Quote Originally Posted by King Henry V
How is it actually an affront? Did it suddenly declare that the act of Habeas Corpus was repealed and that the country under a state of martial law? I suppose a supreme head of state with all powers would be better?
The way the Royal Family both pays money in and gets money out is a bit silly and time-wasting. It should just get payed less. What could be done is that it is given property or something and it gets it money from that. The money could be re-paid over a period of time and would be more economic in the long run.
For the house of Lords perhaps a council of wise and learned people should be elected. These people would then appoint all peers, whilst they would be barred from standing for Parliament and other political posts, nor would they be allowed to have any previous record of politics.
The affront is the fact that the Royal family are afforded certain rights and privileges simply due to the fact of their birth. In any true Democracy, this is unacceptable. I was fervently against the old inherited peers in the house of Lords for the same reason

I didn't say anything about a supreme head of state with all powers-that's some nice putting words in my mouth. In fact, do we really need an official head of state? Removing the royal family from the equation, our political system would seem to be fine. We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.