loomer wrote: ↑2019-09-19 12:45am
Entirely possible, but I still disagree with your re-summation as I've been reading more than a few republican blogs that take express issue with the Queen's conduct - first in her appointment of a prime minister who manifestly couldn't command a majority of the House, second in her subsequent complicity in prorogation at the request of a prime minister who still can't command a majority of the House. Now that of course creates selection bias, but it also quite strongly contradicts any claim that no one cares. If you're happy to walk that down to 'the man on the clapham omnibus doesn't care', I can accept that and think we can come to terms. I've snipped the next few lines as the answer would otherwise be repetitive - if you'd like me to address them in particular anyway I'm happy to do so.
I think "the man on the clapham omnibus" or the "average reasonable person" is what I mean to begin with? When I mean nobody really cares, that was what I am referring to, and not "absolutely no one in Britain cares".
There are a few Republicans in British politics, including the current labour leader. But generally speaking, the average voter in the UK doesn't care that much about the current discussions about the monarchy. The political reach of republician causes is still a relatively niche political cause.
While I agree that on paper they are distinct entities, in practical terms they are synonymous and identical. Our monarchy is your monarchy, your monarchy is our monarchy. The same person occupies that office, and questions of her judgment and legitimacy in one title are appropriate questions for occupants of another to raise so long as that same person is also our head of state - mistakes made elsewhere might otherwise be uncritically allowed to fester until they repeat here. You're quite right to point out '75, as it forms a large part of the basis for us to pay attention to what the Queen does elsewhere, but I don't think it serves to show that we shouldn't really concern ourselves with what she does in her other holdings.
But in practical terms, the monarchy in Australia is rather distinct from the one in the UK. Because in Australia and many other commonwealth states that retains the monarchy, it is represented by governor-generals from your nations. The governor-generals still exercise a great deal of autonomy in how they chose to represent the monarchy in places like Australia and Canada. Whereas the monarchy resides in the UK, the royal family study and grew up in the UK. The monarchy in the UK does not have anyone else representing the current queen, and that's something quite different in practical terms as well.
How the monarchy is exercised in Australia is still rather different from how it is exercised in the UK.
I also agree with you that we oughn't confuse our perspectives with the British, which I don't do. The views I take my lead on from the British are quite a different matter, however, as those are British writers commenting. I snip the next for the same reason as before - it'd be largely redunant.
The point is whether the British writers can be compared to the Australian republicans in terms of political reach and influence. Politics rarely operates under the basis of logic and reasonable arguments nowadays, especially in the case of UK ( which rationality went out of the window ages ago). My point is no matter how rational or how well argued the case against the monarchy is, they don't necessarily translate into a widespread view amongst the voting public.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.