Republicans on the run

The Diamond Jubilee was undoubtedly a success that even those who espouse the Republican persuasion surely cannot deny. It is said that 80% of the population currently approve of the Monarchy as it exists today. This will be bad news for those who think that the Monarchy is an outdated institution that has no relevance in the moden era and that the money spent on the Civil List should be redistributed to the poor and needy.
During the celebrations small numbers of these Republicans have congregated with their banners to press their cause, only to find themselves shouted down by the chants and anthems of the Royalists. I believe that these people, including Mr. Tatchell, partypoopers everyone, have tried to draw attention to themselves and their pathetic arguments but attracted only ridicule.
It is well argued that money spent on the Civil List is returned a hundredfold with the income derived from the existence of the British Monarchy with, say, tourism. Besides, many of those very people who the Republicans reckon they represent derive their own pleasure from the Monarch and her family.
It is an institution unique in the world and the envy of many countries that can trace their political instability to the lack of the unifying continuity that a Monarchy brings. It is this continuity that the Republicans, burdened with their shoulder chip of envy, hate with its hereditary connotations but it is this that provides the stability that cannot be achieved with a Democratic system that requires elections every five years. This hereditary aspect is vital if each new generation of Royals grows up versed in the procedure and pageant of their position. They may be born into their position but it is essential if the Monarchy is to flourish that they grow up aware of their responsibilities to the people of the Country, a duty they assume for 'All the days of their life'.
Not many others would or could do it.

Republicans want an elected President as if we don't have enough elections; there are moves for an all-elected House of Lords. I maintain that the electorate CANNOT be trusted to vote in the best people to run a country. What was wrong with a House of Lords consisting of hereditary peers who as major landowners had the Country's interests truly at heart? What have we got now? Baroness Warsi is in trouble because of alleged fraud. She should never have been in the place since her family have only been in the country for one generation. I actually quite like the lady but you cannot tell me that she has the same perspective as a family that is listed as landowners in the Doomsday book. Some of the old peers might have been old and doddery but I'd rather them making decisions in the National interest than a bunch of self serving, hypocritical Socialists and newly arrived immigrants.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN