I don’t think you have the right perspective on where our positions diverge. Firstly, I am drawn to a sense of shared identity – but the identity to which I am drawn is one that does not encompass the Monarchy. The sense of identity which I feel keenly is based rather on those things which the British people have achieved inspite of rather than because of their ruling class and the monarchy.

Democracy, freedom of speech and so forth.

The post was deliberately left open to try to provoke thought, so sorry if it appears lazy, when all I was really doing was trying to leave the subject vague enough for debate. Seem to be doing that here, which is good.

Yes some of those turning in their graves may be the reformers of the nineteenth century, although not sure they were all dedicated republicans

Back to Queenie. I think where our positions diverge is that I’m much more drawn to our shared identity and heritage, and the Royal’s, murdering bastards as you know them, are part of that. Don’t forget we’ve already dumped them, and a few years later people wanted them back. Having the army running the state wasn’t nearly so nice, and yes it’s different today, but I just think dumping everything that is currently retained to give people a sense of belonging isn’t the answer. These are instinctive thoughts so not so easy to explain, but most just emigrate if the pace pisses them off that much.

About the authors of this site, I suspect that you and I would disagree as to whom the term forefathers can be applied, since you mention that we seem unhappy with everything our forefathers have ‘built’. John Lilbourne, Gerard Winstanley, Tom Paine and many other radicals and revolutionaries all the way to Harry Pollitt could be categorised as our forefathers; so please don’t be so lazy to assume the monolithic nature of Britain’s historical narrative.

I daresay some of those ‘forefathers’ are themselves turning in their grave at what they can be accused of having built, even hundreds of years after their deaths. To more substantive matters however!

Your first point in defence of the monarchy is, largely by inference and implication, that the Queen is popular around the world (based on the success of a film, rather than something more important like the Australians voting to keep the monarchy) and therefore of use to us. Except this relies on several assumptions that don’t necessarily follow.

1. Just because the film is a success, doesn’t mean the monarchy is. 2. Just because the monarchy here is popular doesn’t mean the citizens of the US or French Republic relish the idea of having one. 3. Just because popularity is useful in a head of state doesn’t mean that popularity is attached to royalty simply because it is royalty.

I suspect pomp and circumstance have a lot more to do with it. The President of the United States is often one of most celebrated figures in the world, and he is not royalty. Heads of State often have this effect – I would simply suggest, however, that very few heads of state are treated by their home countries with the dignity of Mrs Windsor or Mr Obama. This is also tied into our status as a great power, and again unrelated to the nature of royalty in the human psyche, per se.

Your second point is that to someone who regards British history with disdain, a constitutional monarchy would seem obviously wonky. I think British history has sod all to do with it. Mrs Windsor may be able to trace her line back to William the Bastard, but so what? My point has little to nothing to do with history; for better or worse, it is our history.

I am opposed to a constitutional monarchy because I am a democrat, and a republican, and I am these things because I believe them to be in the best interests of myself and every worker in the British Isles. I feel no loyalty towards a constitution which sanctioned the murder and pillage of an empire, nor its personified representative. I have no affection for a person merely because they are related to men who were bigger murdering bastards than my own direct antecedents.

Finally, you introduce Socrates to the argument. The flimsy postmodern pretext is to claim that Socrates suggested we can know nothing. But you give the lie to it yourself; you start a blog and show an interest in politics and have even picked your side. So if you demolish my epistemological foundations, you demolish your own.

I think Socrates was an interesting choice, since he was a committed anti-democrat, who trained tyrants (though not using the nihilistic nonsense you suggest – I really think you should read some of Plato’s dialogues or Xenophon’s Memorabilia or Apologia) and who was executed by a vote of the people of Athens.

Anything I left out?

PS. I do love pancetta, now you mentioned it.
PPS. Pickets are boring. We’re there because we have to be.

Well, get this, Labour and the Greens have a right to tell her Maj to stuff it. They should exercise it.

Or am I just too optimisitic about life?