@buffalobill90 Said 
I'm sorry that I don't have the time or patience to read and respond to your entire post. I honestly recommend you trim your posts down a bit so that they don't appear so daunting. I respond to your initial point.
I don't recall mentioning social progress. If I was really committed to progress, which I am, I would be dissatisfied enough with the antiquated notion of equality I am currently appealing to. It's a form of equality which was won by the middle classes of the 19th century and is useless or meaningless to most of us. But it is a widely-held principle, that we are born equals, that birth does not grant privilege or special political representation. Most would agree with it. And yet, they would be committed then to republican principles.
Is the monarchy holding the country back? That's one way of framing the problem, but it's not the essence of it. They are not particularly influential; they don't, as you say, hold back reforms as such. It's simply that their continued inheritance of privilege is a blatant hypocrisy, just as hereditary peerage is.
Practically, the royal family could renounce many of the inherited privileges they receive without also losing their function as ambassadors and celebrities. They could start businesses instead of pissing around in the military, for a start. They could stop living in magnificent and unearned luxury, in publicly-funded palaces and private transport with publicly-funded servants.
To have a secular, elected head of state would be preferable. It would be more consistent with our principles of economic and political equality. I personally think Ireland's model of constitutional republican government is acceptable enough; a figurehead president with some constitutional powers.
Firstly, I'm sorry that you find my messages so difficult to read, but I'm afraid that's the way I post and with all due respect, I'm not going to change that. The post is what it is, it makes the points and if you choose not to challenge them, then that is your opportunity lost, I'm afraid. They must stand as written, uncontested and therefore valid.
It is disappointing to me though, because this is a very good discussion and I wish there were more like it.
I agree wholeheartedly your points on equality in principle. We all wish to aspire to a fairer and more just society, however, equality is not always measured in terms of opportunity in a specified area alone. By the general tenor of your argument you suggest that somebody, somewhere out there wishes to wield "Supreme Executive Power" (picking up on the very funny constitutional peasants video supplied by Jacques). I would ask: For what purpose..? Is it in the national interest to introduce a system of government which would be open to political abuse..?
We already have a system of government where the Prime Minister is the de facto highest political figure in the land, with all the powers necessary to govern the people, run the economy.... hell, he can even send us to war against our will. But over and above him is a head of state who is non political and.... should any Prime Minister attempt to abuse his power.... could, theoretically at least, be removed in the name of the Crown.
The PM has all the authority he needs to fulfil the mandate given to him by the people. Why would he want - technically - more than that..? To abuse it.?
Whilst agreeing equality in principle, I do not feel that the constitutional monarchy breaks this principle within the framework of our society. Firstly, for that to happen, the Crown would have to have political status and as I think we would both agree, the Crown is non-political. The Queen is a titular head of state only.
What is good for Ireland is not necessarily relevant elsewhere. Ireland, as an independent state in modern terms only came into existence in the 1920's. The British monarchy had been running for 1100 years already by that time. The Irish were starting with a blank sheet of paper in the modern world and, even allowing for the, not unreasonable assumption that they might not want anything that remotely resembled the British system, they didn't have any sort of dynastic history which might lead them to somebody who they could recognise as being "Royal". Simply put.... they didn't have anybody they could call "King".
I will spare you the history lesson as it probably be a waste of time as (you say) it would be too long to engage your interest, but it is not possible to ignore the historic implications of the monarchy. It is too deeply ingrained in every aspect of our history and constitutional structure to be simply cast aside. I tried to challenge you to face the practical issues of abolition but you chose to ignore them, which is a pity as I think your comments would have been interesting.
@buffalobill90 Said
Also, have you considered that the changes to the rules of succession don't address age discrimination? From the manager of the British republican campaign group:
"These changes change nothing of substance, even if William and Kate have a daughter. All this fuss is about a trivial detail of a succession than may or may not happen in 70 years time.
"The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd. It fails the equality test both in practice and in principle.
"In practice it simply means that the eldest child of one family is preferred over all others. Inequality is therefore further entrenched in the system.
"In principle all children in Britain should have an equal opportunity to stand for the position of Head of State. Anything short of that is an affront to the principles of equality.
"It is extraordinary that we hear serious politicians proclaiming this change as a blow for equal rights. Do they ever stop to ask why the eldest should be favoured over the youngest? Or why the Windsor family should be favoured over all others?"
https://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20the%20news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=370&date__date__year=&date__date__month=&date__date__day=
I find it difficult to take seriously, the charge of age discrimination, when the current monarch is an Octegenarian great grandmother, and her heir is already nearly 63 years old who is likely to be beyond the pensionable age of 65 that the rest of the public recognise, before he even ascends to the throne.
If you had taken the trouble to read my previous message, you would have noticed I raised the issue of the Queen's age in that.
As regards the argument that choosing the firstborn as heir is some form of age discrimination, well, that is a subjective argument. You pays your money you takes your choice.
My understanding of the rules of succession is that the law of prima geniture extends in British law back as far as Norman times and even prior to then, although it wasn't an actual law, it was at least a widely practised principle, and not only in terms of Royal dynasties, it is a general law which relates to the populace as a whole and (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) is still in practice on our statutes to this day, although a concurrent statute of appanage gives younger siblings the opportunity to challenge decisions made where a person dies intestate and feels he has been unfairly treated in the distribution of the deceased's estate.
The Royal houses of Britain, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Luxembourg, Monaco and Norway practice prima geniture as their system of succession WITH the right of appanage...!! So, should Prince William, as second in line to the throne wish to challenge Charles' accession to the throne upon the Queen's death he would be legally able to do so..!!
There is a history of appanages being granted at the time of the Wars of the Roses..... again, I won't give the historical detail to spare you the read, but I can assure you they happened.
I agree it is extremely unlikely that William would challenge his fathers' constitutional inheritance but the facility exists and it is for him to choose. The availability of that option alone ensures that the charge of age discrimination by BRCG is selective and spurious.... and I suspect deliberately so.... to say the very least.
.
Oct 29, 2011 @ 23:16:23
