text:
Milan (disambiguation)

Milan is a major city in Italy.

Milan may also refer to:

Film and television

 * Milan (1942 film), an Indian film, with music by S. D. Burman
 * Milan (1946 film), an Indian film starring Dilip Kumar, directed by Nitin Bose
 * Milan (1958 film), an Indian film; see List of Bollywood films of 1958
 * Milan (1967 film), an Indian film
 * Milan (1995 film), an Indian film
 * Milan (2004 film), a Filipino film
 * Milan (2007 film), a German short film, Grand Prix winner at the Tampere Film Festival
 * Milan (Indian TV series), an Indian drama television series

Military

 * Milan (naval exercise), a biannual multilateral naval exercise hosted by the Indian Navy
 * HMS Milan (1805), a 38-gun fifth rate frigate of the Royal Navy
 * French destroyer Milan (1934)
 * MILAN, a European anti-tank guided missile
 * Milan, a variant of the Mirage V fighter

People

 * Milan (given name), a Slavic male name
 * Milan (surname), an English surname
 * Milan (Kurdish tribe)
 * Milan (art director), an Indian film art director
 * Milan (drag queen), American drag performer

Canada

 * Milan, Quebec, a village

Colombia

 * Milán, Caquetá, a town and municipality

Iran

 * Milan, West Azerbaijan, a village
 * Milan-e Baba Ahmadi, a village in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province

Italy

 * Duchy of Milan, a historic state in northern Italy
 * Metropolitan City of Milan
 * Milan (camp), set up to house Jewish refugees after World War II
 * Province of Milan, of which the city was the capital

Switzerland

 * Parc de Milan, a public park in the city of Lausanne

United States

 * Milan, Georgia
 * Milan, Illinois
 * Milan, Indiana
 * Milan, Kansas
 * Milan, Michigan
 * Milan, Minnesota
 * Milan, Missouri
 * Milan, New Hampshire
 * Milan, New Mexico
 * Milan, New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Milan, New York
 * Milan, Ohio
 * Milan, Tennessee
 * Milan, Washington
 * Milan, Wisconsin
 * Milan Township (disambiguation)

Schools

 * Milan Conservatory
 * Milan High School (Indiana)
 * Milan High School (Michigan)

Sports

 * 1954 Milan High School basketball team, a famous Indiana high school team which served as the real-life inspiration for the 1986 film Hoosiers
 * AC Milan, an Italian football team
 * AC Milan Women, an Italian women's football team
 * A.C.F. Milan, a disbanded Italian women's football team
 * Esporte Clube Milan, a Brazilian football team
 * Inter Milan, an Italian football team
 * Inter Milan (women), an Italian women's football team
 * Milan (horse), a Thoroughbred racehorse
 * Milan AC, a name for the HC Devils Milano ice hockey team in the 1993/94 season

Other uses

 * Bautek Milan Racer, a German hang glider
 * Epyc Milan, the third generation of AMD's Epyc line of server processors, codenamed Milan
 * Mercury Milan, an automobile
 * Milan, a series of German velomobile (Milan GT, Milan SL, Milan RS)
 * "Milan", the code name for the Microsoft PixelSense project's table top computer
 * Milan (comics), a Marvel Comics character
 * Milan (cultural festival), a cultural fest of SRM University, India
 * Milan Entertainment, an internationally operating record company
 * Milan Records, a record label
 * Milan, the German translation for the bird called Milvus milvus
 * Milan royal, the French translation for the bird called Milvus milvus
 * SETCA Milan, a French light aircraft
 * Studio des Milans, Gojira's recording studio in the Landes, France, named after the bird Milan royal (Milvus milvus)

title: Milan (disambiguation)


text:
Mineola

Mineola may refer to:

United States

 * Mineola, Arkansas
 * Mineola, former name of Alleene, Arkansas
 * Mineola, Georgia
 * Mineola, Iowa
 * Mineola, Missouri
 * Mineola, New York
 * Mineola, Texas

Canada

 * Mineola, British Columbia, a ghost town
 * Mineola, a neighbourhood in Mississauga, Ontario

Schools

 * Mineola High School (New York)
 * Mineola Union Free School District, New York
 * Mineola Colored High School, Texas
 * Mineola High School (Texas)
 * Mineola Independent School District, Texas

Other

 * Mineola (moth genus)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mineola


text:
Talk:Roberta Williams

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20010217010515/http://www.womengamers.com:80/interviews/roberta.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20010210042452/http://adventurecollective.com/articles/interview-robertawilliams.htm

Photo op
As long as coronavirus doesn't ruin it, with Roberta being honored at GDC this next month, and GDC publishing all their photos for free use, we should finally have a good photo for her. This is be around March 18th. --M asem (t) 18:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Notes on copyedit

 * "with husband and game developer Ken Williams" this phrasing can mislead readers into thinking that her husband and Williams were different people
 * There's heavy citation of the self-published book Not All Fairy Tales Have Happy Endings: The Rise and Fall of Sierra On-Line. which is unlikely to be considered a high-quality reliable source at FAC
 * May 1980 issue of MICRO it would help to provide a link or at least some explanation
 * color graphics and dithering
 * "had to layoff the majority of their team" confusing, since you never mention them hiring a team
 * "The series was also known for Williams' unique style of storytelling, as well its advancements in graphics and technology." This sentence really does not carry any information unless you elaborate on how Williams' style differed from other games at the time. You already mention technological breakthroughs earlier
 * "She would recall that the female protagonist likely increased the audience for the series, a creative decision that she seeded by introducing Rosella in the previous game." I removed this because you don't otherwise mention the previous intallment and because it matters more whether this belief is correct (the next sentence indicates it was) rather than whether Williams believed it.
 * "a gender dynamic that has been credited to Williams' voice as a female author" I removed this but if it's added back it should say who credits it per MOS:AWW (t · c)  buidhe  04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The game was critically acclaimed, with Computer Gaming World remembering it among their greatest games of all time." does the source support the first part of this sentence? You could just cut it if it's only CGW's opinion.
 * "Sierra became a publicly traded company, and was generating one-hundred million dollars per year in revenue"
 * "lent her characters and concepts" vague and confusing: did she design this game or only work on it?
 * "it was recognized by several publications as one of the best adventure games"
 * layoffs under CUC: it would be more helpful to state how many people or what percent were laid off rather than use a vague term like "severe" (t · c)  buidhe  05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the changes! I made a few more to fix some of the issues you identified. Some of this stuff will definitely resurface if and when I nominate it for a featured article. I'm pretty sure the Ken Williams book will be considered reliable for statements from the subjects themselves, as a self-published source. But I'll tag User:Indrian just in case they have any perspective to add. Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not All Fairy Tales Have Happy Endings: The Rise and Fall of Sierra On-Line is an autobiography by Ken Williams, husband of the subject as well as her collaborator on several projects and co-founder of the company the work was done for. The subject also contributed her recollections to the book, which is acknowledged in its text. The book is therefore permissible as a self-published source specifically for the first-hand material on their lives and for Ken's knowledge of the history of the company and its products. Indrian (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in. This might come up again if it goes to FA eventually so we can revisit it then, if need be. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

First photo in Early life and career section should be of subject
Focusing on her husband feels sexist and obscures her own achievements 2601:41:4301:8C80:50D9:E7D0:7E5:A709 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Newer sources
Just making a few notes on sources that have surfaced since her return to game development

 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roberta Williams


text:
Mitchell

Mitchell may refer to:

People and fictional characters

 * Mitchell (surname), including lists of both people and fictional characters
 * Mitchell (given name), lists of people and fictional characters

Australia

 * Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory, a light-industrial estate
 * Mitchell, New South Wales, a suburb of Bathurst
 * Mitchell, Northern Territory, a suburb of Palmerston
 * Mitchell, Queensland, a town
 * Mitchell, South Australia, on lower Eyre Peninsula
 * Division of Mitchell, a federal electoral division in north-west Sydney, New South Wales
 * Electoral district of Mitchell (Queensland), a former electoral district
 * Electoral district of Mitchell (South Australia), a state electoral district
 * Electoral district of Mitchell (Western Australia) a state electoral district
 * Shire of Mitchell, a local government area in Victoria

Canada

 * Mitchell, Ontario
 * Mitchell, Manitoba, an unincorporated community
 * Mitchell Island, British Columbia
 * Mitchell Island (Nunavut)

United Kingdom

 * Mitchell, Cornwall, a village
 * Mitchell (UK Parliament constituency)

United States

 * Mitchell, Colorado, an unincorporated community
 * Mitchell, Georgia, a town
 * Mitchell, Illinois, an unincorporated census-designated place
 * Mitchell, Indiana, a city
 * Mitchell, Iowa, a city
 * Mitchell, Kansas, an unincorporated community
 * Mitchell, Missouri, an unincorporated community
 * Mitchell, Nebraska, a city
 * Mitchell, Oregon, a city
 * Mitchell, South Dakota, a city
 * Mitchell, South Dakota micropolitan area, anchored by the city
 * Mitchell, West Virginia, an unincorporated community
 * Mitchell, Wisconsin, a town
 * Mitchell Township (disambiguation)

In multiple countries

 * Mitchell County (disambiguation)
 * Mitchell Lake (disambiguation)
 * Mitchell River (disambiguation)
 * Mount Mitchell (disambiguation)

Elsewhere

 * Mitchell (crater), on the Moon

Companies

 * Mitchell Camera Corporation, which manufactured the cameras which shot the majority of Hollywood movies and early television shows from the 1930s-1990s
 * Mitchell Construction, a UK-based contractor
 * Mitchell Corporation, a Japanese video game company
 * Mitchell Electronics, an American manufacturer of electronic devices
 * Mitchell International, Inc., a software and information service provider, located in San Diego, California
 * Mitchell (automobile), manufactured in Racine, Wisconsin, from 1903 to 1923
 * Mitchell (fishing), fishing reel brand owned by Jarden

Ships

 * USS Mitchell, several ships
 * USC&GS Mitchell, a United States Coast and Geodetic Survey launch in commission from 1919 to 1944
 * HMS Hoste (K566), a Royal Navy frigate originally named Mitchell

Schools

 * Mitchell College, a private college in New London, Connecticut
 * Mitchell Community College, Statesville, North Carolina
 * Mitchell High School (disambiguation)
 * Mitchell School, Mitchell, Oregon

Other uses

 * B-25 Mitchell, an American World War II-era bomber aircraft
 * Mitchell (film), a 1975 action film
 * Mitchell movement, a type of duplicate bridge table movement
 * Mitchell Scholarship, given annually by the US-Ireland Alliance
 * Mitchell Freeway, Western Australia
 * Mitchell Highway, Australia
 * Mitchell Center, a multi-purpose arena on the campus of the University of South Alabama in Mobile
 * Mitchell Bowl, one of the two semifinal bowls of Canadian Interuniversity Sport men's football
 * The Mitchell Trio, or The Chad Mitchell Trio, North American vocal group who became known during the 1960s
 * Cyclone Mitchell, a tropical cyclone of the 2012–13 Australian region cyclone season

title: Mitchell


text:
Republicanism in the United Kingdom

Republicanism in the United Kingdom is the political movement that seeks to replace the United Kingdom's monarchy with a republic. Supporters of the movement, called republicans, support alternative forms of governance to a monarchy, such as an elected head of state. Monarchy has been the form of government used in the United Kingdom and its predecessor domains almost exclusively since the Middle Ages, except for a brief interruption in the years 1649–1660, during which a republican government did exist under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell.

After Cromwell's Protectorate fell and the monarchy was restored, governing duties were increasingly handed to Parliament, especially with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The adoption of the constitutional monarchy system made the argument for full republicanism less urgent. It was once again a topic of discussion during the late 18th century with the American Revolution, and grew more important with the French Revolution, when the concern was how to deal with the French Republic on their doorstep. This led to a widespread anti-republican movement in Britain, and the issue was dormant for a time.

Dissatisfaction with British rule led to a longer period of agitation in the early 19th century, with failed republican revolutions in Canada in the late 1830s and Ireland in 1848. This led to the Treason Felony Act in 1848, which made it illegal to advocate for republicanism. Another "significant incarnation" of republicanism broke out in the late 19th century, when Queen Victoria went into mourning and largely disappeared from public view after the death of her husband, Prince Albert. This led to questions about whether or not the institution should continue, with politicians speaking in support of abolition. This ended when Victoria returned to public duties later in the century, and regained significant public support.

More recently, in the early 21st century, increasing dissatisfaction with the House of Windsor, especially after the death of Elizabeth II in 2022, has led to public support for the monarchy reaching historical lows.

Context
In Britain, republican sentiment has largely focused on the abolition of the British monarchy, rather than the dissolution of the British Union or independence for its constituent countries. In Northern Ireland, the term "republican" is usually used in the sense of Irish republicanism. While also against the monarchy, Irish republicans are against the presence of the British state in any form on the island of Ireland and advocate creating a united Ireland, an all-island state comprising the whole of Ireland. Unionists who support a British republic also exist in Northern Ireland, but they do not call themselves republican.

There are republican members of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales who advocate independence for those countries as republics. The SNP's official policy is that the British monarch would remain head of state of an independent Scotland, unless the people of Scotland decided otherwise. Plaid Cymru have a similar view for Wales, although its youth wing, Plaid Ifanc, has an official policy advocating a Welsh republic. The Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Greens both support an independent Scottish republic.

Legal context
Advocacy of the replacement of the monarchy with a republic has long been an imprisonable offence in law. The Treason Felony Act 1848 prohibits the advocacy of a republic in print. The penalty for such advocacy, even if the republic is to be set up by peaceful means, is lifetime imprisonment. This Act remains in force in the United Kingdom. However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Law Lords have held that although the Treason Felony Act remains on the statute books it must be interpreted so as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, and therefore no longer prohibits peaceful republican activity.

History
Since the 1650s, early modern English republicanism has been extensively studied by historians. James Harrington (1611–1677) is generally considered to be the most representative republican writer of the era.

Commonwealth of England

The countries that now make up the United Kingdom, together with the Republic of Ireland, were briefly ruled as a republic in the 17th century, first under the Commonwealth consisting of the Rump Parliament and the Council of State (1649–1653) and then under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell and later his son Richard (1658–1659), and finally under the restored Rump Parliament (1659–1660). The Commonwealth Parliament represented itself as a republic in the classical model, with John Milton writing an early defence of republicanism in the idiom of constitutional limits on a monarch's power. Cromwell's Protectorate was less ideologically republican and was seen by Cromwell as restoring the mixed constitution of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy found in classical literature and English common law discourse.

First, the Kingdom of England was declared to be the Commonwealth of England and then Scotland and Ireland were briefly forced into union with England by the army. Cromwell and Thomas Fairfax were often ruthless in putting down the mutinies which occurred within their own army towards the end of the civil wars (prompted by Parliament's failure to pay the troops). They showed little sympathy for the Levellers, an egalitarian movement which had contributed greatly to Parliament's cause, but sought representation for ordinary citizens. The Leveller point of view had been strongly represented in the Putney Debates, held between the various factions of the army in 1647, just prior to the king's temporary escape from army custody. Cromwell and the grandees were not prepared to permit such a radical democracy and used the debates to play for time while the future of the King was being determined. Catholics were persecuted zealously under Cromwell. Although he personally was in favour of religious toleration – "liberty for tender consciences" – not all his compatriots agreed. The war led to much death and chaos in Ireland, where Irish Catholics and Protestants who fought for the Royalists were persecuted. There was a ban on many forms of entertainment, as public meetings could be used as a cover for conspirators; horse racing was banned, the maypoles were famously cut down, the theatres were closed, and Christmas celebrations were outlawed for being too ceremonial, Catholic, and "popish".

Much of Cromwell's power was due to the Rump Parliament, a Parliament purged of opposition to grandees in the New Model Army. Whereas Charles I had been in part restrained by a Parliament that would not always do as he wished (the cause of the civil war), Cromwell was able to wield much more power as only loyalists were allowed to become MPs, turning the chamber into a rubber-stamping organisation. This was ironic given his complaints about Charles I acting without heeding the "wishes" of the people. Even so, he found it almost impossible to get his Parliaments to follow all his wishes. His executive decisions were often thwarted, most famously in the ending of the rule of the regional major generals appointed by himself.

In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament, presenting him with a dilemma since he had played a great role in abolishing the monarchy. After two months of deliberation, he rejected the offer. Instead, he was ceremonially re-installed as Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland (Wales was a part of England), with greater powers than he had previously held. It is often suggested that offering Cromwell the crown was an effort to curb his power: as a king, he would be obliged to honour agreements such as Magna Carta, but under the arrangement he had designed he had no such restraints. This allowed him to preserve and enhance his power and the army's while decreasing Parliament's control over him, probably to enable him to maintain a well-funded army that Parliament could not be depended upon to provide. The office of Lord Protector was not formally hereditary, although Cromwell was able to nominate his own successor in his son, Richard.

A common argument against republicanism in Britain is that of the supposed failure of Cromwell when England was a republic. However, Republicans argue that this cannot be used as an argument against republicanism as it is nowhere near what a modern republic would be. In the time of Cromwell, the political system and powers of the head of state were very different to today. Most noticeably, if the UK was to be a republic today, it would most likely have a president with limited power who acts simply as a representative of the country much like the current monarch does.

Restoration of the monarchy
Although England, Scotland and Ireland became constitutional monarchies, after the reigns of Charles II and his brother James II and VII, and with the ascension of William III and Mary II to the English, Irish and Scottish thrones as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, there have been movements throughout the last few centuries whose aims were to remove the monarchy and establish a republican system. A notable period was the time in the late 18th century and early 19th century when many Radicals such as the minister Joseph Fawcett were openly republican.

American and French Revolutions
The American Revolution had a great impact on political thought in Ireland and Britain. According to Christopher Hitchens, the British–American author, philosopher, politician and activist, Thomas Paine was the "moral author of the American Revolution", who posited in the soon widely read pamphlet Common Sense (January 1776) that the conflict of the Thirteen Colonies with the Hanoverian monarchy in London was best resolved by setting up a separate democratic republic. To him, republicanism was more important than independence. However, the circumstances forced the American revolutionaries to give up any hope of reconciliation with Britain, and reforming its 'corrupt' monarchial government, that so often dragged the American colonies in its European wars, from within. He and other British republican writers saw in the Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776) a legitimate struggle against the Crown, that violated people's freedom and rights, and denied them representation in politics.

When the French Revolution broke out in 1789, debates started in the British Isles on how to respond. Soon a pro-Revolutionary republican and anti-Revolutionary monarchist camp had established themselves among the intelligentsia, who waged a pamphlet war until 1795. Prominent figures of the republican camp were Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin and Paine.

Paine would also play an important role inside the revolution in France as an elected member of the National Convention (1792–1793), where he lobbied for an invasion of Britain to establish a republic after the example of the United States, France and its sister republics, but also opposed the execution of Louis XVI, which got him arrested. The First French Republic would indeed stage an expedition to Ireland in December 1796 to help the Society of United Irishmen set up an Irish republic to destabilise the United Kingdom, but this ended in a failure. The subsequent Irish Rebellion of 1798 was suppressed by forces of the British Crown. Napoleon also planned an invasion of Britain since 1798 and more seriously since 1803, but in 1804 he relinquished republicanism by crowning himself Emperor of the French and converting all Sister Republics into client kingdoms of the French Empire, before calling off the invasion of Britain altogether in 1805.

Revolutionary republicanism, 1800–1848
From the start of the French Revolution into the early 19th century, the revolutionary blue-white-red tricolour was used throughout England, Wales and Ireland in defiance of the royal establishment. During the 1816 Spa Fields riots, a green, white and red horizontal flag appeared for the first time, soon followed by a red, white and green horizontal version allegedly in use during the 1817 Pentrich rising and the 1819 Peterloo massacre. The latter is now associated with Hungary, but then it became known as the British Republican Flag. It may have been inspired by the French revolutionary tricolour, but this is unclear. It was however often accompanied by slogans consisting of three words such as "Fraternity – Liberty – Humanity" (a clear reference to Liberté, égalité, fraternité), and adopted by the Chartist movement in the 1830s.

Besides these skirmishes in Great Britain itself, separatist republican revolutions against the British monarchy during the Canadian Rebellions of 1837–1838 and the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 failed.

Parliament passed the Treason Felony Act in 1848. This act made advocacy of republicanism punishable by transportation to Australia, which was later amended to life imprisonment. The law is still on the statute books; however in a 2003 case, the Law Lords stated that "It is plain as a pike staff to the respondents and everyone else that no one who advocates the peaceful abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a republican form of government is at any risk of prosecution", for the reason that the Human Rights Act 1998 would require the 1848 Act to be interpreted in such a way as to render such conduct non-criminal.

Late 19th century
During the later years of Queen Victoria's reign, there was considerable criticism of her decision to withdraw from public life following the death of her husband, Prince Albert. This resulted in a "significant incarnation" of republicanism. During the 1870s, calls for Britain to become a republic on the American or French model were made by the politicians Charles Dilke and Charles Bradlaugh, as well as journalist George W. M. Reynolds. This was also an era in which British republicans supported Irish republicans and in which the Irish Home Rule movement had advocates in England and Scotland within the context of loyal opposition. The British republican presence continued in debates and the Labour press, especially in the event of royal weddings, jubilees and births, until well into the Interwar period.

Some members of the Labour Party, such as Keir Hardie (1856–1915), also held republican views.

20th-century republicanism
In 1923, at the annual Labour Party Conference, two motions were proposed, supported by Ernest Thurtle and Emrys Hughes. The first was "that the Royal Family is no longer a necessary party of the British constitution", and the second was "that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished". George Lansbury responded that, although he too was a republican, he regarded the issue of the monarchy as a "distraction" from more important issues. Lansbury added that he believed the "social revolution" would eventually remove the monarchy peacefully in the future. Both of the motions were overwhelmingly defeated. Following this event, most of the Labour Party moved away from advocating republican views.

Following the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, MP James Maxton proposed a "republican amendment" to the Abdication Bill, which would have established a Republic in Britain. Maxton argued that while the monarchy had benefited Britain in the past, it had now "outlived its usefulness". Five MPs voted to support the bill, including Alfred Salter. However, the bill was defeated by 403 votes. It was not until 1937 that the first British polling company was established, but questions about retaining the monarchy do not appear to have been asked by any such organisation until some years later.

As noted by Roger Mortimore, "the oldest continuing trend series on the straight-choice, monarchy-or-republic, question began only in 1993." He adds, "it seems not to have been until 1966 that any client took the plunge by commissioning a poll directly measuring support for the monarchy." According to Mortimore, this "was commissioned for a Panorama programme to mark Prince Charles's eighteenth birthday, and the poll found that 'about a sixth of the British people think they would like to see the monarchy abolished'. Three Gallup polls in the early and mid-1970s showed support for the status quo significantly higher than this, although they may have tilted the balance in the monarchy's favour by stating the alternative as 'a President, as they have in America and some European countries' at a period when the public standing of the American presidency in Britain cannot have been at its highest."

Willie Hamilton, a republican Scottish Labour MP who served from 1950 to 1987, was known for his outspoken anti-royal views. He discussed these at length in his 1975 book My Queen and I. However, all available evidence suggests that his view remained one shared by a small minority of Britons for most of his time in Parliament. In Crown and People (1978), royal historian Philip Ziegler summarised public opinion on the monarchy in the quarter-century between Elizabeth II's accession to the throne and her Silver Jubilee in 1977: "In the years after 1953 Britain entered the age of the psephologist. More and more often allegedly representative cross-sections of the British people found themselves interrogated about their views on abortion, religion, washing-machines, national politics or pornographic films." He notes that on thirteen occasions between 1953 and 1976, via varying questions, the public were asked whether they would prefer Britain to continue with a monarchical form of government or for the country to become a republic. Ziegler lists the proportions favouring a republic as 9% in 1953; 10% in 1956 (in a Mass Observation Survey); 14% in 1958 (Mass Observation Survey); 10% in 1960 (Mass Observation Survey); 16% in 1964 (Mass Observation Survey); 10% in July 1969 (National Opinion Polls); 16% in October 1969 (NOP); 10% in October 1970; 19% in June 1971 (NOP); 12% in January 1972 (Gallup); 11% in May 1973 (Gallup); 8% in February 1976 (Gallup); 10% in May 1976 (Gallup). The television film Royal Family was first shown in 1969 and watched by a large audience, which may account for the increased interest in the period following its broadcast.

Various questions have been asked by opinion polling companies: in the July 1969 survey by NOP, respondents were asked "In your opinion is the Monarchy a good thing or a bad thing for Britain?" 88% approved, with only 5% disapproving. In October that year, the question NOP asked was "Do you think that Britain needs the Queen or not?" 84% answered "Yes", and 16% said "No". Over one in five of those aged 34 and under felt that Britain did not need the Queen (Elizabeth II). The same question was asked by NOP in June 1971. In May 1986, NOP stated that "Nine out of ten people think the monarchy should continue in Britain and only 7% believe it should be abolished."

The pressure group Republic, which campaigns for a republic in the United Kingdom, was formed in 1983. In 1991, Labour MP Tony Benn introduced the Commonwealth of Britain Bill, which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected president. The monarchy would be abolished and replaced by a republic with a written constitution. It was read in Parliament a number of times until his retirement at the 2001 election, but never achieved a second reading. Benn presented an account of his proposal in Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain.

In January 1997, ITV broadcast a live television debate Monarchy: The Nation Decides, in which 2.5 million viewers voted on the question "Do you want a monarch?" by telephone. Speaking for the republican view were Professor Stephen Haseler, (chairman of Republic), agony aunt Claire Rayner, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West and Andrew Neil, then the former editor of The Sunday Times. Those in favour of the monarchy included author Frederick Forsyth, Bernie Grant, Labour MP for Tottenham, and Jeffrey Archer, former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Conservative MP Steven Norris was scheduled to appear in a discussion towards the end of the programme, but officials from Carlton Television said he had left without explanation. The debate was conducted in front of an audience of 3,000 at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, with the telephone poll result being that 66% of voters wanted a monarch, and 34% did not.

At the annual State Opening of Parliament, MPs are summoned to the House of Lords for the Queen's Speech. From the 1990s until the 2010s, republican MP Dennis Skinner regularly made a retort to Black Rod, the official who commands the House of Commons to attend the speech. Skinner had previously remained in the Commons for the speech.

Polling results suggest that a large majority of Britons were in favour of the monarchy during the 1990s and 2000s, with support mostly ranging from 70% to 74%, and never falling below 65%.

21st-century republicanism
MORI polls in the opening years of the 21st century showed that over 70% of the public supported retaining the monarchy, but in 2005, at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped, with one poll showing that 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, and 22% saying they favoured a republic. In a 2006 feature marking the Queen's 80th birthday, Time magazine quoted MORI founder Robert Worcester on this issue, who called it "the most stable measure in British polling".

In 2009, an ICM poll, commissioned by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the reign of the Queen, while 18% of people said they would favour Britain becoming a republic, and 6% said they did not know.

Support for the monarchy appeared to strengthen in the early to mid-2010s, when the Queen celebrated her Diamond Jubilee, and her grandson, who was second in line to the throne, got married in a ceremony broadcast on live television; both events were marked by public bank holidays. Most polls during this period suggesting that between 75% and 80% (and all suggesting at least 69%) of the public were in favour of the monarchy. In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after the Queen's death at 13%, if Prince Charles became king.

However, an ICM poll shortly before the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on 29 April 2011 suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding. The same month, an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,000 British adults found that 75% of the public would like Britain to remain a monarchy, with 18% in favour of Britain becoming a republic.

In May 2012, in the lead up to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,006 British adults found that 80% were in favour of the monarchy, with 13% in favour of the United Kingdom becoming a republic. This was thought to be a record-high figure in recent years in favour of the monarchy.

Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour MP with republican views, won his party's leadership election in September 2015, thus becoming Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party. In 1991, Corbyn had seconded the Commonwealth of Britain Bill. However, Corbyn stated during his 2015 campaign for the leadership that republicanism was "not a battle that I am fighting".

At the swearing of oaths in the Commons following the 2017 general election, Republic reported that several MPs had prefixed their parliamentary oath of allegiance with broadly republican sentiments, such as a statement referring to their constituents, rather than the Queen. If an MP does not take the oath or the affirmation to the monarch, they will not be able to take part in parliamentary proceedings or paid any salary and allowances until they have done so. Such MPs included Richard Burgon, Laura Pidcock, Dennis Skinner, Chris Williamson, Paul Flynn, Jeff Smith, and Emma Dent Coad. Roger Godsiff and Alex Sobel also expressed sympathy for an oath to their constituents.

The level of support for the monarchy has declined in recent years. , the last published poll in which over 70% favoured the monarchy was in 2019. The proportion favouring a republic has slightly increased at the same time, but has consistently remained a less popular position than maintaining the monarchy. Support for republicanism in Britain has ranged from 13% to 34% since the 1990s, with the figure generally remaining above 20% in the early 2020s. The monarchy is somewhat less popular among Black British groups, British Asians, and younger Britons (those under 35); these demographic groups are generally more in favour of a republic.

In May 2021, a YouGov poll showed reduced support for the monarchy, with 61% in favour and 24% against among all over-18s; there was a particularly high rise in republican views and an overall plurality for its replacement with an elected head of state in the 18–24 age group (41%–31%). The poll also suggested significant reductions in support for the monarchy in 25–49-year olds, and a slight fall in support among over 65s.

In May 2022, ahead of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, another YouGov poll showed that only 31% of 18–24-year olds were in favour of the monarchy, compared to 66% of the population as a whole. Four months later, in the wake of the Queen's death, this figure stood firm at 67%. However, it has not reached this level since then, and two Savanta polls since King Charles III succeeded his mother have shown support for a republic at over 30%. Aside from a 2022 Byline Times poll (which did not include "Don't know" as an option), these are the first opinion poll results to give figures of over 30% in favour of a republic.

In April 2023, YouGov polling found that less than one third of 18 to 24-year-olds were in favour of the monarchy, compared to 78% of over-65s. The anti-monarchy campaign group Republic reported a doubling of its membership since the Coronation of King Charles III that May, whilst its income had substantially increased. Commenting in November that year, chief executive Graham Smith said, "In 2020, our income was £106,000. It was £172,000 the next year; last year it was £286,000. On the death of the queen, we had £70,000 in donations that month. This year, income is hitting £560,000."

In a January 2024 poll conducted by Savanta, support for the monarchy stood at 48%, when respondents were asked "What would you prefer for the UK, a monarchy or an elected head of state?". This was the first time the figure preferring a monarchy had been below 50% since published opinion polling on the topic had begun.

Protests
Protests against the monarchy of King Charles III have expressed and included blank pieces of paper, heckling during royal processions involving Prince Andrew, and egging attempts.

A major protest was planned by Republic for the Coronation of King Charles III in May 2023. However, on the day of the event, Republic CEO Graham Smith and five others were arrested by police. They were held for over 15 hours, before being released.

The Metropolitan Police later expressed "regret" over these arrests, and confirmed that no further action would be taken. This was in spite of Republic having been in discussion with the police about the protests for months beforehand.

Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed said, "This is something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London." Hundreds of protesters assembled in central London that day; it was also reported that 300 people had gathered in Cardiff to protest.

A subsequent ceremony in Edinburgh marking the coronation was targeted by republican protesters, led by Patrick Harvie, the co-leader of Scottish Greens and a Scottish Government minister. Chants of "not my king" could be heard inside the venue for the event, which took place in July 2023.

In September 2023, republican activists staged what was called the "first-ever" protest inside Buckingham Palace. In a photo released by Republic, protestors wore T-shirts spelling out "Not My King." In a statement, Republic said "The protest is the latest in a series of actions aimed at pushing forward the debate about the future of the monarchy". They said that six of the activists had been briefly detained by security, before being escorted out of the front gate.

The State Opening of Parliament in November 2023, the first by a king in over 70 years, was also met with protests by republicans, who booed King Charles as he arrived. It was later reported that Charles had waved to them from his carriage.

Supporters of republicanism in the United Kingdom
A number of prominent individuals in the United Kingdom advocate republicanism.

Political parties
, the Green Party of England and Wales, with four MPs in Parliament since 2024, has an official policy of republicanism. The Scottish Greens, with eight MSPs in the 2021–2026 Scottish Parliament, support having an elected head of state in an independent Scotland. The Irish republican party Sinn Féin has seven MPs, but they do not take their UK parliamentary seats as a rejection of UK authority in Northern Ireland.

The Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democrats do not have an official policy of republicanism. The Scottish National Party, which supports Scottish independence, also does not have an official policy of republicanism, and instead favours making a decision on the head of state of an independent Scotland only after independence is attained in itself.

Labour for a Republic is a republican pressure group of Labour Party members and supporters, founded by Labour activist Ken Ritchie in May 2011. It held its first meeting in 2012. It has since held meetings, other informal meetings, and appeared in the media on a few occasions. As of September 2022, its chairman is Nick Wall. The organisation held an event at the Labour Party's annual conference on 25 September 2022, which attracted large crowds, and included The Guardian's columnist Polly Toynbee, author Paul Richards, and expert in constitutional law Dr Adam Tucker as panellists.

In response to the Labour Party's decision to sing "God Save the King" at the conference, panellists and those who attended the event said they did not want to see it booed or heckled. It was reported that the singing was not disrupted, and that the minute of silence for the recent death of Elizabeth II was observed without failure. In 2023, the Labour Party added pro-republic campaign group Republic to a list of organisations which local party branches were no longer able to affiliate with.

It is rare for a high-profile British politician to identify with republicanism, even among those who campaigned for a republic earlier in their careers. Former UK prime minister Liz Truss was an advocate of republicanism prior to becoming a Conservative MP. Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer was, at an earlier time in his career, also on record as a republican, but no longer identifies as one. His predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, although an avowed left-winger, also stressed that his personal support for republicanism would not influence his policy agenda. The former First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024, Humza Yousaf, is a republican.

Republic
The largest lobby group in favour of republicanism in the United Kingdom is the Republic campaign group, founded in 1983. The group has benefited from occasional negative publicity about the Royal Family, and Republic reported a large rise in membership following the wedding of then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Republic has lobbied on changes to the parliamentary oath of allegiance, royal finances and changes to the Freedom of Information Act relating to the monarchy, none of which have produced any change. However, Republic has been invited to Parliament to talk as witnesses on certain issues related to the monarchy, such as conduct of the honours system in the United Kingdom.

In 2009, Republic made news by reporting Prince Charles's architecture charity to the Charity Commission, claiming that the Prince was effectively using the organisation as a private lobbying firm (the Commission declined to take the matter further). Republic has previously broken stories about royals using the Freedom of Information Act.

Media
Newspapers and magazines such as The Guardian, The Observer, The Economist and The Independent have all advocated the abolition of the monarchy. In the wake of the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal, a poll of readers of The Guardian and The Observer placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority. The online magazine Spiked also supports republicanism.

British Social Attitudes survey
The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) has collected survey data on public attitudes towards the UK's Monarchy since 1983, when the British Social Attitudes Survey first asked about this, with the question "How important or unimportant do you think it is for Britain to continue to have a monarchy: very important, quite important, not very important, not at all important, or, do you think the monarchy should be abolished?" Results for the latter answer between 1983 and 2012 ranged from 3% to 11%.

Since then, the results suggest a long-term decline in support for the institution, with 2023 survey data showing the number of people who said the monarchy was "very important" falling to 29%, an all-time low. 26% said it was "quite important", making a combined total of 55% believing it was important. This total stood at 54% in the data released a year later, in April 2024. Gillian Prior, deputy chief executive at the National Centre for Social Research, said: "NatCen has been collecting data on the public's attitudes towards the monarchy for over 40 years, and it is clear we are observing a downward trend in support for the monarchy."

Graphical summary
The chart below shows opinion polls conducted about whether the United Kingdom should become a republic. The trend lines are local regressions (LOESS).

Poll results
The following table includes all known published polls in which the general public in the UK or Great Britain are asked for their preference on the future of the monarchy. Generally, the question revolves around whether they support the continuation of the monarchy or its abolition (regardless of a republic being specified). The question has been framed in different ways: some polling companies have asked whether respondents prefer a monarchy or an elected head of state.

Arguments
The public debate around republicanism has centred around the core republican argument that a republic is more democratic and compatible with the notion of popular sovereignty. The advocacy group Republic argues that: "The monarchy is an unaccountable, expensive and outdated institution, it is unrepresentative of modern Britain, and it also gives politicians significant unchecked powers. It does this is in a variety of ways:
 * Royal prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister to declare war or deploy the armed forces without Parliamentary scrutiny.
 * The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians.
 * The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle essentially states that the Monarch's sovereignty is exercised through Parliament, giving rise to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, in effect meaning that Parliament has near limitless power."

The primarily anti-republican defence is that there is nothing in a republic that is inherently more democratic compared to a constitutional monarchy, as both forms of government are based on parliamentarianism and constitutionalism, and that traditional institutions have confirmed the citizens as sovereign beings. It has been previously thought, mainly during the Victorian period that the UK is already essentially a republic, and the phrase 'crowned republic' has been used to refer it accordingly.

In favour of a republic

 * More democratic: Republicans argue that monarchy devalues a parliamentary system insofar monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.

It is further argued that monarchy contradicts democracy insofar it denies the people a basic right: Republicans believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a better nation.

 * Fairer and less elitist; does not demand deference: Republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. It is argued that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family or their representatives, is part of an attempt to keep subjects "in their place". Such a system, they assert, does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a "modern nation". Some claim that maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens. Further, republicans argue that "the people", not the members of one family, should be sovereign.
 * Based on merit and arouses aspiration: The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.

Further, republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include Elizabeth II's honorary military positions as colonel-in-chief, irrespective of her military experience. There is debate over the roles which the members of the monarchy have played in the military; many doubt that members of the Royal Family have served on the front line on the same basis as other members of the Armed Forces. Examples here include Prince Andrew, whose presence during the Falklands War was later criticised by the commander of the British Naval Force who stated that "special measures" had to be taken to ensure that the prince did not lose his life. It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise than military service.

 * Compatible with a multiracial and multicultural society: Some critics have argued that the monarchy of the United Kingdom is incompatible with the multiracial and multicultural British society of the 21st century. The campaigner Peter Tatchell argues that the institution of the British monarchy is unintentionally a racist institution due to a non-white person being unable to become head of state for the foreseeable future. Thus, a monarchy would not be able to provide the same levels of opportunity as a republic in regards to enabling British citizens irrespective of their background to become the UK head of state. Kehinde Andrews argues that the British monarchy is irreparably racist. It is, in Andrews' view, an institution intimately linked to the colonial past, and is therefore "one of the most powerful symbols of Whiteness and colonial nostalgia". He considers the popularity of the monarchy to be a barrier to white Britons confronting their imperialist past. He also argues that the marriage into the Royal Family of the biracial Meghan Markle, and the allegedly racist reaction to it in the British press, does not represent a reflection of the diversity of modern Britain, and is "perfectly explicable in terms of the racist status quo".
 * Does not impose a state religion: The Church of England is an established church, and the British Sovereign is the titular Supreme Governor. The church is tax exempt and provides the House of Lords in Parliament with 26 unelected bishops as its representatives. On the royal coat of arms is the motto in Dieu et mon droit (God and my right). The movement to end the Church of England's status as the state church of the United Kingdom is known as disestablishmentarianism. A country which does not have a state religion is known as a secular state.
 * Does less harm to those who would be monarchs: Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.
 * Favours accountability and impartiality: Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. The UK monarch benefits from sovereign immunity and cannot be arrested. As of 2022, there were more than 160 laws granting express immunity to the monarch or their property in some respects. For instance, employees of the monarchy cannot pursue anti-discrimination complaints such as those under the Equality Act 2010. The monarchy is exempt from numerous other workers' rights, health and safety, or pensions laws. Republicans also argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles spoke and acted in ways that were widely interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of the black spider memos, which were released following freedom of information litigation, regarding how people achieve their positions.
 * Costs less: Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill and lost rental income from palaces and state-owned land) of the monarchy are £345 million per annum. The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in the UK around 62p a year. Republicans also argue that the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Although monarchists argue that this does not take into account the "hereditary revenues" which generated £190.8 million for the treasury in 2007–2008, the advocacy group Republic assert that the Crown Estate, from which these revenues are derived, is national and State property, and that the monarch cannot surrender what they have never owned. The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4 million, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. In addition, there are additional costs. For example, the monarch is exempt from numerous taxes, including inheritance tax, although Queen Elizabeth II did pay some taxes voluntarily. Large events for the royal family can also involve substantial taxpayer support.  In 2022, the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II was estimated to have cost £192m, whilst media estimates for the Coronation ceremony for King Charles III in 2023 have ranged from £50m to more than £100m.
 * Would make the country not appear "backward": Republicans argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, with a history linked to colonialism and slavery, and whilst the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.
 * The monarchy is out of touch with the public: It is argued that the monarchy with its vast wealth and luxurious assets (such as Charles III having numerous royal residences, including palaces, castles and estates ) is not in touch with the lives of its everyday people, such as those suffering from the cost of living crisis.
 * The monarchy represents the idea of superiority due to blood lineage: The institution of monarchy exemplifies and pushes the myth that some people are superior to others due to genetics and ancestry.

In favour of a constitutional monarchy

 * Provides a focal point for unity and tradition: Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor justifies monarchy on the grounds that it provides for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the head of government, and thus ensures that the highest representative of the country, at home and internationally, does not represent a particular political party, but all people.

According to Bogdanor, monarchies can play a helpful unifying role in a multinational state, noting that "In Belgium, it is sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon" and that the British sovereign can belong to all of the UK's constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), without belonging to any particular one of them.

 * Helps avoid extreme politics: British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney argues that European constitutional monarchies "have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics" – specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship – "in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians" by representing entrenched customs and traditions. Feeny notes that, "European monarchies – such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British – have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world." Earlier, in 1956, Iain Moncreiffe and Don Pottinger made a similar argument, writing that, "Such countries achieve a national stability of special value in times of extremist party strife – because the monarch has never been elected. Nobody has ever had to take sides to vote for or against him, and so the constitutional monarch provides a symbol of unity above and outside politics."
 * Does not cost more than a republic would: Some argue that if there were a republic, the costs incurred in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill"). However, the figure of 69p per person has been criticised for having been calculated by dividing the overall figure by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.
 * Arose from disillusionment with a failed republic: A republican government under the Commonwealth of England and then the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649. Yet by February 1657 some people argued that Cromwell should assume the Crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent. He declined and within three years of his death the Commonwealth had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of James II and VII, Parliament and others, such as John Locke argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers.

title: Republicanism in the United Kingdom


text:
Monmouth (disambiguation)

Monmouth is a town in Wales.

Monmouth may also refer to:

Australia

 * Monmouth Land District, Tasmania
 * Electoral district of Monmouth, Tasmania
 * Electoral division of Monmouth, Tasmania

Canada

 * Monmouth Mountain, in British Columbia

United Kingdom

 * Monmouth (Senedd constituency)
 * Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency)

United States

 * Monmouth (Natchez, Mississippi), a historic home
 * Monmouth, California
 * Monmouth, Illinois
 * Monmouth, Indiana
 * Monmouth, Iowa
 * Monmouth, Kansas
 * Monmouth, Maine
 * Monmouth, Oregon
 * Monmouth Beach, New Jersey
 * Monmouth County, New Jersey
 * Monmouth Township (disambiguation)
 * Fort Monmouth, a former United States Army post commemorating the 1778 battle

People

 * Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 1095 – c. 1155), wrote Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain)
 * Thomas of Monmouth, 12th-century Benedictine monk
 * James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (1649–1685), illegitimate son of Charles II
 * Earl of Monmouth, a title created twice in the Peerage of England

Schools

 * Monmouth Academy (Maine), U.S.
 * Monmouth Academy (New Jersey), U.S.
 * Monmouth College, in Monmouth, Illinois, U.S.
 * Monmouth School for Boys, Wales
 * Monmouth University, formerly Monmouth College, in New Jersey, U.S.

Other uses

 * HMS Monmouth, the name of several ships

title: Monmouth (disambiguation)


text:
The Dream of the Rood

The Dream of the Rood is one of the Christian poems in the corpus of Old English literature and an example of the genre of dream poetry. Like most Old English poetry, it is written in alliterative verse. Rood is from the Old English word rōd 'pole', or more specifically 'crucifix'. Preserved in the 10th-century Vercelli Book, the poem may be as old as the 8th-century Ruthwell Cross, and is considered one of the oldest works of Old English literature.

Synopsis
The poem is set up with the narrator having a dream. In this dream or vision he is speaking to the Cross on which Jesus was crucified. The poem itself is divided up into three separate sections: the first part (ll. 1–27), the second part (ll. 28–121) and the third part (ll. 122–156). In section one, the narrator has a vision of the Cross. Initially when the dreamer sees the Cross, he notes how it is covered with gems. He is aware of how wretched he is compared to how glorious the tree is. However, he comes to see that amidst the beautiful stones it is stained with blood. In section two, the Cross shares its account of Jesus' death. The Crucifixion story is told from the perspective of the Cross. It begins with the enemy coming to cut the tree down and carrying it away. The tree learns that it is not to be the bearer of a criminal, but instead Christ crucified. The Lord and the Cross become one, and they stand together as victors, refusing to fall, taking on insurmountable pain for the sake of mankind. It is not just Christ, but the Cross as well that is pierced with nails. Adelhied L. J. Thieme remarks, "The cross itself is portrayed as his lord's retainer whose most outstanding characteristic is that of unwavering loyalty". The Rood and Christ are one in the portrayal of the Passion—they are both pierced with nails, mocked and tortured. Then, just as with Christ, the Cross is resurrected, and adorned with gold and silver. It is honoured above all trees just as Jesus is honoured above all men. The Cross then charges the visionary to share all that he has seen with others. In section three, the author gives his reflections about this vision. The vision ends, and the man is left with his thoughts. He gives praise to God for what he has seen and is filled with hope for eternal life and his desire to once again be near the glorious Cross.

Structure
There are various, alternative readings of the structure of the poem, given the many components of the poem and the lack of clear divisions. Scholars like Faith H. Patten divide the poem into three parts, based on who is speaking: Introductory Section (lines 1–26), Speech of the Cross (lines 28–121), and Closing Section (lines 122–156). Though the most obvious way to divide the poem, this does not take into account thematic unity or differences in tone. Constance B. Hieatt distinguishes between portions of the Cross's speech based on speaker, subject, and verbal parallels, resulting in: Prologue (lines 1–27), Vision I (lines 28–77): history of the Rood, Vision II (lines 78–94): explanation of the Rood's glory, Vision III (lines 95–121): the Rood's message to mankind, and Epilogue (lines 122–156). M. I. Del Mastro suggests the image of concentric circles, similar to a chiasmus, repetitive and reflective of the increased importance in the center: the narrator-dreamer's circle (lines 1–27), the rood's circle (lines 28–38), Christ's circle (lines 39-73a), the rood's circle (lines 73b-121), and the narrator-dreamer's circle (lines 122–156).

Manuscript
The Dream of the Rood survives in the Vercelli Book, so called because the manuscript is now in the Italian city of Vercelli. The Vercelli Book, which can be dated to the 10th century, includes twenty-three homilies interspersed with six religious poems: The Dream of the Rood, Andreas, The Fates of the Apostles, Soul and Body, Elene and a poetic, homiletic fragment.

Sources and analogues
A part of The Dream of the Rood can be found on the eighth-century Ruthwell Cross, which is an 18 ft, free-standing Anglo-Saxon cross that was perhaps intended as a 'conversion tool'. At each side of the vine-tracery are carved runes. There is an excerpt on the cross that was written in runes along with scenes from the Gospels, lives of saints, images of Jesus healing the blind, the Annunciation, and the story of Egypt, as well as Latin antiphons and decorative scroll-work. Although it was torn down after the Scottish Reformation, it was possible to mostly reconstruct it in the 19th century. Recent scholarly thinking about the cross tends to see the runes as a later addition to an existing monument with images.

A similar representation of the Cross is also present in Riddle 9 by the eighth-century Anglo-Saxon writer Tatwine. Tatwine's riddle reads:

"Now I appear iridescent; my form is shining now. Once, because of the law, I was a spectral terror to all slaves; but now the whole earth joyfully worships and adorns me. Whoever enjoys my fruit will immediately be well, for I was given the power to bring health to the unhealthy. Thus a wise man chooses to keep me on his forehead."

Possible authorship
The author of The Dream of the Rood is unknown. Moreover, it is possible that the poem as it stands is the work of multiple authors. The approximate eighth-century date of the Ruthwell Cross indicates the earliest likely date and Northern circulation of some version of The Dream of the Rood.

Nineteenth-century scholars tried to attribute the poem to the few named Old English poets. Daniel H. Haigh argued that the inscription of the Ruthwell Cross must be fragments of a lost poem by Cædmon, portrayed in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People as the first Christian English poet, stating "On this monument, erected about A.D. 665, we have fragments of a religious poem of very high character, and that there was but one man living in England at that time worthy to be named as a religious poet, and that was Caedmon". Likewise, George Stephens contended that the language and structure of The Dream of the Rood indicated a seventh-century date. Supposing that the only Christian poet before Bede was Cædmon, Stephens argued that Cædmon must have composed The Dream of the Rood. Furthermore, he claimed that the Ruthwell Cross includes a runic inscription that can be interpreted as saying "Caedmon made me". These ideas are no longer accepted by scholars.

Likewise, some scholars have tried to attribute The Dream of the Rood to Cynewulf, a named Old English poet who lived around the ninth century. Two of Cynewulf's signed poems are found in the Vercelli Book, the manuscript that contains The Dream of the Rood, among them Elene, which is about Saint Helena's supposed discovery of the cross on which Jesus was crucified. Thus Franz Dietrich argued that the similarities between Cynewulf's Elene and The Dream of the Rood reveal that the two must have been authored by the same individual. Again, however, this attribution is not widely accepted.

In a series of papers, Leonard Neidorf has adduced metrical, lexical, and syntactical evidence in support of a theory of composite authorship for The Dream of the Rood. He maintains that the poem contains contributions from at least two different poets, who had distinct compositional styles.

Paganism and Christianity
Like many poems of the Anglo-Saxon period, The Dream of the Rood exhibits many Christian and pre-Christian images, but in the end is a Christian piece. Examining the poem as a pre-Christian (or pagan) text is difficult, as the scribes who wrote it down were Christian monks who lived in a time when Christianity was firmly established (at least among the literate and aristocratic population) in early medieval England. The style and form of Old English literary practices can be identified in the poem's use of a complex, echoing structure, allusions, repetition, verbal parallels, ambiguity and wordplay (as in the Riddles), and the language of heroic poetry and elegy.

Some scholars have argued that there is a prevalence of pagan elements within the poem, claiming that the idea of a talking tree is animistic. The belief in the spiritual nature of natural objects, it has been argued, recognises the tree as an object of worship. In Heathen Gods in Old English Literature, Richard North stresses the importance of the sacrifice of the tree in accordance with pagan virtues. He states that "the image of Christ's death was constructed in this poem with reference to an Anglian ideology on the world tree". North suggests that the author of The Dream of the Rood "uses the language of this myth of Ingui in order to present the Passion to his newly Christianized countrymen as a story from their native tradition". Furthermore, the tree's triumph over death is celebrated by adorning the cross with gold and jewels. Work of the period is notable for its synthetic employment of 'Pagan' and 'Christian' imagery as can be seen on the Franks Casket or the Kirkby Stephen cross shaft which appears to conflate the image of Christ crucified with that of Woden/Odin bound upon the Tree of Life. Others have read the poem's blend of Christian themes with the heroic conventions as an Anglo-Saxon embrace and re-imagining, rather than conquest, of Christianity.

The poem may be viewed as both Christian and pre-Christian. Bruce Mitchell notes that The Dream of the Rood is "the central literary document for understanding [the] resolution of competing cultures which was the presiding concern of the Christian Anglo-Saxons". Within the single culture of the Anglo-Saxons is the conflicting Germanic heroic tradition and the Christian doctrine of forgiveness and self-sacrifice, the influences of which are readily seen in the poetry of the period. Thus, for instance, in The Dream of the Rood, Christ is presented as a "heroic warrior, eagerly leaping on the Cross to do battle with death; the Cross is a loyal retainer who is painfully and paradoxically forced to participate in his Lord's execution". Christ can also be seen as "an Anglo-Saxon warrior lord, who is served by his thanes, especially on the cross and who rewards them at the feast of glory in Heaven". Thus, the crucifixion of Christ is a victory, because Christ could have fought His enemies, but chose to die. John Canuteson believes that the poem "show[s] Christ's willingness, indeed His eagerness, to embrace His fate, [and] it also reveals the physical details of what happens to a man, rather than a god, on the Cross". This image of Christ as a 'heroic lord' or a 'heroic warrior' is seen frequently in Anglo-Saxon (and Germanic) literature and follows in line with the theme of understanding Christianity through pre-Christian Germanic tradition. In this way, "the poem resolves not only the pagan-Christian tensions within Anglo-Saxon culture but also current doctrinal discussions concerning the nature of Christ, who was both God and man, both human and divine".

Christ as warrior
J. A. Burrow notes an interesting paradox within the poem in how the Cross is set up to be the way to Salvation: the Cross states that it cannot fall and it must stay strong to fulfill the will of God. However, to fulfill this grace of God, the Cross has to be a critical component in Jesus' death. This puts a whole new light on the actions of Jesus during the Crucifixion. Neither Jesus nor the Cross is given the role of the helpless victim in the poem, but instead both stand firm. The Cross says, Jesus is depicted as the strong conqueror and is made to appear a "heroic German lord, one who dies to save his troops". Instead of accepting crucifixion, he 'embraces' the Cross and takes on all the sins of mankind.

Mary Dockray-Miller argues that the sexual imagery identified by Faith Patten, discussed below, functions to 'feminize' the Cross in order for it to mirror the heightened masculinity of the warrior Christ in the poem.

Sexualised and gendered language
Faith Patten identified 'sexual imagery' in the poem between the Cross and the Christ figure, noting in particular lines 39–42, when Christ embraces the Cross after having 'unclothed himself' and leapt onto it. This interpretation was expanded upon by John Canuteson, who argued that this embrace is a 'logical extension of the implications of the marriage of Christ and the Church', and that it becomes 'a kind of marriage consummation' in the poem.

Parallels with penance
Rebecca Hinton identifies the resemblance of the poem to early medieval Irish sacramental Penance, with the parallels between the concept of sin, the object of confession, and the role of the confessor. She traces the establishment of the practice of Penance in England from Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury from 668 to 690, deriving from the Irish confession philosophy. Within the poem, Hinton reads the dream as a confession of sorts, ending with the narrator invigorated, his "spirit longing to start."

Editions

 * The Dream of the Rood, in the Old English Poetry in Facsimile Project (edition, digital facsimile images, translation), ed. by Martin Foys et al. (Madison: Center for the History of Print and Digital Culture, 2019-).
 * The Dream of the Rood, ed. by Michael Swanton, rev. edn (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1987).
 * The Dream of the Rood , ed. by Bruce Dickins and Alan S. C. Ross, 4th edn (London: Methuen, 1954).
 * 'Dream of the Rood', in The Vercelli Book, ed. by George Philip Krapp, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition, 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), pp. 61–65.

Translations

 * 'The Vision of the Cross', trans. by Ciaran Carson, in The Word Exchange: Anglo-Saxon Poems in Translation, ed. by Greg Delanty and Michael Matto (New York and London: Norton, 2011), pp. 366–77.
 * 'The Dream of the Rood', trans. by R. M. Liuzza, in The Broadview Anthology of British Literature, Volume 1: The Medieval Period, ed. by Joseph Black and others (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2006), pp. 23–25.
 * 'The Dream of the Rood', in Old and Middle English c. 890-c. 1400: An Anthology, ed. and trans. by Elaine Treharne, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 108–15
 * 'The Dream of the Rood', in A Choice of Anglo-Saxon Verse, ed. and trans. by Richard Hamer (London: Faber, 1970, ISBN 0571087647
 * The Dream of the Rood, trans. by Jonathan A. Glenn (1982)

Recordings

 * Michael D. C. Drout, 'The Dream of the Rood, lines 1-156', Anglo-Saxon Aloud (4 June 2007).

title: The Dream of the Rood