republicans, over here!

I mean not a reason to not have another go at it.

You ARE a citizen. We haven't been subjects here since 1949, so you can at least find solace in that.

“You're talking about the history and system that allows the thing to occur (none of which are at issue) but not the thing itself.”

No, I’m talking about sovereign immunity, which is “the thing itself” from which all these exemptions derive. It’s not a system and all things have a contextual history. You can’t realistically discuss 160 these exemptions individually, as if there were no context and no overarching raison d’etre.

”And no, I didn't just rely on a Guardian article”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property?CMP=share_btn_link

Oh yes you did….

“ I also posted an example, (from the Equality Act) including a link to the actual legislation to which they were referring to”

your example was a link embedded in the Guardian article “her exemption from the Equality Act 2010 is apparent only through a one-line statement in an accompanying explanatory document.”

” I also quoted an Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Oxford, (which summarised the general effect of these specific exemptions) and”

you cut and pasted the exact quote he made in the Guardian article…blah blah blah “said Thomas Adams, an associate professor of law at Oxford University, who examined the Guardian’s findings” in paragraph 8.

“I quoted another example of the sort of clauses I was referring to (which happened to be from the Pension Act) and”

you also cut and pasted this from the table titled Personalised exemptions granted to the Queen in her private capacity that was in the Guardian article..

“I gave an example of the Education Act as one which doesn't contain the clause giving the specific exemptions, I'm referring to.”

this was actually you being sarcastic to me about my choice of words several pages later and not intended as an illustrative example.

Yeah, lots more failed republics. Hardly encouraging.

That wasn't a republic.

And there was no experience of democracy, so it reverted back to autocracy. A common pattern in the evolution of states.

The last time we had a republic didn’t work out so good for us.

The key would be a democratic republic, which is what we would have (theoretically) in a representative democracy.
As arguments against a republic go, Cromwell's England is really a strange one to use.
Havin said hat, some of the ideas out of that revolution (the levellers and so on) weren't wrong, in theory.

Oh my dear me. It was indeed a republic, with democracy as power was primarily invested in the democratically elected Parliament. After Cromwell, in the Restoration it didn’t revert “back to autocracy” but back to a constitutional monarchy with a (still) democratic Parliament.

“Whereas Elizabeth I’s regime was a monarchy with traces of a republic, Cromwell’s regime was a republic with traces of a monarchy. Indeed, in some ways the term might be regarded as more truly applicable to the Interregnum because, unlike Elizabethan England, it actually was a republic.”
www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/the-monarchical-republic-of-oliver-cromwell-cromwell-day-address-2015/

“The Commonwealth was the political structure during the period from 1649 to 1660 when England and Wales, later along with Ireland and Scotland,[1] were governed as a republic after the end of the Second English Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles I. The republic's existence was declared through "An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth", adopted by the Rump Parliament on 19 May 1649. Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in the Parliament and a Council of State.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

“In early December 1648, frustrated by the ambiguities and hesitations of those negotiating with the defeated king, a detachment of soldiers purged Parliament of its most conservative MPs, opening the way for the hasty organisation of a High Court of Justice and the consequent trial of Charles I. As the king resisted the legitimacy of the court and refused to enter a plea, power passed to the more radical military and political leaders, as they became increasingly interested in exploring republican solutions to the political crisis. After multiple attempts to have Charles recognise the court by entering a plea, his judges found him guilty of treason. He was beheaded on 30 January 1649 outside Westminster Hall and, four months later, England was formally established as a republic. The English republic was rooted in the religious and political idealism of its visionaries, administrators and apologists.”

”The English republic did not collapse because of external pressures. After all, the revolutionary regime had excelled in its military activities: having conquered Ireland, Scotland and Jamaica, and having quashed the last serious Royalist rebellions, its future might have appeared to be secure. Instead, the republic collapsed in upon itself. It grew increasingly indebted to the military and by the later 1650s the arrears of pay that were owed to soldiers grew so significant as to threaten to bankrupt the regime. Its administrators pursued different political settlements for England, Ireland and Scotland, creating strategic ambiguities as to what a republican government should look like and the extent to which it should draw in at a local level the traditional social leaders. Most seriously, the republic proved to be incapable of sustaining the religious and political ideals upon which it had been founded.”
www.historytoday.com/history-matters/end-english-republic

Is our current set up a success ?

Although I think we need a lot more reform than just getting rid of hereditary royals

PR voting for a start so everyone's vote counts so the country isn't governed by a party with less than 40%!of the vote

Actually I think I'd like that change first

Most seriously, the republic proved to be incapable of sustaining the religious and political ideals upon which it had been founded.

Well, the sooner we can get rid of the link between religion and the State, the better.

But that's another thread entirely.

@Brefugee
As arguments against a republic go, Cromwell's England is really a strange one to use.
I’m not sure it’s strange because Cromwell was a Republican and during the political crisis of Charles I refusing to be tried in court for his crimes, that was when the decision was made to abolish the monarch (by chopping off his head and trying to chop off the heads of his heir- but Charles II escaped) and then he established a bona fide Republic. One that collapsed from the inside.

Havin said hat, some of the ideas out of that revolution (the levellers and so on) weren't wrong, in theory.
Yes, they weren’t wrong in some ways about trying to get rid of the class system altogether. They were of course still sexist as hell and all their calls for “true” equality did not include women.

There is a big to do list in reforming this country.

In our current system, Parliament has all the power. The government we have clearly doesn’t work for the people. The Tories have run us into the ground with fuck up after fuck up for a decade. They should not still be in power. I think if a PM has to resign (for other than dying on the job or being seriously ill), then we should be off to a general election where every vote counts. There shouldn’t be what we have now which is one party going through failed PM & Cabinet after failed PM & Cabinet over and over again. It should be one shot, or general election.

Well - I am sure King Charles will have some wise words of advice for Liz Truss.

Asking her about banker's bonuses fracking, food banks, food inflation, climate change.....

I’m not sure it’s strange because Cromwell was a Republican and during the political crisis of Charles I refusing to be tried in court for his crimes, that was when the decision was made to abolish the monarch

the reason i say the comparison is strange is because the two countries - Britain 400 years ago and Britain now are like 2 different countries. Most people didn't have the vote back then, so as i said - we live in a representative democracy now, which is a whole new ball game.

Swapping one autocratic ruler for another is not what this is about.

This is a good read

www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/12/it-time-throw-monarchies-world-dustbin-history

It occurred to me this evening is that Royalists who say we might get a dodgy president are saying they don't trust themselves to vote sensibly.

I was at a sporting event today - one you would associate with solid, working class folk.

Two minutes silence or the Queen: observed perfectly.

"God save the King": no-one sang it. One shouted out "I'll give him ten years tops". One replied "make it 5".

Interestingly MSM now seem to be dialling back a bit with Sky News tonight re-showing the pen fiascos and adopting a more questioning tone.

Could be a short-lived honeymoon...

"Well, the sooner we can get rid of the link between religion and the State, the better."
^This
then I might concern myself with the place of the Monarchy in our governance.

Meanwhile I'm happy to let King Chas 3 out of his coop to let him rip on the environment, architecture and fish, etc before he downsizes his role as Head of State.

Anyone else fed up and bemused by the reporting of total bollocks regarding the supernatural/other wordly/ psychic/ unexplainable events surround the Queen's death and the sugary sweet sycophantic reporting of such?

ie

1. The Queen's pony looked sad, she knows she's never going to be ridden by the Queen again. Someone else reported the pony actually "did a curtsey" as the funeral passed
2. Rainbows appearing in the sky because the Queen died. Not just because the weather conditions were right to produce a fucking rainbow
3. Sun beans photographed shining down on the coffin as if straight from Heaven. NOT a run of the mill camera flare.
4. The corgi dogs "looked sad", as the funeral passed, they "know she will never be coming home".

I've been amused by the viewership figures being 26.9million the majority didn't watch it.

But on the sky news they are commenting they don't know how many were round a TV, completely misunderstanding how viewership figures are worked out as below.

"Just like a giant episode of Gogglebox, UK television viewing figures are calculated by watching the watchers. TV ratings are compiled daily by the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. BARB recruits 12,000 people across 5,100 households representative of the overall UK viewing public."

Yeah the deification of QE 2 is very weird.

Photos on Facebook of clouds that are supposed to look like the Queen…..

I'm patiently waiting - I'll give him until 6 months after his coronation (i suspect his plans will be revealed before that) to see what his "slimmed down" monarchy looks like.

I must admit i did love all the other kings, queens and heads of state arriving in buses. Except for the oh-so-special US Prez. Ho hum. (OTOH - if, say, the Danish queen, who i quite admire, had died first, i can't imagine Queen Elizabeth on a coach)

Now it is time to dig around and find out what legislation and announcements and news were slipped out under the radar while the 12 days (or whatever it was) of blanket QE2 coverage was going on.

I must admit i did love all the other kings, queens and heads of state arriving in buses. Except for the oh-so-special US Prez. Ho hum.

Donald Trump bass,ready mocked the Bidens for being seated in the 14th row. Now let me see, where was Trump himself sitting?

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-biden-queen-elizabeth-funeral-b2170844.html