I just think of them as a sort of living history project. They've fuck all relevance to modern Britain, but they're a link to the nations past. A bit like a sort of National Trust property, although one that has a tendency to get drunk, abuse foreigners and dress up in Nazi gear from time to time.

And, to be fair, you can't really imagine someone like Prince Phil being around in a presidential system. Or Charlie and his obsession with organic farming, at that.

Roll up, roll up! Camilla goes for a paddle on a very British holiday



*Backs away slowly*



I have no idea who this person is, but I bet they're an Express reader

Something about that name and location suggests i could be a pisstake

Fuck me, they'll roast her even if she dared do so much as a fart.

Cetura is a biblical name and Chomedey Laval is in Quebec. Considering she spelled the name of her own town wrong I assume that she's really thick.

Does that mean that in theory, she can overule the decisions made by democratically elected governments in those 16 countries? Sounds rather dictatorial to me. I know she doesn't run around closing down parliament and dismissing elected ministers, but she and other monarchs retains the power to do so. It is only 33 years since the elected Australian prime minister and his government was sacked in the name of the queen (who is sovereign Down Under, too) in a constitutional crisis referred to as The Dismissal. Here, Britain’s Royal Prerogative permits the executive – the cabinet or even just the prime minister – to take action without the backing of parliament, much less by consulting the people. The British monarch has the right to dissolve parliament and to choose any parliamentarian to set up a ruling cabinet. The fact that one unelected person is invested with such extraordinary powers is a massive snub to the idea and practice of popular democracy.

I agree with you that the current monarch, Elizabeth 2 is a wonderful asset to the nation. She's a fantastic spokesman, diplomat, representative (at least ceremonially, thankfully not politically) and she's the kind of nice old lady that you would love to have as your granny. My problem is with the hereditary system which is integral to monarchy. When the queen dies, she will be succeeded by Prince Charles - not on merit, not on ability, certainly not on popular consent - but purely because he is his mother's son and the slobbering dauphin will become the head of state, head of the armed forces and head of the church. When Charles becomes king there will be a big rise in republican sentiment i'm sure. Having a nice, old lady as your ceremonial ruler is ok, but that changes when the crown is on the head of a grumpy, irrational, opinionated, regressive, ugly, middle aged man with no taste in women and an unhealthy obsession with talking to plants. And there is no guarentee one day we may get a real nasty bitch/bastard - another Mary, another King John, purely because of hereditary principle.

Saying they are a tourist attraction is a red herring. The worst thing imaginable is feudalistic hereditary principle cowith celebrity culture. It's like going to North Korea to see statues of Kim il Sung. Think briefly of the national anthem - no mention of the country, it's people, it's culture, it's achievments, it's values - just 'all praise the glorious leader'. Why invoke the power of an imaginary deity to bail out these unelected spongers?

People's main argument against republicanism is 'oh i don't want a politician, i don't want president blair etc'. But at least you get to fucking choose! Why do will still cling on to the idea that greatness follows bloodline. Some of the greatest figures in political history have come from humble backgrounds- Jeffersson, Lincoln, Aneurin Bevan to name a handful.

Another argument is that it costs the same to put up a president in a palace etc as a monarch. This I wholly agree with. I find it very interesting how France famously and violently annihilated it's monarchy for being decadent, distant and ostentatious. Yet the official residence of the Frenchg President is still the Palace of Versailles - the very symbol of pre-revolutionary monarchical opulence, decadence and distance. I'm not saying demolish Versailles or Windsor Castle (purely for their aesthetic quality). Just give the president a more modest, appropriate office for an elected representative.

Nepal very recently deposed it's monarchy and established itself as a republic in what was in my mind, one of the greatest days for democracy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It shows what democracy is all about - having influence over the decisions that affect their lives. But how can a nations people (let alone a proxy-empire of 16 nations) have any real sense of constitutional power when one, unelected person retains the power to dismiss their representatives, declare war and summon and dismiss parliament on a whim?

I was reading it as a 'funny' way of spelling comedy, stand corrected

You just know that these "Diana fans" have lots of wierd candles and crystals hanging in thier bathrooms. Its just one of those hunches.




Which probably wasn't too tricky as the crown prince took care of the other half with his shotgun.

Yeh that'll be prince harry in a few years time

The royalists are in a lather again over a proposal to abolish the Parliamentary oath of allegiance to the queen (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042737/Now-MPs-want-ditch-500-year-oath-allegiance-Queen.html). The passion of the rants is quite remarkable, lots of references to treason



putting people in the Tower or worse



(our monarch? Fuck off. I didn't vote for her.)



and repeated references to the EU for some reason (apparently it's only one short step from getting rid of the oath to becoming part of an EU totalitarian superstate)



My favourites are always the ones where they manage to squeeze in as many of their hates as possible just to be safe



But this is the best:



Did this guy just randomly pull a selection of words out of a dictionary?

Yeah! Bloody mops, probably wielded by Eastern European immigrant cleaners...

Tell me, is there a new definition of treason I am unaware of?

Because while a few hundred years ago it was in fact illegal to agitiate for a republic under the Felony Treason Act, the House of Lords ruled that:

"part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal."

Besides, the case could be made that Parliament is the sovereign in the UK, as most of the previous powers of the monarchy were transferred there. And Parliament represents the people, at least in theory. I'm guessing this is another case of wanting to bring Feudalism back.

It's funny that it's treasonable to wish to remove an oath of allegiance but not treasonable to publish photos of members of the royal family staggering out of night clubs, or articles that speculate about their sex lives.

Let's not forget that the Mail crowd are the ones constantly screeching about how McBroon is "unelected".

Apparently, commanding a majority of MPs in a House of Commons elected under British electoral law gives you no legitimacy whatsoever but questioning an anachronistic oath to a woman born with a silver spoon up her royal backside is treason.

They are absolutely bonkers, the lot of them.