HughR. You have succinctly stated for the most part how things are. Well done on that. I'm glad that you agree that 'The Duchy' is Charles Windsor's personal fiefdom. Those who pay him, some of the poorest farmers in Great Britain, are also taxpayers. This disgraceful arrangement is one aspect of the bizarre medievalism republicans are campaigning to change.

What is this stuff about a right wing press? The Guardian, The Independent The Daily Mirror ads The Financial Times are on the left. The Telegraph, The Mail, The Express and the Sun are on the right. The Times is cenrist. Of course the CIRCULATIONS of the right wing papers are far higher, but that can hardly be blamed on the media. Oh, and the Beeb is leftist, Sky rightist. But of course don't pay for Sky unless I want to, whereas...

If we were a Republic who would our President be? Some superannuated politician, that's who. Would he/she live humbly and frugally? In a pig's arse, friend.

@johnB: and what are the "underlying political motivations of Republic's leaders"? Please tell us!
Is it to install a Maoist regime? to destroy this wonderful democratic regime? to plot with Islamist terrorists against the state?
Do you even know what you are talking about? Your insinuations are obviously meant to blacken the Republican cause and you people talk about the Republicans resorting to abuse?
As to labelling a democratic campaign for a Republic "an extreme political obsession" "for a disgruntled few",I am afraid you can only expect contempt from your opponents.
Yesterday I heard a sycophantic journalist talking about the queen as being "thrifty" because she remembered the deprivations of war time. As if this pampered woman knows anything of deprivation and has any idea of how deprived some of her "subjects" are even today.This kind of commentary is simply sick making and taking the viewers for complete imbeciles.The propaganda machine is definitely in full swing already and serfs like JohnB are going to lap it up!

Daniele if republicanism was a sport it would be as popular as bear baiting. Most folks are pretty benign about the Queen most, dare I say it; actually admire that little old lady. After all what’s the lefts alterative to our cherished Monarchy ‘dictatorship’ perhaps we could invent our very own dear leader Kim Jong-il. NO!! Most prefer the statuesque, because the lefts alternative to a Constitutional Monarchy is to depressing even to consider. President Blair or even more depressing President Ken Livingston. So I’m; afraid Daniele for the foreseeable future republicanism will remain a minority sport. But let’s not forget Daniele our side won the English revolution. That’s why we have a Constitutional Monarchy.

Isn't there something rather distasteful about watching a very old woman, and her acolytes, celebrating, quite so gleefully, the death of her own father?

http://ms-brown.wikispaces.com/file/view/1-15--guillotine.jpg/167791865/...

Excellent article and a long overdue denunciation of the British media as the poodles of the royal family. The tone of the reporting of "royal events" is always nauseating,reverential and idiotic, as if professionals intelligent journalists are suddenly deprived of their senses and transformed into blubbering imbeciles as soon as the royals have to be mentioned.
What is it with the media that no one has the balls or the integrity to investigate the tons of lies and propaganda coming from this family of parasites and their PR machine?
This country prides itself for having an impartial "free" press. Indeed! Is it self censorship then? that would be even more damning!
Viewed from the outside, British royalty is seen as some kind of national madness,some kind of delusional hysteria which gives the distinct impression of an infantilized,naive and politically immature nation.
When will British people grow up and decide to get rid of medieval serfdom and want to establish a proper modern democracy?
When will the British press find the guts to denounce this anachronistic and anti democratic institution and stop crawling and kissing royal ass?
I can't bear thinking of the inanities which will be pronounced during the jubilee celebrations. It will be another embarrassing and humiliating moment for this class ridden sheepish nation.

I welcome you all to visit Republic Campaign facebook page to judge for yourself the standard of debate there. I am a 62 year old retired teacher and I post regularly. I admit that there are the occasional disrespectful throwaway comments and occasional bad language. However, they are in the minority and I have been know to tell the posters off. Mostly, the debates are articulate, intelligent, well-presented and people discuss their genuine conviction that, in an era of equal opportunties, inherited political power and tax-funded status is wrong. Oh, and to the person who said what would we republicans do if we held elections for a Head of State and a member of the (ex) royals were to be elected? Well, that would be fine. I would have no problem with that but they would have to keep winning elections to stay in power and the perks of the job would be for that person and spouse only, not for his/her whole extended family. As things are, I object to the nepotism involved in passing such a sinecure of a job down to one's first born. It wouldn't be allowed in any other sphere so why do we let it happen in our most high-profile position?

to John Bull re your comment "The Republic facebook page routinely suppresses free debate, deletes comments from supporters of Constitutional Monarchy and republican supporters usually respond through a torrent of abuse or condescension towards supporters of our great Constitutional Monarchy." This is not true. We do suffer from the monarchists who troll our pages and try to cause dissent and trouble. We do have to regrettably ban them sometimes if they do want to engage in any meaningful debate. Some(not all)are clearly unbalanced individuals and we try to treat each case individually. I might also say that the monarchist pages are very quick to ban US, by the way, if we go onto their pages. I don't go onto any monarchist pages at all - I can't be bothered. Monarchy is a subject people have strong feelings about and we are never going to convert someone with strongly opposing beliefs. What sensible republicans try to do is to open up the argument, encourage rational debate, make people see beyond the incredibly powerful Palace spin- machine and think for themselves about the basic inequality of having an inherited monarchy. After all, we have already removed some of the inherited peers and soon will remove more on the grounds that they have not earned their right to sit in aithority over us. So where exactly does that leave the concept of a king / queen? Monarchy is a political institution. In a country with free speeach, we are entitled to debate its legitimacy.

First Minister Alex Salmond had been invited by BBC Scotland to appear with John Inverdale and a panel 2 or 3 hours before the rugby international at Murrayfield today.BBC in London has banned the FM from appearing on the pathetically spurious grounds that it would be "politically sensitive" because of the forthcoming Scottish local government elections.And when are these elections?Three whole months away.Salmond would only have been talking about sport not politics.But the BBC which takes Scottish money and keeps BBC Scotland programmes for Scotland down to the fewest it can get away with thinks that a non-contentious TV appearance by the elected leader of Scotland should be disallowed.

It's a good sign of course.The Britnat establishment have really got the wind up now and are well rattled.It should also keep SNP HQ busy processing the new members that have been joining in droves since Cameron started making his imperious pronouncements a few weeks ago.

I can see that the monarchists are out in force .
JohnB, your argument concerning refugees coming here is farcical. There are plenty of reasons why political refugees might try to reach Britain and the fact this country is a monarchy is not one of them.Those reasons are usually: past colonial links, family links and the fact they can somehow communicate in English.Yes true, the British state although headed by a medieval monarchy, is still better than a military dictatorship, not surprisingly.The fact is there are just as many political refugees, if not more applying to stay in Germany and France. So your point is completely irrelevant.
I would love johnB to give me evidence that "a constitutional monarchy delivers a better society, greater freedoms and a better standard of living". This is a most astonishing statement not to mention baseless.
@Simon: we obviously do not watch the same BBC. Where are all these Republican opinions and programs..?? have I missed them all? You are a comedian.
@Peter:but that is the point Peter, you can't democratically elect a king or a queen. Didn't you notice?
It has to be kept in the family, the SAME bloody family, even if a complete moron happens to be the heir to the throne. As a monarchist, you have to live with that.
Public opinions? Right, if you are going to listen to "mob rule" (that is what you guys call public opinion when you don't like it), you should also restore public flogging and hanging.Public opinion is manufactured by an abject right wing press which is in the business of preserving the statu quo and distracting the masses from the real problems with fairy tale royal weddings,celebrity gossip and the sexual exploits of footballers.
It is high time for a proper Republican campaign to begin to counteract all the propaganda out there.Unfortunately, the Republicans in this country seem to constitute a timid and ineffective group of people and I can't see them making any headway in the general public, who, in their ignorance, prefer lovely pink princesses and charming princes to a proper serious debate about the way this country is governed.
An objective and honest media is the basic requirement for a truly democracy where a properly informed public opinion would mean something. In this corrupt environment, it means nothing.

@luddite, what is wrong with a day off? What a brilliant argument! Of course we could also have a day off for the day we abolish monarchy, like the French have on the 14th July.I bet you wouldn't agree with that day off Luddite.
@hughR, name calling? what name calling? there is no name called in this quote. Do you actually know what you're talking about?
But I agree with Luddite on the bishops in the Lords. Not for the same reason of course, but because they represent the same archaic establishment than the monarchy. Ironically they sometimes show more humanity than their aristocratic colleagues and often threaten to upturn the apple cart.Funny old bishops.
In schools up and down this country, children are daily indoctrinated into thinking of the royals as the embodiment of this country. Not to like and admire them, the message goes, would be being unpatriotic, reflecting the notion that British soldiers die " for queen and country".As if you can't love and defend your country if you are not a royalist.That is indoctrination for you.

"How does Daniele explain how tens of thousands of refugees from tyrannical republics, would wish for nothing more to settle in your infantilised, naive and hysterical nation simply to become serfs." JohnB:

The answer is that she doesn't need top because the two things are not commensurate. Those people seeking asylum in this country are not fleeing from properly democratic republics only dictatorships. Many souls, particularly women are repressed victims in Middle Eastern 'kingdoms'. Graham Smith and Daniele are quite correct. This obsession with illegitimate multi-millionaire 'exemplars' is debasing the people of this country on the world stage. The media has been doing their bidding through oaths and unspoken agreements for decades past. The system is undemocratic, partisan, and does not represent the pluralism in this country. The Windsor family, endorsed by the media represents white, wealthy, upper-class, Anglican values. They actively choose to separate themselves from the population, existing on massive amounts of public money. Charles Windsor, for example, has wreaked hundreds of thousands of pounds from 'The Duchy' of Cornwall, treating it his own personal fiefdom. These people are unremovable, unaccountable and unelected. There is absolutely nothing in any sane world to celebrate. It is high time that journalists reported the news even-handedly rather than operating from some emic position in which this bunch of 30 or so undeserving dynasts are continually feted.

Dear me 'Briefcase', you are a predictably rude person. Are you a typical monarchist? Why on earth are are you so pleased with yourself? The fact remains that security costs for these people are not admitted, in the sanitized accounts describing what marvellous value for money they all are. Since, disgracefully they have exempted themselves from the Freedom of Information Act, it is not possible accurately to account for how public money is being spent. You may be entirely happy with that, many are not.