Yes, Ma’am

Ian Edwards

Robert Hardman, mentions: "she has quietly, beneath the media’s radar, rewritten the entire job description of the sovereign. She’s created a new manifesto for future monarchs; the guidelines which younger royals will follow when they take the reins."

I'm not sure the monarch has the power to change its own job description. And do the people, her employers, not need to approve such a proposed change? At a time when there is growing awareness that HM has not been fulfilling her constitutional duties I find this kind of story quite disturbing.

NeilM

Having read this article the words grovelling sycophant come to mind.

Robert M

This is possibly the worst thing anybody has ever written anywhere, about anything.

James Williams

Any interesting article, however when the Queen's reign is over, it shall be our last and we shall draw a new chapter under what was the glorious monarchy and move on. We will be saving a lot of money in this austere times!

Simon Wright

Good article, Dont worry about the negative comments by some of the above posters, the republicans were linked to this page a few hours ago so seek to swarm it and cause trouble. Sad for sure because they are in denial that the vast majority of British people and indeed citizens of the commonwealth realms and even people al over the world know the Queen has done an amazing job.

God save the Queen.

Simon Wright

James Williams - A republic would cost more money im afraid. Over 80 million every few years for an election, a Presidential salary, presidential staff, presidential travel, presidential pensions.. there is not the savings you seem to think. +of course the Crown Estates give the treasury over 200 million a year.

The monarchy is going nowhere.

JoeLatics

Please don't waste your time reading this - biggest load of claptrap I've EVER read!!!

Simon has spectacularly missed the point, I'm afraid. Firstly, unless Lizzie has magic ovaries, or there's some Head Of State gene which the Genome Project missed, her successes (or otherwise) have NO BEARING AT ALL on how good her successor is. Secondly, the whole point of an electoral system is so the BEST candidates get the role. If Lizzie is the best, she'll win. If she pales in comparison to the British Obamas, she won't.

The entire support for the monarchy is based on some bizarre sense of liking of this elderly woman. When she's gone, and 'Active Monarch' Charles takes office, support will collapse faster than Cristiano Ronaldo within 5 miles of a sliding tackle.

Bob - Wolverhampton

This article is the most grovelling tripe it has ever been my displeasure to read. I, for one, cannot remember a barbecue featuring the queen, nor would I be remotely interested in watching a film of her cooking sausages for her awful family. I do, however, remember vividly the Moon landing, and at the time I contrasted the U.S.A.'s pioneering spirit with the stultifying theatrical pageantry we have to put up with.
Simon Wright, do not bother to respond, you are the fool that believes Hitler was a left-winger, and so I do not wish to discuss anything further with you.

Hugh, Southend

"... the whole point of an electoral system is so the BEST candidates get the role." Oh really? So why is it that American elections, for example, are so often won by the candidate with the most money (JFK being a prime example)? Does that make them 'BEST'? I beg to differ. In any case, having an elected Head of State does absolutely nothing for our democratic form of government and would actually probably worsen it when the Head of State and the Government of the day come from differing political parties. Our monarchy is widely respected and attracts the support of the vast majority of the British population, despite the antics of the anti-Windsor brigade, masquerading as a republican 'campaign' yet spending all their time posting the same old nonsense on every media article about the monarchy they can find and share amongst themselves.

WM Revill

Basically, you are contradicting yourself throughout. You speak on the one hand of how the monarchy is resolute and unchanging, and on the other you laud Elizabeth with praise for changing every god-damn thing about the monarchy.

Oh, and by the way...what royal barbecue?

WM Revill

It's also good to see Simon Wright here making more baseless statements and quoting figures that couldn't possibly be true.

Tim

What a poor collection of struggling, undeserving anachronisms these people really are, even as sundry apologists seek to rationalize their untenable position with journalistic rubbish like this. Twerps like Wright, who have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker, do not represent the majority in this country. It is very careful manipulation by an army of self-interested club members which prevents the extent of the secret privilege and rampant underhandedness ever being jarred into focus. Spectacular Jubilee ploy next. Oh swallow! swallow!

Gloria Flynn

This is the most sycophantic claptrap I've seen in a long time. Robert Hardman needs to take off those 'rose tinted monarchial spectacles off' and get amongst real people !

John L

Good article about a great woman. I have to say I was surprised by the level of republicanism in the comments but then I saw someone mentioned that it had been linked to on the republican page on facebook. Sure enough, it seems that most of the anti-monarchy posts here come directly from members of that group.

Good to know republicanism is still more or less dead outside of a few, isolated online groups of fanatics!

Ajax

Obsequious, groveling, fore-lock tugging sycophancy.

Gloria Flynn

Oh dear John L. Where have you been hiding? Republicanism is very much alive, and on the increase, people are increasingly sick and tired of this
farce, more commonly referred to as 'the Monarchy'. The sooner it's gone, the better.

Andi

That's it Hardman, be a good little serf. What a sycophantic load of tripe. That while the Americans had realised humanity's dream of putting a man on the moon, while Kennedy's visions of an age of science, discovery, and achievement were being realised - you were too busy fawning over this imbecilic lot of feudal celebrities, really does tell us that you and all monarchists are regressives and morons.

Barry Flynn

By 'comic script writer' you are clearly referring to yourself after all that pure unadulterated rambling rubbish you have written. The 'BBQ you mention sticks in the craw, on the other hand, the moon landing sticks in the memory. This nauseating nonsense from a very deluded man who clearly has had his befuddled brain pickled in Monarchial tripe. GOD, THE MAN NEEDS HELP.

Tim

John L. Are you saying that the views of those with a genuine interest, contain less weight than others here? How do you relate perceived groups, perhaps minorities (although obviously not the republican 23% of the population) to being both 'online' and 'dead'? Does 'online' have a reductive, mortifying effect in your view? Don't be surprised at the level of republicanism. Not everybody is a monarchist; so allow others their point of view.

Hugh, Southend

People are certainly entitled to hold their own views, no matter how infantile or wrong-headed; but not to mislead the public as 'republicans' so frequently do. Support for republicanism is a lot less than the 23% quoted, as measured by *reputable* polling firms such as MORI - in fact year on year it is on a slow decline. Don't take my word for it, the evidence is available on MORI's own site.

Tim

"As David Cameron puts it: ‘The Diamond Jubilee will be much bigger than anyone expects.’" Oh no doubt and all paid for by we who are 'all in it together' and implored to tighten belts. A bigger waste of money it is difficlut to imagine in these straitened times. All this to aggrandise even further, if that is possible, a useless dynasty unerringly pleased with itself.

Tim

There seems to me to be no need for Hugh to suggest that people are 'infantile or wrong-headed', for him to make his point. It tends to suggest that he, or monarchists generally have the monopoly on what is deemed to be 'right'. Sundry polls consistently put support for a republic at lesser or greater than 20% and some have put it as high as 43% (GMTV/Mirror 2008). If this is so, it suggests that at least 10 million people would vote for an elected head of state - the same number that voted for the winning political party at the last General Election. Since this family claims to take no part in politics, if Charles Windsor has been consistently lobbying government ministers,or if reports that they run proposals past him are true, is this evidence that the public is being given misleading information?

John L

Oh, I don't know. I just note that almost every negative post here is by someone who has also posted on the republican facebook page. I then note that for every person who has joined that facebook page, 40 have joined the page asking for Jeremy Clarkson to be PM.

This coupled with the fact that I've never actually heard anyone express an anti-monarchy view in person leads me to suspect that republicans are very much the minority in the UK.

Interestingly, 22-23% is the same percentage of Britons that are young earth creationists. Both stats seem to show that roughly 1/5 of our population are loopy :P

Hugh, Southend

Since Tim & Gloria Flynn refuse to face facts, let me spell them out. Taken from the Ipsos MORI site: over the last 4 surveys covering the period 2004-2011, in answer to the question "Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?", in 2004: Republic 20%, Monarchy 71%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Don't Know 4%; in 2005: Republic 22%; Monarchy 65%, Don't Know 13%; in 2006: Republic 18%; Monarchy 72%, Don't Know 10%; in 2011: Republic 18%; Monarchy 75%, Don't Know 7%. So clearly support for the monarchy has strengthened over recent time and now commands the support of three-quarters of the population.

I do not and have never suggested that there is no place to debate the pros and cons of our system of government - informed public debate is to my mind a vital element of a healthy democracy - but any such debate is hardly helped by the focus of Republic Campaign's supporters on the perceived character flaws of either members of the Royal Family or those labelled as 'monarchists' because they do not support republicanism. The various comments made above commenting on the character of the author are, sadly, all too typical of what passes for 'debate' amongst 'republicans'.

As for infantile and wrong-headed comments, a small selection from the Campaign's Facebook page linking this item: "i wonder if the royal family barbecued would smell like pork or mutton ?"; "Total cobblers. He's obviously scrounging for an honour of some kind. Hope he doesn't get one."; "...none of this sycophantic drivel changes the fundamental facts about the anti-democratic and infantilising effect of the monarchy (as evidenced that an apparently adult human being can [p]eddle such rubbish)"; "...corrupt politics, aided and abetted by the corrupting, stultifying monarchy." I could go on but it's all rather repetitive.

Tim

Hugh "So clearly support for the monarchy has strengthened over recent time and now commands the support of three-quarters of the population". Polls indicate trends. These very well-known Mori polls, proundly trundled out, are not the only polls. To make the above statement accurate the entire population would need to be consulted, with 75% claiming unqualified support. Even if the 18% figure was true, which I doubt - it is likely to be far higher - it would indicate that 8,000,000 of the country's 44,000,000 million eligible voters are republicans. In terms of population it represents nearly 12,000,000. The principle that people should be free to campaign for their beliefs remains outside of these figures. If Hugh wishes to engage in selected quotation based on the notion that some bloggers make puerile comments, I would draw his attention to the pointless British Monarchist League Facebook page, whose 'preaching to the converted' rationale appears to be defending the interests of the monarchy against a claimed level of support of 80%; or maybe the English Defence League page, where sometimes two words are strung together successfully under the general banner of one-way patriotism. In the case of Republic, the Facebook page does not represent the entire campaign, let alone republicans who are not members. Hugh could have drawn attention to the lengthy scholarly writing on the subject of contemporary republicanism by a raft of high-profile academics and supporters. This of course does not suit his purposes. I agree with him that too many comments by some few republicans on the Facebook page are personal. They do not represent the majority. He speaks of repetition; like the Church, this unelected, uneremovable family relies on, repetitive presentation, endless representation, ceremony, constructed 'tradition' and an unswerving trajectory in order to sell the absolutely false 'stabilising' effect and national solidity it claims as its raison d'etre.

Tim

Hugh ignores, of course, my question regarding misleading information and the seemingly political lobbying activities of Charles Windsor.

Gloria Flynn

A well established fact....MORI POLLS do not go into the heartlands of this country......if they did, what a different story we would see. I've yet to meet or speak with anyone who supports the Monarchy - most believe it is an outdated institution and not fit for the 21st century and is merely supported by the sycophants and sycophantic media, engineered and driven from the 'Palace' Tim has it right, MORI isn't the only poll.

Hugh, Southend

Well if Tim & Gloria Flynn choose to ignore reality in favour of some self-serving twaddle, I'm not going to argue.

I am curious to know why Tim mentions the EDL though, since 'patriotism' has not been touched on so far, nor are the two synonymous. One could be forgiven for thinking that he is attempting to make an unpleasant association in the minds of readers, so perhaps he will explain himself.

I am laughing at the suggestion that I should mention all the 'lengthy scholarly writing ... by a raft of high profile academics and supporters." since they are hardly - if ever - mentioned or discussed by Republic Campaign or it's few thousands of supporters.

Tim

I have no intention of 'explaining myself' to Hugh other than to say that those who loudly draw on perceived symbols of constancy and (empty) tradition, such as monarchy, often write hubristic, aggressive 'self-serving twaddle'. As I said, Republic's Campaign is multi-faceted; along with republicanism generally, it includes discursive argument by academics. The context here is the toadying, inaccurate nonsense contained in the above article; Hugh persists in turning that into an assault on Republic's Facebook page - in a transparent attempt to discredit and limit the discussion. Following his own spurious charges that Republic is misleading people, he still has nothing to say regarding credible reports of Charles Windsor's lobbying of ministers and the way in which the general public are seemingly misled into believing that the unelected Windsor family are apolitical.

Hugh, Southend

I didn't say Republic, I said republicans, and as I have shown, not 'spurious' at all, unlike your - and Gloria Flynn's - claims.

I see you are also, unsurprisingly, unable to point us to where all this "discursive argument by academics" is taking place.

As you will not answer questions put to you, why do you expect yours - which have little relevance to the article in question - to be answered?

Tim

Ok Hugh, since the issue of relevant comment has been raised, I presume that you will agree that your question "where is all this discursive argument taking place" is fatuous and has little relevance within the context of the general commentary. I made the statement in one context. You question it in another. You accused republicans (en masse it seems) of misleading the public. I suggested that Windsor claims of being 'apolitical' was a first-class example of public duping by monarchy and, by association, its eager apologists. You appear unable to counter this. Overall, I remain indifferent to your paucity of argument which I find amusingly trite. I am no longer interested in discussion at this level. Attitudes like yours, seemingly a mixture of ill-informed mockery and pompous, unsupported deprecation, can only support the republican belief that this divisive, undemocratic system, with its unctuous supporters needs sweeping away.

Hugh, Southend

And thus we see the paucity of thought held by the Anti-Windsor brigade masquerading as 'republicans'. They can't hold up an argument or provide independent evidence to back their claims. They will no doubt continue to bad-mouth the Windsors and those who oppose republicanism - it seems that is ALL they can do, seemingly all they are interested in doing.

Tim

Sorry Hugh? I don't think that you have quite understood. Republicans would like to see an elected head of state. Republic campaigns for it. It does mean removing the current unelected, extended family of multi-millionaires, who continue to expect deference, unqualified adoration and public funding in perpetuity. In what way have I failed to hold up an argument? What claims am I making that I have failed to provide evidence for? My original post criticised the servile flattery in the article.

Hugh, Southend

I'm not sure what their personal wealth has to do with anything other than some sort of petty jealousy on your part, since I presume you would not present an argument that wealthy people are ineligible to stand for presidential office, for fear of utter ridicule.

Unelected, you say? But in one sense they *were* elected - under the terms of the Act of Settlement, voted on by Parliament and decides who will be the next monarch. It is up to Parliament to remove the monarchy if it so wishes; it has not seen fit to do so in the 300 years since the Act was passed.

..."expect deference, unqualified adoration ..." I have seen no demanding of deference and adoration; I HAVE seen spontaneous gestures of respect to our Head of State; it is my experience that Queen commands, not demands, respect. As for "... public funding in perpetuity", since the public funds received are there to defray the household costs of the monarchy (as you well know, the Queen does not receive a salary or pension), perhaps you could explain how these costs would be different under a president? Especially since the French president costs the French taxpayer £100 million a year.

Tim

Thank you for gratuitously suggesting I am guilty of petty jealousy over personal wealth. You, of course, have absolutely no idea of my circumstances. I will not reply to your other very obvious staw men, other than to say that between them the Windsor family has taken billions from this country and given very little that is meaningful in return in my view. Struggling farmers and other tenants, for example, have paid Charles Windsor the equivalent of nearly one billion, simply for having occupied the appropriate womb. I am well aware of the Act of Settlement and the now archaic reasons behind it. Whether parliament has not sought fit to remove the monarchy over time is neither here nor there and matters little to any republican campaign. Any presidential system I would vote for would need to be accountable, transparent and cost effective. Paying for sundry dissolute relatives, their subsidised housing and perpetual security would not be in the equation; lean management in these straitened times. Equally, legislation which ensures that the activities and funding of a head of state and numerous hangers-on are enshrined in secrecy would need to be removed, along with the antidiluvian system of oaths and privileges. The principle of an unchanging, white, wealthy, upper-class Christian Head of State as an imposition is undemocratic, socially divisive and 'wrong-headed' in my view. You don't agreee - tough. Try to accept that others may think differently from you.

Hugh, Southend

"Try to accept others think differently than you" - really, you ought to apply that to yourself: see my post of 7th December at 1.15 am.

It was you raised the the topic of wealth (as well as the EDL) yet you will not say why when challenged. So in the absence of a credible explanation from you I am left with my own suggestion. That you do not like it - well that, as you say, is tough. The remedy is obvious.

Tim

Sorry, your thin, disjointed, irascible posts are still not making any real sense Hugh. I commented here regarding the above article. You launched into a general assault on republicanism. Why should I address your pointless remarks any further? Go and find somebody else to feel superior over; it is highly unlikely to work with me.

Hugh, Southend

Still avoided answering though, haven't you.

I am perfectly entitled to comment negatively on what I perceive to be little more than child-like insults against our Head of State, attempts to mislead the readers as to the size and impact of the republican 'movement' and a thinly veiled suggestion that supporters of the monarchy - for whatever reason they support it - are aligned with or fellow travellers of the EDL. You have repeatedly failed to explain your remarks and why you came to make them.

Readers can make up their own minds as to your motives as well as your personal comments about anyone who disagrees with you.

Tim

Hugh, anyone reading your silly remarks will realise that they are mostly a muddle of different contexts crafted in a swamp of distortion. They are designed to discredit republicans and little else. Obsessive 'questioning' regarding my EDL comment, for example is an attempt to suggest that I am associating it, in a pejorative sense, with monarchists. It is of course clear, to anyone with half a brain, that I gave it, along with the British Monarchist League as an example of Facebook pages where some obsessives post some insulting comments; this following your attack on those who post personal remarks on Republic's Facebook page. I agreed with you regarding this but sought to show that it was not restricted simply to Republic. Now answer my point about Windsor and his political meddling.

Hugh, Southend

I'll answer it, but it will be my last time visiting this page.

Your original comment was "Since this family claims to take no part in politics, if Charles Windsor has been consistently lobbying government ministers,or if reports that they run proposals past him are true, is this evidence that the public is being given misleading information?"

The phrasing of your initial statement is misleading - no surprise there. The monarchy is obviously part of an overall politically-led process - that of governing the UK - BUT it takes no part in the daily hurly-burly of *party* politics, not 'politics' per se. I suspect you are well aware of this distinction.

I have seen it argued that Charles, as the Heir, has a constitutional right to involve himself in government affairs, since how else can he obtain the necessary experience for when he accedes to the throne. As for his lobbying Ministers, every citizen has that right. It is up to Ministers to decide the extent to which information etc supplied by lobbying should affect public policy - that is part of what they get paid for.

That Ministers run proposals past him is the case, since (as was made clear at the time) he has the legal right to be consulted in certain circumstances. How odd you forgot to mention that.

So, no, they have not mislead the public. Perhaps republicans might try that as a general approach. I won't be holding my breath though.

Tim--

Hugh, I am glad that this was the last post from you. Your answer is wholly inadequate. You say my statement was misleading regarding Charles' lobbying; you do not say why. Some of us think that since Charles has not been elected he has no right to be consulted on political issues - whether you have 'seen it argued' that he has or not. It is quite clear that in his privileged position he has access to ministers and anyone else in a pivotal role that he chooses to summon - far more so than any citizen has. There is a considerable difference in 'gaining experience' to understand the role of Head of State and seeking to influence government policy. If these people and their apologists have not misled the public, why are reports that Charles frequently contacts ministers so newsworthy and so contentious? The answer is that to do so clashes with the constitutional position he finds himself occupying by 'birthright'.

Tim--

Hugh knows very well that in any sane society absolutely nobody else inherits a substantial publicly-provided income, unregulated power, privileged access to government, police protection since birth and the right to exempt themselves from legislation to prevent inquiry. He can shout as loudly as he likes that this IS the current position since the Act of Settlement and that there is insufficient will to change it. What he cannot do is prevent others from lawfully campaigning to seek change - identifying and flagging up relevant issues accordingly - simply because he does not agree with them. It simply will not do to scavenge through the minutiae, rubbishing republican debate and mocking the earnest beliefs of others, outside of any form of dialectic. For republicans, any head of state needs to be elected, tenured, measured against performance criteria and removable. We no longer need to tolerate elitists who consider this country to be their personal fiefdom from one generation to the next, having surrounded themselves with those they have honoured or bought off. This is now a fast-moving world, in which people of all races and creeds are increasingly being valued equally. Retaining an archaic system which is class-specific and socially removed is no longer fit for purpose. The manipulative chicanery now being used exponentially to keep these people in position - to maintain the fiction in the minds of the public - is evidence of just how quickly the privileged world they occupy and wish to retain at all costs - is changing.

Bennie Thompson

You never stop the rubbish til you're banned, do you Tim. He didn't say your statement about the lobbying was misleading, did he? He said what you said about being involved in "politics" was misleading, What you said about lobbying was incomplete. You're a fine one to make claims about scavenging through minutia, which is exactly what you've been doing and then painting an incorrect picture.
I'm sure you'll post some sneering putdown as you usually do, don't worry, I won't be reading it - life's too short lol

Tim--

"You never stop the rubbish til you're banned, do you Tim." I'm sorry 'Mr Thompson'? I have no idea what you are talking about. You may be confusing me with someone else. You also appear to have misunderstood 'Hugh's' comment. Regards

Terry Smith

It's always good to see the republicans out and about on the internet. They never fail to remind anyone who takes the time to read their posts that they are nothing but overdefensive, bitter pedants. You are doing Her Majesty good service, Tim.

Tim--

Well thank you Terry for appearing here solely to call me names and express a wilful intolerance of other people's views. I find it significant that the few people animated enough to call themselves 'monarchists' and express an opinion are rarely able to provide a cogent argument justifying the present system. All they have left are hit-and-run insults, as this thread demonstrates.

Tim--

There really is only a handful of people obsessed enough with the spectacle of monarchy to form a club; one that finds it necessary to insult republicans or those who lawfully campaign for an elected head of state.

Terry Smith

Why would I try to employ logic against you, Tim?

You can't argue with a zealot. It would be like debating evolution with a creationist.

And for the record, I'm not even slightly intolerant of your views. I just hold them in contempt. Big difference :P

Tim--

Terry, if everyone held each other's views in contempt nothing would progress or be resolved. There is enough enmity in this world. Because some (most) people campaign or give voice about issues they feel strongly about, it does not make them zealots. I am indifferent regarding whether or not you "try to employ logic". Employing logic is significantly different from railing against somebody. If you wish to advertise on a publuc forum what appears to be either ignorance or a paucity of logic, as well as your ready ability simply to attack and insult people instead, that's a matter for you. Discursive argument as a tool for progress is witnessed on a daily basis. The antithesis would be for opposing politicians to debate with each other, the defence not to challenge the prosecution, science not to challenge science, and secularists not to engage with the religious. So appearing on forums just to leave verbal abuse seems to me to have little value. Regards.

Tim--

"...opposing politicians not to debate with each other"

Terry Smith

Yeah, but Tim I don't hold the views of everyone who disagrees with me in contempt. I don't even hold the views of all republicans in contempt. Its mainly just you and the majority of the republicans on Republic's facebook page.

You can only really debate with someone if you respect them. After reading your posts here I find that I do not respect you. Hence my unwillingness to engage in debate with you.

Constitutional Monarchist

"So appearing on forums just to leave verbal abuse seems to me to have little value."

Which is basically all you have been doing Tim, dressed up with some extra syllables.

Not fooled.

Tim--

Well thanks for judging me Terry, on what I have written here. How you personally feel, either about me, or about those writing on the Facebook page doesn't interest me much. Fancy you seeing it all in terms of yourself. It certainly has no effect on my republican viewpoint, which I am of course entitled to hold. Regarding your ideas about the ingredients of debate, when the U.S. led coalition finally resorts to dialogue with the Taliban (and it will) I shall presume that they utterly respect them. I would remind you that I have not sought a debate with you; I merely remarked that you seem incapable of arguing a point, instead vividly highlighting yourself in a poor light, by insulting others. Congratulations on concluding that you have not been taken as a fool Mr 'Constitutional Monarchist', the irony is palpable from my perspective.

Tim--

Anyway, enough of addressing these poorly written, inurbane posts, seemingly crafted by buffoons who take themselves very seriously and who haunt blogs like this for any whiff of republicanism to take offence at. With original thought apparently an unknown dimension, unfortunately you may have no choice but to keep blindly following the herd. Everything is ok and exactly as it seems - in the best of all possible worlds!

Terry Smith

"haunt blogs like this for any whiff of republicanism to take offence at."

This is the best thing about republicans - no concept of irony. Perhaps you should note that this was a fairly pro-monarchy article that flushed all the republicans out of the woodwork after being linked on a republican website?

You're hilarious, my good man!

Tim--

Keep it up Terry! Nobody's listening! Irony? Do try to write your own lines. The IRONY is that the Windsor family has absolutely no idea whatsoever who this crawling handful of avid 'supporters' are and cares even less! Active 'monarchists' (why would you be one?) are a drop in the ocean compared with republicans - which even Hugh puts at just under one-fifth of the population. Your trite posts are boring me rigid. Goodbye. Keep singing, talking amongst yourselves and swapping photographs!

Terry Smith

Aww, I'm sorry my posts are boring you Tim. I'm finding yours to be most entertaining.

Perhaps a joke will cheer you up:

Heisenberg is driving down the motorway in his car. He gets stopped by the police.
The policeman says to him: "Sir! Do you have any idea how fast you were going?"
To which Heisenberg replies: "No. But I know precisely where I am."

That better?

Tim--

Oh much!

Terry Smith

Excellent! Well, your turn to tell a joke then.

And if you say something like "The monarchy lollolol" I'll be disappointed.

Observer2011

Ah Tim... "Active 'monarchists' (why would you be one?) are a drop in the ocean compared with republicans..."

Well I am an active monarchist because I do not believe politicians can be trusted, ever. Our constitutional monarchy keeps the 'top job' and the inevitable conflation of power that would occur out of their hands.

Whether we are 'active' or not (which I can only assume you mean to be commenters on web pages; a rather poor choice I would have thought) is as usual totally misleading. At (a generous) most, 1 in 5 of the population measured over many years, it is republicans who are the drop in the ocean; always have been and always will be.

What amuses me most is your characterisation of everyone who disagrees with you (haunting blogs, crafted by buffoons, lack of original thought, blindly following the herd, trite posts, etc etc ad nauseam) - and then indulging in exactly the same. As a previous poster said: "Not fooled."