yes MB you are correct, Spain IS indeed the no.1 destination for brits but France is the no.1 destination for ALL nationalities worldwide - Britain is high on the list of most tourists from worldwide but France is no.1 holiday destination globally - remember France is a big country with everything from skiing to sunbathing etc

I don't agree about English nationalism. Until quite recently we (English) were happy to conflate English with British. But the point is that the other nations in Great Britain to some extent feel left out so feel the need to emphasise that they are [inot[/i English. I recall in the good old days when Great Britain RL fielded a team, Aussie commentators regularly calling them "England"
Perhaps we should be more assertive in our Englishness. But do we want to take it to the extreme of the Scottish football fan, when asked which teams apart from Scotland he supported said "whoever's playing England?"
As for the Monarchy, the fact that the qualification for being head of state of a major Western power depends upon which bed you were born in is clearly a ridiculous method of selection. Would we pick any other key person in any walk of life the same way?

We pick our MPs out of the small group of incompetents who stand for election. Why is that so good?

I see. You are aware, of course, that Mrs Windsor is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her Dominions Overseas, Lord of the Isles, Duke of Nomandy etc. England doesn't come into it at all.

Or, I suppose, you could just be talking bollox (as if)

it's no different to the incompetants who get elected to the French equivalent or probably the Spanish or any other republics equivalent

I don't have a problem with HM, she's a great diplomat for the UK just like David Beckham but it's the hundreds of hangers on that I object to...

the french media would be distraught if the UK royal family ceased to exist as most of the 'juicy' news emanates from these nondescript upper class twits....

....along with the Monte Carlo lot,Carla Bruni & Jonny Halliday !

Yes.

IMO the monarchy and the frippery that surrounds it serves to promulgate an attitude of deference that extends to other organs of state. It also helps sustain what remains of the class system. I believe that we'd 'grow up' and get more involved in our own destiny if the monarchy and the other remnants of feudalism such as the HoL were abolished.

This may not seem like a 'practical' benefit but I believe that it would improve us as a society over time.

Do we need a monarch to have 'national pride'?

They had national pride in the Soviet Union with icons like Lenin in every classroom uniting the nation and instilling children with pride in their fatherland and what their fatherland stood for. The pictures of Stalin and the sacrifice made in the war against the Nazis.

I for one would be delighted to have a President like Tony Blair fulfilling the Queen's constitutional roles as Head of State of our great nation. He would be the Peoples President, he could give us leadership in dark moments and bring the country together. In fact I would be happy to make him King.

Hit the nail on the head. The monarchy serves to reinforce privilege and the class system way beyond its immediate boundaries.

As to Dally's contention the monarchy is some sort of funnel for national pride not for me it isn't. I am proud to be British and English but that pride stems for our countries history which includes doing things like the abolition of slavery, the way it developed democratically and moved away from the class ridden society we were not so long ago. That history saw a steady erosion of the power of the monarchy and that is in itself something to be proud of.

At the moment things like that which make me proud are under more threat then since the end of the 2nd world war and I definitely feel very uneasy at the way the jubilee celebrations appear to reinforce the establishment and deference to a monarch as subjects.

I really do not understand why anyone views the Queen or any royal as someone to courtesy or bow to.

The royals are a lot more bearable than the majority of pricks who live south of Watford gap.

At last, someone talking 100% sense. King Bliar. Or has that already been done?

Despite not being a monarchist, I thought the 1977 Silver Jubilee was a great occassion. Mainly because the pubs stayed open which was a rarity in those days. The 2002 and 2012 versions seem tepid by comparison.

The monarchy will keep going whilst Liz is alive. The constitutional crisis will come when she dies.

Shame that Phil's picked up a bladder infection. Can be much more serious than you might think for the old folks.

Or is he just trying to get away from Gary Barlow, Elton John etc?

Because it's better than all the other methods we've tried in the past.
Do we really want one people, one leader, one country method?

In essence, he does not believe in a meritocracy.

That's why I said we were only allowed to be British, not English and then when it suits.

Good for you. I wear the union jack and wave my union flag, whatever, when the event is inspired by either the royals or the olympics, since they are the two institutions by which we remain identified as British. All else I will wave my English flag (which is limited to rugby league events since they are the only other flag waving moments I experience).


Fab. But they are four of the reasons I like Liz. Whether they exist elsewhere is irrelevant to my feelings towards Liz.


I couldn't care less. Liz has been a beacon of dignity throughout and she's the top dog royal so all the rest of them aren't that important. I do confess to hoping that by some miracle Charles won't find himself as king but instead the throne will skip to William. I rather dread Charles taking over.


Absolutely. That is another reason why she specifically and the monarchy generally is such a great arrangement. Why the hell would we want another political figure as our head of state? The present arrangement works very well for us. Why fix something that isn't actually broken?

His Majesty is currently spreading his good news message to the Middle East where he is nobly trying to bring peace to the region, he's also got his eyes on being President of Europe which I think would be a great role for him, the Americans already love him, I think between him and Simon Cowell we could easily establish a British government by proxy over there. So I think maybe Tony Blair could unite the peoples of the whole world together not just Britain. Like Bob Marley said, One Love, One Heart, the hand of history is upon us, a hand up not a hand out, with rights come responsibilities, tough on crime tough on the causes of crime, the train is leaving, I want you on that train, but it is leaving anyway.

I've never not allowed to be English.

The 'wouldn't want Blair as president' argument shows a lack of ability to reason, combined with a lack of education.

It relies on one hate figure and one essentially bland figure.

The idea that an elected president would only ever be bad and a monarch only ever a darling is ridiculous and historic nonsense.

I've had to get really rather drunk to get through this shizzle chief but you is cackamallabab squired gormcloptituded to the max girlfriend.

I really can't get past the fact that the last couple of days will have cost millions upon millions to fund, despite public sector workers losing their livelhoods right, left and centre, coupled with the general austerity the British public is facing.

Boy do we know how to throw a big royal party in front of the Palace these days! What a fab do it was (except for Cliff Richard, Elton John and Paul McCartney, none of whom can sing anymore). And ever since that joke of an attempt at a firework display on the eve of the millennium, we have really got to grips with the idea. Beltin firework display at the end of the big royal party in front of the Palace tonight. Amazing stuff.

The river pageant was a misconceived embarassment. Tonight's concert was magnifiicent except that certain mega-stars were given one or two songs and yet Kylie was given a medley and Cheryl was on stage - why, oh why? Sir Paul was rightly in one sense given the main gig (wasn't it nice to see the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoying Paul knocking out Beatles' songs?) but his voice went 20 years back. The main blight on the evening was Rolf not being allowed to complete "Two little Boys". Mind you Prince Charles' speech was superb.

The most poignant element of this Jubilee to me is that that other diamond jubilee queen, Victoria, presided over our finest hours. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is probably the finest monarch since the days when our Kings lead the nations' army into battle on horseback and yet her years have coincided with the biggest decline in our nation in 1,000 years. "Land of Hope and Glory" that most magnificent triumphalist anthem of Empire seems more than a little anarchonistic.

Having said all that, "God bless the Queen!"

Yes and it would cost millions to elect a president every five years too. Things cost money. The olympics cost money.

The good news is that David Cameron's government is restoring good old Victorian values with his welfare reforms and perhaps if he gets another term in office living standards could be back at the levels the Victorians enjoyed.