Horses served us well for over a thousand years, but I don’t know anyone who saddles up to go to work.

I’am sanguine about Monarchy, but I don’t think “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is a match for “Always try to improve on what you’ve got”.

It’s a bit like saying;

“See here chaps, little portable stereos may be okay for little japanese people but the British Radiogram Company has always made Chest radiograms and always will, walkymans indeed”…..

Peter.

What exactly is nonsensical about Monarcgy ?

Please explain why a system that has served this country so well for over a thousand years should not continue for another thousand .

Your comments are the best example of the nonsensical nature of monarchy.

Frederic Stansfield IS entirely correct in his assessment. And as for Charles, Duke of Rothsey (isnt it?) I bet he’ll reign as George VII not Charles III- after all there was a damn good reason we got rid of the Stuart dynasts

No it doesn’t. But if one does not keep repeating it, how else can one hope to persuade people it is not false ? It was always thus for the proponents of mob rule.

There is nothing logical about democracy. It is just as emotional a philosophy as any other since it roots are the concepts of “fairness” and “equality” – neither of which are inherently rational.

That of course will attract howls of protest from some quarters, which merely demonstrates their inability or unwillingness to analyse their position from first principles.

There is nothing contradictory in having a democratically elected legislature subject to the supervision of a hereditary monarch. When republicans like Jack rail against the fact that the monarchy has majority support they reveal that their support for “democracy” is selective – they only accept the majority view when it happens to coincide with their own prejudices.

If they were true democrats, then, instead of seeking to impose those prejudices onto the majority, they should examine their own position in order to understand why they are a minority, and how they can reconcile their opinion with that of the majority.

For the record, Monarchies have served the world for millenia and in all quarters of the globe. The fact that this system has emerged independently as the preferred model of very diverse societies suggests that it has intrinsic merit. Rather than reject it out of hand, one should seriously question whether the elective dictatorship which is more often the product of “democracy” is the model which has less intrinsic validity.

“if one doesn’t have a democracy then all alternatives are logically equally legitimate”

“one either believes in democracy or one doesn’t. If you don’t then monarchies / dictatorships etc are all equally logical governmental systems”

Repeatedly stating a false dichotomy does not make it any less false.

It’s the one I began with; QE2 till death is emotionally understandable but King Charles you’d have to be joking. That’s the point where an emotional, irrational attachment to QE2 stops and a logical belief in democracy cuts in.

It is not the issue of monarchy being ‘broken’; that is the ‘England has to be an historic theme park’ tabloid press argument. Do you believe in democracy or not? If not, then logically we can have dictators / Generals / etc as the principle of democracy is gone. If you don’t believe in democracy then alternatives are possible, including monarchies.

Yes, I know it’s cuddly to think of QE2 but the principle is that either one has a real democracy or one doesn’t- if one doesn’t have a democracy then all alternatives are logically equally legitimate including dictatorships.

Finally it’s quite simple– one either believes in democracy or one doesn’t. If you don’t then monarchies / dictatorships etc are all equally logical governmental systems.

Going back to my opening post; King Charles makes Pres. Blair seem equally good. (And bad)

And note, abolition of the monarchy does not mean a Presidential system axiomatically- one just needs a figurehead-look at Ireland or Australia.

I must admit I have a personal preference that all members of the govt. (including figureheads) should be elected or appointed by those for whom I vote. Accidents of birth is not a reason for an inherited position, not even for the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

a) They didn’t understand the question – worrying

b) They really are blatant religious bigots and/ or anti-women – very worrying

or

c) the 10/15% against the proposals represent what I view as the ‘UK must be an historic theme park / all change is bad even when change is obviously needed’ group of society.

Now, this to me is the first time I have a clear percentage for this group (and consider it on your local issues; how many people in you area complain about each and every change on the ‘it wasn’t like that in the old days so we don’t need it now’ line ).

It’s a worrying aspect to our society that such a group will, as a matter of course, object to all change. Maybe this explains the maximum UKIP vote( that was a a cheap shot, sorry…)?