Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Current[edit]

Needs to be edited or removed.

"The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka." "Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination."

None of these lines and others are needed in an article about Republicanism in the UK. For reasons of both giving unnesesary information and being a direct copy of:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080613/tuk-un-should-britain-scrap-royals-dba1618.html

The person who added it in the first place failed even to give this as a source, and when I deleted it stating my reasons (all within wikipedia guidelines: failing to acknowlege sources, direct plagurism etc.) and someone chose to put it back up without attempting to fix any of the problems that it had. If someone wants to correct the problems, then fine, but otherwise I'l just come back and delete it. TJ 1319, 14/06/08

Arguments in favour of a Monarchy - Worrying lack of balance[edit]

I admit I'm by no means a skilled Wiki editor, however upon browsing the arguments both for/against I see that whilst the Republican arguments are clean, tidy, & well-cited, the pro-Monarchy are in a poor state: a badly-cited handful. Reviewing the editing history, this essentially happened back in May 2010: review, if you will, the difference between the versions of the 22nd & 23rd of May. I recognise this might spark something of an ideological response, yet surely Wiki has a duty to provide a balanced view of the topic in question? I sincerely doubt this article manages that.

- MRB 21.09.10

Treason Felony Act[edit]

There's a lot wrong with this bit.
1. The law has fallen into obsolescence and yet more than half the lead is devoted to it. The lead should serve as a summary of the contents of the article and yet there's nothing on it lower down.
2. "this is generally considered to be outdated and is not enforced", whether true or not, is not an encyclopedic wording.
3. "Since both speaking against the Monarch and freedom of speech are constitutional law neither take precedent". This is untrue, as a general principle, and barely comprehensible.
4. "technically freedom of speech is not granted against the Monarchy" - a bizarre wording that is not found in the source and suggests the author has not understood what he has read. The principle of freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act doesn't amend primary legislation; it simply allows courts to declare that a law is incompatible. In this sense freedom of speech is not granted against anyone if it conflicts with the law. There's nothing special about the way these principles apply to the monarchy, certainly not according to the source. This is at best original research but arguably untrue.
5. "Under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, any attempt to 'deprive the Monarch of the Crown' is an act of high treason". No. That's a different crime. The crime here, if there is one, is treason felony.
6. "British judges ruled in 2003 that this does not prohibit peaceful advocacy of republican opinions". Completely untrue and not in the source. The Lords declined to express an opinion on the matter, ruling that the Guardian's appeal was pointless, and that the court's time "should not have been wasted" because no prosecution would ever be brought.
7. More generally I don't understand why so much space is devoted to this arcane law. It gives the impression that this is a subject of central importance to the article when it's basically a minor curiosity. --Lo2u (TC) 22:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the source. It should probably be corrected, with other sources added and moved to a new section with a brief mention in the lead. The source does not seem to think it is illegal to advocate a republic, just the overthrow of the monarch. It deserves at most a single sentence mention in the lead. TFD (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually, my reading of the source is that the distinction is more between advocating peaceful and non-peaceful overthrow of the monarch, rather than between advocating the overthrow of the monarch and advocating the creation of a republic, which is probably too fine a distinction even for the law lords. Actually, there is a brief mention of the Act in the article, which I missed. It's better than the rambling piece of original research in the lead but probably also needs clarification. However, I would suggest the reference in that section [1] is not a reliable, independent source. The newspaper's assertion that it merely "technically lost the case" also seems very optimistic. The judges did not rule that the law doesn't "prohibit peaceful advocacy"; they refused to rule on the matter, implying the grievance was manufactured and arguing that it should have been obvious to the litigants that no public prosecution would ever be made, that no private prosecution would ever be allowed and that even if it were allowed, it would probably not succeed. --Lo2u (TC) 10:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=438 - Yr Ardystiad - Campaign Against The Treason Felony Act 1848 - ( THIS IS " Y REPWBLICAN " - THE " PURE REPUBLICAN " DAVID B LAWRENCE - THE POET " Dai Saw " AND POLITICO " dai repwblic " - and rather than use this page to promote my politics I am putting down this note to invite somebody else to research and write about " Yr Ardystiad " which in 2010 resulted in this - Yr Ardystiad - Campaign Against The Treason Felony Act 1848 - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=438 - in which you will find an account of the very public row which erupted n 2012 on the front page of The Western Mail - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/plaid-cymru-leader-leanne-wood-2024296 - in which the words of The Black Faction within Cymru Rydd were placed beneath that photograph where I am holding the microphone for Leanne Wood AM later leader of Plaid Cymru who was later invited to explain " Yr Ardystiad " on BBC Parliament and made a mess of it - whereas I originated it and yet was not invited to explain it : there is clearly a policy at the BBC to not knowingly give The Republicans in Wales any representation in any broadcaast yet I have participated in a BBC TV political panel ( where they refused to allow me to identify my political identity ) and I have had several of my non-political contributions published on BBC Radio 4 : and this despite 20% of the adult population in England and Wales self-identifying themselves as " Republican.")DaiSaw (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of the republic[edit]

What is the proposed name of the Republic? The Republic of Great Britain? Lugevas (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources that give a proposed name. I believe Republic (political organisation) talk about "a British Republic", but the use of the indefinite article seems to indicate a lack of fixedness on the question of a name. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There is now nearly five hundred years of Republican philosophies, movements and parties within what is presently called " The United Kingdom " - and I am very unhappy having just discovered this page that " Anti-Monarchism " is being equated with " Republicanism " which is a nonsense : Republicanism is named after Cicero's De Re Publica and it is about " The Rule of Law " and in contrast to " Sovereignty " i.e. in total opposition to the idea that laws can be passed that place anybody above, below or otherwise outside of " The Rule of Law " - which does not exclude the institution of " The Royal Family " provided that they are subject to " The Rule of Law." The present situation in " The United Kingdom " is that " Sovereignty " is being increasingly cited to justify - arresting, holding, prosecuting and jailing people all in secret ; - excusing from being subject to various laws The Agencies of The State e.g. The Secret Inteligence Services, Police, Courts, Parliaments, Ministries, Armed Forces etc ; - licencing further degrees of surveillance e.g. into private bank accounts, phone lines, email accounts etc and for the most trivial offences such as not placing the rubbish bins out on the right day or failing to attend appointments ; - in short : whilst " The United Kingdom " does indeed have a written constitution it is not one single document and even the government's own lawyers admit that even if they can find the relevant parts of the constitution they often prove to be contradictory and can not decide it ...

... Most of the constitutional lawyers would agree that " The United Kingdom " is in effect a dictatorship - but in most dictatorships the person who appears to be the lone autocrat has to rely upon a body of other powerful people supporting them ... In " The United Kingdom " the same is the case in theory - BUT : the other members of The Cabinet at No10 Downing Street are not powerful people whose opinions can not be disregarded so The Prime Minister simply dismisses those who do not support them ... the whole political system depends upon those in power being well-behaved - and it can be argued that even if there is a constitution all political systems rely upon the same principle ... the counter-argument is to ask how anybody's behaviour is to be judged if there is no agreed written account of what " well-behaved " means ... as to what to call this " future " republic - that question assumes that " The United Kingdom " is " not a republic " because it has " The Royal Family " : but this question is irrelevant to a Republican because Republicanism is not Anti-Monarchism - and I am telling you this as Wales' most prominent - notorious even - advocate of Republicanism : I am David B Lawrence - " dai repwblic " - meta-ideologist, raconteur, politico and poet - and I write on Wikipedia using my bardic name " Dai Saw " ... So please take my word for this - " The United Kingdom " was shaped and recreated time after time according to the then prevalent political theories and they were all known as " Republican " political theories and that is why " The United States of America " was founded as a " Republic " - not a Democracy - in its constitutional documents : the " rebels " were the 18c politicians in " The United Kingdom " who in hoping to raise new taxes in the colonies went against the agreed political consensus which was - Republican ! ... That is why the colonists had so many sympathisers and advocates like the - Republican ! - Edmund Burke ... In mid 18c London the rebel to invite to The Royal Family's dinner was the celebrated Corsican Pasquale Paoli - The Republican who created the first modern Revolution ! ...

... But everything changed with The French Revolution whose sympathisers were targeted by " The Two Acts " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_Meetings_Act_1795 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1795 - and of course Edmund Burke and others sympathised with the ideals professed but vigorously opposed what was being done in the name of " Republicanism " in favour of their own tradition : in other words the French word " Republique " which in English was rendered as " Republic " and in Welsh as " Repyblic " - modern spelling " Repwblic " - became associated first of all with fanaticism, then criminality and then as the war began those who continued to advocate it were deemed to be allied to the French and were damned as traitors ... Laws were passed against those who persisted publicly advocating for " The Republic " and so most withdrew away from the word and emphasised their patriotic credentials by returning to the English word for it - " The Commonwealth." ... Now if you can find the relevant constitutional documents you will find that word being used in them e.g. " The Commonwealth of The United Kingdom " - i.e. if you would kindly stop ignorantly equating " Republicanism " with " Anti-Monarchism " - and instead refer to our actual political theory - you will find that " The United Kingdom " is not merely technically a " Republic " but actually ( supposedly ) it legally is one. You would like some more accessible and tangible evidence ? Prior to The French Revolution there were very few bank notes in circulation in " The United Kingdom " but many of them had Latin mottoes on them such are still displayed on the bank notes of the Bank of Ireland ( a Loyalist bank in Belfast - i.e. not " anti-monarchist " - it was granted its banking charter with this motto by " The United Kingdom " before The French Revolution - so : perhaps some good evidence ?)

" Bona Fides Reipublicae Stabilitas " = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I provided the link to " The Glorious Revolution " because the constitution is basically still that settled in 1688 - in terms of the early Republican political theory of " The Four Estates " I now identify " The United Kingdom " as neither a Democracy nor a Monocracy : " The United Kingdom " as created by The ( political ) Union of Scotland and England in 1707 was explicitly an Aristocracy and it still is - even though their complete control of Westminster was broken by The Parliament Act in 1911 the Aristocracy still basically control " The United Kingdom " because they still control The City of London e.g. in the recent banking crisis when The City of London over-reached itself in reckless investments which promised to bankrupt The Aristocracy - possibly still the wealthiest community in The World - the " non-political " system as I have described it - " The United Kingdom " was required to bail them out by taxing the poorest communities in Britain ... The result of the recent European Referendum reflects the fact that in effect one wealthy donor decided to change the fate not only of the 70,000,000 or so inhabitants of Britain but arguably 4,000,000,000 or so more across The World to secure his bank from failure : The European Union was just about to implement new banking rules to remove the protectionism enjoyed by banks in The City of London.

Personally - since I am a pragmatic person and so advocate " Inter-dependence within The European Union " - and since I am greatly interested in what happened in the 1790s and how a perfectly useful - indeed celebrated - political theory became so villified and buried in undeserved ignomy by vicious propagandists on behalf of " The Aristocracy in The United Kingdom " claiming to defend " The Monarchy " which de facto had ceased to exist over a century before hand - I like to advocate what others did in the 1790s - " The United Republic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_United_Scotsmen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_United_Irishmen

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0020859000008221

- AND PLEASE : ANTI-MONARCHISM IS NOT REPUBLICANISM - PLEASE : READ SOME PROPER BOOKS - GET A CORRECT AND ORTHODOX VIEW OF REPUBLICANISM !

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198296428.001.0001/acprof-9780198296423

Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government - Philip Pettit - Oxford University Press

Abstract

The long republican tradition is characterized by a conception of freedom as non‐domination, which offers an alternative, both to the negative view of freedom as non‐interference and to the positive view of freedom as self‐mastery. The first part of the book traces the rise and decline of the conception, displays its many attractions and makes a case for why it should still be regarded as a central political ideal. The second part of the book looks at the sorts of political and civil institutions that would be required in a society in which freedom as non‐domination is systematically fostered. It outlines the causes and policies, the constitutional and democratic forms, and the regulatory controls that a republican state ought to endorse. And it argues for a vision of the state's relation to civil society in which there is no pretence of doing without widespread civility and trust; the argument is that the state ought, at once, to foster and build on such extra‐political foundations.DaiSaw (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Feverish discussion[edit]

We're having a feverish discussion between royal celebrity fans and Wikipedia editors at Education of the British Royal Family if anyone is interested. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a Republican I find virtually nothing about Republicanism on this page : I have written this to explain it a bit.[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

INITIALLY I TITLED THIS " I am going to look through this page to see if I can find anything about Republicanism in it! " [ = NONE REALLY ]

I will figure out a new title :

Nothing there except - " A republican government was briefly established in the mid-17th century, after the Parliamentarian victory in the English Civil War." - which is a highly doubtful statement : a form of Republican government was being planned under President Bradshaw in " The Republican Government " of 1649-53 but it was riven by arguments and as the final result was emerging - not Democractic but with Liberty of Conscience - Cromwell on behalf of those who could feared both then suppressed it and replaced John Bradshaw with Henry Lawrence. I think that the critical moment was the trial of William Erbery because he was the most popular radical writer of this first period of freedom of the press. William Erbery objected to all authority based upon theologies and to his contemporaries he was more threatening than Anarchists appear to be to us now : I believe that it was his arrest in 1652 which galvanised all those concerned for religious liberty to coalesce in his defence as " The Religious Society of Friends " - a term which is taken from his later writings - later abused as " The Quakers " - and I think that their appearance as an organised body of radicals with their national organisation with their headquarters in Swarthmore Hall is probably what precipitated Cromwell's " True Blue " faction to overthrow " The Republican Government." Why ? Because John Bradshaw and Thomas Fell were the commissioners in charge of the confiscated Duchy of Lancaster - which is why in 1652 ( when " The True Blues " i.e. those determined to preserve " The True Christian Faith " and impose it upon others to create " A Godly Nation " arrested William Erbery ) - a number of people concerned to preserve religious liberty went to Swarthmore Hall which was the home of Thomas Fell who informally was the vice-president of " The Republican Government." The reason why this meeting was taking place in Ulverston was in order to avoid Cromwell's spies - and we only know about it through the self-preoccupied account of his part in it by George Fox which was written down thirty years later in his " Journal " which is nothing of the sort : it was written to bolster his claim to have discovered " Quakerism " and to have founded " The Religious Society of Friends " - but despite the popular histories it was definitely founded in London and Quakers were first recorded there in 1647 : George Fox sent James Naylor to London to contact The Quakers immediately after William Erbery's death - and having taken over the leadership James Naylor was put on trial on exactly the same charges laid against William Erbery by exactly the same people ... but by that time " The Republican Government " had fallen to " The Protectorate " and they made sure that James Naylor was convicted.

Now you might be asking what this " religious " episode has to do with Republicanism - because unlike me you are not Republicans ... This episode is very important : the meeting in Swarthmore Hall was of people allied to Arthur Haselrig - one of the five members of The House of Commons that Charles I marched into whilst trying to arrest his political opponents thus violating the privileges of Parliament ... that was the incident which triggered The English Civil War : Haselrig was The Republican in The House of Commons insisting upon The Rule of Law ... Haselrig's opinion in 1652 was already that Cromwell was a potential traitor to " The Republican Government " and he sent his secretary Anthony Pearson to this meeting in Swarthmore Hall : George Fox's obscuring description says that it lasted several weeks with people coming and going - the crisis for John Bradshaw in London trying to protect religious liberty in the person of William Erbery from Oliver Cromwell is not mentioned because it is not about George Fox being the important man there - which he was not ! ... If you have ever been around politicos this egotistic scenario is very familiar ... ( I am going to have to stop - but here is the point that I am struggling towards ) ... The account given on this webpage is not written by Republicans and so you think that Republicanism in Britain began in The Wars of The Three Kingdoms circa 1650 and presumably you think that it ended circa 1850 because you do not know anything about Renaissance Republicanism ( 1450-1650 ) or Modernist/Post-Modernist Republicanism ( 1850 - 2050 ? ) - you are not even talking about Neo-Classical Republicanism ( 1650 - 1850 ) even though you may think that you are because you think that Republicanism is Anti-Monarchism. Basically you are not talking about Republicanism at all : it is a political tradition not an historical narrative !

You are not thinking like Republicans : here is something that should be discussed on this page - what was " Quakerism " in 1652 ? ... In my view " The Religious Society of Friends " was " The Party of The Republic " - it was literally formed to defend " The Republican Government " because without the religious liberty which it protected their own causes were doomed : everybody was drawn in - Gerard Winstanley the leader of The Diggers, John Lilburne the leader of The Levellers, John Milton all but joined after The Restoration etc - and nobody doubts that these people were not political but for those who do not understand what 1652 is about there is no link to the present issue which is whether these latter day Cromwells like Theresa May will manage to suppress the internet cribblers in the same way that Cromwell tried to suppress the pamphlet scribblers in 1652 - and having seized power he then tried again and he succeeded in 1654. In the brief four years of " The Republican Government " they struggled to create new institutions and in order to do so they were struggling against centuries of the existing language which created their ways of thinking because they lacked access to any other accounts of other societies save The Bible and the writings of classical antiquity : they had never encountered in their own lives anything but a society that seemed to be based upon an eternal and stable order where nothing changed - but everything had changed and continued to change at an alarming rate ... some were intoxicated by the prospect - but most were terrified by it ... Cromwell grabbed for the brake in 1653 ... then in 1659 Monck decided to put the changes into reverse - despite having fought for " The Republican Government " and " The Protectorate " ... as Monck marched south towards London with The New Model Army he was confronted on the road by The County Militias which were full of all of those battle-hardened religio-political radicals which he had helped to purge from The New Model Army ten years before ... Again this is an historical incident that is conveniently forgotten : The New Model Army was deliberately formed to not be led by the County Gentry - and that is why religio-political radicals had flooded into it - in order to escape from the claustrophobic remains of feudalism ... The New Model Army in 1649 was packed with many had learned to read and write pamphlets and therefore in rejecting any worldly religious authority they had become Quakers - and so were thrown out of it : when they went home they escaped their feudal bonds once more by volunteering for The County Militias - which on The Great North Road that night in 1659 were being led by - Anthony Pearson.

In the decade 1649 - 1659 the conventional conceptualisations of society and politics collapsed - and not only in Britain and Ireland but also in Europe, where in fact this was already under way : what followed was Hobbes, Harrington, Locke, Spinoza, and many now forgotten ... the most argued over issue was " religion " but what e.g. Rousseau, Voltaire, Jefferson, Momoro etc were concerned about were powerful hierarchies spreading faulty thinking - but they had no plan to get rid of religion : they thought - I think - that it a human activity which can either be done well or badly ... in other words they discussed removing corrupt moralities and superstitious beliefs and propagating ideologies : and that is what Republicanisms are about - especially in the Post-World War Two Post-Modernist Republicanisms ... hence the speedy transition from theologically based ideologies in 1649 to philosophically based ideologies by 1659 is fascinating.

I ought to apologise for indulging myself in writing that off the top of my head - but equally those who wrote this page should apologise !

I have been trying to find out more - on and off - about Anthony Pearson - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Pearson_%28Quaker%29 - because on that night in 1659 when " The Blues " were confronted by " The Greens " on The Great North Road Anthony Pearson took a decision which shaped the modern political world : rather fighting a pitched battle with the rebel army which could plunge " The Three Kingdoms " into a third cycle of civil wars he instead chose to accept the assurances given by Monck and escorted him into London to allow him to plead his political arguments peaceably ... Monck - by hook or by crook - succeeded in proposing The Restoration ... as a result over five hundred Quakers died, some five thousand were imprisoned, perhaps fifty thousand were fined ... The Religious Society of Friends withstood some thirty years of straightforwardly violent abuse which only began to abate once tens of thousands had chosen exile in America where their descendents and the institutions which they created laid the basis for and were the cause of The American War of Independence ... Oh - you thought that Quakers were always absolute pacifists ? - No : the first stronghold of Quakerism was in The New Model Army - William Erbery was a regimental chaplin and James Naylor was a regimental quarter-master - and Anthony Pearson led The County Militias in 1659. It was because everybody knew that " Quakers are soldiers who disobey their officers when they think that their God wants them to ! " that in 1659 there was a widespread belief that Anthony Pearson would indeed start The Third Civil War ... but he did not : when Charles II was restored the Quakers decided to stick with Anthony Pearson's decision - " If you do not attack us then we will have no reason to fight you - but we will be ready to " ... " The Peace Testimony " began as an assertion not of an Absolute Pacifism but as a re-assertion of Mathew 5.9 - The Sermon on The Mount - " Blessed are The Peace Makers " - which involves an English rendition of the Latin " paci-ficator." This is the religious idea which is planted at the centre of Republicanism - although few know the origins now of the term " Pacificator " and so as a consequence Republicans are regularly portrayed as subscribing to the use of violence in pursuit of their political ends : in fact Republicanism only allows for self-defence and then only when all else is lost - 15c Religious Republicans were enthusiasts for martyrdom ! - and the issues about this are like the controversy over the meaning of " jihad " as " struggle " or " war " in the Islamic versions of Republicanism ... In " Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen from the Constitution of Year I (1793) " this issue is dealt with by firmly placing it last on the list of rights - the last resort once all the other rights have been destroyed by a despotic government -

http://www.columbia.edu/~iw6/docs/dec1793.html - " 35. When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties. "

- and the person who draughted that ( in French ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Williams_%28philosopher%29

- which brings me back to the point that I want to make : Republicanisms are discussed in terms of their histories - about the development of their ideologies and meta-ideologies - not in terms of war - AND - I have personally encountered some of the leaders of both " Republic " and " MAM " and they know absolutely nothing about any of the Republicanisms - apparently they actually thought that in my recommending them books written by Machiavelli I was performing some kind of criminal act !!! DaiSaw (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)