"David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman"

And obviously a complete and utter douchebag for writing this twaddle hating his own country.

Charles will only ever do a few years, then his 'shadow king' son will step up, and lead England back to the glorious heights of the Victorian Empire. Kate is the triumphant cherry on top needed to complete this new UK order.

The *arrangements* have all been made...

While I have no great regard for the monarchy, partly also because I believe that being born into a job you do not choose is a form of gilded slavery, I cannot see it being allowed to die. It does bring in far more tourist spending than it costs and as a resident. The US, it is clear to me that it's existence causes America to feel much more affection for the UK than if it became a Republic. In fact, I would venture to say that the largest component of what is left of the "special relationship" is because of the Britsh monarchy. So if Britain wants to be
viewed as just another silly European country by the US, it should abolish the monarchy - as Americans feel a strong connection to it.

What was so "wonderful" about the clownish grotesquerie that was acted out in front of some gaping mouthed empty-brained boors? Does Allen have an atwiom of brain?

Why take these prancing clowns so seriously? They are their own worst enemy. They will fall into their swinish excesses infallibly and disgust even the hard-wearing guts of the Brits.

I guess this marriage of two petty snobs will last about 5 years.

If we hear females of a certain age range - quite considerable - repeat yet again 'Ah, she's not a patch on his mother!' - we'll come to believe Diana's Blithe Spirit is wafting around in Royal Circles.

Hind Sight

At Al Jazeera's web site, in a comment about what may happen after the killing of Bin Laden, there is a remark that, in comparison with the "Arab spring" in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, striving for human freedom and democracy, the importance of -- and so the support for -- al Qaida can be expected to decline and has already declined.

So, to remove the UK monarchy (not a close analogy except perhaps that both are pathological remnants and symbols of political power) maybe we do not have to spend much effort in devising ways to directly remove it.

A remedy, indeed antidote, for both monarchy (plus aristocracy) and the elective dictatorship of our "representative" government, is stronger democracy. Democracy -- as rule BY the people -- can grow in strength almost imperceptibly over time, causing undemocratic structures to become redundant.

Even the small improvement in political representation -- giving a touch more power to the people -- as we see in the rabid (sic) campaign against Alternative Vote -- is too much for the conservative elite. Also, by offering weak reforms, half-measures, in other legislation they are trying to fend off demands for effective political participation such as direct democracy with citizens' initiative and binding referendum.
Although perhaps the majority of voters have not "felt" the potential of their own political power, the elites are rightly fearful of it. Background may be found at http://www.iniref.org/latest.html

NSM apparently supports republicans in UK but not in US. Why? (One word answer ,please, be creative)

A United Republic of GBNI ? - No thankyou.
A Republic of England please.
That said, one be quite prepared to wait - until such time as her maj. no longer reigns.
Question. Do we republicans press the issue publicly now (before her demise) or at the time of (her demise) or sometime after ?
Perhaps a middle-way could be found - a plebiscite at the time of Charlies accession asking for a simple yeah or neah to him ?

At least republicans can take solace in the fact that we're right. All we can do is carry on till we get them out.

Aren't you forgetting that it will be Prince Charles and Camilla who will be next in line, to the throne... Not Prince William and Catherine.

A republic may be a lot nearer than you think.

Is replacing the Queen really that difficult a legal position? Ireland existed under the exact same constitional arrangements until 1922 and simply replaced the Queen with the State (eg Queen's Counsel becomes State Counsel). Surely it can't be that complicated to get around.

British Republicans always go soft and their knees start to wobble when these major PR stunts are organised by the hacks at Buckingham Palace, yet they ignore one very important factor.

British support for the monarchy has not been proven. There has never been an election or a referendum on the matter and any polls conducted are equivalent to polls in Cuba on whether Raúl Castro should continue as President and leader of the Communist Party. They are a farse because no alternative has been presented. The royal family operates as a one party state.

The royals may be many things but they are not stupid. As of 1215 they have acted cunningly, letting go of just enough power for people to concede that there is no sufficient justification for getting rid of them, even if there is likewise ever less justification for keeping them. The peasants don't rebel about constitutional details. They rebel when they are starving, and now when that happens they can happily lay the blame at the door step of the House of Commons and not at that of the House of Windsor.

Sadly, it is very difficult to change this. If only 15% of the population care about a referendum on voting reform, how many will turn up to vote in a referendum on the monarchy? Even if they do, Buckingham Palace's bread and circuses division will no doubt knock them into line.

Saturday's spectacle was not wonderful. It was just the latest stunt by a bunch of aristocrats aimed at perpetuating their privilege and to ensure that neither they nor their heirs will ever have to do a day's work for many more generations. Enough kowtowing to these rascals! We should be horrified.

A United Republic may seem distant to someone safely ensconced in the bosun of the South East of England but to a Scot it doesn't necessarily seem such a distant prospect. What with hundreds marching for a republic in Edinburgh and an anti-royal wedding street party ending in a riot in Glasgow yesterday.

Have you considered the outcome of the Scottish Elections fully in coming to your conclusions for instance?

Polls indicate that there could well now be a majority in favour of an independence referendum in power after May the 5th.

This article thinks that the creation of the Republic has something to do with the character of the royal family.

We desperately and urgently need the Republic because our rotten constitution bestows all power on the office of prime minister creating an "elective dictatorship" (Lords Hailsham's words). That is how all prime ministers since Thatcher have functioned.

Republicanism does not have to be the shallow anti-monarchism the article supposes. www.republicanparty.org.uk

Well here's what the happy couple prayed for on the day, shared for us via the Westminster abbey site ( www.westminster-abbey.org/worship/sermons/2011/april/address-given-at-th... )

"God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.
In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy.
Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
Amen."

So whose firm are the happy couple working for now, one wonders? Ours, rich or poor, I sincerely hope.

So "there is a genuine and deep domestic regard for the royal family" is there? Evidence please or GTFO.

Said it for a long time, our monachy needs to be more like monachies from other counties, the Belgium, Dutch and scandanavian countries especially, in being more low-key.

More land, for instance, should be moved to the common people from arstocracy for instance, there being less tenantcies about.

The air of hypocrisy was everywhere yesterday, I'm afraid to say, even down to how Wills and Harry looked, not very roundhead looking at all. They looked like something off a tin of biscuits.

I, of course, meant to write "his help in getting an unpopular property development STOPPED."

Nick, he's tried to get people sacked because they don't hold his ridiculous views on alternative medicine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/11/health.monarchy

Not to mention his lobbying of ministers on GM, nanotech and whatever the hobby horse of the month at St James Palace is.

Interesting comment, Jacques. By accident or design, the royals have made themselves politically irrelevant: thus making any discussion of the existence of the monarchy seemingly irrelevant.
Having said that, if/when Charles becomes king, he appears to be sufficiently naive/stupid/badly-advised to believe that his ignorant utterances on GM crops, architecture, nanotechnology, etc strike a chord with people in the UK, and that he therefore has a right to try to influence policy. He could be the best friend british republicanism ever had.
And I wonder how long it'll be before the tabloids here start picking Kate M apart the way they did Diana: personally I find the whole institution to be inane, and the media's respond to it in general a zigzag course between sycophancy and viciousness.

The problem, as David points out, is that Britain's unwritten constitution is a house of cards. Suppose we decide to abolish the monarchy in favour of a republic, our first question is if we want a President with executive pwoers or just another figure head. If we want a President like France we would need to reform the entire parliamentary system and completley change the role of Prime Minister. In the short term electing someone as a figurehead would be less difficult but how long before the new head of state starts claiming powers because of a democratic mandate? This is just scartching the surface of the profound constitutional change needed to abolish the monarchy. When a republican can answer these questions with a practical alternative I might start listening.

What a ridiculous article. Sadly, this is the sort of despair the left intelligentsia is prone to, seeing the only possibility of change as coming from voluntary concessions from above.

The monarchy has some reserves of support among the middle class and elderly (though even then, the two groups often overlap, poorer pensioners remaining at best indifferent), but as the middle class is eroded in this new period of economic turmoil, we will see perhaps unprecedented unrest. Half a million marching in London is only the beginning - strikes start on 30 June, and will without doubt continue for some years, until victory is achieved or defeat suffered.

The royal family in particular is largely viewed with indifference. The reason for the viewing figures yesterday was the dress, not some attachment to the family as a symbol of all things British. As a young person I can honestly say that indifference is the prevailing attitude to the monarchy, but it takes only a small step (probably taken by Charles) to create widespread opposition.

Republicans need not despair!

@ET! Agreed... England will only have independence never mind a republic - by default - after the Celtic countries have achieved theirs.

The Queen will veto any measures to abolish the Monarchy.

I admit to having republican sympathies and I wouldn't mind it if it happened, but at the same time I don't think it is really something we can every expect in our life time or even this century. Everyone seems to talk about the idea of King Charles and Queen Camilla being something that would launch republican discussion... but the fact is that not enough people care whether Charles succeeds to throne or not. The love for Diana and hatred for Charles and Camilla is something that was completely overstated by sections of society which mainly exist in London. Hell, I'll stick my neck out and say that I think Charles will make a good king, as I'm sure William and Catherine will make a good king and queen too.

It could still be another ten years at least before Charles is crowned king and a lot could happen in those ten years. Any remaining resentment towards him that exists now will be even weaker as more and more people just stop caring. Like I said, most people have and most people aren't bothered about the idea of Camilla being Queen. Besides, whose to say that Charles will even outlive the Queen? You just don't know what will happen. One thing I am certain of is that a republic won't be talked about just because a small number of people don't like Charles or only liked the royal family because of the Queen.

Realistically Charles will never step down from his rights, and neither will William, and I don't think parliament care enough to open discussions.

I know it's silly also to say that the UK is defined in many ways by the fact it still has a royal family but, you know, it is and I think the sentiments people have towards it are too strong and will outlive the Queen who still could have a while to go yet. I am a republican only in theory but not so much in action because I dread a world where our country has a man or woman would "supreme" power. The country is safer as it is. What is the point is changing things just for the sake of it? The monarchy doesn't do the people any harm *really*, and if it does, it does a lot less harm than a president would.

Nope, I think a republic still only exists in dystopian alternative universe novels I'm afraid. There is just too much of a needless uphaul of our country's structure involved with it. I know that sounds lazy but... I don't think you should change a system that works perfectly well as it is. Especially is a country where most people could take or leave the royal family or a republic.

swatantra: Off with her head then! she can't on one hand have no power as we are repeatedly told and then be able to veto her own demise.
Seriously, some very good comments here. Like many Republicans here, my only hope now is that Charles fucks up royally.
But again my hopes are also in the media which will take a couple of weeks before they start attacking Kate like they attacked Diana.
I think the Republicans could also start a proper campaign, highlighting the disgraceful behaviour of some members of this fucked up family like prince Andrew and his friends.Also exposing what they cost and what Monarchy really represents.
To start with I think we should demand from the Parliament to be told how much this extravagant wedding cost the tax payer. If the media did their job, we would know now. As it is we have to demand that information. We should also have access to the royals's finances.
If the public actually KNEW what this family is really doing and costing, they might change their mind. But just like the topic of Europe (which is constantly maligned), we are constantly fed lies and told half of it.In the case of Monarchy, we are fed some sentimental and patronising shit which are swallowed whole by the majority of the population.A sad indictment of the British press which only indulges in personal gossip on the royals, not serious information. What we need is the whole truth!