I'm an ex-pat Sussex lad now residing in Canada and yes - the Queen is still my "official" figurehead. I can take little comfort from the fact that my adopted country's people, a lovely bunch of people, have still not stuck their necks out - the way the Americans did rather forcefully in 1776 - to get a figurehead of their own. I'm not saying Canada should do this so that the country can mobilise itself the way Britain, France and Spain did, and begin a reign of colonial terror of its own. I simply believe it's about time Canadians stood on their own feet and got their act together, before the British beat them to the punch and dissolve the monarchy over there. What would happen then? Could pro-monarchist Brits try and claim political asylum here? That's an interesting thought - a little disturbing for Canadian republicans like myself.
Anyway, the above article "Monarchy" is the real reason I'm sending this to a UK website (apart from to put the feelers out to my countrypeople!) I am a freelance journalist in Vancouver, B.C., and have often wondered about the real (and not just perceived) state of the monarchy in Canada and the UK. Many Canadians say they really don't care either way. They're happy to have Elizabeth on their money, even if they couldn't tell you when her coronation was or when former prime minister Pierre Trudeau (recently deceased) repatriated the British North America Act (now the Canadian Constitution.)
I hear little snippets of discontent from Britain, but it still sounds like you're a million miles from republic status, despite the enthusiastic endeavours of the rather amusing Ian Bone. (I loved reading about the 21-bum salute - I laughed out loud.)
I would agree with the sentiments in the above writer's quotation. It's the real people we should be levitating towards, not the outdated monarchy. For better or worse, their game is up, surely?
There are still many traditionalists in Britain, who want to hang on and hang on, without thinking about what it is they're hanging on for. Is it a few more million tourist bucks from the U.S.? Could it be that the Eurotours are pouring too many Euros into London coffers as they pass Buckingham Palace? Or is it simply 40 million people without quite the required foresight to get something going? Is Britain still faltering under the same class faultlines as it was around the time John Lydon wanted to "save" the Queen?
Maybe you people out there in the UK can get in touch with an ex-Brit (still with my EU passport though!) and let me know what the republican climate's doing. I'd be very interested to hear more thoughts like those above.
Cheers.
Matt Burrows
Freelance Writer

odd indeed how it has managed to survive here for so long. interesting too to note that most people have no 'historical recollection' of 1642- 59, the era of the republic, for all its faults.
the modern monarchy is degenerated to a - quite blatantly so and the BBC (another )was largely responsible for this in 1953, and establishing its tyrannicsl hold on on the thinking of people

The question is, do we dump the old for the "new"? When the new comes in the form of plastic, regenerated, uninformed and money-biased tosh culture, i.e new labour, endless rubbish british films and an identity based around football matches and violence. This country, or at least the people who make the decisions here, have no idea what this country is about. I have no respect for Blair nor Hauge. I'd hate to see either of those incompetents as head of state.

What the Queen represents is something of the old. OK it is a very unfair, totalitarian and inherited old; completly colliding with the "fair" and "democratic" world of today but for gods sakes - the queen, in all her expensive naff clothing, gives us an identity. It may be out of touch but at least we can laugh at her, her family and the hoo-ha it produces. They can remind us of the good AND bad times, as long as education continues to do its job of reminding everybody what happened 1000 years ago. They are certainly not bland, make even celebrities look like wannabees and do, most of the time, a damn-good job of representing us, except for that racist twat who's married to wazz-her-name. Bottom line: if we hand this country over to a presidency, we may regret what heritage we have lost. I certainly do not what to become part of another american-copy.

Finally, I don't know what to do about the colonies. It is up to them if they feel they want our head of state or not. Personally, i don't feel it is within my rights as a British citizen to dictate such a ceremonial and custom-lead matter.

because there's no independent left in britain, and the labour party is the monarchy's biggest fan. that's why. things dont go until theyre made to !

just a quick comment on the queen mother, as well as the royal family in general.

firstly: the queen mum has survived to be 100. so what? hundreds of people do this, but nothing's mentioned about them in the news. she gets a hip replacement with seemingly no fuss, while people are dying while they're waiting for heart ops, brain ops, etc.

secondly: why do the royals get so many privileges (i.e. places at eton, etc), when there are people living on the streets who need a new start in life? because they were born into royalty? because of tradition? that's bullshit. they should either have the same as everybody else in the country (as well as all of the fatcats with million pound payoffs and cuban cigars and liquid gold on tap........well, maybe not that, but you get the picture) or they should be forced to give money to the poor and needy.

finally: the millennium dome! why were the labour government blamed for this travesty? why did william hague use it to his supposed advantage? it was the conservative government who greenlighted it, and it was the conservative government who agreed to pay millions of pounds into the millennium fund thing, so why do the conservatives not get the rap for it? it's beyond me......ah well.

To David Deans (Old Deers Die Hard) and Ben (aka Toilet Hed - queen mum can fuck off),
I am really glad you two offered your marvellous responses to mine and other above comments. I don’t know the two of you, but you epitomise completely the divide that continues to paralyse Britain in many, but not all, ways. I was very brief and restrained in my last offering, but the remarks you two have made lead me to detail. If you, or anyone, are really as interested in this subject as you demonstrate by the power of your words then read on and respond.
By the way David, the racist twat you refer to accurately is of course Prince Philip Mountbatten. He stems from a long line of inbreds of equally racist extraction, and was never wont to impress born proles like me.
His father, Lord Mountbatten, was given the task (he no doubt rubbed his pompous hands with glee at the idea) of dividing forever the Indian Muslims from the majority Hindus (and Sikhs) in 1947. The fact that he did so in such a dumb manner (look at the bloodshed that ensued and the ongoing problems in Jammu and Kashmir) is typical of that family and the state of the British Raj at the time. As Gerry Adams once rightly asked, “Why is it that the British government has always had to be forcibly kicked out of every country they occupied?”
Good question. Of course, Britain also occupied North America, until the Americans had their way in the former American Colonies, driving the “Loyalists” north into Canada. From here today’s problems stemmed, meaning we are no better or worse than the Americans, it’s just that they are modern tyrants and we slightly more old-fashioned, sort of Old-Worldly.
I don’t give a toss what the Queen wears, or how frumpy the dresses look. It means nothing to me. Clearly Elizabeth will not adapt. She can’t, so entrenched is she in the “glorious” past, through which she (like I the ugly working-class past in the inner cities and countryside) filters her every thought and action. Her Christmas speeches are hopeless, and have been since the days when she and Margaret (for whom I have sympathy) used to address the colonies over the wireless. (I think this was in the ‘40s!)
It’s beyond time to move away from this colonial clutching and get to the heart and the essence of the real Britain: Football (and yes, there is the terrible violence that results from destitute working-class disillusionment), cricket (a colonial pastime we have often had thrown back at us by better opponents!), cultural diversity, good and bad, pies, grit, and one hundred other reasons to be alive. Once Britain gets the point then Canada and Australia can also continue to move on. That is, as soon as they finally bring the debate into the open and stop living this huge denial.
David, you can safely stop referring to Canada et al as “The Colonies.” (I think you were jesting to get me going!) In 1867 Canada did actually become its own nation with its own problems, finally securing “soft independence” from Ma England in 1931. As I wrote before, the British North America Act was repatriated in 1982, about the same time Britain was fighting for territory in the Falklands.
I think the “Colonies” should get their act together for the reasons mentioned above, and for the same reasons England should get it together. As you (David) rightly state, they (the Royals) are unfair, totalitarian, and inherited old. In fact, I should start using royals and not Royals! They have fallen out of synch with the multicultural society now blossoming in Britain, and it’s a diverse society that brings fresh business and bloodlines to the nation. Yet Prince Philip had to apologise a few years back when, on a business outing, he claimed a piece of machinery looked like “it must have been made by an Indian.” Little does he realise it’s those same Indians that prop up British medicine and thrive in the business sector and elsewhere. We cannot isolate him from the rest of them just because he’s not a Windsor or a Sachse-Coburg. He still “represents” you and (indirectly) me.
So, in the event of a republic, say you, we will be an American copy and will have suddenly lost all those great trappings mentioned. Boo hoo to the latter point. As for this fear of American Republicanism, remember there are other republics. India, with its huge linguistic and religious diversity and stolen past, gets by with one billion people and skilled jobs leaving for lucrative American shores daily. China, though still in the death throes of a totalitarian Peoples’ Republic opening its eyes to the west, has endured huge change to survive endless attempts at colonisation. They too have one billion people (or even more now), and they survive. France and Germany have been steady to date, despite their megalomaniac Europhilia!
With only 50+ million, I think Britain can survive and thrive as a republic, especially given the many cultural advantages the country enjoys. No history or heritage would be lost. The only thing lost is stale leadership with no vision and the time it takes to remove it.

As for you Ben, I can really empathise. I went through a phase of my upbringing, in rural West Sussex, unable to fathom the immense wealth beaming down the tube at me. According to my elders and betters, it was “the way things are.” I would hear about the Queen’s estate going up in flames, with the assurance Lizzie would not be paying her fair share, and the nation would shrug its shoulders. Lavish royal weddings abounded in the ‘80s—the same decade Thatcher attacked the working poor, especially up North in amongst the natural resources. All of the “unions” have since gone up in smoke (wedding unions as well as labour), and Thatcher still smoulders occasionally, praying William Hague will breath oxygen into her dying embers.
It won’t happen. First Britain has to sort out the momentous problems posed by Tony Blair’s government. If you think this is reactionary, read the well-researched book by George Monbiot, called “Captive State: The corporate takeover of Britain” to see just how Blair is selling Britain (and Iraq, though that’s not mentioned in the book) down the toilet. That one’s globalisation and it’s affecting all nations, monarchy or no monarchy.
(By the way Ben, don’t bother yourself too much over this stuff. As things stand now, I think opinions like yours will eventually prevail. Then it’s up to all of us.)
Over and out.
Matt Burrows

Surely the problem lies in the nature of the events of the 1640s. When I was doing a survey on contemporary attitudes i put in a trick question :"England has always been a monarchy and always will be". Few people rejected the terms of the question. I conclude that most people here have NO CONCEPT of living without the monarchy ...excpt of course Indy readers !

Vince,
Just saw your comments after months of not checking responses. You are of course dead right with your comments about no recollection of anything but the monarchy. The 1640s were clearly hugely tumultuous, but are we taught about that at school? Nope!
Cheers mate and let me know the results of your survey. I'd be very interested in seeing the break-down.