This is important because it is about the majority (the people who get emotional about celebrity weddings) preventing a minority (those who don’t) having the means to express their view.

That’s a dangerous precedent.

I’ve now agreed with Sunny twice in a week and I’m going for a lie down…….

Of course, anti-monarchists could raise objections to royalist parties in retaliation but we’re generally not party-poopers.

I agree with pagar while at the same time not having much time for silly gesture politics and attention-seeking, especially on a wedding day – for the Coronation it would make more sense.

It depends what the goal was really. If it was just to have a nice day out then no one is stopping them from doing so if they’re happy to wave a flag and shout hurrah!. If it was to raise awareness of and promote Republicanism then Camden Council have just handed them a great PR victory. Either way, still shouldn’t be banned, (curs’ed Libertarian principles).

One odd thing, it’s a bit surprising that a Labour council, historically the anti monarchist lot, should be banning this party. I also note that neither the article above, nor to be fair the BBC, mention who does control Camden.

On Friday 29 April the UK will watch agog as the hereditary rulers of this nation gather to celebrate one of their offspring divesting himself of bachelor status.

This is a humorous effort to divert the large body of unimpressed UK citizens driven nuts by the mass media toadying and unapologetic waste and expense of the occasion. There is also the very real point that we can hardly call ourselves a civilised nation while we labour under the yoke of a medieval institution which invokes divine right of succession and makes a nonsense of any claim to meritocracy in modern Britain.

Please copy and paste in web bar…

http://www.gappublishing.co.uk/FEATURED-EBOOKS.html

Why not go to work on 29th?

That’ll show them.

The English Defence League has already threatened to attack anyone who attempts to disrupt or disrespect the Royal Wedding.

Why would residents of Camden want their streets to become a magnet for mobs of racists and soccer thugs? This proposed anti-Monarchist party is just a juvenile jape. Much wiser, and safer, to hold it on another day.

Colin,

What the fuck is the English Defense League actually defending? It certainly isn’t freedom of speech or expression. Threats to folk that frankly, don’t give a damn, is incredibly thick. Who are these folk, Cavaliers?

Why would residents of Camden want their streets to become a magnet for mobs of racists and soccer thugs? This proposed anti-Monarchist party is just a juvenile jape. Much wiser, and safer, to hold it on another day.

Ridiculous comment. You are favouring thugs over citizens.

How am I to blame for the fucking EDL?

People don’t want a riot on their doorstep, especially on the wedding day itself.

Colin,

Are you being disingenuous?

As a Republican I’m actually quite embarresed by this party. It’s just people wanting to be seen to be anti-Monarchy and to show her superior they are to the masses.
I say it’s better to register our disinterest with the wedding by staying at home and ignoring the sorry shower.

Yes yes I made a typo…I ment HOW superior they are not her.

This is important because it is about the majority (the people who get emotional about celebrity weddings) preventing a minority (those who don’t) having the means to express their view.

One side, indeed, is so completely unemotional about celebrity weddings that they are threatening legal action to ensure they can hold a big party at which they can tell everyone how totally unemotional they are about it, and how they really couldn’t care less.

I’m with Sadie on this one.

But you’re stood there wearing an immensely smackable expression, which you think says, “I thumb my nose at our aristocratic overlords!” but to everyone else screams “Intellectual onanist”, and expect us to be impressed at your plan to disrupt the Royal line of route so you can kumbyah all over it to “make a point” about republicanism or whatever?

We all know what it’s really about. It’s about proving that you are far more sophisticated than the ignorant proletarian “sheeple” whose viewing habits on the 29th you plan to use to elevate your feelings of smug superiority. How very socialist of you.

Well, this just in: no one cares.

http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/156292/you-tell-me-loves-too-plebeian.thtml

‘We all know what it’s really about. It’s about proving that you are far more sophisticated than the ignorant proletarian “sheeple” whose viewing habits on the 29th you plan to use to elevate your feelings of smug superiority. How very socialist of you.’

Oh, for fuck’s sake – you could make that argument against any protest.

Against global warming? You’re just asserting your superiority over the ‘sheeple’ (and Jesus, what are we – four years old?). Don’t want creationism taught in the classroom? Elitism! AV? Elitist!

It cuts both ways: those decrying the protests are themselves asserting their own moral superiority over others. Its the kind of pragmatically self-refuting argument that props up Sp!ked.

Those celebrating the wedding are *explicity promoting an elitist system*.
Stop wingeing about the *infered* ‘elitism’ of those opposing a genuine elite and give me one good reason why a council can promote parties for one cause but ban parties in another.

“This is important because it is about the majority (the people who get emotional about celebrity weddings) preventing a minority (those who don’t) having the means to express their view.”

Republic is perfectly free to have its tea party on private property if they so wish. Nobody’s preventing anybody from expressing their views. There’s a difference between preventing someone from doing something and not actively helping someone from doing something.

Get a giant model of a guillotine and parade it up in down in front of these of these Royal arse lickers.

@14 If you planned it carefully you have a never ending Escher nightmare with everybody looking down on the the next person for being elitist.

Panem et circenses

For a translation and a commentary on the origins of this Latin phrase and its significance, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Camden, I believe, is a Labour-run council. Not that you’d find that information on Lib Con, since party labels are only relevant when it’s the Tories doing something bad, aren’t they?

“‘It won’t be IF he does, my dear,’ Kate was told by one of Queen Elizabeth’s advisers. ‘It will be WHEN he does – and then you must simply turn a blind eye.'”
http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=9442027#page:showThread,9442027

Btw posts on LC haven’t been exactly short on criticisms of Labour governments, leaders, councils and the party.

Get a giant model of a guillotine and parade it up in down in front of these of these Royal arse lickers”

That’s surprisingly moderate, for you. Shouldn’t you actually be using the guillotine?

The guillotine under the watchful eyes of les tricoteuses are foreign ways. The tried and tested English way for royalty was the axe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ0vIyZBQdc&feature=fvwrel

The next King of England, Charless II, was invited by Parliament to restore the monarchy.

What the future Prince of Wales needs to remember is that, “Power,” as Henry Kissinger put it, “is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” and he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, but whether for that observation of for something more momentous is uncertain. As Tom Lehrer remarked for the occasion, “When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Peace Prize, political satire became obsolete.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc&playnext=1&list=PL6E4B62E9F0B277B7

There are many precedents for the Princes of Wales to have mistresses: . . .Edward VII, Edward VIII, Prince Charles.

David Cameron is a direct descendant of William IV, Queen Victoria’s predecessor as monarch and her uncle. At his death William had no surviving legitimate children, though he was survived by eight of the ten illegitimate children he had by the actress Dorothea Jordan, with whom he cohabited for 20 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom

Commies seem to be under the impression that Republicans are somehow their chums.
I guarantee they no more want one of your rusty Communist states than they do a Royalist paradise.

Be on your way.

“Commies seem to be under the impression that Republicans are somehow their chums.”

There aren’t many folk nowadays who will admit to being Communist or even Communist sympathisers. Initially, Gorbachev believed Communism had all gone wrong with Stalin but all the state apparatus for repression had been established by Lenin: You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

It was Lenin who had appointed Dzerzhinsky to create and run the Cheka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

Famously, the French Communist Party was the most Stalinist minded this side of the Iron Curtain. When Georges Marchais, Secretary General of the Party in France (1972-94), was pressed for comment on the crumbling Soviet empire c.1990, he replied: “I tell you, they didn’t arrest enough. They didn’t imprison enough. If they had been tougher and more vigilant, they wouldn’t have got into the situation they are in now.” [Jonathan Fenby: France on the Brink (1999)]

There aren’t many remaining monarchies left among the western liberal democracies: the Scandinavian states, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Britain. Perhaps the interesting insight is the number of countries with non-executive presidencies which have constitutional functions very similar to those of constitutional monarchs – countries such as India, Germany and Italy.