Sorry to hear that.

Hag RIP.

Diolch yn fawr, Liz.

There you go. That’s cleared up. But I didn’t mention you, your name cropped up in the guest post by ‘Sister Sledge’.

Hope that helps confirm who I am.

“I said it was counter-democratic in the extreme, and it must be; it doesn’t permit of a democratic input to the choice of a head of state.”

Celtic Monarchy is elective – it used to shift between dynasties/different arms of the same dynasty.

“Horse dust! David Windsor was only removed from the throne because of manoeuverings behind the scenes by Baldwin and others. Had he stuck to his guns, he couldn’t have been removed by anything less than a coup d’état. That isn’t satisfactory; it certainly isn’t democratic.”

If you don’t think people like Churchill or Thatcher were pulling strings behind the scenes… I mean come off it… besides as you pointed out about a Constitutional fix to prevent autocratic leaders spawning from an elected head of state – can do the same to fix your issue here.

“And how is whether their values ‘represent the nation’ to be determined without the input of the 3 million or so members of that nation? Should it be done by invocations of Divine Right? Or would a game-show format suffice?”

You missed the point. Its impossible to have a figure elected or not who truly represents the entirety of the nation – not everyone will vote for the same person. If its an elected position it is political. If its a constitutional monarchy then that figure will at least reflect our shared identity.

“Again, how is this to be determined without reference to the will of the nation?”

Is what our identity is up for debate now? Is our language? A Tywysog was the very embodiment of the Welsh cause. Is that really something that’s up for debate? Do we pick and choose what parts of our identity best fit our contemporary political views?

“Who the hell says that an elected, non-executive president would have to be a ‘career politician’?”

If you elect a public figure they likely have views. If you elect a nobody… whats the point?

“No it isn’t; how the hell could it be if the holder of the position never has to submit to election?”

As I said above, and you pointed out about a constitutional block for over ambitious types. We can write it into the constitution that a particular monarch can be forced to abdicate. Job done. So this argument is ill thought out.

“What the hell is the difference between them? Republicanism is anti-monarchism and vice versa.”

Course it is… I’m anti-English Monarchy but I’m not a Republican. But as I said you’re looking at this through the British ideas of Republicanism based of the British perception and institution of monarchy rather than what our own can do for us. You see all those Owain Glyndwr flags? You see people gathering at Cilmeri? They are part of our identity. Now and forever.

Serfdom and being a subject is a narrative. As I said you’re basing all your views on the nasty pompf of the English monarchy and what its become rather than the value of a non-political position above our political divides.

They would hold no power, no one said people need to bow or whether there is protocol. They represent the national identity which isn’t something which the people decide democratically it just “is”. It provides a neutral voice.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree though. But as I said… if neither family comes forward my argument is null and moot. If one does… I think yours might well be. I also believe having our own monarch will leave no question to our sovereignty and equal to England on the world stage… without the usual bloody rise of Republicanism

“I think you’ll find a Constitutional Monarchy is not “in the extreme”.”

I said it was counter-democratic in the extreme, and it must be; it doesn’t permit of a democratic input to the choice of a head of state.

“If the Monarch steps out of line they can be held accountable… as Edward VIII was,”

Horse dust! David Windsor was only removed from the throne because of manoeuverings behind the scenes by Baldwin and others. Had he stuck to his guns, he couldn’t have been removed by anything less than a coup d’état. That isn’t satisfactory; it certainly isn’t democratic.

“What I am saying is that who ever takes that role whether non-executive or not their values and views represent the nation.”

And how is whether their values ‘represent the nation’ to be determined without the input of the 3 million or so members of that nation? Should it be done by invocations of Divine Right? Or would a game-show format suffice?

“it cannot be said that [a monarch] is not an embodiment of that nations identity”

Again, how is this to be determined without reference to the will of the nation?

“At the end of the day a career politician cannot be neutral.”

Who the hell says that an elected, non-executive president would have to be a ‘career politician’? It’s perfectly possible to, for example, devise a rule that no-one may be considered eligible for election to the presidency if they have been a member of a political party or grouping during the preceding five years, that they may not be a member of such a grouping during their term(s) of office, and that they may not be a member of, etc., etc. for five years after leaving the position.

You’ve assumed the position (taken for granted in public discourse on this subject in Greater England) that any president would have to be a politician at all.

“The power is still in the hands of the people.”

No it isn’t; how the hell could it be if the holder of the position never has to submit to election?

“As I said Republicanism is not part of the movement…[…] Anti-Monarchism is part of the movement.”

What the hell is the difference between them? Republicanism is anti-monarchism and vice versa. It’s a distinction without a difference. Monarchism is merely exchanging one form of serfdom for another without any say in the terms and conditions. That is why – irrespective of whether the throne is being warmed by the arse of Betty, FA-Cup Head or Balding Billy – we are ‘subjects’, denied the dignity of our proper status as citizens. And this, remember, under one of your ‘contitutional monarchies’!

“The idea that anyone should be head of state without submitting to the mandate of the population is counter-democratic in the extreme.”

I think you’ll find a Constitutional Monarchy is not “in the extreme”. An Autocracy would be “in the extreme”. If the Monarch steps out of line they can be held accountable… as Edward VIII was, as I’m sure there are probably other instances where the government (the ELECTED representatives of the people) has stepped in.

“And your arguments against a republican system are remarkably similar to BritNat monarchists saying, “We don’t want a President Blair!” “We don’t want a President Thatcher!”.”

If they’re just saying they don’t want one particular individual or another then what I said is nothing like what “BritNat monarchists” say. What I am saying is that who ever takes that role whether non-executive or not their values and views represent the nation.

“Guess what? If you can vote on who gets the job, you won’t get the one you don’t want; it’s called Democracy.”

Not sure what you are trying to say here… in an election there’s always people who do not get the person they want and are therefor not represented by the head of state. Is that really democratic? That the head of state does not represent the entire nation? A Monarch does not represent the political ideals of the nation no (that’d be impossible as we all have different views so no one could truly represent us all in this fashion)… but it cannot be said that its not an embodiment of that nations identity – which is a great deal more inclusive of the populace.

“As those and other examples demonstrate, it isn’t difficult to prevent hyper-ambitious populists from getting the job; or, if they do, it isn’t difficult firmly to curtail the potential damage they may do.”

That’s not something you can actually prove though, is it? So I’d have to say that comment is bollocks sorry.

At the end of the day a career politician cannot be neutral. Democracy is by nature divisive and that will be exploited by our neighbours. Its not just autocrats we should fear – its a potential head of state that is too close to England with British ideas. Our head of state needs to represent Wales, all of Wales in the best way he or she can. If there are ways to curtail autocrats that sprout from Republicanism… how can you not reason that there are ways to curtail a Constitutional Monarch?

I do take that BritNat comment as a snide remark though. There is a wider world out there Nigel with other Constitutional Monarchies which are well respected – and some not so much. Same as governments – few autocratic ones out there (China) are also views with derision because its not the Democracy they one person on their high horse or another deems to be the correct kind. So the argument is not one exclusive to “BritNats”. The power is still in the hands of the people.

As I said Republicanism is not part of the movement… Gwynfor Evans expelled Republicans from Plaid. Anti-Monarchism is part of the movement. It tends to be those who are too British who get confused between the two. At the end of the day if none of whats left of ours do not join the cause at some point its really quite irrelevant anyway as we’ll have no choice but to be a Republic.

Now here I disagree with you, although I agree that the form that the constitution of our state should take is a secondary matter compared to actually establishing that state in the first place.

The idea that anyone should be head of state without submitting to the mandate of the population is counter-democratic in the extreme. No-one should hold a position of such constitutional importance without such a mandate. And I don’t care if Ein Llyw Olaf came back from the dead and put himself forward for the job; I wouldn’t want him either.

And your arguments against a republican system are remarkably similar to BritNat monarchists saying, “We don’t want a President Blair!” “We don’t want a President Thatcher!”. Guess what? If you can vote on who gets the job, you won’t get the one you don’t want; it’s called Democracy. Monarchy (to rephrase an old movie publicity slogan) means never having a say – sorry!

And as for claiming Trump and Hitler are valid reasons for going against the idea of a democratically-accountable head of state; well, you are talking about executive presidencies. It needn’t be so, and two of the most respected political figures in Europe in the last 30 years – Mary Robinson of Ireland and Richard von Weizsäcker of Germany – were non-executive presidents. It all depends on how you formulate your constitution. As those and other examples demonstrate, it isn’t difficult to prevent hyper-ambitious populists from getting the job; or, if they do, it isn’t difficult firmly to curtail the potential damage they may do.