Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
We live in a democracy, but you seem to support stifling free speech and by referencing hanging and beheading you inflame opinion and enhance the cause you so dislike
Here's an idea for the next birthday present for HYUFD if you are stuck:
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Weird conversation. It's Scots not English, and it doesn't mean type at all.
Is ilk a Scots word? Genuinely had no idea.
Yes and no. It means 'same' and originates like so: if you are a Scots laird you are called say Macduff of Cawdor. If your castle happens also to be called Macduff you are Macduff of Macduff, or Macduff of that ilk (I.e. it means ditto). People then erroneously thought of that ilk ought to mean of that kind because ilk looks a bit like like.
Mind you the error is so well established that it is insanely pedantic to point it out.
The word itself is Anglo-Saxon, though.
So is Scots (as opposed to Gaelic) generally.
Sister language families - and plenty of Danish etc in both as well.
"Modern Scots is a sister language of Modern English, as the two diverged independently from the same source: Early Middle English (1150–1300[6]).[7][8]"
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
There is, India alone is bigger than both population wise
The commentator on the BBC for St Giles is the best so far - enough information, without worrying about filling dead air and letting the viewer appreciate the atmosphere.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
We live in a democracy, but you seem to support stifling free speech and by referencing hanging and beheading you inflame opinion and enhance the cause you so dislike
Here's an idea for the next birthday present for HYUFD if you are stuck:
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
There is, India alone is bigger than both
But in percentage terms, not many people speak English as a mother tongue.
Helpful Hint: how many movies made in India are primarily in English?
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Weird conversation. It's Scots not English, and it doesn't mean type at all.
Is ilk a Scots word? Genuinely had no idea.
Yes and no. It means 'same' and originates like so: if you are a Scots laird you are called say Macduff of Cawdor. If your castle happens also to be called Macduff you are Macduff of Macduff, or Macduff of that ilk (I.e. it means ditto). People then erroneously thought of that ilk ought to mean of that kind because ilk looks a bit like like.
Mind you the error is so well established that it is insanely pedantic to point it out.
The word itself is Anglo-Saxon, though.
So is Scots (as opposed to Gaelic) generally.
Sister language families - and plenty of Danish etc in both as well.
"Modern Scots is a sister language of Modern English, as the two diverged independently from the same source: Early Middle English (1150–1300[6]).[7][8]"
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
We live in a democracy, but you seem to support stifling free speech and by referencing hanging and beheading you inflame opinion and enhance the cause you so dislike
Here's an idea for the next birthday present for HYUFD if you are stuck:
An excellent example of how bad removing a King can get
The French monarchs were only too happy to adopt that modern technology for their republican opponents.
More died in the reign of terror than ever died under Louis
Well, he shouldn't have been such an arsehole. And royalty and momarchy includes Napoleon (divinely anointed under the supervision of the Pope; Archbish of C not being available for some reason).
Forgive me for my ignorance here, but isn’t this all unnecessarily complicated?
Just introduce retail spot pricing and per-minute billing. Everyone can see the current price of electricity (which will vary slightly by region) on their phone/smart meter display. Updated instantly.
There will still be demand for fixed / set pricing per/kWh and that’s fine, but people will pay a premium for it.
Looks to me like they’re faffing around with yet more complexity to try to balance demand on the grid. We’re not living in the 80s any more. The technology is here to allow us to junk all these legacy solutions and let retail users balance supply/demand via the spot price.
The solution is simple, unless I’m missing something?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
How long do we have to put up with this ?
For ten days after the funeral or when Putin is defeated. Whichever occurs first.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
We live in a democracy, but you seem to support stifling free speech and by referencing hanging and beheading you inflame opinion and enhance the cause you so dislike
Here's an idea for the next birthday present for HYUFD if you are stuck:
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Let's assume that it is the settled view of the new Government to have fair, just and tolerable use of police power. They are facing an ingrained culture that goes that length and breadth of the police service and the civil service. The task is Herculean.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
The biggest problem we have is a government which seems to have no respect for the rule of law. Little wonder other state institutions feel that they can get away with a similar disregard.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
1) I’m sure you don’t want the Home Secretary intervening in operational Police Matters (least of all recent incumbents) and 2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
Saying that the police should follow the law is not interference in operational matters.
Reminding us all that people are allowed to have different opinions and express them and that it is not compulsory to have the same view would be nice to hear from our political leaders. It might be a welcome sign that they have some small understanding of what freedom of speech means and what a free democratic society under the rule of law means.
It might even teach one or two of our posters on here some basic principles with which they seem unfamiliar.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
As opposed to the long list of elected Kings.
Weren't Anglos Saxon kings elected? Then it all started to go wrong..
Not exactly open to all I imagine.
The Godwins would make an incredible miniseries.
A series about posts which mention the Nazis? I can't see that being a big draw tbh.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Weird conversation. It's Scots not English, and it doesn't mean type at all.
Is ilk a Scots word? Genuinely had no idea.
Yes and no. It means 'same' and originates like so: if you are a Scots laird you are called say Macduff of Cawdor. If your castle happens also to be called Macduff you are Macduff of Macduff, or Macduff of that ilk (I.e. it means ditto). People then erroneously thought of that ilk ought to mean of that kind because ilk looks a bit like like.
Mind you the error is so well established that it is insanely pedantic to point it out.
The word itself is Anglo-Saxon, though.
So is Scots (as opposed to Gaelic) generally.
Yes, obviously the Scots speak English. Ilk is an English word, which comes from Anglo-Saxon. It's not a Scottish word by origin. It's the particular usage that is Scots.
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
How long do we have to put up with this ?
For ten days after the funeral or when Putin is defeated. Whichever occurs first.
Does Dynamo have any theories about Putin's floppy arm and table gripping?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
Obviously they are going to follow not lead public sentiment on this
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
As opposed to the long list of elected Kings.
Weren't Anglos Saxon kings elected? Then it all started to go wrong..
Not exactly open to all I imagine.
The Godwins would make an incredible miniseries.
A series about posts which mention the Nazis? I can't see that being a big draw tbh.
All joking aside - to have been a fly in the wall when they were dealing with some of the family problems…. Like Sweyn.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
Will you be at the Dynamo Moscow-PSB Sochi match at the weekend, Dynamo ? I have a friend who would like a few tickets.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Let's assume that it is the settled view of the new Government to have fair, just and tolerable use of police power. They are facing an ingrained culture that goes that length and breadth of the police service and the civil service. The task is Herculean.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
The biggest problem we have is a government which seems to have no respect for the rule of law. Little wonder other state institutions feel that they can get away with a similar disregard.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
1) I’m sure you don’t want the Home Secretary intervening in operational Police Matters (least of all recent incumbents) and 2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
Saying that the police should follow the law is not interference in operational matters.
What do you suggest she does? “The Police should follow the law” will be dismissed as motherhood. More explicit instructions will rightly be seen as interference. Wouldn’t this be a good opportunity for Police Commissioners to show their worth?
And two of the most recent egregious examples of protest policing have been in Cardiff & Edinburgh.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
As opposed to the long list of elected Kings.
Weren't Anglos Saxon kings elected? Then it all started to go wrong..
Bloody French!
(I’d argue “ratified” rather than elected but there was an element of choice by members of the Bretwalda)
Yes, @ydoethur was quite interesting on this on the previous thread. Worth a look if you're at all interested.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Let's assume that it is the settled view of the new Government to have fair, just and tolerable use of police power. They are facing an ingrained culture that goes that length and breadth of the police service and the civil service. The task is Herculean.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
The biggest problem we have is a government which seems to have no respect for the rule of law. Little wonder other state institutions feel that they can get away with a similar disregard.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
1) I’m sure you don’t want the Home Secretary intervening in operational Police Matters (least of all recent incumbents) and 2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
Saying that the police should follow the law is not interference in operational matters.
Reminding us all that people are allowed to have different opinions and express them and that it is not compulsory to have the same view would be nice to hear from our political leaders. It might be a welcome sign that they have some small understanding of what freedom of speech means and what a free democratic society under the rule of law means.
It might even teach one or two of our posters on here some basic principles with which they seem unfamiliar.
Cruella doesn't want people supergluing themselves to the M25, and fair enough, but isn't that the thin end of the wedge to arresting people for holding placards emblazoned with "**** the King". I would imagine "public order offences" are as short as they are tall, and can cover an awful lot of ground when it comes to punishing "bad people".
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Weird conversation. It's Scots not English, and it doesn't mean type at all.
Is ilk a Scots word? Genuinely had no idea.
Yes and no. It means 'same' and originates like so: if you are a Scots laird you are called say Macduff of Cawdor. If your castle happens also to be called Macduff you are Macduff of Macduff, or Macduff of that ilk (I.e. it means ditto). People then erroneously thought of that ilk ought to mean of that kind because ilk looks a bit like like.
Mind you the error is so well established that it is insanely pedantic to point it out.
Things you learn on PB! I'd always assumed an ilk was some more opinionated (or otherwise objectionable) relative of the elk.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Let's assume that it is the settled view of the new Government to have fair, just and tolerable use of police power. They are facing an ingrained culture that goes that length and breadth of the police service and the civil service. The task is Herculean.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
The biggest problem we have is a government which seems to have no respect for the rule of law. Little wonder other state institutions feel that they can get away with a similar disregard.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
1) I’m sure you don’t want the Home Secretary intervening in operational Police Matters (least of all recent incumbents) and 2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
Saying that the police should follow the law is not interference in operational matters.
Reminding us all that people are allowed to have different opinions and express them and that it is not compulsory to have the same view would be nice to hear from our political leaders. It might be a welcome sign that they have some small understanding of what freedom of speech means and what a free democratic society under the rule of law means.
It might even teach one or two of our posters on here some basic principles with which they seem unfamiliar.
Institutional changes are a lot longer in gestation that that - there's no way that current police travails begun with Boris's slapdash approach to legal convention.
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Weird conversation. It's Scots not English, and it doesn't mean type at all.
Is ilk a Scots word? Genuinely had no idea.
Yes and no. It means 'same' and originates like so: if you are a Scots laird you are called say Macduff of Cawdor. If your castle happens also to be called Macduff you are Macduff of Macduff, or Macduff of that ilk (I.e. it means ditto). People then erroneously thought of that ilk ought to mean of that kind because ilk looks a bit like like.
Mind you the error is so well established that it is insanely pedantic to point it out.
Perfectly ok in the home of insane pedantry though.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
No, Norway had a referendum on the monarchy in 1905 which the monarchy won. The King of Norway is not elected. The first elector of Hanover was appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively anointing by God.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
Will you be at the Dynamo Moscow-PSB Sochi match at the weekend, Dynamo ? I have a friend who would like a few tickets.
Dynamo, Putin's Lord Haw Haw?
HYUFD, the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Glücksburg Lord Haw Haw. No question mark needed.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
That's the abolitionist vote for all three parties gone for a burton!
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
How long do we have to put up with this ?
Until there is a new wedge issue to try and divide Russia’s enemies among ourselves.
Monty Python classic. I know it almost by heart. The only time I felt sorry for the Graham Chapman character.
Arthur: Well, I am king. Dennis: Oh, king, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress... Dennis' Mother: Dennis, Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd you do? Arthur: How'd you do good lady? I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that? Dennis' Mother: King of the who? Arthur: The Britons. Dennis' Mother: Who are the Britons? Arthur: We all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king. Dennis' Mother: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. Dennis: You're foolin' yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class... Dennis' Mother: Oh there you go bringing class into it again! Dennis: But that's what it's all about! If only people would realise... Arthur: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? Dennis' Mother: No one lives there. Arthur: Then who is your lord? Dennis' Mother: We don't have a lord. Arthur: What?! Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort of supreme executive officer for the week. Arthur: Yes. Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting... Arthur: Yes, I see. Dennis:...by a simple majority. In the case of purely internal affairs... Arthur: Be quiet. Dennis:...require two thirds majority. In the case of old ladys... Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Dennis' Mother: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Arthur: I am your king! Dennis' Mother: Well, I didn't vote for you. Arthur: You don't vote for kings. Dennis' Mother: Well, how'd you become King, then? Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [Angel
chorus begins singing in background] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [Angel chorus ends] That is why I am your king! Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Arthur: Be quiet! Dennis: But you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! Arthur: Shut up! Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
No, Norway had a referendum on the monarchy in 1905 which the monarchy won. The King of Norway is not elected. The first elector of Hanover was appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively anointing by God.
Most Poles did not elect medieval Polish Kings
The question was whom did they elect? What has "most poles" got to do with it? Even if only some did (obviously) you've still got an elected monarch. The King of Norway is not now elected, Haakon was.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
All former US Presidents lie in state and have full State Funerals too paid by US taxpayers and there are more of them than our monarchs.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
As opposed to the long list of elected Kings.
Weren't Anglos Saxon kings elected? Then it all started to go wrong..
Not exactly open to all I imagine.
The Godwins would make an incredible miniseries.
A series about posts which mention the Nazis? I can't see that being a big draw tbh.
All joking aside - to have been a fly in the wall when they were dealing with some of the family problems…. Like Sweyn.
I'm still hoping someone finds that long lost Shakespeare play 'Harold Godwinson'.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Hard agree. ERII's personal qualities and her longevity are the two massive factors here, overwhelming almost everything else.
If CRIII dies of chronic sausage finger in the next couple of years and there's anything approaching this level of fetishism, get the tumbrils rolling.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
No, Norway had a referendum on the monarchy in 1905 which the monarchy won. The King of Norway is not elected. The first elector of Hanover was appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively anointing by God.
Most Poles did not elect medieval Polish Kings
The most famous Norwegian King (the main street in Oslo is named after him) was one of Napoleon's marshals.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
The point of the Commonwealth, surely, is that it is not US.
It would be nice to have Ireland rejoin (they left in 1949 I think) but probably not possible so long as the British monarch is head.
Perhaps a special associate or observer status is possible for them.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
They have little choice unless they want to lose their jobs. That is exactly why the Shinners cannot sit in Parliament
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
No, Norway had a referendum on the monarchy in 1905 which the monarchy won. The King of Norway is not elected. The first elector of Hanover was appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively anointing by God.
Most Poles did not elect medieval Polish Kings
The question was whom did they elect? What has "most poles" got to do with it? Even if only some did (obviously) you've still got an elected monarch. The King of Norway is not now elected, Haakon was.
Haakon wasn't elected, any more than the Queen was elected Queen of Australia in 1999. The monarchy just won a referendum to keep the institution
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
The important imbalance you correctly identify, between lavish royal spectacle and a winter where up to a million more people may become destitute unless the government reverses its cruel reversal of the benefits uplift, that even the Legatum Institute now describes as lunacy, is the kind of area where Charles has shown quite a lot of intuitive understanding.
He's planning a radically slimmed-down Coronation ceremony, from what I've read, and a more Scandinavian-style monarchy in general, both long overdue. Don't forget this is the man whose criticism of Thatcherism led to good old Norman Tebbit saying "he identifies with the unemployed because he is one of them". Personally I'll be looking forward to a subtle counterweight to an exceptionally ideological and unwise government in difficult times.
Monty Python classic. I know it almost by heart. The only time I felt sorry for the Graham Chapman character.
Arthur: Well, I am king. Dennis: Oh, king, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress... Dennis' Mother: Dennis, Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd you do? Arthur: How'd you do good lady? I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that? Dennis' Mother: King of the who? Arthur: The Britons. Dennis' Mother: Who are the Britons? Arthur: We all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king. Dennis' Mother: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. Dennis: You're foolin' yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class... Dennis' Mother: Oh there you go bringing class into it again! Dennis: But that's what it's all about! If only people would realise... Arthur: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? Dennis' Mother: No one lives there. Arthur: Then who is your lord? Dennis' Mother: We don't have a lord. Arthur: What?! Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort of supreme executive officer for the week. Arthur: Yes. Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting... Arthur: Yes, I see. Dennis:...by a simple majority. In the case of purely internal affairs... Arthur: Be quiet. Dennis:...require two thirds majority. In the case of old ladys... Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Dennis' Mother: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Arthur: I am your king! Dennis' Mother: Well, I didn't vote for you. Arthur: You don't vote for kings. Dennis' Mother: Well, how'd you become King, then? Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [Angel
chorus begins singing in background] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [Angel chorus ends] That is why I am your king! Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Arthur: Be quiet! Dennis: But you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! Arthur: Shut up! Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Ha, yes, Eric Idle at his best. It occurs to me he always spoke in Cockney, yet he was born in South Shields. Just looked him up to see if I could find out why. He had an interesting and slightly tragic childhood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Idle
Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.
Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
All former US Presidents lie in state and have full State Funerals too paid by US taxpayers and there are more of them than our monarchs.
I personally think that level of pomp and circumstance is ridiculous, but at least there is some reasonable democratic mandate for that persons significance; they were elected. What is absurd is that this family have their political position due to a supposed special bloodline.
Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.
Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Hard agree. ERII's personal qualities and her longevity are the two massive factors here, overwhelming almost everything else.
If CRIII dies of chronic sausage finger in the next couple of years and there's anything approaching this level of fetishism, get the tumbrils rolling.
A great original post, and I agree, the Queen had been through a lot, hence the feeling of good will, but I notice speaking to a lot of younger people, the Royal Family, is a complete irrelevance, it's down hill from here on in
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
The alternative to he Monarchy is unthinkable.. just look at all the examples especially where the monarchy has been overthrown Truly GHASTLY.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
Yes - but it’s not in the security council, G7 or NATO or equivalent. So it’s useful that it has a direct link to a country that is. Of course India is significant enough that it could be partially heard acting independently but it judges it has more weight as part of a multilateral organisation. For smaller countries - a Rwanda, say - the calculation is even easier
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
I do.
The problem for republicans is that when Charles dies, the much loved William will takeover and few "swing voters" will want to depose the monarchy. Republicans need two bad monarchs in a row.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
You really think everyone who voted conservative in 2019 was a monarchist
Delusional
61% of republicans vote Labour, though even Starmer now backs a reformed monarchy
Which is neither here nor there for the principles of free speech and peaceful protest.
KCIII being kissed by someone in the crowd is a good image.
I can't help but feel that having anyone who dissents dragged away by the police is a really bad look. The institution should be strong enough to withstand a bit of heckling.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
Welsh Nationalists dislike the Prince of Wales title? Since when is that news? They even protested at Charles' investiture at Caernarfon in the 1960s.
In reality of course the Prince of Wales title recognises Wales' place in the Kingdom of England within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.
If it was down to under 30s Corbyn would now be PM, however even amongst them William and Kate for example are still pretty popular.
The tabloid media have been trashing Charles and Camilla for decades, who cares
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
I sincerely do; why shouldn't I? I'm not deluded to think this position is a majority view, or even a plurality view, but I do think that Lizzie held a specific spot due to her longevity and ubiquitousness. Most people alive today have known no other monarch. Now I will likely see 3, possibly even 4 in my lifetime. Each passing of the torch begs the question - why is this still happening?
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
Yes - but it’s not in the security council, G7 or NATO or equivalent. So it’s useful that it has a direct link to a country that is. Of course India is significant enough that it could be partially heard acting independently but it judges it has more weight as part of a multilateral organisation. For smaller countries - a Rwanda, say - the calculation is even easier
The Commonwealth is an community for the exchange of soft power, apart from the occasional meetings, it’s all about parliamentary, judicial, academic, and sporting links.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Hard agree. ERII's personal qualities and her longevity are the two massive factors here, overwhelming almost everything else.
If CRIII dies of chronic sausage finger in the next couple of years and there's anything approaching this level of fetishism, get the tumbrils rolling.
One might also add any tax and wider personal wealth issues that remain still unresolved (and whether tax is paid "voluntarily" rather than de jure does not eliminate the issue). Those will be very sensitive in the current climate.
Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.
Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.
Everyone’s got 20/20 vision in hindsight.
I suspect these people will disprove that statement.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
The alternative to he Monarchy is unthinkable.. just look at all the examples especially where the monarchy has been overthrown Truly GHASTLY.
More democracy is unacceptable?
Either the monarch has no political power, and therefore taking their constitutional function away shouldn't matter and should be fine, or they do have political power, and therefore that should be mandated by voters and not blood.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.
Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
The point of the Commonwealth, surely, is that it is not US.
It would be nice to have Ireland rejoin (they left in 1949 I think) but probably not possible so long as the British monarch is head.
Perhaps a special associate or observer status is possible for them.
Apparently Suriname is likely the next joiner.
Agreed - it’s a loose gathering of not-US, not-Russia, not-China
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
All former US Presidents lie in state and have full State Funerals too paid by US taxpayers and there are more of them than our monarchs.
I personally think that level of pomp and circumstance is ridiculous, but at least there is some reasonable democratic mandate for that persons significance; they were elected. What is absurd is that this family have their political position due to a supposed special bloodline.
Which is fine, we don't want President Blair or President Johnson, just a ceremonial head of state
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it
Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Norway elected a king in 1905, Medieval Poland routinely elected Kings, and why do you think people like the Electors of hanover and saxony were called that?
No, Norway had a referendum on the monarchy in 1905 which the monarchy won. The King of Norway is not elected. The first elector of Hanover was appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively anointing by God.
Most Poles did not elect medieval Polish Kings
The question was whom did they elect? What has "most poles" got to do with it? Even if only some did (obviously) you've still got an elected monarch. The King of Norway is not now elected, Haakon was.
Haakon wasn't elected, any more than the Queen was elected Queen of Australia in 1999. The monarchy just won a referendum to keep the institution
Dear me. You don't know what happened to Norway in 1905 do you?
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
Welsh Nationalists dislike the Prince of Wales title? Since when is that news? They even protested at Charles' investiture at Caernarfon in the 1960s.
In reality of course the Prince of Wales title recognises Wales' place in the Kingdom of England within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.
If it was down to under 30s Corbyn would now be PM, however even amongst them William and Kate for example are still pretty popular.
The tabloid media have been trashing Charles and Camilla for decades, who cares
You will know, you voted PC. Horse's mouth and all that.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
I do.
The problem for republicans is that when Charles dies, the much loved William will takeover and few "swing voters" will want to depose the monarchy. Republicans need two bad monarchs in a row.
William is liked by the same crowd who liked Lizzie - he has no real popularity with the next generation of his subjects. Charles is just uniquely disliked by the typical monarchist - mostly because he is somewhat more political than his mother was, and is interested in some eco things.
What will really do for Charles and William is the lack of deference that protected Lizzie for so long. She arose to the throne in a different era, and much of that was able to hover around her because of that. William will not inherit that along with the crown.
I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today
I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd, the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and 2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
How long do we have to put up with this ?
I think that inevitably, the ban hammer will be brought down before long.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
What a great post
I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.
Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
Well, why not have no head of state, then? If we want parliamentary sovereignty, have it. If the argument is the monarch doesn't really have a veto now (despite the fact they do), then why let them have a constitutional role at all. If they do have that veto power, then there is no mandate for them holding that power other than the supposed specialness of their blood and breeding - an abhorrent concept.
Two interesting & semi-coincidental POTUS moments on my TV screen this AM:
> flipped on the tube just in time to see famous "win one for the Gipper" deathbed speech by Ronald Reagan portraying early Notre Dame football legend George Gip, in the classic film "The Knute Rockne Story".
> then flipped channel just in time to see clip of coverage of wedding of Jacqueline Bouvier and John F. Kennedy, which took place 66 years ago today.
No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.
Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.
We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
Er, why?
Was said in jest.
BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.
The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
Yes - but it’s not in the security council, G7 or NATO or equivalent. So it’s useful that it has a direct link to a country that is. Of course India is significant enough that it could be partially heard acting independently but it judges it has more weight as part of a multilateral organisation. For smaller countries - a Rwanda, say - the calculation is even easier
The Commonwealth is an community for the exchange of soft power, apart from the occasional meetings, it’s all about parliamentary, judicial, academic, and sporting links.
That’s the public face, but the UK has been known to speak on its behalf…
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
The royalists are running scared.
No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
The alternative to he Monarchy is unthinkable.. just look at all the examples especially where the monarchy has been overthrown Truly GHASTLY.
More democracy is unacceptable?
Either the monarch has no political power, and therefore taking their constitutional function away shouldn't matter and should be fine, or they do have political power, and therefore that should be mandated by voters and not blood.
The alternative is to go, like HYUFD does, on divine right (however you dress it up). Which would make the UK a post-mediaeval theocracy, as does its insistence on a preferred state religion (and a vestigial second one) and on bishops in the HoL. Which is further problematic.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Our UNELECTED new King.
Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.
The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.
Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.
Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).
How many more clips by the weekend? Add a few booings... Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...
No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.
Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.
We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
Er, why?
Was said in jest.
BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.
The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.
Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.
Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.
Everyone’s got 20/20 vision in hindsight.
I suspect these people will disprove that statement.
Remind me to which party you belong Jeremy?
Liz Truss could have her own "Labour Party Conference 2022 Fringe Meeting" if she so wished.
Comments
Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
I was trying to remember a whisky (I think) advert from about 30 years ago!
"Ilka dram a ferlie."
The very dirl o't reached the moon,
Till ilka lassie an' her loon
Commenced the dance fu' frisky, O!
Illustrating both ilka, every, and loon = young man with no connotation of idiocy at all.
Russian units near Kherson negotiating surrender.
https://twitter.com/4tnTweet/status/1569326551191224323
the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.
Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that
1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and
2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
Helpful Hint: how many movies made in India are primarily in English?
Forgive me for my ignorance here, but isn’t this all unnecessarily complicated?
Just introduce retail spot pricing and per-minute billing. Everyone can see the current price of electricity (which will vary slightly by region) on their phone/smart meter display. Updated instantly.
There will still be demand for fixed / set pricing per/kWh and that’s fine, but people will pay a premium for it.
Looks to me like they’re faffing around with yet more complexity to try to balance demand on the grid. We’re not living in the 80s any more. The technology is here to allow us to junk all these legacy solutions and let retail users balance supply/demand via the spot price.
The solution is simple, unless I’m missing something?
Do you really mean to say that the French Revolutions was actually a rather violent period of history?
Reminding us all that people are allowed to have different opinions and express them and that it is not compulsory to have the same view would be nice to hear from our political leaders. It might be a welcome sign that they have some small understanding of what freedom of speech means and what a free democratic society under the rule of law means.
It might even teach one or two of our posters on here some basic principles with which they seem unfamiliar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_king_is_dead,_long_live_the_king!
I do get the feeling that we are being subjected to an ancient and well thought out strategy to shock and awe us into accepting the new monarch
And I do find there's a loop playing in my head of Monty Python
I am your King
- I didn't vote for you
And two of the most recent egregious examples of protest policing have been in Cardiff & Edinburgh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
The Pope is a monarch and he is elected.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Most Poles did not elect medieval Polish Kings
No question mark needed.
Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
Signing the book of condolences at the British embassy in Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/Helpful_Hand_SA/status/1569335220612243458/photo/1
He is best ignored
"I am your King
- I didn't vote for you"
Monty Python classic. I know it almost by heart. The only time I felt sorry for the Graham Chapman character.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king, eh - very
nice. And how'd you get that,
then? By exploiting the
workers! By hanging on to outdated
imperialist dogma which perpetuates the
economic and social differences in our
society. If there's ever going to be any
progress...
Dennis' Mother: Dennis, Dennis! There's
some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd
you do?
Arthur: How'd you do good
lady? I am Arthur, king of
the Britons. Whose castle
is that?
Dennis' Mother: King of the who?
Arthur: The Britons.
Dennis' Mother: Who are the Britons?
Arthur: We all are. We are all
Britons, and I am your king.
Dennis' Mother: I didn't know we had a
king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
Dennis: You're foolin'
yourself. We're living in a
dictatorship! A self-perpetuating
autocracy in which the working class...
Dennis' Mother: Oh there you go
bringing class into it again!
Dennis: But that's what it's all
about! If only people would realise...
Arthur: Please, please good people. I
am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Dennis' Mother: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Dennis' Mother: We don't have a lord.
Arthur: What?!
Dennis: I told you. We're an
anarcho-syndicalist commune.
We take it in turns to
act as sort of supreme
executive officer for the week.
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: But all the decisions of that
officer have to be ratified at a special
biweekly meeting...
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis:...by a simple majority. In the
case of purely internal affairs...
Arthur: Be quiet.
Dennis:...require two thirds
majority. In the case of old ladys...
Arthur: Be quiet! I
order you to be quiet!
Dennis' Mother: Order, eh?
Who does he think he is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Dennis' Mother: Well,
I didn't vote for you.
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Dennis' Mother: Well, how'd
you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [Angel
chorus begins singing in background]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering
samite, held aloft Excalibur from the
bosom of the water signifying by Divine
Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry
Excalibur. [Angel chorus ends]
That is why I am your king!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women
lying in ponds distributing
swords is no basis for
a system of government.
Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from
the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: But you can't expect to wield
supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying
I was an emperor just because some
moistened bint had lobbed a
scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
If CRIII dies of chronic sausage finger in the next couple of years and there's anything approaching this level of fetishism, get the tumbrils rolling.
It would be nice to have Ireland rejoin (they left in 1949 I think) but probably not possible so long as the British monarch is head.
Perhaps a special associate or observer status is possible for them.
Apparently Suriname is likely the next joiner.
Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.
Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.
https://twitter.com/kayaburgess/status/1569326041000198148
He's planning a radically slimmed-down Coronation ceremony, from what I've read, and a more Scandinavian-style monarchy in general, both long overdue. Don't forget this is the man whose criticism of Thatcherism led to good old Norman Tebbit saying "he identifies with the unemployed because he is one of them". Personally I'll be looking forward to a subtle counterweight to an exceptionally ideological and unwise government in difficult times.
It occurs to me he always spoke in Cockney, yet he was born in South Shields. Just looked him up to see if I could find out why. He had an interesting and slightly tragic childhood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Idle
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/why-ukraine-will-win/
Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.
Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.
Truly GHASTLY.
I can't help but feel that having anyone who dissents dragged away by the police is a really bad look. The institution should be strong enough to withstand a bit of heckling.
In reality of course the Prince of Wales title recognises Wales' place in the Kingdom of England within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.
If it was down to under 30s Corbyn would now be PM, however even amongst them William and Kate for example are still pretty popular.
The tabloid media have been trashing Charles and Camilla for decades, who cares
Either the monarch has no political power, and therefore taking their constitutional function away shouldn't matter and should be fine, or they do have political power, and therefore that should be mandated by voters and not blood.
I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.
Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
Perhaps Ukraine should join…
What will really do for Charles and William is the lack of deference that protected Lizzie for so long. She arose to the throne in a different era, and much of that was able to hover around her because of that. William will not inherit that along with the crown.
> flipped on the tube just in time to see famous "win one for the Gipper" deathbed speech by Ronald Reagan portraying early Notre Dame football legend George Gip, in the classic film "The Knute Rockne Story".
> then flipped channel just in time to see clip of coverage of wedding of Jacqueline Bouvier and John F. Kennedy, which took place 66 years ago today.
BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.
The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute-buckingham-palace-defends-footage/news-story/91c7ccd3f3dec06d72afbf4ff255dea1?nk=971876ced12cdf04282b0f644977b665-1662995372
Liz Truss could have her own "Labour Party Conference 2022 Fringe Meeting" if she so wished.