Like, is this not weird to people? I'm not blaming the Queen for dying, obviously, but the fact that we allow the ceremony around one family to have this impact on people is not good:
The point of a monarch is to embody values and principles outwith tawdry politics.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Without tawdry politics? But they are political - cut outs from laws are inherently political (I noticed today that they are exempt from inheritance tax, for example). The ability to have state funerals is inherently political. And the effect of their existence, that those saying "Not My King" can be arrested or assaulted, is political.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
If you want to put it like that, everything is political.
But it is clear that the monarchy stands aside from daily shenanigans at Westminster, on the Today show, and Twitter.
Or should do.
They also provide continuity both in the sense that they exist beyond the lifetime of governments, but also in the sense that the family stretches back in history to the earliest foundations of the British (or English) state.
I don’t think anything makes them special, except for their ability to fulfil those roles above, and again, according to rules that stand outside democratic process.
I don’t feel deference, especially not to the broader family. The Queen did tremendously well and I “defer” to that. You are right that there are probably things that could be done away with in a more democratic age, but I think you are not recognising the symbolic power of the monarchy.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
As a ceremonial President would also have no power and have to do what a PM and Parliament told them without having anywhere near the global name recognition of our royal family.
While a powerful elected President Johnson or Cameron or Blair or Starmer would be hated by half the country and deeply divisive
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
I do think it has cast a bit of a pall. I think even now, a few things have cropped up where you think 'the Queen would have dealt with this really well'. And that's fine - someone special and good at being Head of State has died. It's regrettable. But let's give Charles time and see how he works out. It might be a more emotive, empathetic, sentimental Monarchy, if him letting that woman embrace him is anything to go by. For all the Queen's private kindnesses, she wasn't a 'shareth in our sadness' sort of gal.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Thought for a moment they'd perhaps nicked Charles III himself, but he's only 73
He was walking up the middle of the street today blocking all the traffic. Seems a much better basis for a prosecution.
I think the road was closed by prior arrangement, much like the street parties we have round my neck of the woods.
Word of advice - having a reputation in the local police force for being a source of free hand made sausage rolls and infinite free cake a couple times a year, improves response times.
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?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Reading the abstract, it seems less a desire for authoritarianism, and more a product of alienation, no? That there is a clear belief that parliament / government has no interest in their wellbeing, and therefore someone who does care about their wellbeing would have to actively combat that institution. I find the "repairing the ties that bind" section questionable too - it seems to think civic cohesion is somehow separate from economic reality. If younger people were less economically precarious, and the future didn't look so bleak, they might feel British democracy works for them.
This is just a conservative think tank making conservative talking points to suggest solutions to the negative products of successive conservative governments. That Johnson sold himself as a strongman, and acted as such, illegally proroguing parliament and trying to ignore parliamentary oversight, does not seem to factor here.
Close to half wanted a military government. Would you say that in general, military governments are better or worse than constitutional monarchies?
Worse, certainly. But I don't understand the point - do you think the solutions proposed by the paper (essentially a a national service that doesn't have to be military, more opportunity for clubs, and increased restriction on social media use) would be better than material solutions to the problems my generation face (declining real term income, less secure work, less likely to own our own homes, pessimism about the future, concerns about the environment)?
Get to your happy place - May 2nd 2024, 10pm, as the chimes of Big Ben fade and BBC, ITV and Sky all announce their exit poll showing a Labour landslide.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
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.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
I am doubtful of your assertion that English has more monosyllabic words useful for deflating pomposity than other languages. Any evidence for this assertion? Similarly your assumed relationship between linguistic structure and political system seems implausible. If you can provide evidence for either it would be great.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
The point of a monarch is to embody values and principles outwith tawdry politics.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Without tawdry politics? But they are political - cut outs from laws are inherently political (I noticed today that they are exempt from inheritance tax, for example). The ability to have state funerals is inherently political. And the effect of their existence, that those saying "Not My King" can be arrested or assaulted, is political.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
If you want to put it like that, everything is political.
But it is clear that the monarchy stands aside from daily shenanigans at Westminster, on the Today show, and Twitter.
Or should do.
They also provide continuity both in the sense that they exist beyond the lifetime of governments, but also in the sense that the family stretches back in history to the earliest foundations of the British (or English) state.
I don’t think anything makes them special, except for their ability to fulfil those roles above, and again, according to rules that stand outside democratic process.
I don’t feel deference, especially not to the broader family. The Queen did tremendously well and I “defer” to that. You are right that there are probably things that could be done away with in a more democratic age, but I think you are not recognising the symbolic power of the monarchy.
But, I would defer to that symbolism and happily bow to a monarch accordingly.
I don't think I'm diminishing myself or losing anything by doing it - I'm simply playing my own part in validating the constitution and history of which I am proud.
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?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Certainly they are outrageous cakeists. Contrast the Church of England where the archb of C is on £85,070 and, I understand, no expenses, entertainment allowance etc, when I am sure prewar Cantuars lived like princes. It's either jets every day or environmentalism, either the WWF or heavy duty game shooting, and either a claim of living a life of "service" or living up to the greatest inheritance the world has known, which largely belongs to us. Slimming down doesn't just mean sacking pedo boy, it has to involve returning half the palacs to the nation and living less like a rap artist.
Charles to be fair has said he will live in Clarence House and open Buckingham Palace all year round to tourists and just have an office there.
He will also make Balmoral a memorial to his mother
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?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
If it sounds like I'm arguing from both sides of this, it's because I am: I can see arguments on either side, as, I think, can you.
1) In general, yes, I'd say that for a ceremonial head of state, yes, accidents of birth are better at elections. The job of a head of state is not to make political decisions, it is to embody the nation, to represent everyone. Election winners do this only marginally better than election losers. There is a ready-made body of opinion who has already taken against them.
2) However, yes, occasionally they will throw up a really bad candidate who will alienate everyone - and Andrew or a Harry. This is probably (though not definitely) worse than a Trump, who just alienates 50% of everybody. Actually, my view is that either Andrew or Harry, were they born to the role, would become rather better candidates for it. Perhaps the purposelessness and lack of responsibility of being the spare royal engenders the uselessness; or conversely the lifetime's preparation engenders the responsibility. But yes, that is the risk, and to me that is the only compelling argument against monarchy as a system.
3) Why is nobody not an acceptable answer? I used to think this. I've changed my mind; without 'somebody' or 'something' - an element of symbology - we are no longer a nation; we are just a bunch of people on a big island. Why do we go to war? Obviously it's strange to swear allegiance to the queen and her descendants, but it's equally strange to swear allegiance to the flag, or an elected leader, or each other, or the land. Who articulates who we are as a nation? This is a difficult one to articulate, and requires a bit of abstract thought, and also for you to believe that we are a nation - not just a bunch of people - and that it is desirable that this is the case. It comes down to the human need for narrative, for stories, for shared ideas, for the idea of progress towards a goal rather than just a lot of stuff happening. This book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Watling-Street-Travels-Through-Ever-Present/dp/1474603475 - while ostensibly just a travel book - changed my mind about this and made me think we are - or should be - more than a collection of individuals and why, and how this is brought about.
It's not necessarily the case that we need a monarch, or a ceremonial head of state, or a flag, or a religion. But we do need something to believe in and unify us. Humans are not individual robots and attempts to treat them as such rarely goes well.
I should emphasise that I have consistently said I'm a republican: if I were starting a country from scratch, a monarchy definitely wouldn't be my model. But I'm also wary about chucking all the seemingly superficial and unnecessary stuff out just because it's not modern. If we were to remove the monarchy, we would need a very clearly articulated and well supported idea of what happens next. I don't think we've yet got it.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
On the topic of how secure the monarchy is... as long as republicans are willing to vote for monarchist parties, but monarchists are unwilling to vote for explicitly republican parties it is safe. The only way I can see that changing is if Charles really does properly f**k up.
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.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
Sure
Charles n Co are on a pretty knifey knife edge though, we've already had inkpotgate and paternalaffectiongate from 2 senior players, both really dreadful looks, and it 's only day 5. Test matches used to last longer, in the old days.
Neither of those events are worthy of 'gate' after them except in a sarcastic way.
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?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Accidental births can be even more embarrassing in terms of succession.
Poor old Simon Durante- Day just wants a DNA test to prove his adoptive mother wrong.
The point of a monarch is to embody values and principles outwith tawdry politics.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Without tawdry politics? But they are political - cut outs from laws are inherently political (I noticed today that they are exempt from inheritance tax, for example). The ability to have state funerals is inherently political. And the effect of their existence, that those saying "Not My King" can be arrested or assaulted, is political.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
One of the things I do like about this country is that neither political leaders nor the monarch are usually in the business of issuing "pardons". In most other countries it seems to be the done thing, including the United States. It seems ridiculous that the POTUS can decide to pardon people at the end of their term of office just because they feel like it.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
The monarchy is secure for the next century. It's going to have a rocky few years with Charles as he's a complete dud IMO, but people will tolerate him and Camilla as they know they've got William and Catherine to come.
After William, George and his heir will take the monarchy to 2100 and beyond...
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
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.
I would bet it will but I expect neither of us will be around anyway
The point of a monarch is to embody values and principles outwith tawdry politics.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Without tawdry politics? But they are political - cut outs from laws are inherently political (I noticed today that they are exempt from inheritance tax, for example). The ability to have state funerals is inherently political. And the effect of their existence, that those saying "Not My King" can be arrested or assaulted, is political.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
One of the things I do like about this country is that neither political leaders nor the monarch are in the business of issuing "pardons". In most other countries it seems to be the done thing, including the United States.
You sure?
Alan Turing responds. As does Mr Gallant of narwhal tusk fame.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
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
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
How odd, given the importance of Ireland to the current Brexit mess.
Though in fairness, I can't remember the names of the royal sovereigns of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands any more than I can remember their prime ministers etc.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Yes, I think celebrating a 'mere' 44% welling up as an indication of poor prospects for the monarchy is an odd one. There have to be better data points for republican prospects than that almost half of people got teary (which doesn't even include all monarchists).
I shed a tear today when the Queen was placed in the hearse at Holyrood, not just because she was the Queen but she was a much loved mother, grandmother, and great grandmother and also the setting strangely reminded me of our courting days around that area and the contrast in emotions. (Actually at the time my wife was cradling our one week old (5th) grandchild in her arm)
Nothing to do with the abolition of the monarchy and it is rather a huge leap to assume that because 44% shed a tear the rest are uncaring and want to abolish the monarchy
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.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
Sure
Charles n Co are on a pretty knifey knife edge though, we've already had inkpotgate and paternalaffectiongate from 2 senior players, both really dreadful looks, and it 's only day 5. Test matches used to last longer, in the old days.
Neither of those events are worthy of 'gate' after them except in a sarcastic way.
In both cases I am genuinely horrified that you think so. That degree of self-important, bullying lack of self control in a public figure aged 73 is contemptible, and the Andrew thing - eeeuw^1,000,000. I would happily believe it was a deepfake. The fact that you blithely tolerate it is the best argument I have seen in the past 5 days, for immediate abolition.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
I like a good SNP wind up as much as the next poster, probably more than most, but this is nonsense. For the purposes of this bet that there will be a Labour majority they are of course on the same side of the fence as all the other parties, including the Tories, but if the SNP have the balance of power SKS will be PM. No doubt about that whatsoever
On the topic of how secure the monarchy is... as long as republicans are willing to vote for monarchist parties, but monarchists are unwilling to vote for explicitly republican parties it is safe. The only way I can see that changing is if Charles really does properly f**k up.
Yeah, I'm a soft and uncommitted republican. If you ask me what's best I'd say a republic. But its not in the top 100 list of things to change in the country, if its worth changing at all. For us to actually become a Republic, not only would I need to be bothered, you would have to convince another quarter of the population who are more monarchist than the likes of me on top. Not going to happen.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
The monarchy is secure for the next century. It's going to have a rocky few years with Charles as he's a complete dud IMO, but people will tolerate him and Camilla as they know they've got William and Catherine to come.
After William, George and his heir will take the monarchy to 2100 and beyond...
The biggest threat to the monarchy is another Corbynite takeover of the Labour Party... and I don't think the MPs will be stupid enough to lend votes to a Corybnite candidate ever again.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
How odd, given the importance of Ireland to the current Brexit mess.
Though in fairness, I can't remember the names of the royal sovereigns of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands any more than I can remember their prime ministers etc.
Ireland is a useful tool of the EU to procure a softer Brexit from the British.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
This is the closest one (you have the option to opt for Republicanism) - 17% said no one should succeed after Lizzie. I would like to see an AV version of this - who would prefer republicanism to Charles, but happy with William, etc.
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?)
45% of voters think an apprenticeship is the best preparation for life, just 4% a University degree, 44% both equally.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
We all respond to things differently. I choose never to be unhappy for any stretch.
Like, is this not weird to people? I'm not blaming the Queen for dying, obviously, but the fact that we allow the ceremony around one family to have this impact on people is not good:
Doctors do not have to not work and the funeral is only 2 hours
Edinburgh is being almost shut down for two whole days. The police have advised people to "stay or work at home" [sic] and not to undertake non-essential travel. Apparently standing in a crowd of fawning fools holding up smartphones at a flag-wrapped box containing the corpse of a monarch is "essential" activity.
London will be shut down for longer and over a much larger area. There will be far more choreography with the stiff, and all sorts of heads of state etc. will be turning up from abroad. It will be the biggest security operation London has ever seen. So the idea is STFU everyone who lives in Britain's largest city and concentrate on watching your betters on TV, rather than polluting the world outside your house with your smelly presence.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
President Higgins is very well-known and liked in his own country. Won the presidential election twice. You are, as so often on here, completely wrong.
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?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Certainly they are outrageous cakeists. Contrast the Church of England where the archb of C is on £85,070 and, I understand, no expenses, entertainment allowance etc, when I am sure prewar Cantuars lived like princes. It's either jets every day or environmentalism, either the WWF or heavy duty game shooting, and either a claim of living a life of "service" or living up to the greatest inheritance the world has known, which largely belongs to us. Slimming down doesn't just mean sacking pedo boy, it has to involve returning half the palacs to the nation and living less like a rap artist.
Charles to be fair has said he will live in Clarence House and open Buckingham Palace all year round to tourists and just have an office there.
He will also make Balmoral a memorial to his mother
I understand he is considering gifting it to the nation
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
How odd, given the importance of Ireland to the current Brexit mess.
Though in fairness, I can't remember the names of the royal sovereigns of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands any more than I can remember their prime ministers etc.
Ireland is a useful tool of the EU to procure a softer Brexit from the British.
Nothing more, nothing less.
A remarkable understanding of the last few centuries of UK history. But I'll leave you with your grief.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
I like a good SNP wind up as much as the next poster, probably more than most, but this is nonsense. For the purposes of this bet that there will be a Labour majority they are of course on the same side of the fence as all the other parties, including the Tories, but if the SNP have the balance of power SKS will be PM. No doubt about that whatsoever
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
This is the closest one (you have the option to opt for Republicanism) - 17% said no one should succeed after Lizzie. I would like to see an AV version of this - who would prefer republicanism to Charles, but happy with William, etc.
So almost twice as many voters voted for Corbyn even in 2019 than want a republic. If republicans cannot even win all those who voted for Corbyn does not say much about their campaigning!
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Longevity, by its nature, tends to promote stability and unity. Some talk about Thatcher and her transformative impact - I'd put up Lee Kuan Yew who was an MP in Singapore for 60 years and Prime Minister for over 30 years - few would argue he wasn't a unifying and stabilising figure and he was a democratically elected politician who had to go through periodic elections.
Few would also argue Singapore wasn't transformed during his tenure.
If you're around long enough, people get used to you and are reassured by your presence. Countries whose constitutions impose term limits on Presidents don't have that.
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.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
Sure
Charles n Co are on a pretty knifey knife edge though, we've already had inkpotgate and paternalaffectiongate from 2 senior players, both really dreadful looks, and it 's only day 5. Test matches used to last longer, in the old days.
Neither of those events are worthy of 'gate' after them except in a sarcastic way.
In both cases I am genuinely horrified that you think so. That degree of self-important, bullying lack of self control in a public figure aged 73 is contemptible, and the Andrew thing - eeeuw^1,000,000. I would happily believe it was a deepfake. The fact that you blithely tolerate it is the best argument I have seen in the past 5 days, for immediate abolition.
Well, I am glad you're not in power then, as I don't fancy being abolished.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
I want her back too. Because she was really good at the job, I think. I don't think that's unusual. We are poorer for her loss. You don't have to be a monarchist to think that.
I do confess a tear came to my eye when Scott posted that poster of her picture above the street in London with her quote from Covid about seeing each other again. Not because I believe in heaven or anything, but because covid was one of her last jobs, and she did it really well. It was one of the few times I've personally felt comforted by something the queen has said; by something any public figure has said.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
Though we have just been to Dublin and certainly saw some grafitti with expletives about the late Queen, though most were polite and offered condolences
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
I like a good SNP wind up as much as the next poster, probably more than most, but this is nonsense. For the purposes of this bet that there will be a Labour majority they are of course on the same side of the fence as all the other parties, including the Tories, but if the SNP have the balance of power SKS will be PM. No doubt about that whatsoever
I suspect Nicola won't, but if Salmond was still leading the SNP and Truss offered him indyref2 and Labour wouldn't.... I could see him being tempted. Truss won't though, anyway.
Get to your happy place - May 2nd 2024, 10pm, as the chimes of Big Ben fade and BBC, ITV and Sky all announce their exit poll showing a Labour landslide.
Hi stodge, welcome back.
Not sure if I asked you this before but are you a Labour member?
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
President Higgins is very well-known and liked in his own country. Won the presidential election twice. You are, as so often on here, completely wrong.
I don't expect us to become a republic but the Police and some royalists are making a good stab at saying why it should happen.
In a free society even people who don't get what they want can have an opinion. Wrongthink isn't meant to get Police action.
Whenever Boris spoke outside you'd normally hear hecklers not far away, that's quite right and appropriate. Even if the hecklers lose an election, they still get to speak afterwards.
Even if most want to keep the monarchy, people who don't should be free to protest peacefully, just as they're free to protest against the PM or anyone else.
The Police are abusing the public order law in the same way the Hong Kong police abuse the national security law. The public order law needs to be abolished if the Police won't stop abusing it.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
I like a good SNP wind up as much as the next poster, probably more than most, but this is nonsense. For the purposes of this bet that there will be a Labour majority they are of course on the same side of the fence as all the other parties, including the Tories, but if the SNP have the balance of power SKS will be PM. No doubt about that whatsoever
I suspect Nicola won't, but if Salmond was still leading the SNP and Truss offered him indyref2 and Labour wouldn't.... I could see him being tempted. Truss won't though, anyway.
If Truss thought it was a dead cert win, she might. I can certainly imagine Johnson doing so.
The fact is, every vote for the SNP is a vote against Labour. In turn, this makes a Labour government less likely, and a Tory government more likely.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
This is the closest one (you have the option to opt for Republicanism) - 17% said no one should succeed after Lizzie. I would like to see an AV version of this - who would prefer republicanism to Charles, but happy with William, etc.
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?)
45% of voters think an apprenticeship is the best preparation for life, just 4% a University degree, 44% both equally.
I'm not entirely sure their apprenticeships were all that influential in terms of the Queen's ascent to the position of Head of State of the UK, nor Prince William's recent promotion to heir apparent. Their career trajectories were shaped by other factors.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
It's ok to be a bit unusual.
I agree and compassion should be the order of the day for all those devastated by the death of the Queen
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
Michael D Higgins. We saw the Presidential residence while in Dublin which looks much like the White House and was the viceroy's residence.
He is a perfectly nice intelligent man and spoke on the Late late show about his memories of the Queen but few outside Ireland have heard of him and as a ceremonial head of state has no more powers really than King Charles
Does anyone know enough about the practicalities of visiting the lying in state in St. Giles? BBC Coverage is heavily London slanted. I live about 2.5 hours drive away (on a normal day) in Northern England and could set off in around an hour. And I need to be at work tomorrow. This would be utter stupidity if there really is an 11 hour queue - but surely it will thin out?
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
Though we have just been to Dublin and certainly saw some grafitti with expletives about the late Queen, though most were polite and offered condolences
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
You are grieving a loss along with many others and you need to be kind to yourself as do others to you
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
This is the closest one (you have the option to opt for Republicanism) - 17% said no one should succeed after Lizzie. I would like to see an AV version of this - who would prefer republicanism to Charles, but happy with William, etc.
So almost twice as many voters voted for Corbyn even in 2019 than want a republic. If republicans cannot even win all those who voted for Corbyn does not say much about their campaigning!
That is a resounding defeat for monarchy: 24% for abolition vs 10% for Charles to succeed, a victory by 240%. The 38% who want Baldy 4 king are neither here nor there because arbitrary selection of a non candidate isn't monarchy, it is a presidency, because that's how monarchy works.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Longevity, by its nature, tends to promote stability and unity. Some talk about Thatcher and her transformative impact - I'd put up Lee Kuan Yew who was an MP in Singapore for 60 years and Prime Minister for over 30 years - few would argue he wasn't a unifying and stabilising figure and he was a democratically elected politician who had to go through periodic elections.
Few would also argue Singapore wasn't transformed during his tenure.
If you're around long enough, people get used to you and are reassured by your presence. Countries whose constitutions impose term limits on Presidents don't have that.
Perhaps, but then you have relatively short reigning monarchs like Edward VII and George VI who were heavily mourned after their loss.
The key to understanding Anglo-Irish relations is that the Irish care MUCH more about the English/Brits than the British care about Ireland. It’s a mere function of size, geography, history, destiny, and cannot be altered
At its worst it breeds a violent inferiority complex on the Irish side and a careless superiority complex on the British side. Neither is attractive
The joy of the EU was that it allowed this psychodynamic to be diluted into a greater European identity, trouble is we’re British and we’re better than all that diluted EU shit and who cares about the fucking Irish anyway, big trotting dung eating Buddhists or whatever they are
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Get to your happy place - May 2nd 2024, 10pm, as the chimes of Big Ben fade and BBC, ITV and Sky all announce their exit poll showing a Labour landslide.
Hi stodge, welcome back.
Not sure if I asked you this before but are you a Labour member?
No, my friend. I live in the most Labour of areas but I'm not a supporter.
That being said, currently, I'd much prefer a Government led by Starmer to one led by Truss.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Longevity, by its nature, tends to promote stability and unity. Some talk about Thatcher and her transformative impact - I'd put up Lee Kuan Yew who was an MP in Singapore for 60 years and Prime Minister for over 30 years - few would argue he wasn't a unifying and stabilising figure and he was a democratically elected politician who had to go through periodic elections.
Few would also argue Singapore wasn't transformed during his tenure.
If you're around long enough, people get used to you and are reassured by your presence. Countries whose constitutions impose term limits on Presidents don't have that.
Are you seriously arguing that Lee Kuan Yew was a democrat in any meaningful sense of the word?
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
How odd, given the importance of Ireland to the current Brexit mess.
Though in fairness, I can't remember the names of the royal sovereigns of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands any more than I can remember their prime ministers etc.
Ireland is a useful tool of the EU to procure a softer Brexit from the British.
Nothing more, nothing less.
A remarkable understanding of the last few centuries of UK history. But I'll leave you with your grief.
The idea that the EU genuinely gives a shit about the GFA and the NI peace process is rather sweet. If they did they'd have been interested in brokering a deal that suited the interests of both nationalists and unionists.
They support Ireland "to the hilt" because it aligned itself 100% with its political interests of EU in protecting the existing rules for the integrity of the single market rather than flexing them.
Had it taken a different tack it would have found itself marginalised.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
It's ok to be a bit unusual.
I agree and compassion should be the order of the day for all those devastated by the death of the Queen
Indeed it is rather odd not to show compassion
Deep sympathy for the non-sex-offenders in her immediate and extended family and circle. Otherwise, howls of derisive laughter interspersed with cries of Get a life.
Just made a pitifully epicene Gen Z fuckwit void his Woke and neutered bowels with Fear
Such strength! Such intellect! Such machismo! How do we keep you on the board?
It's only the weight of his snobbery that keeps this forum going. How would we cope without knowing where the best oysters are to be found or the right people with whom to enjoy them?
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
You are grieving a loss along with many others and you need to be kind to yourself as do others to you
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Bit unkind - unlike certain people on twitter (probably from the US), political Irish responses to death of the Queen have been well done.
I'm not looking to be unkind to the Irish.
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
Michael D Higgins. We saw the Presidential residence while in Dublin which looks much like the White House and was the viceroy's residence.
He is a perfectly nice intelligent man and spoke on the Late late show about his memories of the Queen but few outside Ireland have heard of him and as a ceremonial head of state has no more powers really than King Charles
Yes, but you had to Google that didn't you? Not that you'd admit it.
My point is no-one knows him and still fewer care, so he projects nothing.
I'm not trying to be rude - just to make a point that if you adopt the Irish or German model you are opting for invisibility.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
For a full set of idiotic monarchy-related questions asked recently by YouGov, while they avoid asking the serious one, namely "Are you for abolishing or keeping the monarchy?", click here.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
This is the closest one (you have the option to opt for Republicanism) - 17% said no one should succeed after Lizzie. I would like to see an AV version of this - who would prefer republicanism to Charles, but happy with William, etc.
So almost twice as many voters voted for Corbyn even in 2019 than want a republic. If republicans cannot even win all those who voted for Corbyn does not say much about their campaigning!
That is a resounding defeat for monarchy: 24% for abolition vs 10% for Charles to succeed, a victory by 240%. The 38% who want Baldy 4 king are neither here nor there because arbitrary selection of a non candidate isn't monarchy, it is a presidency, because that's how monarchy works.
That was under 25s, amongst all adults 34% wanted Charles to succeed. Double the 17% for a republic
Does anyone know enough about the practicalities of visiting the lying in state in St. Giles? BBC Coverage is heavily London slanted. I live about 2.5 hours drive away (on a normal day) in Northern England and could set off in around an hour. And I need to be at work tomorrow. This would be utter stupidity if there really is an 11 hour queue - but surely it will thin out?
If driving you'd almost certainly need to get a park and ride (Straiton perhaps) and bus in and back. If you could get on the bus? Lothian Buses website is worth checking in case they have specials.
No idea at all as to whether it is a practical idea or not.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
You are grieving a loss along with many others and you need to be kind to yourself as do others to you
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
There will always be those who dislike the monarchy, indeed want a republic, but they are a minority and console yourself that the vast majority of the country are on your side
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
The monarchy is secure for the next century. It's going to have a rocky few years with Charles as he's a complete dud IMO, but people will tolerate him and Camilla as they know they've got William and Catherine to come.
After William, George and his heir will take the monarchy to 2100 and beyond...
The biggest threat to the monarchy is another Corbynite takeover of the Labour Party... and I don't think the MPs will be stupid enough to lend votes to a Corybnite candidate ever again.
I don't believe a Corbyn figure could ever win an election. That belief was shaken in 2017 with how close he came but was reaffirmed in 2019.
1.4m people in Canada - that’s 1 in 27 - claim Ukrainian ancestry.
Glory hunters. Up from 200,000 a year ago.
I resent the way we have been made to be unfocused from what may be the best story of an entire lifetime, in favour of a pair of well-heeled but seedy OAPs claiming an inheritance.
I don't expect us to become a republic but the Police and some royalists are making a good stab at saying why it should happen.
In a free society even people who don't get what they want can have an opinion. Wrongthink isn't meant to get Police action.
Whenever Boris spoke outside you'd normally hear hecklers not far away, that's quite right and appropriate. Even if the hecklers lose an election, they still get to speak afterwards.
Even if most want to keep the monarchy, people who don't should be free to protest peacefully, just as they're free to protest against the PM or anyone else.
The Police are abusing the public order law in the same way the Hong Kong police abuse the national security law. The public order law needs to be abolished if the Police won't stop abusing it.
I don’t lay the blame for this over-zealousness at the foot of the monarchy. I lay the blame at the over-zealousness of the police force who are upholding the status quo rather than allowing freedom of speech.
I support the continuation of the monarchy but someone shouting or heckling at the proclamation of a new monarch is well within their right.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Indeed, I am a diehard monarchist but did not cry over it
Maybe I'm unusual.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
You are grieving a loss along with many others and you need to be kind to yourself as do others to you
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
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?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
I think the French presidency works well in practice, though we are close to the point where people in France vote in their Trump who may smash the system up just as Trump did in the US.
Comments
But it is clear that the monarchy stands aside from daily shenanigans at Westminster, on the Today show, and Twitter.
Or should do.
They also provide continuity both in the sense that they exist beyond the lifetime of governments, but also in the sense that the family stretches back in history to the earliest foundations of the British (or English) state.
I don’t think anything makes them special, except for their ability to fulfil those roles above, and again, according to rules that stand outside democratic process.
I don’t feel deference, especially not to the broader family. The Queen did tremendously well and I “defer” to that. You are right that there are probably things that could be done away with in a more democratic age, but I think you are not recognising the symbolic power of the monarchy.
While a powerful elected President Johnson or Cameron or Blair or Starmer would be hated by half the country and deeply divisive
Word of advice - having a reputation in the local police force for being a source of free hand made sausage rolls and infinite free cake a couple times a year, improves response times.
power grabepic cock uphigh performance review.I think it might be quite entertaining...
Get to your happy place - May 2nd 2024, 10pm, as the chimes of Big Ben fade and BBC, ITV and Sky all announce their exit poll showing a Labour landslide.
Sounds like an episode - set in Jolly Olde England - of the "Crusty the Clown Show"!
I am not sure were "how" comes into that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1569369292147408896
#Russia is now confirmed to have lost 53 combat aircraft since February 24.
This includes:
- 1 Su-35
- 13 Su-34s
- 11 Su-30s
- 21 Su-25s
- 6 Su-24s
I don't think I'm diminishing myself or losing anything by doing it - I'm simply playing my own part in validating the constitution and history of which I am proud.
He will also make Balmoral a memorial to his mother
1) In general, yes, I'd say that for a ceremonial head of state, yes, accidents of birth are better at elections. The job of a head of state is not to make political decisions, it is to embody the nation, to represent everyone. Election winners do this only marginally better than election losers. There is a ready-made body of opinion who has already taken against them.
2) However, yes, occasionally they will throw up a really bad candidate who will alienate everyone - and Andrew or a Harry. This is probably (though not definitely) worse than a Trump, who just alienates 50% of everybody. Actually, my view is that either Andrew or Harry, were they born to the role, would become rather better candidates for it. Perhaps the purposelessness and lack of responsibility of being the spare royal engenders the uselessness; or conversely the lifetime's preparation engenders the responsibility.
But yes, that is the risk, and to me that is the only compelling argument against monarchy as a system.
3) Why is nobody not an acceptable answer? I used to think this. I've changed my mind; without 'somebody' or 'something' - an element of symbology - we are no longer a nation; we are just a bunch of people on a big island. Why do we go to war? Obviously it's strange to swear allegiance to the queen and her descendants, but it's equally strange to swear allegiance to the flag, or an elected leader, or each other, or the land. Who articulates who we are as a nation? This is a difficult one to articulate, and requires a bit of abstract thought, and also for you to believe that we are a nation - not just a bunch of people - and that it is desirable that this is the case. It comes down to the human need for narrative, for stories, for shared ideas, for the idea of progress towards a goal rather than just a lot of stuff happening. This book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Watling-Street-Travels-Through-Ever-Present/dp/1474603475 - while ostensibly just a travel book - changed my mind about this and made me think we are - or should be - more than a collection of individuals and why, and how this is brought about.
It's not necessarily the case that we need a monarch, or a ceremonial head of state, or a flag, or a religion. But we do need something to believe in and unify us. Humans are not individual robots and attempts to treat them as such rarely goes well.
I should emphasise that I have consistently said I'm a republican: if I were starting a country from scratch, a monarchy definitely wouldn't be my model. But I'm also wary about chucking all the seemingly superficial and unnecessary stuff out just because it's not modern. If we were to remove the monarchy, we would need a very clearly articulated and well supported idea of what happens next. I don't think we've yet got it.
https://twitter.com/sergeykarayev/status/1569377881440276481
Here's a brief glimpse of our INCREDIBLE near future.
GPT-3 armed with a Python interpreter can…
I am just pointing out the Irish president is an irrelevance.
I'd have to Google to find the name, yet alone what they'd done or on what basis they'd been elected.
Poor old Simon Durante- Day just wants a DNA test to prove his adoptive mother wrong.
After William, George and his heir will take the monarchy to 2100 and beyond...
Alan Turing responds. As does Mr Gallant of narwhal tusk fame.
The YouGov CEO and former owner of ConservativeHome seems to be without a royal decoration at the moment, but his co-founder Nadhim Zahawi is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Out of interest, does Zahawi follow a religion? My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is supposed to appoint a number of Church of England ministers to livings.
Though in fairness, I can't remember the names of the royal sovereigns of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands any more than I can remember their prime ministers etc.
I couldn't sleep Thursday night - I was up all night from 2am - and cried several times on Friday night. I found my daughter's confusion hard to deal with, and choked up at that. It happened again during the new King's speech.
I went to church yesterday and emerged red-eyed, but just about managed to keep it in check. I cried again during the TV shots of the hearse carrying Her body through Scotland.
I've had a couple of moments today when I've been close to tears. I've tried to focus on work.
I'm struggling. I keep expecting to wake up. I keep expecting to see her walk out and be told it was all just a hoax.
I want her back. And I know she never will be.
Nothing to do with the abolition of the monarchy and it is rather a huge leap to assume that because 44% shed a tear the rest are uncaring and want to abolish the monarchy
I expect it will survive for many decades to come
For the purposes of this bet that there will be a Labour majority they are of course on the same side of the fence as all the other parties, including the Tories, but if the SNP have the balance of power SKS will be PM. No doubt about that whatsoever
Other than eat so much ham I explode?
I know the city pretty well. Been here a few times. But this is my first visit in a decade. Maybe I need to get up to speed
It feels gloriously vivacious. As ever. But also prosperous in a way that Florence did not, two weeks ago. Florence is still grander, of course
Nothing more, nothing less.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/who-should-succeed-as-king-after-queen-elizabeth-ii?crossBreak=1824
The Queen was a non graduate mechanic in the war of course, William an air ambulance pilot
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/06/17/are-apprenticeships-better-university-degrees-youn
London will be shut down for longer and over a much larger area. There will be far more choreography with the stiff, and all sorts of heads of state etc. will be turning up from abroad. It will be the biggest security operation London has ever seen. So the idea is STFU everyone who lives in Britain's largest city and concentrate on watching your betters on TV, rather than polluting the world outside your house with your smelly presence.
It looks astonishingly clean and even prosperous which I not how I remember it.
Few would also argue Singapore wasn't transformed during his tenure.
If you're around long enough, people get used to you and are reassured by your presence. Countries whose constitutions impose term limits on Presidents don't have that.
I do confess a tear came to my eye when Scott posted that poster of her picture above the street in London with her quote from Covid about seeing each other again. Not because I believe in heaven or anything, but because covid was one of her last jobs, and she did it really well. It was one of the few times I've personally felt comforted by something the queen has said; by something any public figure has said.
Truss won't though, anyway.
Not sure if I asked you this before but are you a Labour member?
In a free society even people who don't get what they want can have an opinion. Wrongthink isn't meant to get Police action.
Whenever Boris spoke outside you'd normally hear hecklers not far away, that's quite right and appropriate. Even if the hecklers lose an election, they still get to speak afterwards.
Even if most want to keep the monarchy, people who don't should be free to protest peacefully, just as they're free to protest against the PM or anyone else.
The Police are abusing the public order law in the same way the Hong Kong police abuse the national security law. The public order law needs to be abolished if the Police won't stop abusing it.
The fact is, every vote for the SNP is a vote against Labour. In turn, this makes a Labour government less likely, and a Tory government more likely.
https://www.ft.com/content/ba11ee11-2d8d-4e9d-bca5-7b73ef63d9fd
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
#Ukraine is confirmed to have lost 42 combat aircraft since February 24.
This includes:
- 5 Su-27s
- 12 Su-25s
- 11 Su-24s
- 12 MiG-29s…
The Russian kit is cheaper than ours, obviously, but wars are breathtakingly expensive.
Indeed it is rather odd not to show compassion
He is a perfectly nice intelligent man and spoke on the Late late show about his memories of the Queen but few outside Ireland have heard of him and as a ceremonial head of state has no more powers really than King Charles
It is possible to make a case for monarchy without doing so.
At its worst it breeds a violent inferiority complex on the Irish side and a careless superiority complex on the British side. Neither is attractive
The joy of the EU was that it allowed this psychodynamic to be diluted into a greater European identity, trouble is we’re British and we’re better than all that diluted EU shit and who cares about the fucking Irish anyway, big trotting dung eating Buddhists or whatever they are
That being said, currently, I'd much prefer a Government led by Starmer to one led by Truss.
They support Ireland "to the hilt" because it aligned itself 100% with its political interests of EU in protecting the existing rules for the integrity of the single market rather than flexing them.
Had it taken a different tack it would have found itself marginalised.
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
My point is no-one knows him and still fewer care, so he projects nothing.
I'm not trying to be rude - just to make a point that if you adopt the Irish or German model you are opting for invisibility.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
The High Kirk is approxiumately pinned here
https://www.google.com/maps/dir//High+St,+Edinburgh/@55.9433063,-3.201276,14.6z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x4887c78579199905:0x704325f4388b3d8b!2m2!1d-3.1880165!2d55.9501163!3e0
But if these are right the queue is running down south into the Meadows (the green bits to the south).
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
https://twitter.com/markcousinsfilm/status/1569379113294610432?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
If driving you'd almost certainly need to get a park and ride (Straiton perhaps) and bus in and back. If you could get on the bus? Lothian Buses website is worth checking in case they have specials.
No idea at all as to whether it is a practical idea or not.
I resent the way we have been made to be unfocused from what may be the best story of an entire lifetime, in favour of a pair of well-heeled but seedy OAPs claiming an inheritance.
I support the continuation of the monarchy but someone shouting or heckling at the proclamation of a new monarch is well within their right.
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
1m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 42% (-)
CON: 35% (+6)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
GRN: 3% (-1)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 11 Sep
Chgs. w/ 24 Jul
There’s your bounce? Where it’s coming from I’m even less clear about.
That's just life, that is.