OTHERS say it is all to do with Irish tinkers playing spoons made of bones
Does it matter? Are nursery rhymes current? The few occasions I've heard mums singing to babies recently, they've been pop songs.
ETA though there was one posh nanny (or so I assume) on the tube to Richmond singing The Galloping Major to a small boy bouncing on her knee, and that has "as proud as an Indian Rajah".
The wheels on the bus Have stopped going round and round Round and round Round and round Because the council have cancelled the subsidy
OTHERS say it is all to do with Irish tinkers playing spoons made of bones
Does it matter? Are nursery rhymes current? The few occasions I've heard mums singing to babies recently, they've been pop songs.
ETA though there was one posh nanny (or so I assume) on the tube to Richmond singing The Galloping Major to a small boy bouncing on her knee, and that has "as proud as an Indian Rajah".
The wheels on the bus Have stopped going round and round Round and round Round and round Because the council have cancelled the subsidy
There you go again blaming local government for central government cuts.
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
Take a load of Gregg's Vegan Sausage Rolls.
That should trigger a fair few of the Union Jack Y-fronts brigade.
I adopt the Frankie Boyle approach to vegans. "Is there a vegan option?". "Yes. Eff off."
Frankie Boyle to front Channel 4's alternative royal Coronation coverage Frankie Boyle takes the monarchy to task in a new Channel 4 show ahead of King Charles' Coronation in May, while the broadcaster will also air a special episode of comedy The Windsors, and examine Prince Andrew's disastrous interview with Newsnight
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
Take a load of Gregg's Vegan Sausage Rolls.
That should trigger a fair few of the Union Jack Y-fronts brigade.
I adopt the Frankie Boyle approach to vegans. "Is there a vegan option?". "Yes. Eff off."
Frankie Boyle to front Channel 4's alternative royal Coronation coverage Frankie Boyle takes the monarchy to task in a new Channel 4 show ahead of King Charles' Coronation in May, while the broadcaster will also air a special episode of comedy The Windsors, and examine Prince Andrew's disastrous interview with Newsnight
Yawn ....sell off C4
Yeah, the Coronation will be one big yawn-fest. We all know that Charles became monarch last September.
Did you fail British Constituion at school.?
I thought all of the powers of the monarch have already transferred to him, and he has of course been acclaimed King (for which no coronation is required). Initially I thought that he was *not* yet Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and that was the formal thing that occurred in this ceremony which is essentially a supernatural event cum carnival.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
Frankly it doesn't matter what "their fellow pensioners" think as they won't be around to be influenced. What my age and those 20-30s whippersnappers think is much more important.
There is evidence that Charles understands the position he is in. Cutting back on the real absurdities (hereditary family coronation gowns???) and on the surplus to requirement hangers on is already happening. He will need to go further.
William and Kate are popular? Vs the true King Harry and Queen Meghan, yes I grant you that. But beyond that? William appears to be a pompous bore, and his missus is pretty but otherwise vacant. They have cute kids. But people's attention spans have shortened and the variety of entertainment is now vast.
I doubt that current generation of Wales's will be willing to perform for the cameras at the pace and intrusion needed to keep them as popular as you claim.
People get wiser with age. The monarchy will survive. The Alternstive is unthinkable.
There are many alternatives, many of which are perfectly plausible.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Nothing is forever. A very simple way to abolish the monarchy would be for the United Kingdom to join a larger superstate (becoming a part of that superstate, no longer independent).
Brexit has stopped that process dead for the moment, but who knows where the UK will be at the end of the century.....
In which case the UK would cease to be an independent nation anyway.
However even that is not guaranteed, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all have their own constitutional monarchies still while within the EU headed by EU President Von der Leyen
Well, at the moment members of the EU are still considered independent states. It is (in my opinion) still (just) a supranational organisation of which independent states are members. It isn't yet a state in its own right..... though that may change (probably will).
What will happen to those monarchies if it does is anyone's guess. The EU might just tolerate them as some sort of anachronistic hold over, with them holding no real power (A Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern situation perhaps). Would these (non independent) states still be monarchies? Even if they are, does it matter? Can you be a monarch if you have no state to head?
"Oh but we can vote out our own politicians, unlike those of the EU" - ie fundamentally misunderstanding our relationship with the EU.
It was a club. One with rules. And for 40-odd years we wanted to be a member of that club and follow those rules. Then we didn't and hence left. No biggie (aside from the economic damage, etc). It was about the rules, not sovereignty.
We were sovereign before, during and after our membership of the EU.
So say "we didn't like the rules so left" but don't say "we weren't sovereign in the EU".
Morons.
You've said this angry red-faced nonsense about a trillion times, doesn't make it any truer than it was the first time
I do, however, note that there are calendrical clusters when you say this piffle more often, it is generally when you are boarding or departing on the Eurostar
You could try flying?
The cotes de Rhone is surprisingly agreeable.
All true though what I (have a trillion times) said.
And that's fine. We didn't like the rules and so left. Great. 18 litres of still wine should be plenty. But enough of this sovereignty bolleaux.
I voted for sovereignty and democracy to be returned. You think that’s nonsense. I think you’re a wilful idiot for thinking that’s nonsense. You think I’m a blah blah blah blah blah
It’s pointless. We’re never going to find a basis for argument, let alone agreement. Just rejoice that Brexit is done. Just rejoice in that news
DeSantis looks to be on the slide. Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
I still feel like the person to defeat Trump is going to be someone who tries the traditional "criticize your opponent" strategy.
It might be good to have a thread on the alternatives. That includes the ones who look a bit no-hopey right now, because nature abhors a vacuum.
Nah if someone beats Trump, it will either be himself or a bystander who watches others take him down first, but get hurt too much to win themselves. Unsurprisingly not many are willing to be first one to criticise him and take the incoming fire.
That's what the putzes tried last time. It just made them look like wimps.
Sometimes there are games you cannot win, at least not without a lot of luck. Beating Trump in a primary where 80% identify as MAGA Trumpists and he will attack you with random falsehoods if you stand up to him is one of those games.
I don't think we really know who's going to vote in the primary. When there's a incumbent parties usually pick a relative moderate: Biden against Trump, Romney against Obama, Kerry against Bush, Dole against Clinton. This is partly because they're itching for a win, but also because keen voters only have one interesting primary to vote in. (The non-moderate example would be Reagan, and that race the incumbent had a serious challenger.)
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
Includes you Scots. Ironically when England became a republic under Cromwell in 1649, Scotland remained loyal to the Stuarts, Scots forming a key part of Prince Charles' army at the Battle of Worcester v Cromwell's forces
I know the Scots can be sarcy buggers, but do you have any evidence that they remained loyal to the Stuarts in any way ironically? The history I've seen paints it as quite sincere.
And to repeat the criticism of HYUFD's history, it remains unclear to any sane observer what happened in edit: 952! that suddenly created the United Kingdom (1603 or 1707 or 1800 versions).
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
I have just realised that I will be in Asia and then Africa for most if not all of Coronation Time
I imagine the festivities will be equally fervent in our ex colonies, however, so I doubt I shall miss out on much. The joy will be universal. Everyone rightly loves the British and our monarchy, most of them secretly want us back to rule them. I’ve heard this said to me several times after I’ve drunk 14 gins and fallen into a hallucinatory fugue state
Two continents in a couple of hours, you in the air most of the time
Theory: France would prefer much of eastern Europe to be under Russian hegemony so that 'Europe' would be more Franco-centric. The last thing they need is a strong westward facing Ukraine. I fear this is at least part of the calculation behind preferring a stalemate in the war to a Ukrainian victory.
The latest wheeze in the (Russophone) Ukrainian media is that after the SMO is over and we can all laugh about it Zelly is going to take Ukraine (minus Kherson, Zaporijeeya and the other two) into some sort of confederation with Poland thereby fast tracking most of Ukraine into the EU/NATO. I can't see Macron (or Le Pen) standing for it but who knows?
DeSantis looks to be on the slide. Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
I still feel like the person to defeat Trump is going to be someone who tries the traditional "criticize your opponent" strategy.
It might be good to have a thread on the alternatives. That includes the ones who look a bit no-hopey right now, because nature abhors a vacuum.
Nah if someone beats Trump, it will either be himself or a bystander who watches others take him down first, but get hurt too much to win themselves. Unsurprisingly not many are willing to be first one to criticise him and take the incoming fire.
That's what the putzes tried last time. It just made them look like wimps.
Sometimes there are games you cannot win, at least not without a lot of luck. Beating Trump in a primary where 80% identify as MAGA Trumpists and he will attack you with random falsehoods if you stand up to him is one of those games.
The thinking is that the larger the field, the more it benefits Trump. So the other candidates need to quickly whittle themselves down to no more than two.
I still think DeSantis is no more than 50/50 to run.
They don't need to whittle down the field yet. It's fine to get say 5-10% of the way through the primaries as long as you unite after that. That's what the Dems did with Biden. They can definitely at least let the challengers compete with each other until Iowa.
Yes, after the first handful of primaries, there need to be no more than three still standing. If half a dozen of them are still in the race half way through, then it’s going to be Trump all the way to the nomination. As we saw in 2016.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
In 1052 the King of Scotland was Macbeth, so Scotland still had a monarchy then
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
What's the relevance of 1052? Scotland had a king back then, didn't it? Malcolm or one of those fellas? And I'm sure Ireland had several.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
In 1052 the King of Scotland was Macbeth
Corrected - arithmetic error. So I will rephrase. Wgat happened in 952 that suddenly m,eant "we" (who? Epping Allotment Association?" had monarchs when "we" didn't before?
"Oh but we can vote out our own politicians, unlike those of the EU" - ie fundamentally misunderstanding our relationship with the EU.
It was a club. One with rules. And for 40-odd years we wanted to be a member of that club and follow those rules. Then we didn't and hence left. No biggie (aside from the economic damage, etc). It was about the rules, not sovereignty.
We were sovereign before, during and after our membership of the EU.
So say "we didn't like the rules so left" but don't say "we weren't sovereign in the EU".
Morons.
You've said this angry red-faced nonsense about a trillion times, doesn't make it any truer than it was the first time
I do, however, note that there are calendrical clusters when you say this piffle more often, it is generally when you are boarding or departing on the Eurostar
You could try flying?
The cotes de Rhone is surprisingly agreeable.
All true though what I (have a trillion times) said.
And that's fine. We didn't like the rules and so left. Great. 18 litres of still wine should be plenty. But enough of this sovereignty bolleaux.
I voted for sovereignty and democracy to be returned. You think that’s nonsense. I think you’re a wilful idiot for thinking that’s nonsense. You think I’m a blah blah blah blah blah
It’s pointless. We’re never going to find a basis for argument, let alone agreement. Just rejoice that Brexit is done. Just rejoice in that news
You think x is bad. Just rejoice that x has happened. Logical fail surely?
The overwhelming majority of free, democratic nations around the world are republics. Quite popular, I would say!
A majority, but not an overwhelming one.
Aristotle would have had no difficulty identifying a lot of self-proclaimed republics, as being monarchies in actuality.
Virtually all states, whether monarchical or republican, are ruled by pretty narrow classes of people in practice.
Republics without presidential term limits often morph into defacto monarchies.
What's in a name is not important.
It's where power resides, and what checks and balances exist on its use, that are the issues that really matter.
In particular, whether you even need an "individual" in such a role at all.
Get rid of the constitutional monarch and devolve the powers to Parliament, which is where they practically reside anyway.
I'm more than happy for us to continue to pay for the upkeep of heritage sites, if they give them to the nation. We can even pay for the army to have shiny hats outside them for the tourists.
If they retain private assets for themselves, they've got to pay for upkeep out of revenue.
And we can, I suppose, pay someone with the right DNA a reasonable rate to go and talk to foreign despots who are swayed by that kind of thing.
But it shouldn't be the basis of a system of governance.
I can see the benefit of having someone outside politics able to say to the PM "are you sure that's wise?" Liz Truss, in particular, could have done with such a person but with HMK being as new in the job as she was, she didn't have it.
That is not the role of the Monarch, and QE II never intervened to stop a prime minister from anouncing a policy.
It's pretty much the definition of the role of the monarch - specifically one of their three rights as defined by Bagehot.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
What's the relevance of 1052? Scotland had a king back then, didn't it? Malcolm or one of those fellas? And I'm sure Ireland had several.
Error corrected. 952.
HYUFD claims that "we" had no monarchs before then.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
Includes you Scots. Ironically when England became a republic under Cromwell in 1649, Scotland remained loyal to the Stuarts, Scots forming a key part of Prince Charles' army at the Battle of Worcester v Cromwell's forces
I know the Scots can be sarcy buggers, but do you have any evidence that they remained loyal to the Stuarts in any way ironically? The history I've seen paints it as quite sincere.
Well for starters the fact they sent troops to fight for Charles Stuart v Cromwell
DeSantis looks to be on the slide. Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
I still feel like the person to defeat Trump is going to be someone who tries the traditional "criticize your opponent" strategy.
It might be good to have a thread on the alternatives. That includes the ones who look a bit no-hopey right now, because nature abhors a vacuum.
Nah if someone beats Trump, it will either be himself or a bystander who watches others take him down first, but get hurt too much to win themselves. Unsurprisingly not many are willing to be first one to criticise him and take the incoming fire.
That's what the putzes tried last time. It just made them look like wimps.
Sometimes there are games you cannot win, at least not without a lot of luck. Beating Trump in a primary where 80% identify as MAGA Trumpists and he will attack you with random falsehoods if you stand up to him is one of those games.
The thinking is that the larger the field, the more it benefits Trump. So the other candidates need to quickly whittle themselves down to no more than two.
I still think DeSantis is no more than 50/50 to run.
They don't need to whittle down the field yet. It's fine to get say 5-10% of the way through the primaries as long as you unite after that. That's what the Dems did with Biden. They can definitely at least let the challengers compete with each other until Iowa.
Yes, after the first handful of primaries, there need to be no more than three still standing. If half a dozen of them are still in the race half way through, then it’s going to be Trump all the way to the nomination. As we saw in 2016.
Yup. I doubt they'll make that mistake again though.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
In 1052 the King of Scotland was Macbeth
Corrected - arithmetic error. So I will rephrase. Wgat happened in 952 that suddenly m,eant "we" (who? Epping Allotment Association?" had monarchs when "we" didn't before?
The point was both England and Scotland have had monarchs for centuries before the late Queen
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
In 1052 the King of Scotland was Macbeth
Corrected - arithmetic error. So I will rephrase. Wgat happened in 952 that suddenly m,eant "we" (who? Epping Allotment Association?" had monarchs when "we" didn't before?
The point was both England and Scotland have had monarchs for centuries before the late Queen
That's not what you said. You referred to some unspecified we. And you are either excluding the Welsh and Irish, or not exclujding them, and it doesn't make any sense at all however one parses it.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
What's the relevance of 1052? Scotland had a king back then, didn't it? Malcolm or one of those fellas? And I'm sure Ireland had several.
Error corrected. 952.
HYUFD claims that "we" had no monarchs before then.
Ah, I see. My interpretation was that 1000 was simply used as an abitrary large number. This is where we need to bring in the term 'since time immemorial' - which, I understand, refers specifically to 'since some point before 1189'.
"Oh but we can vote out our own politicians, unlike those of the EU" - ie fundamentally misunderstanding our relationship with the EU.
It was a club. One with rules. And for 40-odd years we wanted to be a member of that club and follow those rules. Then we didn't and hence left. No biggie (aside from the economic damage, etc). It was about the rules, not sovereignty.
We were sovereign before, during and after our membership of the EU.
So say "we didn't like the rules so left" but don't say "we weren't sovereign in the EU".
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
What's the relevance of 1052? Scotland had a king back then, didn't it? Malcolm or one of those fellas? And I'm sure Ireland had several.
Error corrected. 952.
HYUFD claims that "we" had no monarchs before then.
Ah, I see. My interpretation was that 1000 was simply used as an abitrary large number. This is where we need to bring in the term 'since time immemorial' - which, I understand, refers specifically to 'since some point before 1189'.
"The Thousand Year KIngdom/Empire" is, er, a slightly unfortunate connotation.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Indeed, but even in democracies you can be stuck with a head of government for four or five years who is not suited to the roll (and can cause a lot of damage in that time if they really wanted). Not naming any recent examples.... *cough*
Of course, good democracies have checks and balances so that no one position holds ultimate power and can be overruled by a Senate, a Congress, a House or by the person holding the 'other' position in a Head of State, Head of Government situation.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
Who's this "we"?
All the constituent nations of the UK?
I think HYUFDs weaker point is that the failure to acknowledge that bad monarchs are bad. We don't deny they happened. But ideally we'd try to avoid a situation in which a nutter was head of state. Democracies haven't necessarily been perfect in that respect, of course. But in a democracy you're not stuck with the head of state indefinitely.
Quite so. But in 1052?
See my reply a little below.
In 1052 the King of Scotland was Macbeth
Corrected - arithmetic error. So I will rephrase. Wgat happened in 952 that suddenly m,eant "we" (who? Epping Allotment Association?" had monarchs when "we" didn't before?
The point was both England and Scotland have had monarchs for centuries before the late Queen
That's not what you said. You referred to some unspecified we. And you are either excluding the Welsh and Irish, or not exclujding them, and it doesn't make any sense at all however one parses it.
I said we have had monarchs for 1000 years before the Queen which for all of the United Kingdom holds true
Comments
Have stopped going round and round
Round and round
Round and round
Because the council have cancelled the subsidy
But the Church of England website disagrees.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance
It is (in my opinion) still (just) a supranational organisation of which independent states are members.
It isn't yet a state in its own right..... though that may change (probably will).
What will happen to those monarchies if it does is anyone's guess. The EU might just tolerate them as some sort of anachronistic hold over, with them holding no real power (A Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern situation perhaps). Would these (non independent) states still be monarchies? Even if they are, does it matter? Can you be a monarch if you have no state to head?
It’s pointless. We’re never going to find a basis for argument, let alone agreement. Just rejoice that Brexit is done. Just rejoice in that news
See my reply a little below.
HYUFD claims that "we" had no monarchs before then.
NEW THREAD
This is where we need to bring in the term 'since time immemorial' - which, I understand, refers specifically to 'since some point before 1189'.
But that's a nice point re the alternative term.
Of course, good democracies have checks and balances so that no one position holds ultimate power and can be overruled by a Senate, a Congress, a House or by the person holding the 'other' position in a Head of State, Head of Government situation.