Madge is 90 today, and I'm wondering if she shouldn't now be our last ceremonial monarch. Hereditary overlords are just so 11th century and I wonder that we wouldn't now be a little more comfortable as a republic.

Having seen both examples, I'm not sure either are better than the other.

No; it's what defines the essence of our race; hanging on to pointless ceremonial things. In the pretend 'Royal' County of Berkshire, we have a Lord Lieutenant and a gaggle of Mayors without any real purpose or authority. We also now have lots of 'just for old time sake' pointless and powerless aristocrats. We award honours from our defunct Empire which still exists in ceremonial form as the Commonwealth, which is another purposeless organisation. So, take out the monarch? Not a chance!

In the event of a 'no' vote; what are the odds to say we'd simply stay in because we'd want to keep our Commissioners 'for ceremonial purposes'?

Stop arguing, you'd look fetching in your public funded fur trimmed overalls set off with a pubic wig!

Having seen the quality of the contestants for the most powerful current republic, I think that a constitutional monarchy might have the edge.

Tony Blair for president!

There is no need for any head of state at all, nor any House of Lords. Like the majority of Northern European states we could do perfectly well with a unicameral system of national government.

Let's just not have a head of state. We have Parliament, and all politicking aside, Parliament is a worthy institution, and we don't need to elevate any individual above it.

I'd suspect the Queen is more popular than Parliament.

I'd expect most pop groups to be more popular than Parliament...

Gonorrhoea is more popular than Parliament.

I suspect that you're more popular than Parliament.

If you have a republic you then would have a political head of state. At least the Queen is neutral and is there by public demand. Just imagine a Blair or Cameron President. I'll stick with the Queen.

I bet you would prefer Corbyn as your leader or head of state? Hail Corbyn and sod the rest!

Not quite:

Not so. Madge is a ceremonial head of state, and the business of government would contine as now if there was no monarch, there'd be no need to replace the monarchy with anything at all.

NZ voted to abolish the monarchy, but kept the concept of the Crown. It works in exactly the way Simon K envisages.

Australia voted to whether keep the monarchy or not, but I didn't know that NZ did as well.

According to the expects you need an over checker (unless you have a constitution). We also mustn't forget that the Monarchy brings a lot of tourism into this country and she is popular.

MacDonalds is very popular, doesn't mean it's good for the Country though.

No, but the Queen is.




I was listening to Ken Livingstone, who is a republic, and he said that he didn't fancy a politician who was head of state.

What, the Peoples Republic of Livingstone? Beyond our Ken I think.

Republicans here I suspect are mostly thinly veiled Marxists just like Tony Benn was.

You don't need to look at monarchy through the prism of dialectical materialism to see that kingship is patently absurd, and if there was any defence of a ceremonial hereditary monarchy in a modern western democracy you should be able to find it without resorting to ill-considered ad hominem.

I suggest if you don't like living in this country as it is, you seriously consider clearing off to Russia. Good riddance.

Britain hating lefties. Not a decent patriot amongst them.

According to m'lord Sugar,

"Under Corbyn, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. His ambition is to drag Britain back to the 1970s - union blackmail and three-day weeks, when our best and brightest were leaving the country in droves. Militants, Trots, anti-Semites and terrorist sympathisers all seem to have been welcomed into Labour with open arms,"

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

What is a 'decent patriot'?

Presumably that ruled out all of the yes campaigners who want to stay with an organisation dedicated to a sovereign Europe. The end game is for any 'Head of State' in Europe to have as much power and influence as the Mayor of Thatcham.

Presumably that goes for all the Brexiters too? Or else you are just being very silly.

No he is serious, only those who do not agree with him need to leave though!

Pardon .

One doesn't have to be a marxist to realise that having a king or queen in a modern western democracy is silly and even if there is a good reason for them, it should be able to be argued without being rude to people.

Do you have any arguments to refute Simon's opinion?

Quite so, but more than that, the political philosophy of Marx - dialectical materialism - is bogus and doesn't even provide a valid framework within which to challenge monarchy. It's true that a Marxist is inevitably going to oppose monarchy, but supposing that a republican is a Marxist is as valid as supposing that my dog is a cat because, like a cat, it also has four legs.

I would like to abandon our ceremonial monarchy because I find it incongruous to think of myself as a feudal subject in an enlightened western democracy and see hereditary overlords as a social order much more suited to the despotic regimes of Daesh and North Korea.

You've really upped the ante from the Town Council and allotments..

It is not s feudal monarchy we live under. It's a constitutional monarchy where the power rests with Parliament - not the Crown.

So your argument starts from a false premise.

Personally I prefer to be a subject of the UK Crown rather than a citizen of the EU

I'm quite content being both.

Yes like I say it's a ceremonial monarchy, but again, like I say, it's not about the technical details but more about how I, and society at large, feels about monarchy and the social order it engenders.

Good job the royals ain't Jewish, otherwise your Labour gangsters would be giving them real grief.

Happy birthday Mrs Windsor.

Check out your locals Simon.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=101...e=3&theater