ron obvious

Might be worth comparing other currencies, e.g. the £ to euro over the last 5 years. And the dollar to euro. Gives a bit more perspective.

If your good enough I don't think that matters. I cite one J. Maddison in evidence. Next year we'll hopefully find out if he is. I think he probably is.

This is an absolute facer, but I think you have to try & disincentivise people with minor ailments from visiting their GP. I was thinking possibly a small charge, say £5 - £10, which could be refunded if there's a real problem? Defining a 'real problem' would be tricky though. Could see lots of arguments there. A lot of us only go when seriously concerned, so a small charge wouldn't put us off. I suspect it's a low percentage of patients who take up a large percentage of time; is that correct? Obviously some will have ongoing illnesses, but what percentage would you say just go to the doctors over minor issues? No easy answers. But something has to change.

Charlie George was the best I've ever seen for zero backlift.

I thought this was about a film on Talking Pictures TV

Unfortunately the only book of hers I read was the nastiest I've ever encountered. Put me off a bit.

1) True that you cannot erase history, although many regimes have attempted to do so (it's happening in this country at the moment). But to do so in the UK would require a complete shift in national identity. I'm not sure that's a good idea. 2) Her LIFE was far from ordinary, but I think she was an ordinary person in terms of talents, gifts, personality etc. However I regard the degree of duty, service & sheer self-control she demonstrated to be extraordinary; what I'm saying is that her virtues are latent in all of us & are frequently enacted in daily life. She was an example to us all, regardless of upbringing. 3)As a working class person I appreciate the concerns lack of money brings. However I deliberately said middle class, i.e. someone whose life is not beset by financial worries. And I don't think you can imagine the utter, utter boredom & tedium she had to go through -& with no hope of escape. Short of abdication she couldn't change her job, which is something you can do which she couldn't. I'm not daft, I'm sure she had many enjoyable times & led a very cossetted life. But my god was she trapped; "A Bird In a Gilded Cage". 4) Don't really understand this point. I'm saying she was an average human being in an extraordinary situation & expected to be permanently smiling & diplomatic, never offend anyone or put a foot wrong & she rose to perform these functions exceptionally well. 5) I think she did understand people as well as it is possible for anyone to understand a vast number of other people. I will never fully understand you & you will never fully understand me. My working life experience will have been far different to yours (& I suspect less narrow: I've been a teacher for a while & found the mindset to be rather constricted. In the adult world I've worked with representatives of about 20 different nationalities/religions, some of them highly intelligent, & come across people with views right across the political spectrum). 6) That's the same argument as sack the manager/owners/tea lady; it can only make things better, right? More often it's a case of " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". There may well be a better way of fulfilling the present, evolved role of the monarchy but you better be pretty damn sure you won't make things worse. Just saying " I know, let's have a republic" doesn't cut it for me, & that seems to be the attitude of most republicans. Details please. Your penultimate paragraph I pretty well agree with & in large part sums up my attitude. I was very concerned about Charles but as long as he stands by his promise to keep it buttoned then I think he'll be OK. As I've said they're only really there by consent, something they are very aware of. So although not democratically mandated their (limited, advisory) power depends very much on public perception & support. Back on the roof I go.

That may be historically true, but it's not the same argument as that for retention of the monarchy.

No it isn't - or rather, if it is it's completely untrue. The landed gentry have no responsibility to the people at large & they have no need of anyone's consent. I think quite a few people wouldn't mind living as landed gentry.

Not so I think. If you want someone who perfectly represents everyone in the country you will seek them in vain. All anyone will do is represent their own unique situation. Now although the monarch will obviously always represent the interests of the monarchy they long ago came to terms with the fact they govern by consent, & their continuation is predicated on maintaining that consent. As I said we've removed monarchs before. Rich kids, offspring of wealthy people, are certainly privileged & have no responsibilities or duties. This is not so for monarchs & as I say I think their privileges would not make up for the lives they are forced to live for the vast majority of us. Any Marklesque fantasies about being a royal would rapidly evaporate in the heat of the reality. Anyway, must stop this as that garage roof isn't getting slated while I witter on. Toodle pip.

Now that's the sort of privilege I suspect 99% of us could do without. 99% of us in the developed world are born into the sort of wealth & privilege that simply didn't exist for 99% of the population a hundred odd years ago - & a lot of those material goodies didn't even exist, no matter what your privilege. Now you could say she had an atypical upbringing, born with the possibility that she may well become the most public, the most observed person in the kingdom, & the one with the highest personal & public responsibility & duties, for which she will have been trained from a young age. Does that mean she wasn't aware of the feelings of the rest of us? I'd suggest that her actions throughout her reign proved otherwise. As has often been mentioned, the only time she got it wrong was when Diana died, caught out by the unprecedented (& arguably inexplicable) tide of emotion that followed. And she rapidly rectified that situation

With analysing that statement would be a good place.

It's counter-intuitive, but I fear that any republic would end end being less representative than the present monarchy. The very fact they are not elected means they cannot abrogate power to themselves, whereas I can imagine a republican leader acquiring more power than entitled to - on the grounds that they're democratically elected. The present system preserves a delicate balance between competing political & power bases which takes into account what could be called the national psyche Also I cannot imagine any republic performing the rites of tradition that we have just witnessed. And as I said for reasons of national memory, that which binds us together, these are incredibly important even though not easily quantifiable.

Merely?? Why would it be necessarily be an improvement though? And how do you replace 1,000 years of history? It's to do with memory. I remember (!) seeing a programme, perhaps by Oliver Sacks, which included a man who'd lost his short-term memory. He was incredibly distraught & upset, his life was almost unliveable. Our history is our collective memory & functions to keep us whole, gives us a national identity, even when there are parts we may not like. The monarchy may evolve into something else, in fact I'd suggest the reason it's still here is because it has evolved (c.f. Charles 1st & Charles 3rd). They are only in their position by consent - witness Charles 1st's fate & the Glorious Revolution - & there's no guarantee a republican leader would be so attuned to the public mood. In fact something that's struck me since her death is the Queen's ordinariness. Seeing film clips of her as a young woman I see a not particularly gifted well-to-do woman who you could imagine living a middle class life, just raising a family with all the usual concerns. But she performed extraordinary feats of duty & service, demonstrating what average people are capable of if the circumstances demand it & they are prepared to rise to the challenge. So in an odd way you could say she was our representative in government; a calm bastion of normality & constancy while all around her politicians of different stripes came & went, able to offer advice but not command. Her successors may or may not be as effective but I think the example she set has had a profound effect. It's not a perfect system - no such animal - but I'm hard pressed to think of one guaranteed to be better.

Not saying a word.