"®óñ© © ²°¹°" wrote
Sacha wrote:
Eulogy elided.

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be happy
to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.

True, you are not alone. However the alternative of a Monarch, a President,
fills me with dread not least because he/she would cost us all much more (we
would need a new Presidential Palace etc for a start) and result in more
short term ideas/policies as they are only in a position of power and
influence for say 5 years, not a lifetime with little power. Would they have
the ordinary average Englishman's future it mind or might it just be their
rich friends they worried about so they had another job to go to afterwards.
Indeed it can be argued that our Monarchy cost us nothing if offset with the
tourism it brings in. A visit to Windsor or Buck House will prove that
point.
Our Monarchy system is also envied by many in this world, unlike our
newspapers.
Whilst on that point, if , like me, you refuse to buy/read a British (who
owns them?) Newspaper you get a completely different view of a lot of topics
and Charlie is just one.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK