Anti-monarchists protest wrecked during Thames sail.

A bunch of Anti-monarchists attempted to stage a protest during the Queen's 7 mile ride down the London Canal.

Alas, their chants of 'Lizzie, Lizzie, Lizzie: OUT, OUT, OUT' were drowned out by an impromptu retort of 'Lizzie, Lizzie, Lizzie: IN, IN, IN' followed by a stiring rendition of 'God save the Queen'.

Possibly because the groups (Republic) websites promise of 'hundreds of protesters' turned out to be about 60.

And they all appear to be freaks... either that or the Daily Mail only took pictures of the more freaky looking ones...

Don't we all fella, luckily I have one that does.
No, I completely agree - A Monarchy is not a democracy. However, look where bloody democracy got us - Tony Blair, David Cameron, I've never known the Queen to lie like a cheap NAAFI watch. I couldn't imagine the damage that would be done to this country if David Cameron was in No.10 and Ed Balls was in Buck House.
People might not all like the system, (I do) But at least The Queen and her family can be trusted a damn sight more than 99% of the loonies that run around, lie over expenses, lie over what they're going to do when in power, racial . verbally abuse each other and beat each other up in the House of Commons.

Also, someone should tell that fool that HE is the only one that embody's his values. Everybody has slightly different values, that's what diversity is about.
Yes, they want a head of state who 'embodies their values'. Leaving aside the dubious set of values to which they presumably subscribe, because they must have the vision of 'President Blair' in their minds, do they genuinely think that an elected president is somehow better - in that only a tiny proportion of the country would actually have voted for whichever shifty 'chancer' is fielded by each of the political parties in a presidential election? An impartial, constitutional monarch is far more likely to represent a larger proportion of the population than a partisan politician.

And whilst I am a terrific fan of 'the blessed Margaret', I wonder if these republican campaigners have ever given a moment's thought to the fact that the pseudo-socialist 'new' Labour regime was only a recent phenomenon - would they be quite so fervent in advocating President Thatcher (which I am damn sure would have happened at some point in the 80s).

God Save the Queen
I have to say I can't think of a single person in UK that I would rather be our head of state...

As mentioned above could you imagine some of hte fcuking chancers we'd get trying to get teh 'top job' if it were up for grabs? We'd end up like America.

Actually there probably is ONE man I'd consider, and he's ficitonal.

maybe a jont monarch and weatherman...


One for me, and one for my homies.
While in theory i support a republic. the queen has done a better job than anyone could imagine.
The king of spain thought a spot of nellie bashing was a good idea :(
Charles will probably screw it all up though
... at least The Queen and her family can be trusted a damn sight more than 99% of the loonies that run around….
Not so fast Tiger. I wouldn't trust Charles as far as I could throw TFC Andrew. The bloke couldn't keep his cock in his pants; his loyalty and integrity went out the window on the day he married Diana (not that she was on the moral high ground). I wouldn't trust Andrew to be the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment or to choose the circle of people he likes to associate with. The only thing I'd trust Edward to do is to abuse his position in order to make a fast buck for his utterly shit TV company. Fergie - I'd trust her to **** up everything she touched. Henry VIII - wouldn't trust that **** with my daughter. The list goes on - they are all fallible and their shit stinks.

But I'm sure we can brush all that under the carpet and put forward an emotional straw man argument to defend monarchy until the next **** up by them.
I must admit, the 'baggage' around the 'middle' generation of the family is immense. I can't help thinking that Charles would win a great deal of respect (for all time) if he passed the mantle to William, either directly or after a short time (say 1 year).

Wills (and Harry and Zara) are really forging their own identities and the public seemingly love them for it. I fear Charles will be too old, when he finally ascends... I think the nation will literally be waitig for him to pop his clogs, so that William can step forward.

The Queen will not be around forever, like everyone else, but I think she has a fair few years left to run... Charles will be quite old on his corinaton... in fact so will William!

Shame Harry can't be King. There is something about a monarch in an Apache that a Monarch in an RAF Rescue chopper just can't quite emulate!
Only in a democracy would you be able to protest about not being a democracy.
BBC News - Police 'suppressed anti-Royalism during Royal Wedding'

Quite true.

But the met is working on it! :)

The Metropolitan Police effectively "suppressed anti-monarchist sentiment" during the Royal Wedding in London last year, the High Court has been told.

Some 20 individuals arrested or subjected to searches before or on the wedding day are arguing in court that police operated an unlawful policy.
It did seem at the time of the Wedding the met reintroduced internment.

Pageantry & pre-crime: Royal Wedding arrests Judicial Review begins Monday at the High Court | Hannah Chutzpah: Firing from a Double-Barrel

“These ‘pre-crime’ arrests were supposedly to pre-emptively ‘prevent a breach of the peace’. In reality, they are part of a trend of increasingly heavy-handed tactics employed against peaceful protestors, aimed at creating a ‘chilling effect’ to dissuade others from protesting in the future. With this Judicial Review, we plan to challenge the validity of this style of policing and our unnecessary arrests – the use of such tactics raises questions of constitutional significance with regard to the role of policing in a democracy.”
The problem I would comment is the police apparently being brought into something other than their role, which is to stay within the law.

I lookforward to this ruling and the effect it has on Sportsday, the next great event that could have disagreement on the streets.

Markintime makes a fine point. Indeed in a democracy you should be able to protest, even about that democracy.

You should not be able to attempt violent overthrow of that democracy however, or engage in "The undermining or overthrow of parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means" or something like that.
The House of Windsor resolutely trots out better women than men. Shame there's none on the horizon.

The people who hanker for a bunny hop from HMQ to William are hoping that a piece of populist democracy occurs in a monarchist system. It's OK to hope but the nature of a monarchy is that you don't get to choose, folks. I also have very little time for Charles (or the other brothers for that matter) and after one of the longest apprenticeships in history still think that he's going to make a pig's ear of being King. He's rash, not as intellectual as he makes out, has proved himself morally weak, is too political, and I think he has surrounded himself with some poor advisers. All things that HMQ has kept such distance from that these sort of things have never been in question.

My bet is that upon his accession there is serious pressure to reform the monarchy and this may be the saving grace of GVIIR or CIIIR, whoever he elects to be...
Shame Harry can't be King. There is something about a monarch in an Apache that a Monarch in an RAF Rescue chopper just can't quite emulate!
That's a fine spot!

I thnk it was President Kennedy, who altered the eagle on the US Seal. Until his Presidency, it always faced the arrows grasped in the talons. After his presidency it has faced the olive leaves (even under GW Bush).

I'd prefer the fellah in the Mountain rescue helicopter, but keeping the Apache attack helicopter for when it is neccessary.

Idealism only goes so far!
Were they actually arrested?

Surely a bit of Police pro-activity to prevent disorder is a good idea. ie preventing the meeting of two opposing views.
they were certainly "detained", whether they were "booked in", I don't know.

Certainly, i got taught at training school that any deprivation of liberty was an arrest and that I'd better have a good reason for it.

I'll leave the rest to the lawyers-much better qualified than I.

Of course, I should add that I didn't used to see preventative detention of Muslims Against Crusades etc before remembrance parades, etc. That's a seperate question of course, apologies I am trying to keep my cans of worms to a minimum!
To be fair BBC coverage of the River Pageant was enough to turn the staunchest Monarchist into Guy Fawkes, and I only saw it on the news, christ on a ******* bike!!!
Shame Harry can't be King. There is something about a monarch in an Apache that a Monarch in an RAF Rescue chopper just can't quite emulate!
Have you been on the Brasso and Meths cocktails? Can you imagine it - 'The Ginger King'?

I rather think not.

To be fair BBC coverage of the River Pageant was enough to turn the staunchest Monarchist into Guy Fawkes, and I only saw it on the news, christ on a ******* bike!!!
We started watching it on the Beeb but that incredibly dull Welch **** is about as interesting as a bag of sand. He must be someone's boyfriend to get that gig. Sky News' coverage was far better.