To feel extremely bloody proud to be British today?

[hehitmeanditfeltlikeakiss]

I take our country for granted because I live in a town that is the polar opposite of what Windsor looks like. But wow - watching the Royal family today I got shivers down my spine and felt so overwhelmed with emotion.

In the past I've looked at ways of emigrating because I've been fed up of living here, but I've just realised that it's a free country and to feel better about life I can actually make the move and go and live somewhere nicer (ok, maybe not Windsor but still).

We're so lucky aren't we?

I referred to a Governor General who took his position as a figurehead a long long way beyond the ceremonial. In his former role as a judge, Kerr could not have performed such an act - it was only the role of GG which permitted him to do so.

You cut out the second part of my statement: that the GG has a constitutional role every once in a while, while mostly having a ceremonial role.

I am all for the australians having their own head of state. I am saying that the fact that the australians had a head of state that made a bad decision doesn't support the idea of an elected head or a representative of the monarchy. That bad decision wasn't a consequence of design. Someone just made a bad decision.

I hope you now get my point. If not, I will try to clarify it for you. I will reiterate, I am making no comments about monarchies, but am responding to your statement.

that's what i am saying. all of what you said is independent of having a foreign monarchy, except how pissed australians were at the situation.

I am not saying a GG needs to be ceremonial. I am saying you can have a toned down head of state like Canada and Australia and still function.

Ha! at the thought of anyone wanting to watch Neil Kinnock take the salute. I was being sarcastic. It would be someone like this.

But there isn't anything intrinsically more appealing about watching Prince Charles than Neil Kinnock, is there, leaving aside any political views or their personalities? I don't know either of them and the idea of one elderly man taking the salute is pretty much the same as another. I know you've put Neil Kinnock in as someone you feel we should all find risible, but the queen is just an ordinary old woman when you take away the inherited importance. She's no different from my mum - she simply has more frocks and a lot of diamonds.

I know you've put Neil Kinnock in as someone you feel we should all find risible, but the queen is just an ordinary old woman when you take away the inherited importance. I don't find Neil Kinnock risible and in fact at one point he did a lot of good in reforming the Labour party. But now he seems to be a bit of a snout in the trough type. His son Stephen is a career politician. So yes according to you no different to the Royal Family. Dynastic and self serving. The difference is that the monarch is above politics.

marchin84 You cut out the second part of my statement: that the GG has a constitutional role every once in a while, while mostly having a ceremonial role.

constitutional role every once in a while I'm sorry, but that is so generalised as to be meaningless but then, perhaps I'm just obtuse. Oh, no, I just realised, I'm definitely not.

I think we are talking at cross purposes, because I feel that you are making no effort to understand what I am actually saying, whilst I feel you are thinking the same about me.

"So good-bye, dear, and amen" (as the song says).

The difference is that the monarch is above politics.
The difference is that the monarch had her privileged position handed to her automatically without any effort, her children and grandchildren all enjoy privilege and wealth too, plus many other lower ranking royals. Their kids won't be able to to use private jets costing upwards of £150 grand, complete with their own butler, valet and two servants (as Prince Charles does) They also don't get to have fully staffed umpteen palaces at their disposal.

Everything is wrong about having a "royal" family, they're an unnecessary burden that we could easily do without.

Ha! at the thought of anyone wanting to watch Neil Kinnock take the salute. I was being sarcastic. It would be someone like this

Nonetheless I don't think the Kinnocks, Ann Widdecombe, Cherie Blair or John Prescott would be crowd pullers. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I haven't been on mumsnet in a few days.. I can't believe this is still going on!

I hardly think the unachieving Charles and Camilla would be either. It's just that we're all brainwashed into thinking the royals are our betters. Imagine the uproar if the prime minister only got the job because he inherited off his parents. That's how absurd it all is.

Nonetheless I don't think the Kinnocks, Ann Widdecombe, Cherie Blair or John Prescott would be crowd pullers. Maybe I'm wrong though

Surely the point of a Head of State is not to be a crowd puller but to be a Head of State doing Head of State stuff?