READING PRACTICE M6

Graham Abbot 29 Apr 2011 We should be participants, not spectators Yesterday, I was watching Prince William's wedding on TV and I could see a crowd of people waiting for the royal wedding. It’s not a spectacle that makes me particularly proud, although I do hope the spectators had enjoyed the show. Then, I just realized that in a monarchy we are just spectators, we’re rarely asked to be participants. Monarchists often say they’re proud of the monarchy. But what gives people more pride? Watching others or taking part? In sport who is most proud, the spectators or the team players and athletes? Monarchy is very much about being a spectator, sitting on the periphery looking in, watching others and never having the chance to elect the person on the tip of the political pyramid. I want a democracy in which all of us are participants. An elected head of state would be a profoundly democratic act, one in which we can all participate as equal citizens. Besides, becoming the head of the state would not be an accident of birth but  the result of our own actions. In the news Republic to seek urgent meeting with Met police over republican arrests Campaign group Republic is to seek an urgent meeting with senior Metropolitan police officers after reports of peaceful republican protesters being arrested and released without charge over the weekend. [read more]

Helen Lintop

22 Apr 2011

Continuity & Stability

Elizabeth Windsor has led a long life and, one hopes, will continue to do so for many years. Monarchists always argue with us Republicans when they claim that this has been crucial for continuity and the stability of the country. Continuity for the sake of continuity is not something that should be celebrated because it is often counter-productive and prevents progress (how many computer-literate people would continue to use a typewriter instead of a word processor for the sake of continuity?). Even if someone said that the monarchy has, indeed, provided continuity, they would only have to compare the monarchy of today –a yellow-press-focused family– with that of 1909  –a family at the top of the social ranking whose faces would not have been recognised by ordinary people– to see that it hasn’t gained much from continuity.

Regarding "stability", arguing that a monarchy is the thing that has provided stability for the country is not just wrong but phenomenally insulting to its people. Why is Britain stable? Surely it is down to the fact that we’re economically strong in relative terms. Surely it is down to the fact that there is a general sense of respect and tolerance of people in this country so that most people aren’t prepared to attack the homes and businesses of Jews or hang blacks from trees and vote for extremist parties. Surely it is down to the fact that we have strong allies in Europe and the world and are prepared to cooperate diplomatically. The same can be said for most economically-strong monarchical countries (with the exception of Saudi Arabia whose absolute monarchy brutally suppresses opposition: is this what monarchists wish for Britain?).

 

Choose the best option for the words in bold.

1. Being proud of something means...

a.     you think that something is very important for you.

b.     you aren't pleased about something.

c.     you value something too much.

2. The opposite of argue is...

a.     considering someone else is wrong.

b.     expressing a different opinion.

c.     accepting someone else's point of view.

 

Say whether the following statements are true or false according to the information given in the text. Write the evidence from the text that justifies your answer.

3.  In a monarchy ordinary people never play an active role.

4. In a monarchy the head of the state isn't chosen by the citizens.

5. Britain's political & social stability has depended only on being economically strong.