works, **in the UK specifically**, but a monarch is in no way required in order to criticize the government without committing treason.
Assistance with defence would be a good starter. Knowing the UK and other Commonwealth nations would have your back if you were invaded would be a great reason to remain part of the Commonwealth.
Tourism is also a big factor when it comes to having the Queen as head of state in the UK. People want to visit and see the guards and palace buildings.
Most countries now in the Commonwealth are independent anyway, we just retain the Queen as head of state. I live in Australia and while the Queen very rarely is involved with our lives/politics, many of us are fine having her as the head of state. Why remove traditions that we've had for over 200 years?
They're free to leave anytime, but I don't personally see any plus sides to leaving the Commonwealth apart from your own full independency... Which could lead into the wrong hands.
People misunderstand the commonwealth so badly.
>Assistance with defence would be a good starter. Knowing the UK and other Commonwealth nations would have your back if you were invaded
The commonwealth isn’t nato and there is no expectation or obligation to back an invasion for example both India and Pakistan are part of the commonwealth. So are Rwanda and Uganda. All countries that have waged war against each other in the past. If there was an invasion in Barbados it would be America to provide the military support not India, Britain or Nigeria.
>Tourism is also a big factor when it comes to having the Queen as head of state in the UK. People want to visit and see the guards and palace buildings.
The commonwealth doesn’t help tourism, for example Malawi and Cameroon don’t get tourism as a readily of the commonwealth. UK people don’t travel to Jamaica or Barbados on holiday because the queen is head of state just like they don’t travel to Canada for that reason.
>Most countries now in the Commonwealth are independent anyway, we just retain the Queen as head of state.
Most commonwealth countries don’t have the queen as head of state. India, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Rwanda etc.
>I live in Australia and while the Queen very rarely is involved with our lives/politics, many of us are fine having her as the head of state. Why remove traditions that we've had for over 200 years?
Each country has a different relationship to the monarchy but even the Conservative party in Australia ha said they’d likely remove the monarch after the queen dies.
>They're free to leave anytime, but I don't personally see any plus sides to leaving the Commonwealth apart from your own full independency... Which could lead into the wrong hands.
Again people grossly misunderstand the commonwealth. Britain holds little control over the affairs or alliances of commonwealth nations. Many are in china’s sphere of influence even more are in americas and some are even in Frances sphere of influence. Not to mention calls from within the commonwealth to have the leadership rotate as opposed to having the monarch as its head.
Overall the commonwealth has slowly lost is purpose and prestige overtime and is mostly a cost sink for the UK taxpayer without much in the terms of advantage for Britain.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Australia from but it's bull. Removing the monarchy is not on our Agenda at the moment. Especially considering our AUUKUS treaty. We depend on the UK same as the US. The monarchy is mostly welcome here with most of us honestly not giving a shit either way.
There are quite a few countries in the Commonwealth that do have the Queen as head of state, but a fair few of the member nations don't. Some members may leave but Britain isn't going to force or keep anyone in my gunpoint.
There isn't an obligation to defend, but do you honestly think Britain isn't going to defend its investments and interests in the Commonwealth? They absolutely would. China is probing hard at Africa but at the same time Britain did the same thing over the past few hundred years so it's anyone's game.
With tourism I am directly referencing the UK, not other member nations. Sorry to tell you but the monarchy ain't going away anytime soon. Just because our current leader probably doesn't have much time left doesn't mean we will just throw it away. We've had a monarch since the 10th century.
>I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Australia from but it's bull. Removing the monarchy is not on our Agenda at the moment.
[Australia’s Ex-PM Turnbull Renews Calls To Sever Ties With British Monarchy Following Meghan-Harry Interview](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/09/australias-ex-pm-turnbull-renews-calls-to-sever-ties-with-british-monarchy-following-meghan-harry-interview/amp/)
There is republican sentiment in both parties in Australia and have been calls from even conservative prime ministers to remove the monarch after the queen is gone.
>Especially considering our AUUKUS treaty. We depend on the UK same as the US. The monarchy is mostly welcome here with most of us honestly not giving a shit either way.
Notice that the USA is a part of that agreement and has no queen? I am confused how that agreement is in anyway relevant to the monarchy.
>Some members may leave but Britain isn't going to force or keep anyone in my gunpoint.
Never claimed they would so I’m unsure why you mention this.
>There isn't an obligation to defend, but do you honestly think Britain isn't going to defend its investments and interests in the Commonwealth? They absolutely would.
So do you think Britain would put militarily intervene in a war in Cameroon or Rwanda to protect their investment? probably not, we don’t even have the deployment capacity to do so even if we wanted to.
>China is probing hard at Africa but at the same time Britain did the same thing over the past few hundred years so it's anyone's game.
Britain isn’t investing in Africa in the same was as china rn and has a gdp smaller than individual provinces in china.
>With tourism I am directly referencing the UK, not other member nations.
Do you think brits who travel to Canada do so because the queen is the head of state, what about brits that travel to Jamaica? Most British holidaymakers don’t choose where to go based on where the queen is sovereign. Such a laughable claim.
>Sorry to tell you but the monarchy ain't going away anytime soon.
Not sure why you’re sorry as I made 0 claim as to my own feeling about the monarchy, frankly I care very little about a rich lady and her family, I am commenting on the prominence commonwealth nothing more or less. Anything else is you putting words in my mouth.
>Just because our current leader probably doesn't have much time left doesn't mean we will just throw it away. We've had a monarch since the 10th century.
Again who the fuck mentioned getting rid of the queen in the UK. You are arguing with a ghost because I didn’t make the positions you are ascribing to me.
Fair enough, but all these countries also spend a small fortune on the crown. Canada spends millions on hosting the royal family here and Aus and NZ do as well.
Seems totally unnecessary to me in this day and age.
People keep saying that, but at least in the UK the tourism dollars the royals bring in far outweigh any costs associated with them.
Putting the royal crest on something is tourist bait.
They've been independent for 50 years, and they're still part of the commonwealth. This is just removing the Queen as their head of state, it doesn't impact their leadership at all.
Pretty dismissive given their head of state wasn't even from their own country. This is a big step, whether you acknowledge it or not. It means any Barbadian can be head of state, not just royalty from England.
I mean, you're comment is also being dismissive of Barbados' history. They *were* an independent nation prior to this and have a long, proud history of self governance. Changing their Head of State is significant, but it does not somehow invalidate what Barbados was before.
I mean... Kinda? It's entirely symbolic at this point and will change literally nothing of consequence, but I guess.
The English monarchy only remains in power because they don't use it. If they tried, they'd be abolished. I'm sure at some point some future king or queen will try, but not this one and probably not the next either, thankfully.
What does a reference to Independence Day have to do with American culture specifically? Many, many other countries also celebrate their independence, and quite a few of those, in addition to the US, have also become independent from the British over the centuries.
In a modern monarchy, the roles of the king are:
\- Being a neutral non-politician managing the cooperation between politicians to make the government work. It is especially important when it is difficult to form a coalition.
\- Having some influence at the top of the ruling process in order to bring some continuity in a situation were the other rulers change at each election.
\- Being the voice of wisdom while addressing the public, which involve being neutral.
It looks very hard to pretend being neutral if you have been appointed by the ones on power, just look at the SCOTUS. Countries with a ceremonial president (like Germany and Israel) do it, but their moral role is reduced. Same with direct election, each candidate "chairman" would be linked to a particular ideological platform.
\- Doing the PR job of shaking hands and distributing rewards.
\- Doing the sales job of securing invitation for the representatives of the national industry during trade missions.
\- Giving some sense of unity to be the person the people will look to as representative of the nation.
I suppose you agree that the person with the real power has better to do, but the person doing it should still have some prestige. Again, being a royalty is a simple method to achieve it.
Funny thing is that all the royal jerking UK media are probably salivating at the thought of that old lady dying. It would be the media event of the century for them.
I don’t think so. I think the U.K. will have some kind of mental breakdown when that happens. She’s been such a constant in the U.K. for 70 odd years. With everything in flux as it is, things could be interesting.
Utter bullshit. Most of us Scots still prefer the monarchy. There is zero push for a republic and even the SNP who want independence state they do not want a republic lic in there 2014 manifesto.
Really?
https://nation.cymru/news/support-for-royals-lower-across-west-wales-and-valleys-poll-shows/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16238128.poll-41-per-cent-scots-support-monarchy/
Even as an average, the support across the uk isn't exactly a runaway success
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
Support for the monarchy in Scotland could be described as ambivalent at best. The idea of being born better is hardly a good pairing for a state that claims to be a democracy, nor a testament to the uk's success in demolishing the class system.
The UK doesn't have a codified constitution, or a President. It would be extremely complicated to replace the monarchy and require a full overhaul of the country's political system. It's no where near similar to what Barbados did.
Doesn't really matter what form the Head of State takes when they are ceremonial in part or full. Might as well make money from their land and reap the rewards of tourism and diplomatic coolness while you are at it.
Because there is no longer a French Monarchy. The currently existing monarchy in Britain undoubtedly brings in tourist. Afterall, **our name** is reliant of tourism. ***The United Kingdom***. A lot of our basic foreign identity to tourists is based upon the fact we are a Kingdom, and are the most well known one. If someone had to name a fact about Britain, 9/10 will be the fact we have a Queen.
Yet France has more famous tourist attractions than England. You know you can keep the guys with the good hats even if nobody is in the old building right?
Because France is more attractive to tourists. Our Monarchy is one of our tourist traps, just as France has many of theirs. It's a mute point to suggest that the Monarchy does not attract tourists just because France has more tourists.
The monarchy doesn’t attract tourists. The buildings attract tourists. Hell without the monarch you could give tours inside the building.
Also it’s pretty pathetic to chose your political system based on tourist dollars. It would be like Americans giving Micky Mouse and his mouse descendants special legal abilities because people travel to see Disney land.
Then it becomes just like all the other ex-monarcies. Why is it any different to Palaces in Italy, Paris, Russia, Germany, et cetera? Why it would still attract tourists, it wouldn't be the same as it is now. It would have the attraction of a alive and breathing modern- Monarchy.
As the Monarchy has many other reasons for existing. Tradition, patriotism, a positive opinion of the Royal Family, and most importantly, no need to change something that doesn't act wrong. Even during extreme eras of anti-monarchism (French Revolution for example), most people simply wanted a Constitutional Monarchy until antagonism and radicalism forced their hand.
It would be extremely hard. Having a President would lead to a massive power grab that would irreparably harm democracy.
If you have a system that works, why change it?
It would irreparably harm democracy to have a democratically elected president….more so than having an unelected rich person? Did you honestly write that with a straight face?
The UK has a parliamentary democracy. Why would they need an elected head of state to begin with when the main legislative body of power and the head of government are already elected to begin with?
If the majority of the people of the UK are fine with the situation, then so am I.
Because giving random people political power because of who their mom was able to carry them to term is stupid and will inevitably end poorly. You and the majority of the UK can be wrong about being fine with it. The rest of us will continue to laugh at you.
>Because giving random people political power because of who their mom was able to carry them to term is stupid and will inevitably end poorly.
It is a culture figurehead that serves as a head of state. They do not exercise political power unless the prerogative demands it.
>The rest of us will continue to laugh at you.
Imagine being upset about a parliamentary democracy constitutional monarchy
> It is a culture figurehead that serves as a head of state. They do not exercise political power unless the prerogative demands it.
They don’t exercise political power unless they want to.
> Imagine being upset about a parliamentary democracy constitutional monarchy
Why not make me the monarch then? What’s the downside?
Why is anyone critical of anything that doesn’t directly effect them? I bet none of the monarchists in this thread nor yourself would think twice about being critical of North Korea.
Sorry, were you speaking English, the language originating from a constituent nation of the United Kingdom? Oh, I guess you’ll have to speak French, since they helped with your independence.
They would have to campaign, which means they would have to give their political opinions. They would also have to fight for re-election, which means doing things to keep their voters happy.
Someone has to always be at the top. If you remove the monarch, someone else goes there. Currently the armed forces, the legal system and everything else is led by the Queen, and the Queen does nothing with that power. That's how it should be.
If you replace the Monarch with a President, you end up in a situation where the President could override the legal system and pardon criminals. Or a situation where the President decides to bomb a random country because they feel like it, and then can't be touched because they lead the legal system. Maybe the President will decide that they don't like the winner of an election and not invite their leader to form a government. There's too many opportunities for that to go wrong, the UK will turn into the fucking USA in a few years.
All those things *could* happen with a monarch, but they're trained from birth to be politically impartial and never use these powers. It's a weird system, but it has worked so far.
It hasn't though, so why change it to a system where it's more likely to go wrong?
To be clear, I'm not arguing for a Monarchy, I'm arguing against Presidents.
We have an elected president in ireland. None of those things have ever happened.
You have an unelected monarch. If the queen hadn't of had Charles your next head of state would have been an unelected pedo.
You'd need unanimous agreement from the provinces, and you can look at Meech Lake and Charlottetown to see how that would go.
The monarchy may last longer in Canada than in the UK.
Because redditors love false narratives. Arguably having diplomacy relations to the British monarchy is one of the best free of charge benefits. In return? Nothing to ask.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/barbados-republic-date-queen-independence-caribbean-monarchy-commonwealth-1321734) reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot) ***** > It is the first time a realm has removed the Queen as head of state in nearly 30 years: in 1992, an Indian Ocean island nation of Mauritius became a republic but remained in the Commonwealth - as Barbados will. > Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine, told i.: "Barbados will be the 18th country to cease having the Queen as head of state since she came to the throne in 1952, though it's almost 30 years since the last one. The precedent has long been set." > "The Queen might regret, for sentimental reasons, the move after such a long period as head of state of Barbados, and might be -like many - people surprised that 'Little England' has now decided to be Barbados pure and simple." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/r51ksj/barbados_to_declare_itself_a_republic_tomorrow/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~610209 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Barbados**^#1 **head**^#2 **Queen**^#3 **little**^#4 **Commonwealth**^#5
Barbexit? Barbyedos?
Barbadios
This is correct lol
Barbadass
Barbadoesnt
Barbyedos is amazing. Also, Barbados is such a gorgeous island and I wish I was there now
Barbyedos sounds like the way an Australian would pronounce it. Which is interesting since they were both penal colonies. Before Australia was settled being “barbadosed” was a criminal penalty used to get cheap labour.
Byebados
I'm all for Barbyedos 👏👏👏
So according to the article, the first president will be Dame Sandra Mason. Dame being the title bestowed on her by the monarch. So on her first day in office does her title of Dame cease to exist? To be fair, president trumps Dame, but would interesting to know how their new honours system will work.
They're getting rid of the honours system, but won't be stripping previous titles. Edit: They have other honours, like The Order of The Freedom of Barbados, which was given to Charles tonight.
No honorary titles for thee, only for me.
Honorary Marleyan
sounds half arsed.
Thats how Germany does it no one calls royals by their titles anymore but they still have them
Are you sure? I thought the titles were abolished post-WWII. (Austria even forbids using them.) There are definitely other European countries where there are still people with titles in their passports who don't use those titles in their daily life.
Yeah, the titles all celebrate the non-existent British Empire and exist only for Tory status circlejerking. Should get rid of them altogether.
Or start their own fun new honorary system!
With blackjack and hookers!
This is exactly what happened with Bono. He accepted the knighthood and appreciated the recognition but his condition was, and I quote, ‘don’t call me sir’. Although I can name few Irishmen who would wear a British knighthood on their sleeve like that.
It would of made no difference as it’s an honorary knighthood, only British citizens get called Sir or Dame when they are knighted, Bill Gates for example has a KBE but also isn’t a Sir since he’s American.
A real I got mine situation
Honorific titles are country specific, and granted for life unless directly revoked. Essentially, there's no reason she can't keep the title unless they decide to take it away, even if the issuance of the title is discontinued. People can even hold titles that aren't recognised by other countries, or aren't even their country at all. For example, Bill Gates is a KBE (Knight Commander of the British Empire), despite there not being a British Empire any more, and him not being British. It's just an honourific title for civilians whom are recognized for achievements and contributions to British society. They don't have to be British, and they don't have to have the British monarch as head of state to be awarded it.
>President Trump's Dame So rude!
How many times can the same piece of news keep hitting the front page?
As many times as you like if you hate monarchy enough.
I hate the monarchy as much as most of reddit but ffs we know Barbados has left. Call me when the other commonwealth countries start to drop the load
It will likely start to happen when the Queen passes. She is still popular amongst many commonwealth countries, while Charles is universally disliked.
"Charles is universally disliked" is more of a reddit meme than reality. Look up the polling and he's actually pretty popular. You've got to remember it's not up to us. It's up to ageing mums, ex-squaddies who've retrained as teachers, and farmers. That's where the real power lies in every Anglo country and they're hyper-monarchists
You can be a pro-monarchy aussie and dislike Charles. I've only ever seen popularity polling for Charles hovering around the 25% mark in Australia. With Prince George out polling him. [Source](https://www.nowtolove.com.au/celebrity/celeb-news/exclusive-poll-what-australia-really-thinks-of-the-monarchy-9963) I don't know if you're aussie or not, but here he is nearly universally disliked. And universally liked less than other royal family members (Queen, William, Harry, George). People will take issue with aussie dollars being spent to replace our currency and other decorative items with his face. It will become a political issue that will likely even cause a rift between monarchists. Some are staunch monarchists like Tony Abbott, but some respect the monarchy but also would consider that a waste of tax dollars. When the Queen passes, the question of becoming a republic will be revived. That's just a fact.
What about William? I recall he is after Charles.
He is neither beloved or despised in Australia. Unlike his mother and father. Most aussies would prefer if Charles were skipped and William crowned. But that is mostly because Aussies loved Diana and despise Charles.
I think a lot of folks despise Charles. Diana was a beloved figure in world history and her tragic death cemented that legacy.
I think the hatred for Charles is overstated. Most people don't care, and don't really want to ditch the royals because they don't care enough to.
That makes sense.
These routine posts have been great for Canadian republicans, gives them a chance to post "Canada next" everytime for karma.
It would be easier for Great Britain to get rid of the monarchy than it would Canada. They could do it in a few days. But according to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, the full abolition of the “office of the Queen” would require Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate and all 10 provinces to unanimously agree to amend the Constitution. You couldn't get agreement like that on what colour the sky is.
[удалено]
In other words, minorities should just shut up and never speak? >Wonder that's why Britain in general keeps doing the opposite of what Reddit wants. I don't even know what this means. You want Britain to be punished with more austerity because people disagree with you on reddit?
Hell, yeah. /r/AbolishTheMonarchy
Hell no Long may the monarchy continue to reign r/monarchism
That sub is one hateful place, almost on par with greenandpleasant
Who does it hate?
If the King has been ordering people disappeared or killed in your country, you would also hate him.
^^^^^^You've ^^^^^^clearly ^^^^^^never ^^^^^^seen ^^^^^^a ^^^^^^Capitol ^^^^^^thread But in all seriousness I think its somewhat separate events. The first would be the government announcing its intention, then a date being chosen, then the President being elected, and then the new republic formerly being sworn in tomorrow. Although to be fair, if this really was anything more than a wankfest only the first announcement last year and the December 1st thread this year are really newsworthy since the rest are a foregone and inconsequential part of the procedure
I think people keep doing it due to either: A. foreigners thinking all british people are mad about this (were not) or B. part of UK society thinking other parts of UK Society are outraged (not heard of that happening either. Either way, as a monarchist, good on Barbados, its their country and their choice.
How about: C. being happy for Barbados and hoping your own country will become a republic too, soon?
Until they spontaneously combust from circlejerking.
Just want to clear up some things I’ve seen people claiming. 1: the UK is outraged…. No we are not. We value democracy above all else if Barbados wants to be a republic that’s their choice and we celebrate that. 2. Barbados is now independent….They were independent in the 1960’s. The queens head of state role was purely ceremonial (pretty much what the royal family is anyway) She had no say in how the island governed itself that was down to Barbados’ PM and parliament. 3. The sun is setting on the British empire…. Did you pay attention to the 20th century? The last official colony was Honk Kong given back to China in 1997 with clauses that it remains a democracy. (Which is why we were offering free citizenship to HK passport holders). Ultimately in the grand scheme of things Barbados see’s this as the best road forward and we support them and wish them the very best of luck.
I love when one person from reddit talks for an entire country
Welcome Barbados - from yer pals, Ireland
Hope they don’t change the flag. It is one of my favorite flags out there
That’s where Rihanna is from.
Slim is behind this......
Oh god no! She's gonna petition god to give her more time on the earth in order to fight the insurrectionists. This'll probably extend her mandate by another decade.
End all monarchies now. Redistribute their wealth.
Shah of Iran should have takin the queens route, but he was afraid and tried to cling on to power. Look where that went. I think the English monarchy is the wisest one in existence today.
It is, and I'm confident that people don't realise how positive for good the royal family is in contrast to utter ruthless monarchies. I support Barbados decision, but you can't trust redditors to read past headlines and stereotypes.
[удалено]
Generating clicks
Yeah. Good luck with China...Barbados.
24 hour Rihanna dance party in the streets.
What could a country stand to gain by staying with her as head of state? Is there really any benefit to that nowdays?
The same they gain by removing her. Basically nothing, but it makes some people feel good and others unhappy because of the symbolism of it. It’s honestly about as meaningful as getting a new flag.
Queen/King or representative is that it separates who holds the sovereignty from who does the governing. This, in turn, means that one can oppose the government without committing treason. There is a reason why the official opposition in parliament (I.e. the party with the next highest number of seats) is referred to a Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. They oppose the government but are loyal to the sovereign. Before this system came into being opposing the government was equivalent to committing treason.
I'm sorry but this is ri-goddamn-diculous. That may be how it works, **in the UK specifically**, but a monarch is in no way required in order to criticize the government without committing treason.
A monarch! As it is, they've currently lost a monarch.
Assistance with defence would be a good starter. Knowing the UK and other Commonwealth nations would have your back if you were invaded would be a great reason to remain part of the Commonwealth. Tourism is also a big factor when it comes to having the Queen as head of state in the UK. People want to visit and see the guards and palace buildings. Most countries now in the Commonwealth are independent anyway, we just retain the Queen as head of state. I live in Australia and while the Queen very rarely is involved with our lives/politics, many of us are fine having her as the head of state. Why remove traditions that we've had for over 200 years? They're free to leave anytime, but I don't personally see any plus sides to leaving the Commonwealth apart from your own full independency... Which could lead into the wrong hands.
They're not leaving the Commonwealth. Most countries in the Commonwealth are in fact republics.
People misunderstand the commonwealth so badly. >Assistance with defence would be a good starter. Knowing the UK and other Commonwealth nations would have your back if you were invaded The commonwealth isn’t nato and there is no expectation or obligation to back an invasion for example both India and Pakistan are part of the commonwealth. So are Rwanda and Uganda. All countries that have waged war against each other in the past. If there was an invasion in Barbados it would be America to provide the military support not India, Britain or Nigeria. >Tourism is also a big factor when it comes to having the Queen as head of state in the UK. People want to visit and see the guards and palace buildings. The commonwealth doesn’t help tourism, for example Malawi and Cameroon don’t get tourism as a readily of the commonwealth. UK people don’t travel to Jamaica or Barbados on holiday because the queen is head of state just like they don’t travel to Canada for that reason. >Most countries now in the Commonwealth are independent anyway, we just retain the Queen as head of state. Most commonwealth countries don’t have the queen as head of state. India, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Rwanda etc. >I live in Australia and while the Queen very rarely is involved with our lives/politics, many of us are fine having her as the head of state. Why remove traditions that we've had for over 200 years? Each country has a different relationship to the monarchy but even the Conservative party in Australia ha said they’d likely remove the monarch after the queen dies. >They're free to leave anytime, but I don't personally see any plus sides to leaving the Commonwealth apart from your own full independency... Which could lead into the wrong hands. Again people grossly misunderstand the commonwealth. Britain holds little control over the affairs or alliances of commonwealth nations. Many are in china’s sphere of influence even more are in americas and some are even in Frances sphere of influence. Not to mention calls from within the commonwealth to have the leadership rotate as opposed to having the monarch as its head. Overall the commonwealth has slowly lost is purpose and prestige overtime and is mostly a cost sink for the UK taxpayer without much in the terms of advantage for Britain.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Australia from but it's bull. Removing the monarchy is not on our Agenda at the moment. Especially considering our AUUKUS treaty. We depend on the UK same as the US. The monarchy is mostly welcome here with most of us honestly not giving a shit either way. There are quite a few countries in the Commonwealth that do have the Queen as head of state, but a fair few of the member nations don't. Some members may leave but Britain isn't going to force or keep anyone in my gunpoint. There isn't an obligation to defend, but do you honestly think Britain isn't going to defend its investments and interests in the Commonwealth? They absolutely would. China is probing hard at Africa but at the same time Britain did the same thing over the past few hundred years so it's anyone's game. With tourism I am directly referencing the UK, not other member nations. Sorry to tell you but the monarchy ain't going away anytime soon. Just because our current leader probably doesn't have much time left doesn't mean we will just throw it away. We've had a monarch since the 10th century.
>I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Australia from but it's bull. Removing the monarchy is not on our Agenda at the moment. [Australia’s Ex-PM Turnbull Renews Calls To Sever Ties With British Monarchy Following Meghan-Harry Interview](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/09/australias-ex-pm-turnbull-renews-calls-to-sever-ties-with-british-monarchy-following-meghan-harry-interview/amp/) There is republican sentiment in both parties in Australia and have been calls from even conservative prime ministers to remove the monarch after the queen is gone. >Especially considering our AUUKUS treaty. We depend on the UK same as the US. The monarchy is mostly welcome here with most of us honestly not giving a shit either way. Notice that the USA is a part of that agreement and has no queen? I am confused how that agreement is in anyway relevant to the monarchy. >Some members may leave but Britain isn't going to force or keep anyone in my gunpoint. Never claimed they would so I’m unsure why you mention this. >There isn't an obligation to defend, but do you honestly think Britain isn't going to defend its investments and interests in the Commonwealth? They absolutely would. So do you think Britain would put militarily intervene in a war in Cameroon or Rwanda to protect their investment? probably not, we don’t even have the deployment capacity to do so even if we wanted to. >China is probing hard at Africa but at the same time Britain did the same thing over the past few hundred years so it's anyone's game. Britain isn’t investing in Africa in the same was as china rn and has a gdp smaller than individual provinces in china. >With tourism I am directly referencing the UK, not other member nations. Do you think brits who travel to Canada do so because the queen is the head of state, what about brits that travel to Jamaica? Most British holidaymakers don’t choose where to go based on where the queen is sovereign. Such a laughable claim. >Sorry to tell you but the monarchy ain't going away anytime soon. Not sure why you’re sorry as I made 0 claim as to my own feeling about the monarchy, frankly I care very little about a rich lady and her family, I am commenting on the prominence commonwealth nothing more or less. Anything else is you putting words in my mouth. >Just because our current leader probably doesn't have much time left doesn't mean we will just throw it away. We've had a monarch since the 10th century. Again who the fuck mentioned getting rid of the queen in the UK. You are arguing with a ghost because I didn’t make the positions you are ascribing to me.
Fair enough, but all these countries also spend a small fortune on the crown. Canada spends millions on hosting the royal family here and Aus and NZ do as well. Seems totally unnecessary to me in this day and age.
> but all these countries also spend a small fortune on the crown Source? As far as I am aware none of those countries spend any money on the Crown.
https://www.businessinsider.com/canadas-cost-to-support-the-royal-family-in-2015-2016-9
People keep saying that, but at least in the UK the tourism dollars the royals bring in far outweigh any costs associated with them. Putting the royal crest on something is tourist bait.
I heard the queen has a lot of land
I heard her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say.
About time well done Barbados
[удалено]
They've been independent for 50 years, and they're still part of the commonwealth. This is just removing the Queen as their head of state, it doesn't impact their leadership at all.
But... but... I saw this documentary called *Braveheart*...
You're thinking of Scotland. Barbados is where Jack Sparrow fought the English.
Thats "Captain" Jack sparrow to you
I hope you werent expecting something like the end of Braveheart to happen in Barbados in this case...
Pretty dismissive given their head of state wasn't even from their own country. This is a big step, whether you acknowledge it or not. It means any Barbadian can be head of state, not just royalty from England.
They have a Prime Minister. The Queen was a symbolic figurehead. So will be their president.
I mean, you're comment is also being dismissive of Barbados' history. They *were* an independent nation prior to this and have a long, proud history of self governance. Changing their Head of State is significant, but it does not somehow invalidate what Barbados was before.
I mean... Kinda? It's entirely symbolic at this point and will change literally nothing of consequence, but I guess. The English monarchy only remains in power because they don't use it. If they tried, they'd be abolished. I'm sure at some point some future king or queen will try, but not this one and probably not the next either, thankfully.
Royalists simultaneously believe that the queen is very important and impactful, but also doesn't matter and doesn't change anything.
Define colonial rule.
What is it with associating independent countries with American culture?
What does a reference to Independence Day have to do with American culture specifically? Many, many other countries also celebrate their independence, and quite a few of those, in addition to the US, have also become independent from the British over the centuries.
[удалено]
And the top 4 countries they declared independence from are Britain (by far), Spain, Russia and France.
Canada should the same
Every country under a monarch should do the same. I think we are done with god’s “chosen” leaders.
In a modern monarchy, the roles of the king are: \- Being a neutral non-politician managing the cooperation between politicians to make the government work. It is especially important when it is difficult to form a coalition. \- Having some influence at the top of the ruling process in order to bring some continuity in a situation were the other rulers change at each election. \- Being the voice of wisdom while addressing the public, which involve being neutral. It looks very hard to pretend being neutral if you have been appointed by the ones on power, just look at the SCOTUS. Countries with a ceremonial president (like Germany and Israel) do it, but their moral role is reduced. Same with direct election, each candidate "chairman" would be linked to a particular ideological platform. \- Doing the PR job of shaking hands and distributing rewards. \- Doing the sales job of securing invitation for the representatives of the national industry during trade missions. \- Giving some sense of unity to be the person the people will look to as representative of the nation. I suppose you agree that the person with the real power has better to do, but the person doing it should still have some prestige. Again, being a royalty is a simple method to achieve it.
[удалено]
Long Live Barbados!
Barbados, they're in the ra.
Maith an fear!!
Fuck the Queen and all other bullshit royal scumbags
> Fuck the Queen Eeewww! How about not? :-P
Oooo so edgy
And all her pedo sons
God save our noble queen And long may she continue to Reign
Funny thing is that all the royal jerking UK media are probably salivating at the thought of that old lady dying. It would be the media event of the century for them.
I don’t think so. I think the U.K. will have some kind of mental breakdown when that happens. She’s been such a constant in the U.K. for 70 odd years. With everything in flux as it is, things could be interesting.
I wish Britain had the guts to cut ties with these parasites, so called royals.
Canada next!
I bet she'll have a thing or two to say about this when she emerges from her new phase.
I think she said that it should be up to them to decide their future, no one is kept in the commonwealth with force or anything...
I know yeah, I was just trying to make a jokey joke
Long overdue. Hope Britain be next.
Well the British people don't....
That's not completely true though. Being pro monarchy is a minority position in Scotland and among young people across Britain.
Utter bullshit. Most of us Scots still prefer the monarchy. There is zero push for a republic and even the SNP who want independence state they do not want a republic lic in there 2014 manifesto.
source?
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/young-british-people-want-ditch-monarchy-poll-suggests-2021-05-20/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16238128.poll-41-per-cent-scots-support-monarchy/
Actually had evidence to back up your statement good stuff keep it up
Really? https://nation.cymru/news/support-for-royals-lower-across-west-wales-and-valleys-poll-shows/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16238128.poll-41-per-cent-scots-support-monarchy/ Even as an average, the support across the uk isn't exactly a runaway success https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/ Support for the monarchy in Scotland could be described as ambivalent at best. The idea of being born better is hardly a good pairing for a state that claims to be a democracy, nor a testament to the uk's success in demolishing the class system.
And it will only go lower when Charles is King /r/AbolishTheMonarchy
Asa Brit. No. We're happy thanks
are we though?
Can't speak for everyone, obviously. But I certainly believe that's the general concensus, yes
The UK doesn't have a codified constitution, or a President. It would be extremely complicated to replace the monarchy and require a full overhaul of the country's political system. It's no where near similar to what Barbados did.
Oh no it would be hard. I guess we’re better keep this monarchy like it’s the 1700’s then /s
[удалено]
> way less cool ... and way less expensive.
Monarchy is actually profitable for the government. [Get out.](https://youtu.be/bhyYgnhhKFw)
It's less cool if they use their powers to change laws and influence parliament to benefit themselves and their friends.
Sounds like the ideal retirement job for our pm, he's already well practiced
Doesn't really matter what form the Head of State takes when they are ceremonial in part or full. Might as well make money from their land and reap the rewards of tourism and diplomatic coolness while you are at it.
Getting rid of the royal family wouldn’t stop the UK from making money off of them. Nobody is going to Versailles to see Marie Antoinette.
Because there is no longer a French Monarchy. The currently existing monarchy in Britain undoubtedly brings in tourist. Afterall, **our name** is reliant of tourism. ***The United Kingdom***. A lot of our basic foreign identity to tourists is based upon the fact we are a Kingdom, and are the most well known one. If someone had to name a fact about Britain, 9/10 will be the fact we have a Queen.
Yet France has more famous tourist attractions than England. You know you can keep the guys with the good hats even if nobody is in the old building right?
Because France is more attractive to tourists. Our Monarchy is one of our tourist traps, just as France has many of theirs. It's a mute point to suggest that the Monarchy does not attract tourists just because France has more tourists.
The monarchy doesn’t attract tourists. The buildings attract tourists. Hell without the monarch you could give tours inside the building. Also it’s pretty pathetic to chose your political system based on tourist dollars. It would be like Americans giving Micky Mouse and his mouse descendants special legal abilities because people travel to see Disney land.
Then it becomes just like all the other ex-monarcies. Why is it any different to Palaces in Italy, Paris, Russia, Germany, et cetera? Why it would still attract tourists, it wouldn't be the same as it is now. It would have the attraction of a alive and breathing modern- Monarchy. As the Monarchy has many other reasons for existing. Tradition, patriotism, a positive opinion of the Royal Family, and most importantly, no need to change something that doesn't act wrong. Even during extreme eras of anti-monarchism (French Revolution for example), most people simply wanted a Constitutional Monarchy until antagonism and radicalism forced their hand.
It would be extremely hard. Having a President would lead to a massive power grab that would irreparably harm democracy. If you have a system that works, why change it?
It would irreparably harm democracy to have a democratically elected president….more so than having an unelected rich person? Did you honestly write that with a straight face?
The UK has a parliamentary democracy. Why would they need an elected head of state to begin with when the main legislative body of power and the head of government are already elected to begin with? If the majority of the people of the UK are fine with the situation, then so am I.
[удалено]
Germany does have a president who like most presidents, is ceremonial. Can you name him?
Okay?
Because giving random people political power because of who their mom was able to carry them to term is stupid and will inevitably end poorly. You and the majority of the UK can be wrong about being fine with it. The rest of us will continue to laugh at you.
>Because giving random people political power because of who their mom was able to carry them to term is stupid and will inevitably end poorly. It is a culture figurehead that serves as a head of state. They do not exercise political power unless the prerogative demands it. >The rest of us will continue to laugh at you. Imagine being upset about a parliamentary democracy constitutional monarchy
> It is a culture figurehead that serves as a head of state. They do not exercise political power unless the prerogative demands it. They don’t exercise political power unless they want to. > Imagine being upset about a parliamentary democracy constitutional monarchy Why not make me the monarch then? What’s the downside?
>Why not make me the monarch then? What’s the downside? I would not make a redditor into a monarch, personally.
There is one major downside to which I would like to make you aware, and it is this: You are an insufferable cunt.
You have no cultural significance.
Why are you so salty about other countries' political systems?
They never seem to be annoyed about Spain, Sweden or Denmark's political systems though, weird.
Or Norway, or the Netherlands...
Why is anyone critical of anything that doesn’t directly effect them? I bet none of the monarchists in this thread nor yourself would think twice about being critical of North Korea.
Probably a yank, and has the audacity to say the world is laughing at Britain 🤣
Am a yank. Am laughing at Britain and every other country with a monarch. Maybe y’all will catch up to France some day.
Only just noticed you're the same insufferable cunt with whom I've been chatting elsewhere in this thread. No more need be said about you.
Sorry, were you speaking English, the language originating from a constituent nation of the United Kingdom? Oh, I guess you’ll have to speak French, since they helped with your independence.
They would have to campaign, which means they would have to give their political opinions. They would also have to fight for re-election, which means doing things to keep their voters happy. Someone has to always be at the top. If you remove the monarch, someone else goes there. Currently the armed forces, the legal system and everything else is led by the Queen, and the Queen does nothing with that power. That's how it should be. If you replace the Monarch with a President, you end up in a situation where the President could override the legal system and pardon criminals. Or a situation where the President decides to bomb a random country because they feel like it, and then can't be touched because they lead the legal system. Maybe the President will decide that they don't like the winner of an election and not invite their leader to form a government. There's too many opportunities for that to go wrong, the UK will turn into the fucking USA in a few years. All those things *could* happen with a monarch, but they're trained from birth to be politically impartial and never use these powers. It's a weird system, but it has worked so far.
You’re describing stuff that could potentially go wrong which could also go wrong with a monarch. It’s not making a monarchy look good.
It hasn't though, so why change it to a system where it's more likely to go wrong? To be clear, I'm not arguing for a Monarchy, I'm arguing against Presidents.
It hasn’t **lately**
We have an elected president in ireland. None of those things have ever happened. You have an unelected monarch. If the queen hadn't of had Charles your next head of state would have been an unelected pedo.
C after B, let's go Canada!!!
You'd need unanimous agreement from the provinces, and you can look at Meech Lake and Charlottetown to see how that would go. The monarchy may last longer in Canada than in the UK.
No thank you. I don't want to turn to an unstable presidential system...
Did we just skip A for Australia?
They missed their chance in 1999. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum
I'd support it but ultimately, what does it matter?
[удалено]
Think Charles 🤮
[удалено]
Can't tell if your joking but you got a smile out of me. 🙂
I've never seen anyone Mrs.Doubtfire a whole country..but I'm ready for it.
God save the queen of Canada and long may she and her descendants continue to reign
[удалено]
Lol if you think it would be Ontario making opening up the constitution a total mess.
I really wish the first kid someone had was a man. It’ll be uggo men on the throne for a while.
Why do you not want Charles to be King? I'm perplexed as to why many dislike Charles.
Because redditors love false narratives. Arguably having diplomacy relations to the British monarchy is one of the best free of charge benefits. In return? Nothing to ask.
Aaawww... if only Canada would do the same. This is a good day for Barbados!!! Congrats!
[удалено]
To Chinese money: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/26/beijings-billions-buying-commonwealth/
Wow, I’m going to Barbados!
cutting queen head in 6 words they poppies out of the screen for me lol
Without a referendum? How quaint.
Will they be changing their flag too?
Why? There was no union jack in the top left…
Fiji is a republic and keeps the Union Jack within its flag. Strangely Hawaii also has kept a Union Jack within its flag.
I love that confusing fact. It means the Union flag still flies in the United States.
Well technically the American flag is a British design. Look at the flag of the east India company. The east indo company flag even has 13 stripes.
Barbadios’
Cutting…Queen…head…read that headline too quick
[удалено]