Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
@Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.
Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.
A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)
These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb
It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
Depends how old @Ghedebrav is. I went there the other day, having not been for some time. Pretty depressing, actually. It always was and remains now young. Even the members clubs - careful the main Soho House is closed you'll end up in their place in Greek Street - are young. Far younger than you and younger than me also.
Out on the streets it is all again about youth and vigour which rules you and me out, sadly, although I can see you might have a Death in Venice Dirk Bogarde thing going, now that I think about it.
I'm youthful 41. Funnily enough, when I was in my 20s Soho felt like a place for older folk.
41 is no age! Especially compared with @Leon and, er, me.
I would have no idea where to go - I went as I said a couple of weeks ago to Soho House to meet some friends but whereas XX years ago (ahem) it was close to a home from home (the Roxy, Marquee, 100 Club, then the Wag, le Beat Route, etc, etc) now it is, as the past does tend to be, a different country.
Whatever you do don't take the advice of some old git like Leon.
Ha, no - though I used to enjoy the St. Moritz and the Friendly Society (usually after Fitzrovia's magnificent Sam Smiths pubs); will check if they're still going. I used to go to the Groucho, but blagging in under a friend's dad's name; not sure I have the chutzpah these days.
'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.
Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
And what is the relevance of one statement to the other?
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
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.
Make the President electable and grant him/her one actual power - the ability to dissolve Parliament and cause an election. All other powers remain with the Prime Minister as they effectively do at present.
This would stunt the repellent social hierarchy which the UK has and that is based on little more than proximity to a Royal Family. Presumably all land would revert to Parliament rather than the Crown.
What rubbish, the republic of the US is far more unequal than the UK
'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.
Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
And what is the relevance of one statement to the other?
One statement is bollocks anyway as he's counted DKs on his side as usual. And the indyref by definition excluded DKs. .
A curious point to make I know, but I always thought the Queen looked more Scottish than German. More rounded features, that combination of dark eyebrows and blue eyes. Some connection to that woman from the 1980s's Scottish Widows advert.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.
Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
And what is the relevance of one statement to the other?
One statement is bollocks anyway as he's counted DKs on his side as usual. And the indyref by definition excluded DKs. .
'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.
Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
And what is the relevance of one statement to the other?
One statement is bollocks anyway as he's counted DKs on his side as usual. And the indyref by definition excluded DKs. .
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.
Make the President electable and grant him/her one actual power - the ability to dissolve Parliament and cause an election. All other powers remain with the Prime Minister as they effectively do at present.
This would stunt the repellent social hierarchy which the UK has and that is based on little more than proximity to a Royal Family. Presumably all land would revert to Parliament rather than the Crown.
But that is not, at this time, what the collective we wants
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.
Make the President electable and grant him/her one actual power - the ability to dissolve Parliament and cause an election. All other powers remain with the Prime Minister as they effectively do at present.
This would stunt the repellent social hierarchy which the UK has and that is based on little more than proximity to a Royal Family. Presumably all land would revert to Parliament rather than the Crown.
What rubbish, the republic of the US is far more unequal than the UK
I don't think there's any correlation at all between a country being formally a Republic, and egalitarianism.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.
Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
And what is the relevance of one statement to the other?
One statement is bollocks anyway as he's counted DKs on his side as usual. And the indyref by definition excluded DKs. .
In 2014 most DKs went No
It's still bollocks maths. And you aren't allowed to change your position without admitting it, when someone points out the problems.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
I don’t find it surprising that you can be both pro Scottish independence and support a continuation of the monarch as head of state.
Very much the case. It's a serious misapprehension to think otherwise. Indeed, those making that error are often those wo go on about the importance of the RF in the Commonwealth.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
Several left-wing mayors are defying government orders to fly flags at half-mast for the Queen’s funeral, earning support from French people who say President Macron and the media are lavishing excessive attention on the British monarchy.
The row was opened when Yann Galut, mayor of the central city of Bourges, and Patrick Proisy, mayor of Faches-Thumesnil, on the Belgian border, announced that they would disobey the instruction from Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister, that town halls and other public buildings must lower the Tricolour to half-mast next Monday, the day of the funeral.
“This request seems incredible to me,” Galut, a former Socialist MP and former senior official in the party, wrote on Twitter. “I respect the sorrow of our English friends but I will not put up the French flag [at half mast] over the municipal buildings of Bourges.” He said later on France 3 television: “We are a republican country. Why should I pay tribute to a foreign monarch?”
Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.
Charging them is even worse.
There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.
I’m not holding my breath.
Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
Oxford is in Wales?
The arrests most recently in the news were in Edinburgh - which is leading to prosecution - not something so far announced in the Oxford case. A recent example of this daft policing was in Wales where the (I’d have thought self evident) banner that “Lesbians Don’t Like Penises” was deemed likely to cause offence leading to lesbians being evicted from a Gay Pride March. But it’s all Braverman’s fault…
Didn't see anyone blaming Braverman for the CPS ...
As the Russian Army couldn't be bothered to remove the wreckage of Su-30SM 'RF-81773' that came down in a formerly Russian-controlled part of Kharkiv Oblast, Western intelligence agencies are now the proud owner of a slightly dented SAP-518SM 'Regata' jamming pod. https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1569359928694902786
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a 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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
That’s shocking . Using that excuse the police could stop all protest as someone might be offended .
I'm a mildly sceptical just-about monarchist. But this level of irrationality and disregard for what the law says about freedom of expression is beginning to make me wonder about that position.
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
This is absolutely despicable. No doubt the Toby Youngs of this world will stay silent
Wait until I object to some tory NIMBY holding a poster next to a green field saying 'No New Homes Here!' and tell police that the poster has upset me and they should be arrested.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
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.
Answering a question you didn't ask, that will however make Charles a different kind of monarch. Yes he'll keep the toys and the palaces (most probably) but he has been cutting about for 50-odd years exposed to and able to have a view on many more diverse issues than Queen Elizabeth so he might be up for making the monarchy more relevant (whatever that means) and less repellent.
What if anything could he do that would lessen your republicanism?
Nothing could be done to lessen my republicanism - it is a moral position as much as a political one. I am against the imposition of unjust hierarchies, and can see none more unjust than monarchy - the belief that you are destined or bone to rule due to your relative proximity in blood quantum to some long ago conqueror who legitimised their rule through brutality and appeals to God.
My position is less about convincing me, and the potential for a change of view from the public. I would suggest that the positive feeling towards Lizzie was / is very much a product of her being monarch for so long (for most people alive now the only monarch they have ever known) and that her ascension to the throne came at a political point where republicanism was not an option. With the changing of the guard there becomes opportunity; people who were passively monarchist because it was just there are having their attention drawn to its existence. The more that happens with Charles and William, I would suggest, the less people will feel compelled to defend its existence. It is an anachronism, it is inherently absurd, and I think most people either don't think about it that much or liked Lizzie enough to ignore it.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
To be fair to other posters I did not just get abused, many here have commented with thoughts. Some have not. That's fine. I am a little less willing to take suggestions that republicans are traitors that need a good hanging with good humour...
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
To be fair to other posters I did not just get abused, many here have commented with thoughts. Some have not. That's fine. I am a little less willing to take suggestions that republicans are traitors that need a good hanging with good humour...
This is absolutely despicable. No doubt the Toby Youngs of this world will stay silent
Wait until I object to some tory NIMBY holding a poster next to a green field saying 'No New Homes Here!' and tell police that the poster has upset me and they should be arrested.
Not such a good idea this legislation after all?
What if I complain to the police that someone is making jokes (or perhaps not) about hanging allegedly republican members of PB?
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
That’s shocking . Using that excuse the police could stop all protest as someone might be offended .
I'm a mildly sceptical just-about monarchist. But this level of irrationality and disregard for what the law says about freedom of expression is beginning to make me wonder about that position.
Same here. The police are doing a fair bit of damage to the institution today.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
Arresting people because "someone might be offended" is completely pathetic and idiotic. It is the same for 'transphobia' as it is for 'republicanism'. The whole thing is completely stupid. The line should be incitement to violence, or actually disrupting a public event. Not just expressing beliefs and opinions. Otherwise it isn't really isn't that different to Putin's Russia.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
Gwyneth Powell, aka Mrs Mcluskey from Grange Hill. The queen of Grange Hill no less. Had sadly passed on. From the chap who played junkie Zammo in the show and then his acting career died. He became a locksmith.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
This is absolutely despicable. No doubt the Toby Youngs of this world will stay silent
Wait until I object to some tory NIMBY holding a poster next to a green field saying 'No New Homes Here!' and tell police that the poster has upset me and they should be arrested.
Not such a good idea this legislation after all?
What if I complain to the police that someone is making jokes (or perhaps not) about hanging allegedly republican members of PB?
PLUS those PBers presenting prima facie cases of treason against the Crown in Scotland, by seeking to overthrow Scots law by imposing English law north of the Border.
AND speaking about treason, note that Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-Closet) has got his own fanny in a crack (at least metaphorically) re: the Georgia case re: Trump's efforts to subvert the Peach State's 2020 presidential vote.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, small towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
"The monarchy is more popular than cruelty to cuddly furry animals."
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
That may be bit hard on poor Dynamo, as from his posts he's certainly put in a lot of work and diligence into trying to understand Britain. I wonder if the St. Peteresburg farms are planning a mass campaign to mingle with legitimate Republicans and Celtic nationalists, as they did with opponents of the invasion, in huge numbers, in places like the Daily Mail and Twitter in the spring. To come next week, I expect.
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
Arresting people because "someone might be offended" is completely pathetic and idiotic. It is the same for 'transphobia' as it is for 'republicanism'. The whole thing is completely stupid. The line should be incitement to violence, or actually disrupting a public event. Not just expressing beliefs and opinions. Otherwise it isn't really isn't that different to Putin's Russia.
Are we saying that public order concerns are never above the right to protest? because if that's the case, a few people are going to get injured or worse down the line?
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
The Hill
That looks like a mistake by Hobbs . Why not debate and just highlight how crazy her opponent is .
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
The big difference now is that the just about everyone carries a sophisticated camera with them on their smartphone.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
I agree but don't remember the same level of coverage in the press either.
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
The Hill
That looks like a mistake by Hobbs . Why not debate and just highlight how crazy her opponent is .
May 2017. She thinks she's ahead and is scared debating might lose her the lead/nothing to gain It will go as well as May's chickening out imo
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
The Hill
Perhaps Kari Lake should have our Leon debate an empty stool on her behalf?
Like Clint Eastwood famously did at 2016 GOP convention for (if that's the word) Mitt Romney.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
I don't remember the same level of coverage in the press either.
The only direct comparison is newspapers though, they are pretty much an irrelevance now compared to TV and SM Edit - by which i mean they might as well go full tonto they have no 'informing' role any more
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
It was more popular. Are you sure it still is?
The 1950s were sold as a time of "you've never had it so good".
Please do run with the line that it's the opponents of the royal family who are the real elite. Condemn education too. Most people who are in the first generation in their family to attend university are pleased about going there and hope their offspring will go to university too. The working class values education far more than you know.
Monarchism is falling in popularity among the young and may be about to collapse generally, except among diehard Tories - those who may or may not hold party cards but who have always voted for the party and who couldn't imagine ever not voting either Tory or for some outfit even further to the right.
And what is the monarchy but the Tory party playing dressup? Most of the population would agree with that characterisation. You can't live forever on Princess Elizabeth changing a few tyres in the 1940s when she was in the army. (And wasn't that when the family were all about to scarper to Canada anyway?)
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Haw Haw Haw!
And many thanks to Rupert Murdoch for making this guffaw possible!
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Is it just me or do other people hear Fucker Carlson when the turd in question is mentioned?
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
I don't remember the same level of coverage in the press either.
The only direct comparison is newspapers though, they are pretty much an irrelevance now compared to TV and SM Edit - by which i mean they might as well go full tonto they have no 'informing' role any more
We are having some work done on the house; a wet room installed. The fitters are starting on Wednesday and the job is scheduled to take six days. Someone from the company rang early this morning asking if we minded them working on Monday. We said no; first of all we don't mind, and secondly we need the job done, not half finished for three days.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
You're misdiagnosing this with your pet issue. It's not republicans that are being targeted, it's any sort of speech that might cause offence. This time round it's republicans, the last few goes it's been people who don't buy into the idea of gender and sex being the same thing, before that it was fathers for justice etc...
In this country we've got into this twisted situation where people can be arrested for simply saying something unpleasant to another person. The reaction "I'm offended" seems to warrant a police investigation and eventual arrest of the "perpetrator".
If, like me, you want free speech and free right to protest for these people today, then you should support the free speech and free right to protest of every other group.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
I don't remember the same level of coverage in the press either.
The only direct comparison is newspapers though, they are pretty much an irrelevance now compared to TV and SM Edit - by which i mean they might as well go full tonto they have no 'informing' role any more
We are having some work done on the house; a wet room installed. The fitters are starting on Wednesday and the job is scheduled to take six days. Someone from the company rang early this morning asking if we minded them working on Monday. We said no; first of all we don't mind, and secondly we need the job done, not half finished for three days.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
If it’s anything like the crowd I saw on Sunday, there would be a degree of tut-tutting* at the rude people, followed by them getting ignored.
*Not to be confused with poo-pooing** **Which can destroy a whole regiment*** ***What is poo-pooing in Russian?
Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.
Arresting people because "someone might be offended" is completely pathetic and idiotic. It is the same for 'transphobia' as it is for 'republicanism'. The whole thing is completely stupid. The line should be incitement to violence, or actually disrupting a public event. Not just expressing beliefs and opinions. Otherwise it isn't really isn't that different to Putin's Russia.
Are we saying that public order concerns are never above the right to protest? because if that's the case, a few people are going to get injured or worse down the line?
I just said, I think there is a line - incitement to violence, or actually disrupting a public event. The public order laws are there as a sort of emergency provision which the police need to use with extreme discretion, as pointed out earlier today, or else people lose confidence in the police.
If someone gets injured , then that is assault right? Why have legislation trying to stop people from committing assaults or being assaulted? is that really a good idea?
The public order / harrassment laws are being used to proactively manage behavior by poorly trained and inexperienced police in a way that has never been done before, IE to 'educate' in the case of the case of the 'woke' stuff, like when someone is offended on the grounds of race or sexual / gender identity, and now to stop legitimate protest; IE over the monarchy. Its just bad news, which ever way you look at it.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
There are two quite different questions.
1) Should there be freedom of thought and action etc for republicans and everyone else. Yes.
2) Are there occasions in national life (very very occasionally lengthy ones) when there is a legitimate expectation that the same decorum and restraint is exercised in public as you would would expect at your mother's funeral. Yes.
And another set of questions:
Faced with awkward squad opportunists will the police sometimes overdo it? Yes.
Is there a (generally excellent) group of human rights solicitors and barristers who would love nothing better than to sue police forces for wrongful arrest etc when this happens. Yes.
Should I feel sorry for any of the awkward squad? No.
Have the police got a rotten impossible job to do? Yes.
Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs announced Sunday that she will not debate her GOP opponent in the race to become Arizona’s next governor.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
The Hill
That looks like a mistake by Hobbs . Why not debate and just highlight how crazy her opponent is .
May 2017. She thinks she's ahead and is scared debating might lose her the lead/nothing to gain It will go as well as May's chickening out imo
In US gubernatorial election debates are MUCH less of an institution (hallowed or not) than presidential debates. Or even UK prime ministerial debates.
Though personally think that Hobbs should debate Lake in AZ.
Provided she's VERY well prepared for a head-to-head with a media professional.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Let them hold the funeral in private then, rather than prancing in the street on the public purse.
In 2013 Met commander Christine Jones clearly said it wasn't the Met's job to stop people peacefully disrespecting Thatcher's funeral cortege.
"We are not there to uphold respect, we are there to uphold the law. If people want to come up to London and protest at the funeral then they will be allowed to do so."
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
It was more popular. Are you sure it still is?
The 1950s were sold as a time of "you've never had it so good".
Please do run with the line that it's the opponents of the royal family who are the real elite. Condemn education too. Most people who are in the first generation in their family to attend university are pleased about going there and hope their offspring will go to university too. The working class values education far more than you know.
Monarchism is falling in popularity among the young and may be about to collapse generally, except among diehard Tories - those who may or may not hold party cards but who have always voted for the party and who couldn't imagine ever not voting either Tory or for some outfit even further to the right.
And what is the monarchy but the Tory party playing dressup? Most of the population would agree with that characterisation. You can't live forever on Princess Elizabeth changing a few tyres in the 1940s when she was in the army. (And wasn't that when the family were all about to scarper to Canada anyway?)
Some good work in the middle there, Dynamo, but you need to work more on the end. ;.)
If Prince Charles is Liz Truss's Conservative Party in dress-up, I'm Anna Akhmatova.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
Yes quite possibly. My grandmother died a few years ago, as I was travelling up to Scotland to say goodbye to her. Perhaps it's something to do with that.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
I would be willing to bet that the British monarchy will no longer be an established thing in the next 100 years.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
It was more popular. Are you sure it still is?
The 1950s were sold as a time of "you've never had it so good".
Please do run with the line that it's the opponents of the royal family who are the real elite. Condemn education too. Most people who are in the first generation in their family to attend university are pleased about going there and hope their offspring will go to university too. The working class values education far more than you know.
Monarchism is falling in popularity among the young and may be about to collapse generally, except among diehard Tories - those who may or may not hold party cards but who have always voted for the party and who couldn't imagine ever not voting either Tory or for some outfit even further to the right.
And what is the monarchy but the Tory party playing dressup? Most of the population would agree with that characterisation. You can't live forever on Princess Elizabeth changing a few tyres in the 1940s when she was in the army. (And wasn't that when the family were all about to scarper to Canada anyway?)
Some good work in the middle there Dynamo, but you need to work more on the end. ;.)
If Prince Charles is Liz Truss's Conservative Party in dress -up, I'm Anna Akhmatova.
These stories about protestors being arrested are not just very bad, but also very weird. Who even wants this? Who gains? The whole point of a defanged constitutional monarchy is that being for it or against it makes no difference to anything.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
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.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
Yes quite possibly. My grandmother died a few years ago, as I was travelling up to Scotland to say goodbye to her. Perhaps it's something to do with that.
I know my grief is to do with losing my Mum. I'm considering grief counselling as the last few days have convinced me i have not dealt with my grief over it at all. But lots of unexpected reactions goong on all over the place.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
I would be willing to bet that the British monarchy will no longer be an established thing in the next 100 years.
Neither of you will be there to collect, whoever wins!
These stories about protestors being arrested are not just very bad, but also very weird. Who even wants this? Who gains? The whole point of a defanged constitutional monarchy is that being for it or against it makes no difference to anything.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
I would be willing to bet that the British monarchy will no longer be an established thing in the next 100 years.
Neither of you will be there to collect, whoever wins!
Er, he didn't say in 2122 - just any time in the next 100 years, as the next Commonwealth (sensu O. Cromwell) will suffice to fulfil the bet. So some chance of collecting, after all!
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Comments
Albon out of intensive care after “respiratory failure” post-operation
https://www.racefans.net/2022/09/12/albon-out-of-intensive-care-after-respiratory-failure-post-operation/
Hopefully will make a full recovery.
A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials.
The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
https://news.sky.com/story/john-bercow-former-speaker-banned-from-parliament-for-life-after-bullying-inquiry-finds-him-guilty-12560483
So much for “Tory vendetta”….
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
This is absolutely despicable. No doubt the Toby Youngs of this world will stay silent
Several left-wing mayors are defying government orders to fly flags at half-mast for the Queen’s funeral, earning support from French people who say President Macron and the media are lavishing excessive attention on the British monarchy.
The row was opened when Yann Galut, mayor of the central city of Bourges, and Patrick Proisy, mayor of Faches-Thumesnil, on the Belgian border, announced that they would disobey the instruction from Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister, that town halls and other public buildings must lower the Tricolour to half-mast next Monday, the day of the funeral.
“This request seems incredible to me,” Galut, a former Socialist MP and former senior official in the party, wrote on Twitter. “I respect the sorrow of our English friends but I will not put up the French flag [at half mast] over the municipal buildings of Bourges.” He said later on France 3 television: “We are a republican country. Why should I pay tribute to a foreign monarch?”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/left-wing-mayors-defy-macrons-order-to-fly-flags-at-half-mast-5w33ml78k
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1569359928694902786
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Nicole DeMont, the campaign manager for Hobbs, said in a statement.
The Hill
And BTW, isn't The Times just a minor part of the Murdoch media empire these days?
But this level of irrationality and disregard for what the law says about freedom of expression is beginning to make me wonder about that position.
Please can someone arrest the entirety of all U.K. police Farces?
Not such a good idea this legislation after all?
Let's fill the prisons.
I don't live in London (although I'm a Londoner), and I may now go there to take part in events.
There's a strong feeling now that our opponents have lost it.
Which country might Syphilis Fingers flee to? Somewhere in the Gulf? Where would have him?
My position is less about convincing me, and the potential for a change of view from the public. I would suggest that the positive feeling towards Lizzie was / is very much a product of her being monarch for so long (for most people alive now the only monarch they have ever known) and that her ascension to the throne came at a political point where republicanism was not an option. With the changing of the guard there becomes opportunity; people who were passively monarchist because it was just there are having their attention drawn to its existence. The more that happens with Charles and William, I would suggest, the less people will feel compelled to defend its existence. It is an anachronism, it is inherently absurd, and I think most people either don't think about it that much or liked Lizzie enough to ignore it.
It is the same for 'transphobia' as it is for 'republicanism'.
The whole thing is completely stupid.
The line should be incitement to violence, or actually disrupting a public event.
Not just expressing beliefs and opinions.
Otherwise it isn't really isn't that different to Putin's Russia.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
Hipgnosis, the dominant music investment fund, hasn't bought a single song in the last year. Here's why:
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1569363414199189508
https://twitter.com/leemacdonald/status/1569351418368212999?s=21&t=uN6OPFjmGJbQgCdTwtF0jQ
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv."
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
- Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
- Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
- Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
- Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
AND speaking about treason, note that Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-Closet) has got his own fanny in a crack (at least metaphorically) re: the Georgia case re: Trump's efforts to subvert the Peach State's 2020 presidential vote.
The insights one gets on PB.
Are we saying that public order concerns are never above the right to protest? because if that's the case, a few people are going to get injured or worse down the line?
It will go as well as May's chickening out imo
Like Clint Eastwood famously did at 2016 GOP convention for (if that's the word) Mitt Romney.
Edit - by which i mean they might as well go full tonto they have no 'informing' role any more
The 1950s were sold as a time of "you've never had it so good".
Please do run with the line that it's the opponents of the royal family who are the real elite. Condemn education too. Most people who are in the first generation in their family to attend university are pleased about going there and hope their offspring will go to university too. The working class values education far more than you know.
Monarchism is falling in popularity among the young and may be about to collapse generally, except among diehard Tories - those who may or may not hold party cards but who have always voted for the party and who couldn't imagine ever not voting either Tory or for some outfit even further to the right.
And what is the monarchy but the Tory party playing dressup? Most of the population would agree with that characterisation. You can't live forever on Princess Elizabeth changing a few tyres in the 1940s when she was in the army. (And wasn't that when the family were all about to scarper to Canada anyway?)
And many thanks to Rupert Murdoch for making this guffaw possible!
https://www.thenational.scot/news/21324951.man-arrested-shouting-abuse-prince-andrew-royal-mile-procession-queen/?ref=ebbn
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
In this country we've got into this twisted situation where people can be arrested for simply saying something unpleasant to another person. The reaction "I'm offended" seems to warrant a police investigation and eventual arrest of the "perpetrator".
If, like me, you want free speech and free right to protest for these people today, then you should support the free speech and free right to protest of every other group.
Sadiq Khan deserves a medal for getting rid of Cressida Dick.
Someone behind him clearly did not take kindly to his shouting https://twitter.com/kayaburgess/status/1569323408239779841/video/1
*Not to be confused with poo-pooing**
**Which can destroy a whole regiment***
***What is poo-pooing in Russian?
The public order laws are there as a sort of emergency provision which the police need to use with extreme discretion, as pointed out earlier today, or else people lose confidence in the police.
If someone gets injured , then that is assault right?
Why have legislation trying to stop people from committing assaults or being assaulted? is that really a good idea?
The public order / harrassment laws are being used to proactively manage behavior by poorly trained and inexperienced police in a way that has never been done before, IE to 'educate' in the case of the case of the 'woke' stuff, like when someone is offended on the grounds of race or sexual / gender identity, and now to stop legitimate protest; IE over the monarchy.
Its just bad news, which ever way you look at it.
1) Should there be freedom of thought and action etc for republicans and everyone else. Yes.
2) Are there occasions in national life (very very occasionally lengthy ones) when there is a legitimate expectation that the same decorum and restraint is exercised in public as you would would expect at your mother's funeral. Yes.
And another set of questions:
Faced with awkward squad opportunists will the police sometimes overdo it? Yes.
Is there a (generally excellent) group of human rights solicitors and barristers who would love nothing better than to sue police forces for wrongful arrest etc when this happens. Yes.
Should I feel sorry for any of the awkward squad? No.
Have the police got a rotten impossible job to do? Yes.
Mark of respect?
Or are Redfield and Wilton the moonlighting underfootmen their name makes them sound like who have had quite a lot to do this weekend?
Though personally think that Hobbs should debate Lake in AZ.
Provided she's VERY well prepared for a head-to-head with a media professional.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
https://twitter.com/chrismarshll/status/1569323294716829700?s=46&t=I_P7-r8ZDEG2h3lv9osF1w&fbclid=IwAR2Ahw3q4dgwHBsWXKJq7UWAVri2ID8uocI1EiFIS-rSAWVIjIw3efubrWc
In 2013 Met commander Christine Jones clearly said it wasn't the Met's job to stop people peacefully disrespecting Thatcher's funeral cortege.
"We are not there to uphold respect, we are there to uphold the law. If people want to come up to London and protest at the funeral then they will be allowed to do so."
If Prince Charles is Liz Truss's Conservative Party in dress-up, I'm Anna Akhmatova.
It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used.
As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
The only question is Which comes first
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1569365653852676100
But lots of unexpected reactions goong on all over the place.
Just look at how they behaved at the Sarah Everard vigil.
This is very bad.
In which a police officer asks for a man's details because he said he'd write "not my king" on a piece of paper. Has everyone collectively lost it?
https://twitter.com/alexofbrown/status/1569353471253684224?s=46&t=ZO09SqVIpW7HdoAVjWYOLQ
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?