I Love It

[Thracian]

sorry i missed this before but i would just like to pick up on a few points now

firstly you keep insisting that royalty brings in vast amounts of money; diferent studies with different agendas have come up with different conclusions; ie if you want to believe they are good value for money you will find evidence for that but equally you could find the opposite as other studies have found; as i said before it is impossible to quantify and personally i am not that concerned

secondly you refer to countries such as russia and china that may have become worse after; but these countries did not have a democratic structure to maintain order; it would be like any country post revolution ie a power vacuum;

why not use france /canada/ or the usa as examples of countries breaking ties with royalty; the examples you used aren 't representative of all that have adopted a republican style head of state;

the whole concept of royalty is not just a queen and a few princes etc but a whole belief system that some people are born better than others ; and it infiltrates into the whole psyche of the nation ; its only recently the hereditary peers have stopped holding so much sway over our lives

Like I say, the politics of envy. You might believe some people are born better than others but its not filtered into the psyche of the nation cos I for one have never believed such nonsense.

Since when has money been the basis of a man's worth? Some might pretend that's the case and society might encourage that pretence but that is all it is - pretence.

Money can as easily be a curse as a blessing just the same as physical handicap is a challenge to some and a curse to others.

Lots of Americans would love to have a Royal family and are absolutely fascinated with ours.

Furthermore I think mention of the Americans as flagwavers for the Presidential system makes me even more glad that our status quo exists, especially right now.

I don't see why our Royal Family should lose their inheritance any more than anyone else because I believe everyone should benefit from their opportunities and no-one should be forced to lose theirs (unless they criminally forfeit such opportunity).

Nor do I generally see too much wrong with the opportunities which exist for young people in our country certainly compared with other countries which hardly suggests the need for a major constitutional upheaval.

And are you really trying to convince me that someone like President Blair would be an improvement?. The antidote to the Royal Family and hereditary wealth and privilege? I don''t see Blair or his wife as being keen to embrace life among the have nots. Do you?

Perhaps we could take a modified leaf out of the medical profession's book and suggest he take the Hypocritic Oath before starting his, presumably, lifetime term of office!.

I mention China and Russia because they represent what a republic can be like and they are not the only ones or even necessarily the worst right now.

And why if the Communist Republic of China is so marvellous, but suffering from a power vacuum, do they need to spend so much time pretending to have what they describe as "democratic" elections where virtually all the candidates have to be Communist Party members?. Some demoncratic structure they are building.

China has relentlessly brainwashed its people over generations and why do you think they now need such a new approach to be taken in the countryside masquerading under the banner of democracy.

Because, ironically, the Communists now see the Capitalism they have previously decried as the main chance and country dwellers are pissed off that all the benefits are going to people in the big Cities - and in particular the Communist Party members who one would think (at least from the Party doctrine ) might be keen to use those benefits on behalf of the people instead of their own pockets.

And Russia. How do oilograrths get quick millions simply from bank interest in a Presidential Communist Republic which supposedly believes that wealth should be fairly distributed for the greater good?.

Such examples simply serve as a definition of hypocrisy and an example of how mankind seems incapable of replacing one imperfect system with another which is genuinely fair and selfless.

I seem to recall Russia murdered their Royal family for a new tomorrow. And where is all the Romanovs old money and the new money from Russia's oil and gas?. Is it being fairly distributed and used to benefit the people?

Not from what I have heard and read but Chelsea seem to be doing okay.

Roman....Romanov?. Was it really worth Russia ridding themselves of a Royal family just so two letters can be changed in the name of one of the new blokes spending the money?.

You've a long way to go before you'll convince me to believe in throwing over what we have for something which has hardly shone like a beacon of light elsewhere...and certainly not, as you mention, in the presently troubled cities of France.

But then I don't envy anyone and I don't covet money. I believe there are as many problems as benefits to being the Queen, the Princes and their wives, girlfriends, family members.

They can keep their money and I'll keep my freedom, thanks.

[macbeth]

Like I say, the politics of envy. You might believe some people are born better than others but its not filtered into the psyche of the nation cos I for one have never believed such nonsense.

Since when has money been the basis of a man's worth? Some might pretend that's the case and society might encourage that pretence but that is all it is - pretence.

Money can as easily be a curse as a blessing just the same as physical handicap is a challenge to some and a curse to others.

Lots of Americans would love to have a Royal family and are absolutely fascinated with ours.

Furthermore I think mention of the Americans as flagwavers for the Presidential system makes me even more glad that our status quo exists, especially right now.

I don't see why our Royal Family should lose their inheritance any more than anyone else because I believe everyone should benefit from their opportunities and no-one should be forced to lose theirs (unless they criminally forfeit such opportunity).

Nor do I generally see too much wrong with the opportunities which exist for young people in our country certainly compared with other countries which hardly suggests the need for a major constitutional upheaval.

And are you really trying to convince me that someone like President Blair would be an improvement?. The antidote to the Royal Family and hereditary wealth and privilege? I don''t see Blair or his wife as being keen to embrace life among the have nots. Do you?

Perhaps we could take a modified leaf out of the medical profession's book and suggest he take the Hypocritic Oath before starting his, presumably, lifetime term of office!.

I mention China and Russia because they represent what a republic can be like and they are not the only ones or even necessarily the worst right now.

And why if the Communist Republic of China is so marvellous, but suffering from a power vacuum, do they need to spend so much time pretending to have what they describe as "democratic" elections where virtually all the candidates have to be Communist Party members?. Some demoncratic structure they are building.

China has relentlessly brainwashed its people over generations and why do you think they now need such a new approach to be taken in the countryside masquerading under the banner of democracy.

Because, ironically, the Communists now see the Capitalism they have previously decried as the main chance and country dwellers are pissed off that all the benefits are going to people in the big Cities - and in particular the Communist Party members who one would think (at least from the Party doctrine ) might be keen to use those benefits on behalf of the people instead of their own pockets.

And Russia. How do oilograrths get quick millions simply from bank interest in a Presidential Communist Republic which supposedly believes that wealth should be fairly distributed for the greater good?.

Such examples simply serve as a definition of hypocrisy and an example of how mankind seems incapable of replacing one imperfect system with another which is genuinely fair and selfless.

I seem to recall Russia murdered their Royal family for a new tomorrow. And where is all the Romanovs old money and the new money from Russia's oil and gas?. Is it being fairly distributed and used to benefit the people?

Not from what I have heard and read but Chelsea seem to be doing okay.

Roman....Romanov?. Was it really worth Russia ridding themselves of a Royal family just so two letters can be changed in the name of one of the new blokes spending the money?.

You've a long way to go before you'll convince me to believe in throwing over what we have for something which has hardly shone like a beacon of light elsewhere...and certainly not, as you mention, in the presently troubled cities of France.

But then I don't envy anyone and I don't covet money. I believe there are as many problems as benefits to being the Queen, the Princes and their wives, girlfriends, family members.

They can keep their money and I'll keep my freedom, thanks.

very well put ; and i'm sure you will never be convinced by me; just as i wont by you ; i think its a bit like believing in god ;you either do or don't and very little in the way of reason will change a persons mindset; as i said before you keep refering to worst case scenarios that do not reflect the case as it would be in a republican UK ; ok so you may have read tendentious accounts of how china /russia is so much worse now but remember this ; things must have been pretty bad before for the nation to rise up against the tyranny; former benefactors of the previous regimes will of course have a jaundiced eye.

i am sure after any change or power shift you will find dissenters who very well may be able to point at short term inadequacies of the new,

as for financial benefits i note now that you have taken a higher moral stance whereas originally that seemed to be the basis of your argument ie they were wealth creators ;

and i will repeat once again the basic tenet of my argument is nothing more than a belief in a true "equality of opportunity " and i can't think of a greater symbol of inequality of opportunity than a family born with an enormous amount of influence of power

people can inherit wealth; but nothing will convince me that anyone should have the right to inherited power or position as i said before if you were to make an analogy of the young beckham lad being given the future england captains job purely on birthright it would be clearly risible but you are quite prepared to hand over power and influence over the nation in such a fashion

as a small footnote though i have enjoyed this discussion with you p.s cant you start a thread on general chat i keep forgetting where this conversation is.

[crazy horse]

quote thracian; Like I say, the politics of envy. You might believe some people are born better than others but its not filtered into the psyche of the nation cos I for one have never believed such nonsense.

thracian; your opening sentence was totally illogical if as you say that you are a supporter of the monarchy; how can you state that you dont believe people are born better than others when you want the continuance of monarchy ; the very symbol divine given priviledge ;

surely the whole idea of a monarchy is built on an hereditary principle ; you support an institution that you state represents ideals that are anathema to you

and dont be fooled into thinking americans are in the least jealous of your kings and queens ;they are a quaint little joke to us; an anachronism if you like; you may well hear of americans who love the queen but they probably are the ones that bellieve elvis lives ; sorry to disappoint you ; wherever americans are in the world great respect is given to that nations traditions but it sure as hell dont mean we want them ; i was in germany recently and waxed lyrical to the locals in their lederhosen but it stops at that; just respect and enjoyment of different cultures

please dont use the old rhetoric of "politics of envy" line whenever people see injustice; come out from under the carapace of little britainer rhetoric and think for yourself ; other peoples books however well written are not always the whole truth but the truth as they perceive it ;and please believe me........ the world is not envious of britain!!

[Thracian]

quote thracian; Like I say, the politics of envy. You might believe some people are born better than others but its not filtered into the psyche of the nation cos I for one have never believed such nonsense.

thracian; your opening sentence was totally illogical if as you say that you are a supporter of the monarchy; how can you state that you dont believe people are born better than others when you want the continuance of monarchy ; the very symbol divine given priviledge ;

surely the whole idea of a monarchy is built on an hereditary principle ; you support an institution that you state represents ideals that are anathema to you

and dont be fooled into thinking americans are in the least jealous of your kings and queens ;they are a quaint little joke to us; an anachronism if you like; you may well hear of americans who love the queen but they probably are the ones that bellieve elvis lives ; sorry to disappoint you ; wherever americans are in the world great respect is given to that nations traditions but it sure as hell dont mean we want them ; i was in germany recently and waxed lyrical to the locals in their lederhosen but it stops at that; just respect and enjoyment of different cultures

please dont use the old rhetoric of "politics of envy" line whenever people see injustice; come out from under the carapace of little britainer rhetoric and think for yourself ; other peoples books however well written are not always the whole truth but the truth as they perceive it ;and please believe me........ the world is not envious of britain!!

Just because a person is born a prince, doesn't mean they are born "better" or worse than anyone else. The background of the Romanovs may well have nurtured a misguided air of superiority (teachers kids can be the same) but I doubt, on reflection, that by the time of their murder they would have thought themselves born "better". And, I am quite sure many Royals over the course of history have considered their situation a curse, like Lady Jane Grey to mention someone close to home.

Whether their situation proves better or worse than someone else's may well depend on their own response to their circumstances and on the circumstances of the day.

Privilege is different. Many people are born to greater or lesser privilege whether it be to a title or to parents who have powerful friends or the funds or make sufficient sacrifices to provide greater opportunity for their offspring than others. At what point does the envy cut-off apply?.

If someone goes to a comprehensive school but through hard work and self denial makes money available for their kids to go to public school are his kids unjustly privleged because other parents choose a different course?.

You may discount the evidence of books but Jung Chang's Wild Swans was universally acclaimed, and so was her follow up on Chairman Mao and her evidence was mainly first hand - and extraordinarily matter-of-fact rather than emotional - which gives it far more credence than most however biased you might think her views without, presumably, bothering to read them.

If I gave the impression that I considered that the world envies Britain I apologise. That was certainly not my intention. Indeed you are perhaps right that the public view of England has gone downhill in the eyes of some nations these last Blair/Bush years.

But I certainly don't believe Britain's reputation has been soiled anywhere near as badly or as permanently as Republican America's and it certainly doesn't mean I now envy other nations where their Peoples Republics are firmly established.

What was previously written was, in my view, "the politics of envy" which is why I used that familiar and convenient phrase.

If none of us ever used other peoples phraseology our language would soon be missing some gems. Perhaps we shouldn't use their inventions or ideas either. I would be perfectly happy to invent a new phrase if I thought it would better convey my meaning but that would be difficult as the phrase seems to apply perfectly.

[Thracian]

very well put ; and i'm sure you will never be convinced by me; just as i wont by you ; i think its a bit like believing in god ;you either do or don't and very little in the way of reason will change a persons mindset; as i said before you keep refering to worst case scenarios that do not reflect the case as it would be in a republican UK ; ok so you may have read tendentious accounts of how china /russia is so much worse now but remember this ; things must have been pretty bad before for the nation to rise up against the tyranny; former benefactors of the previous regimes will of course have a jaundiced eye.

i am sure after any change or power shift you will find dissenters who very well may be able to point at short term inadequacies of the new,

as for financial benefits i note now that you have taken a higher moral stance whereas originally that seemed to be the basis of your argument ie they were wealth creators ;

and i will repeat once again the basic tenet of my argument is nothing more than a belief in a true "equality of opportunity " and i can't think of a greater symbol of inequality of opportunity than a family born with an enormous amount of influence of power

people can inherit wealth; but nothing will convince me that anyone should have the right to inherited power or position as i said before if you were to make an analogy of the young beckham lad being given the future england captains job purely on birthright it would be clearly risible but you are quite prepared to hand over power and influence over the nation in such a fashion

as a small footnote though i have enjoyed this discussion with you p.s cant you start a thread on general chat i keep forgetting where this conversation is.

You touch on a really important point in the argument with the mention Beckham junior.

If you liken him to football royalty the advantages/disadvantages will weigh just as surely as with the royals.

On the one hand having a footballing icon as a dad he will probably get every opportunity to play football, he will have first hand opportunity to watch the best in action and to copy them, everyone will be keen to notice and to develop any sign of talent and he will undoubtedly find it easier to get accepted at a professional club academy.

The downside is that everyone will be expecting him to be as good as his dad and there'll be many folk sneering at him and taunting him with the idea that he's only getting selected cos his dad was captain of England. That equates to serious pressure - the sort which some people cope with and which leads others into desperate despair and even worse at times.

The same applies in so many walks of life where offspring have parents who are outstanding or high profile in a particular field.

As for your broader point about Republics my slant is that I don't fancy changing something that has stood the test of millenia for an alternative that has failed to convince me.

Yes things would have been bad to force people to react and that is nothing like the case here. However, given their opportunity, had the Republics of the World subsequently shown themselves to offer genuine and committed "equality of opportunity" (for all not just for certain classes/kinds) then I would be impressed.

The blunt message of the China documentary that if a person was not a member of the Communist Party it was implicit that he would not be likely to "get on". That is the very opposite of your desire.

One needs no bias to note the basic freedoms denied to so many Russians when, at the same time, new age individuals flaunt the most indecent sums of money which could be used to provide some of the opportunities which might provide a better standard of living to many thousands of people.

Where are the new fair standards?. Where is the new unbiased morality?. Where is the opportunity for all?.

We, with our monarchy, are a lot further down the road to equal opportunity than so many others, and in part because our democracy has forced our monarchy to adjust.

Just as an example I have recently paid £400 for my midweek golf membership - £400 I cannot easily afford after my wife's illness.

But Coventry offer a Passport to Leisure for people who are unemployed etc which enables them to play for next to nothing.

That is a brilliant example of opportunity for all - and not the only one - but I don't begrudge the unemployed that chance. Instead it makes me quite proud to be English really.

[macbeth]

i'm sorry you missed my point with the analogy completely; what i mean is how would you feel if young beckham AUTOMATICALLY became england captain as a birthright as our heirs to the throne do; not whether he has advantages to possibly do so

you have again only mentioned russia/china as examples of republics ( conveniently forgetting most of the rest of the free world) and i'm still unconvinced that many would want to return to pre revolutionary times in those countries

why not use saudi arabia and its monarchy as a defence for royalty i'm sure the people there live as equals

and you say the royal family has stood the test of millenia ; not true, 1649 the good people of england put a stop to the divine right of kings (so they can be said to have only survived from some point after this) ; a belief that charles had until the end despite cromwells pleadings. the royalty in its present incarnation is relatively new and probably only survives because we don't know how corrupt the institution is

as to politics of envy mantra ; i dont complain about the use of rhetoric and phrases but it is not relevant and can be used by anyone defending the status quo however indefensible it is

ps i've tried to start a topic on general chat hope you join in!!

[Thracian]

i'm sorry you missed my point with the analogy completely; what i mean is how would you feel if young beckham AUTOMATICALLY became england captain as a birthright as our heirs to the throne do; not whether he has advantages to possibly do so

you have again only mentioned russia/china as examples of republics ( conveniently forgetting most of the rest of the free world) and i'm still unconvinced that many would want to return to pre revolutionary times in those countries

why not use saudi arabia and its monarchy as a defence for royalty i'm sure the people there live as equals

and you say the royal family has stood the test of millenia ; not true, 1649 the good people of england put a stop to the divine right of kings (so they can be said to have only survived from some point after this) ; a belief that charles had until the end despite cromwells pleadings. the royalty in its present incarnation is relatively new and probably only survives because we don't know how corrupt the institution is

as to politics of envy mantra ; i dont complain about the use of rhetoric and phrases but it is not relevant and can be used by anyone defending the status quo however indefensible it is

ps i've tried to start a topic on general chat hope you join in!!

As I recall it took very little time after the execution of Charles for the politicians to demonstrate that they were unable to govern fairly and justly on behalf of the people but immediately started looking to their own ends and interests.

Hence a reluctant Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector against his inner wishes and while originally wanting the King to modify his stance and govern with more wisdom and understanding. We now have a much moderated Royal family now, politically speaking.

I cannot talk about the Saudi situation because I don't know much about it, I don't believe the situation in an Islamic country is closely enough related to our own (at least not yet) and I cannot accept that Beckham junior would ever inherit the England captaincy as a babe-in-arms so see little point in debating that issue.

[macbeth]

As I recall it took very little time after the execution of Charles for the politicians to demonstrate that they were unable to govern fairly and justly on behalf of the people but immediately started looking to their own ends and interests.

Hence a reluctant Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector against his inner wishes and while originally wanting the King to modify his stance and govern with more wisdom and understanding. We now have a much moderated Royal family now, politically speaking.

I cannot talk about the Saudi situation because I don't know much about it, I don't believe the situation in an Islamic country is closely enough related to our own (at least not yet) and I cannot accept that Beckham junior would ever inherit the England captaincy as a babe-in-arms so see little point in debating that issue.

you have again missed the point or purposely evaded it again ; i'm not suggesting young beckham inherit future captaincy of england i am saying how ridiculous the concept of inherited position and status is

but babes in arms have inherited the throne

[macbeth]

As I recall it took very little time after the execution of Charles for the politicians to demonstrate that they were unable to govern fairly and justly on behalf of the people but immediately started looking to their own ends and interests.

Hence a reluctant Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector against his inner wishes and while originally wanting the King to modify his stance and govern with more wisdom and understanding. We now have a much moderated Royal family now, politically speaking.

I cannot talk about the Saudi situation because I don't know much about it, I don't believe the situation in an Islamic country is closely enough related to our own (at least not yet) and I cannot accept that Beckham junior would ever inherit the England captaincy as a babe-in-arms so see little point in debating that issue.

of course the situation in saudi arabia is different; that is the point i am making to you when you keep refering to russia and china ; that is why i am saying keep the discussion related to the uk and not tendentious accounts of post monarchy elsewhere

[Thracian]

of course the situation in saudi arabia is different; that is the point i am making to you when you keep refering to russia and china ; that is why i am saying keep the discussion related to the uk and not tendentious accounts of post monarchy elsewhere

I mention them because the Communist Party and communist supporters are constantly active in this country both within and without the Government and you should therefore be aware of the potential downsides of anything you help to create.

Why not try to visit such places to judge their progress and any shortcomings for yourself if your beliefs are serious and likely to be ongoing?.

Principles are all very well but you have to be careful that manipulative people don't corrupt those principles and you at the same time. Not easy to recognise if you're not looking.

[crazy horse]

I mention them because the Communist Party and communist supporters are constantly active in this country both within and without the Government and you should therefore be aware of the potential downsides of anything you help to create.

Why not try to visit such places to judge their progress and any shortcomings for yourself if your beliefs are serious and likely to be ongoing?.

Principles are all very well but you have to be careful that manipulative people don't corrupt those principles and you at the same time. Not easy to recognise if you're not looking.

you have a reality problem if you think communism is a real threat anymore; what was a debate on the royal family and their relevance in today's society has brought out the typical reactionary "reds under the bed " response

where in any of the previous debate has anyone remotely suggested adherence to the communist manifesto;

again you have retreated into your carapace of rhetoric and completly ignored any structured debate and relied on swamping with ridiculous irrelevancies

[Bert]

Wow, what a thread this is turning out to be!

[Steven]

Wow, what a thread this is turning out to be!

It went tits up ages ago.

[Thracian]

you have a reality problem if you think communism is a real threat anymore; what was a debate on the royal family and their relevance in today's society has brought out the typical reactionary "reds under the bed " response

where in any of the previous debate has anyone remotely suggested adherence to the communist manifesto;

again you have retreated into your carapace of rhetoric and completly ignored any structured debate and relied on swamping with ridiculous irrelevancies

That may be your view and I well imagine that former Communist members of the Government have also seen the sense in adjusting their tack and fighting under a different public banner but the number of people now employed by Government institutions is increasing fast. So is surveillance of the individual.

Replacing the monarchy is an important part of the class war and a defined cornerstone of communism according to my dictionary's definition of the word. That is where the relevence to the debate lies.

Maybe it is you who has the reality problem or maybe you simply approve of what I've mentioned and just feel irritated by an alternative opinion (which would figure).

[macbeth]

That may be your view and I well imagine that former Communist members of the Government have also seen the sense in adjusting their tack and fighting under a different public banner but the number of people now employed by Government institutions is increasing fast. So is surveillance of the individual.

Replacing the monarchy is an important part of the class war and a defined cornerstone of communism according to my dictionary's definition of the word. That is where the relevence to the debate lies.

Maybe it is you who has the reality problem or maybe you simply approve of what I've mentioned and just feel irritated by an alternative opinion (which would figure).

how can a desire to be rid of unelected tiers of government such as the house of lords and the monarchy possibly cause you to believe me to be in league with the devil ( or communism) i am striving for greater democratic control of our lives not less ; a republic yes communism definitely not

again you have gone off nuclear explosion style " reds under the bed " rhetoric; as is usual for defenders of the indefensible

relacing the monarchy may be a goal of communism but it is also the goal of true democrats

and i dont begrudge your right to an opinion i welcome it as a true democrat ;

what i dont like however is for you to make wholly inappropriate assumptions and irrelevant diatribes about my genuine desire for greater democracy

again i can only put this one single issue to you, that ;

i do not believe in our age of democratic evolution that we should have an unelected head of state; it is contrary to the meaning of democracy and should be replaced by elected second chamber and head of state

and if you can put an alternate viewpoint to this point only without going around the world 3 times using russia/china/communism or any other irrelevant sidetracks i would welcome it

please try to remember we are talking about a transition of democratic structure not the after effects of acivil war

[crazy horse]

how can a desire to be rid of unelected tiers of government such as the house of lords and the monarchy possibly cause you to believe me to be in league with the devil ( or communism) i am striving for greater democratic control of our lives not less ; a republic yes communism definitely not

again you have gone off nuclear explosion style " reds under the bed " rhetoric; as is usual for defenders of the indefensible

relacing the monarchy may be a goal of communism but it is also the goal of true democrats

and i dont begrudge your right to an opinion i welcome it as a true democrat ;

what i dont like however is for you to make wholly inappropriate assumptions and irrelevant diatribes about my genuine desire for greater democracy

again i can only put this one single issue to you, that ;

i do not believe in our age of democratic evolution that we should have an unelected head of state; it is contrary to the meaning of democracy and should be replaced by elected second chamber and head of state

and if you can put an alternate viewpoint to this point only without going around the world 3 times using russia/china/communism or any other irrelevant sidetracks i would welcome it

please try to remember we are talking about a transition of democratic structure not the after effects of acivil war

thracian uses non sequitur argument such as

aim of communism.......end of monarchy

aim of republicanism ....end of monarchy

therefore communisn= republicanism

think a bit harder before using such flimsy argument!!

[Thracian]

Sorry but I am not the greatest fan of our form of democracy anyway or indeed of authoritarianism in general but I do wish that, having got the democracy we have, that the people who administrered it were genuinely free-to-think individuals who demonstrably wished to preside over a benevolent society.

What we have is not really democracy anyway ie "a system of Government by the whole population through elected representatives - a classless and tolerant form of society".

Ignoring the question of how classlessness and tolerance go hand in hand, most of the candidates posted to me at the General Election I've never heard of and they certainly don't live near me nor could they possibly represent my views, because my views don't fit conveniently into anyone's Party manifesto.

To have a truly democratic Government you wouldn't have Party politics at all you'd have individuals who stood for what they believed was fair and beneficial to the people. Party politics by definition is anti-democracy. How can you campaign for what you believe if there's a political whip saying you must do this or that?

And far from becoming tolerant we have more and more laws which counter our obligation to tolerate more things than ever with the result that virtually all of us commit crimes now and our prisons are full to overflowing.

Furthermore I have to ask you this as a test of democracy. If the majority of people in your area were, say, Muslims and they democratically and quite reasonably from their point of view, wanted to be governed by Muslim law, would you be happy? Assuming, that is, you were not a Muslim.

You should remember that the law of the day can take away the obligation to tolerate anything.

In forming my opinion I have to ask - in the flawed system of power and government that we have - what scenario will best represent and protect my beliefs and my way of life.

Although not any more than a small "c" Christian I believe a Christian monarchy is able to help do that better than a President who might, eventually, represent any religion or who might represent beliefs which are significantly different to my own (there are many Presidential examples).

In other words the monarchy represents the safer pair of hands and has done so for a long, long time.

The same goes for the Lords. For all their faults, the Lords represent some of the oldest and most experienced families in England and are probably a better bet to support policies which ensure England remains a green and pleasant land than a few more John Prescotts or worse.

If that makes me sound more nationalist than I actually am then it is because I believe we have a lot of lose and I don't want England to become the sort of land I can no longer recognise or feel comfortable to live in as is already becoming more and more the case.

Sadly, if your views represent the general mood, presumably of the young, then the monarchy's days probably are numbered and I will be subject to that "progress" whatever.

So, avoiding mention of doubtful republics like Russia and China, one assumes good old England can look forward to a President Bush or a President Blair. Great.

At least the Queen doesn't do much harm. But then she has spent a lifetime building contacts and experience of people all around the world.

So has Blair of course and look what he's achieved in his relatively short tenure. Honestly, I know who I'd sooner have as head of state but you go your own way and good luck.

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes quite

Back on topic. Has any one noticed we have by far the shortest national anthem at the WC ( probabley due to the fact we only sing half of it )

It takes just under 30 seconds to sing ours most take over a minute .

[Bert]

Yes quite

Back on topic. Has any one noticed we have by far the shortest national anthem at the WC ( probabley due to the fact we only sing half of it )

It takes just under 30 seconds to sing ours most take over a minute .

And the fact that i bet none of our players know the other bit.

[Ultra]

In other words the monarchy represents the safer pair of hands and has done so for a long, long time.

The same goes for the Lords. For all their faults, the Lords represent some of the oldest and most experienced families in England and are probably a better bet to support policies which ensure England remains a green and pleasant land than a few more John Prescotts or worse.

John Prescott, for all his innumerable faults, is an elected politician and as such is infinitely preferable to those who owe their position in Parliament to cronyism or birth.

There are many examples where the Lords have intervened to block the will of a democratically elected government, both Labour and Conservative. This is unacceptable in a modern 21st century society.

Although you make much of the horrors of Communism in Russia and China, you conveniently ignore the fact that the people of both countries were held back for centuries by the elites that governed them in the name of monarchies.

Although I'd have no problem in pledging allegiance to the Queen, I'd have serious issues about doing the same to her successor. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

[macbeth]

John Prescott, for all his innumerable faults, is an elected politician and as such is infinitely preferable to those who owe their position in Parliament to cronyism or birth.

There are many examples where the Lords have intervened to block the will of a democratically elected government, both Labour and Conservative. This is unacceptable in a modern 21st century society.

Although you make much of the horrors of Communism in Russia and China, you conveniently ignore the fact that the people of both countries were held back for centuries by the elites that governed them in the name of monarchies.

Although I'd have no problem in pledging allegiance to the Queen, I'd have serious issues about doing the same to her successor. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

hear hear

[Strokes]

hear hear

Nice avatar macbeth, is that a crown he is sporting

[macbeth]

Nice avatar macbeth, is that a crown he is sporting

yes it is ; macbeth was most famous for his regicidal tendencies

[Thracian]

hear hear

We'll agree to differ on Prescott, thanks. He certainly wasn't elected by me. I seem to remember it was the Welsh and Scots who extended the term of our Labour government.

And what have you suddenly got against Prince William cos I really don't see Prince Charles ever being King. There's some considerable doubt I gather as to whether he's even legally married. And then there's that everlasting enquiry we mentioned...

[macbeth]

We'll agree to differ on Prescott, thanks.

And what have you suddenly got against Prince William cos I really don't see Prince Charles ever being King. Then some considerable doubt I gather as to whether he's even legally married. And then there's that everlasting enquiry we mentioned...

you may think i am intransigent and not open to reasoned argument , and on this and a few other issues i must admit i am

when younger i saw most things in fuzzy black and white but now most things are shades of grey

however the ones that remain in b& w are now more crystal clear ; and the idea of unelected unnaccountable tiers of government falls into this category

without wanting to get sidetracked foxhunting, stag hunting also falls into this category and no amount of emotive " loss of our national heritage ....blah blah blah.... foreigners do worse things blah blah............lots of jobs lost blah blah....englands lost heritage blah blah" will ever convince me otherwise ; i just know the idea of inherited power is wrong as i know that foxhunting is wrong !

and i am afraid that is all i ever hear when pro monarchist debate the issue always use the emotive rather than substance to back up their arguments

however i still must say thracian you have me given plenty to think about ; not so much on the eventual goal , but of ensuring that what eventually succeeds monarchy must be much more accountable, again thank you and i do mean that