Verbal

That is one of the weirdest things I've read in a while. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

And this applies to my remarks WHY?!!

By the same token, let's hope the Iranian opposition Green movement learns from the Syrian rebellion.

That's what happens with monarchies - a genuflecting,ever-so-'umble, appreciation for the small crumbs off the top table becomes a mindset so limiting that the highly qualified freedom of speech we have is gratefully accepted as evidence of something worth cherishing. It isn't, and they aren't.

You're being too generous in one sense. The idea that the royals have ANYTHING to do with freedom of speech is doubly wrong, and has no place in this argument. First, any reasonable understanding of British history will tell you that freedoms such as speech and assembly were wrestled from the monarchy in the teeth of bitter opposition. As to the extent of that freedom of speech, it's worth remembering that Britain's uniquely draconian (for a Western democracy) libel laws limit freedom of speech in a way that would completely unthinkable in, say, the United States. We have nothing to thank the Royals for. On the contrary, they should be ashamed of even being a silent party to the idiotic Gove's 'chief option' to shovel £60m more of our money to the spongers.

Happily, you're wrong in just about everything you've written. I know how dedicated, brown-nosing royalists revel in the fantasy that their pin-ups, Wills and Kate, will 'ascend' (!!) to the throne, instead of jug ears. But they won't. A simple understanding of the history of accession should tell you that. And why are republicans called 'chippy'? I don't get it. It's a weird and rather brainless attempt at a putdown, based on the assumption (which is probably too strong a word) that the royals represent some kind of natural order. There's also a good argument supporting the case that the royals have been at the pinnacle of a system which has contributed to the UK's economic decline and increasing redundancy on the international stage. Either way, though, I'm perfectly confident that jug ears is such a meddling imbecile that the monarchy will be falling about his oversized lobes long before your Mills-and-Boon fantasy couple get their mitts anywhere near the throne.

All the people who very directly benefit from the Duchys are very much alive. In any case, as a country, WE are directly affected by the closure of vast tracts of our own land and its handing over to the 'Windsors' (a name which QE2 views with sufficient distaste as to restore the German part of their surname to Royals not in the direct line of accession).

Why? Besides, you misunderstand how the Duchys were created if you think that restoring common and coastal lands is 'nationalisation'. 'Nationalistion' of a peculiarlarly elitist kind was what happened in the first place!

No, they really don't. Their theft of public land to form the Duchys is the source of their wealth. Return that land to the public (managed, say, by the National Trust), throw open the palaces and castles (ditto), and display their privately stored art collections (including QE2's - she's amassed the finest collection of Leonardos in private hands as a result of the earnings from the Duchys). FAR more money will be made be discontinued royals than can ever be made with them. QE2 is close to the end of her days. I personally can't stand the woman but that's just my opinion. Her replacement is jug ears. Care to give your impassioned defence of him?

True enough, but the cost of the yacht is not the same issue as the cost of the 'Windsors'. The reason for objecting to the cost of the yacht is that the royals are a god-awful waste of space.

Nope. It's about living in a grown-up, well developed liberal democracy where we do not fawn over the ludicrous antics of a self-selected, and by definition, inbred bunch of ingrates, who continue to represent all that's worst about the aristocracy. If - and it wouldn't be true, but if - a properly written constitution was constructed and the consequence of more democracy and openness and greater expense were more expensive, it would still be far, far preferable to the pathetic situation we have now. One of the consequences of a political system with royals at the apex is a disillusionment with politics and politicians that is bad for democracy. Either we believe in the latter or we don't. and if we do, the royals have to booted out on their inbred arses.

What does this mean? How does it add to the debate? Do you have a refutation in mind? Are you 12? Off you f uck, Alpine. You really are useless.

As I say, all will seem like a cloudless sky when QE2 is gone, jug ears is in, and the monarchy suddenly seems as hopelessly anachronistic as it is. You're factually wrong, of course, about the 'merely ceremonial' - or did you miss the recent scandal about Blair, Brown and Cameron having to get jug ears' nod (?!) for certain key bits of legislation. If all politicians are, as you say, 'slimy', then why bother with democracy at all? Just bring back Mussolini - at least the trains will run on time... In any case, having a PM's election constitutionally separated from the general election may well, as it has in other countries, diminish the 'slime' factor. Directly elected heads tend to act in the national interest rather than mere party affiliation - their electoral success almost always depends upon it. And if that's true, then once again, it's good for democracy. As for royalty 'financially justifying itself' - that's historically wildly inaccurate. 'Royalty' was all but bankrupt before the theft of public (mostly common and coastal) land parcelled up into the Duchys.

It's not a good point at all, because it ignores, or is unaware of, the underlying constitutional principles. However the relationship between them is defined, there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the administration. In the United States and in many other mature democracies, the relationship is defined by 'separation' and 'balance'. So in the US, for example, the President is the head of the executive branch and the House and Senate speakers are the heads of the legislature. In the UK, by contrast, we fuzz up the relationship between the executive and the legislature in such a way as to produce what is an elected - and sometimes unelected - dictatorship. The Prime Minister is de facto head of the executive and the legislature, and party discipline ensures that one of the principles of the UK's unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, is thoroughly undermined by this. (And this is especially true when we have PMs who ascend to their position after a party putsch - as with Callaghan, Major, Brown, etc). A properly written constitution, with a clearly defined separation of powers may lead to something like a directly elected Prime Minister, a separate general election for MPs, and a properly reformed House of Lords. Two of the consequences of this would be greater democracy and greater accountability. Not a bad price to pay for packing the 'Windsors' off to Mme Guillotine.

Just a word of warning to Danish and anyone else thinking of putting names to this, it would be quite a serious libel to misidentify someone. Of course it's just TSW, but it's been known to happen.

The US government is also on record as saying that the Israelis hold stocks of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Heaven only knows how they could possibly use them in the cupboard-space that is the Mediterranean Middle East.

I like that. But I'm sure most Royalists are barely skin-deep, and are hung up on a mummy-fixation. As soon as QE2 is gone, jug-ears is on point - and the clamour to get rid of the meddling oaf will be deafening.

To be a fully integrated part of a grown up, non-mother-fixated democratic society, rather than an overly inbred clan from Saxony corralling vast tracts of what was once public lands to themselves in the form of the Duchys.

I agree. The 'nothing will ever change' brigade sound even odder when they emanate from the very region where change is rife.

You give the strong impression of not having a clue what you're talking about. Let's start at the beginning. List the 'republican views' that you feel are 'rooted in envy' - then let's have a proper discussion about those ideas.

That can't be right. He's going to QPR.

Just so long as those rose stems have poisoned tips...

I don't think you'll find that all the backtracking was as a consequence of Saintsweb! Besides, your cynicism about public debate - the 'public' 'moans'; while our rulers and betters judiciously consider - is sadly rather typical of the 'We'll give you what's good for you' arrogance of classical Toryism.

Yes, let's wait until our lords and masters have come to their considered, smoking-room opinion about what's best for us peasants, rather than be part of the debate, after Gove had listed public funding as his 'chief option' for handing over a yacht to the Saxe-etcs as a fawning 'gift' from our grateful, forelock-tugging selves. Don't you think that the public reaction to Gove being such a pompous, patronising dickhead over this was part of what made them conclude: 'We'd better not do that'? Besides, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

Dear Dimwit, please see, among others, posts 37, 41, 146, 174, 181.