As a matter of interest is the cover name you use a reference to the Confederate cavalry general James Ewell Brown Stuart, known as "Jeb" Stuart, and if so, why?
Disagreeing with you isn't censorship.
You need to understand the difference between an executive and a titular president, which you obviously don't. We would not have an executive, French or American style, head of state and head of government but a titular one like Ireland or Germany. It would be someone chosen by the nation's electors to represent the nation not to head he government. I wouldn't mind if you gave them the title King or Queen so long as they were elected for a term and then were accountable by having to stand for re election, say every five years. At present the next head of state of my country is a non-achiever called Charles Windsor whom I wouldn't elect to a local council and whom I can't vote out of office even if he were to behave as badly as his brother Andrew. Remember had Edward VIII not abdicated we would have had a Nazi sympathiser and pal of Hitler as our head of state until 1972.
You have no hope of anyone taking seriously your opinion of who should be Prime Minister when you not only spell his name, Johnson, wrongly, twice writing it as Johnston, but you also misspell the name of your chosen successor. It's Jeremy, not Jeremey, Hunt. By the way if your pen-name, Caracatus, is supposed to associate you with the 1st Century CE British chieftain of the Catuvellauni, who fought the Romans, you've got his name wrong too. He's called either Caratacus or Caractacus, certainly not Caracatus.
It is romanticised daydreaming to say the queen "...could refuse to sign any such Act of Dissolution". Were she to act out some royalist fantasy and do that she would simply redouble the constitutional drama. That may not be a bad thing were she (or a bumptious King Charles III) to set herself against the decision of Parliament. It would be a grand chance to take it as an historical turning point when we could finally grow up as a nation (or nations) and get rid of the absurdity of an unelected, hereditary head of state.
Ahh a vintage blend of self-righteousness and a paradoxically tart sullenness, matured for five years in a fine vinegar of class hatred and just the subtlest hint of self-loathing. A 2016 without doubt. The sour grapes are the best of the century so far..
52% to 48% hmm that's not wafer thin. It was a majority of about 1.4 million votes. I'm sorry you can't accept a democratic decision and look towards the opportunities it brings - starting with getting a decent vaccination programme free from the shambolic, unelected EU bureaucrats.
Just a quick reminder that the Conservative government in the 2016 Referendum was fervently Remain and unfortunately led Project Fear which has proved entirely unfounded. The majority of voters duly rejected it on a non-party basis. The Conservatives have room for broad ranges of opinions. There's no need to be bitter this far out and you should rejoin.
You mean 'their 'not 'there'.
You could argue that ethnically we may count as Europeans, as do the majority who live in North America. Culturally we are quite apart. We have more in common with the Americans in language, history, economics, law, constitution, literature, music etc. Europeans just can't do rock 'n' roll for instance.