Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
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.
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
Indeed, I confess my view on the Monarchy is akin to Churchill's on democracy. It's better than the alternatives.
That said, constitutional monarchy comes in various shapes and sizes and comes ultimately to reflect indeed mirror the society itself. Our monarchy works for us - I'd argue the Danish monarchy (Queen Margrethe II has been their monarch over 50 years) works perfectly well for them though it's different.
The Irish have a President who seems genuinely admired and reflects Irish society which is fair enough.
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.
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
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.
Many do have very warm and positive feelings about QEII but people react to things like this in different ways. For some, that will be very deep grief, for others a vague sense of sadness or loss. It doesn’t mean people aren’t sorry she’s gone - the scenes in Edinburgh and (I expect) in London in the coming days will bear that out.
Grief and loss is a very weird thing. It affects us all differently.
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.
Michael D. Higgins is less less-known than you think. Especially (for some reason) in Ireland. And also among many writers, actors, artists and the like around the world.
And I did NOT need to google to tell you my bit about Michael D.
Of course he's NOT a household word, like the late Queen or current King. At least as Mr. Higgins.
However, PLENTY of people care about & give respect to the President of Ireland, whether or not they know his or her name.
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.
But republicanism isn't the cause of these social ills and upheaval, I would argue that lies at the feet of neoliberalism and capitalism.
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.
You are a dissenting voice and in a democracy that is how it should be
I am very disturbed by the police action in England an Scotland and it needs an immediate review
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.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
True.
If its any consolation i just got upset thinking that Sandringham in my beloved Norfolk would be a sadder place this Christmas
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
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.
Ok. I think your reaction is a bit unusual.
The Queen was an exemplary monarch - she epitomised dignity, stability and duty. A perfect figurehead for our nation. King Charles will be excellent too I don't doubt.
But I am a bit indifferent to the Queen's death I admit - but only because of her age. It was hardly unexpected. And I'm not fascinated or even particularly interest in the royal family though I wouldn't say I'm a republican.
Pragmatically, we are where we are and I see the benefits of having a monarchy - though a nation created from scratch probably wouldn't take that route. To me it seems cruel to the particular family - like living in a glorified zoo really. So I'm grateful that they want to continue serving and would oppose abolition (or even a referendum on the matter).
That's the best I can do I'm afraid - respectful agnosticism if you like - and I'm confident that my feelings on the matter are widely held.
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.
Ok. I think your reaction is a bit unusual.
The Queen was an exemplary monarch - she epitomised dignity, stability and duty. A perfect figurehead for our nation. King Charles will be excellent too I don't doubt.
But I am a bit indifferent to the Queen's death I admit - but only because of her age. It was hardly unexpected. And I'm not fascinated or even particularly interest in the royal family though I wouldn't say I'm a republican.
Pragmatically, we are where we are and I see the benefits of having a monarchy - though a nation created from scratch probably wouldn't take that route. To me it seems cruel to the particular family - like living in a glorified zoo really. So I'm grateful that they want to continue serving and would oppose abolition (or even a referendum on the matter).
That's the best I can do I'm afraid - respectful agnosticism if you like - and I'm confident that my feelings on the matter are widely held.
We’ll you’ve summed up my feelings on the matter perfectly.
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
It's called respect, you bastard.
I'm logging off before I lose my cool again.
I don't respect the institution, so why would I feel that way?
I don't mean this to upset you, but that's where I stand.
The police have just finished a two and a half year spree of arresting people for having coffee in the wrong place with the wrong people, preventing people from seeing their dying relatives, and for policing how many people you are allowed in your own home.
Of course they are going to crack down on anyone who doesn't conform to their desired behaviour.
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
If I were advising the King on Balmoral, I'd say to be wary of appearing to downgrade the link between the Royal Family and Scotland.
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
And what the fuck does self-sacrificing mean in the context of having 90 years of virtually unlimited riches and adulation, in exchange for a lot of travel? Because there's millions of people out there who have lived lives of grinding, unremitting poverty for the sake of others, who don't deserve to be disregarded in favour of a short arsed billionairess. She kept her side of the bargain, sure, but no more than that. Look at the size of her racing operation, running that is a full time job in itself and that is what she chose to do with her time when she clocked off, rather than clock up any additional "service". Nothing wrong with that of course, but it isn't the road to sainthood or the Nobel peace prize.
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
But that isn't the same for me. I am full of respect and admiration for the lady's life and work, which should rightly be celebrated imo with pomp and pageantry, but I am not going to feel grief-stricken about it.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Would be interesting to see a deep dive audit into the personal finances of these people - I'll say no more than that.
MacGregor was nominated to be Ambassador to Germany by Trump, and continued to hang around after his rejection by the Senate, like a particularly foul smell. The most generous possible characterisation of him is as a dangerous crackpot.
It's said that Lachlan Murdoch is keen to distance himself from Trump. I can see the difficulties, commercially, of doing so. But he doesn't need to give a platform to people whose loyalties are highly, highly questionable.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Is there going to be enough egg available to cover the faces of all the Putinistas?
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
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
You could at least have apologised. We'd sympathise.
Anyone who gets "more republican by the hour" through people simply paying their respects to a funeral cortege or lying in state is sick in the head.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Er, you're assuming it's only about the funereal ceremonies, as you did yesterday when you conflated them with events at the successor's proclamation. There is a lot more going on than that.
There’s your bounce? Where it’s coming from I’m even less clear about.
Truss has got a 6% bounce but yes she still becomes the first new PM since maybe Callaghan not to see her party have a poll lead
You really are still a Johnson apparatchik - Johnson saw the collapse of the conservative vote and it will be a long way back but at least now he is gone, Truss has a chance to repair the damage he caused to the conservative party
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
Isn't his trouble then that Ukraine is increasingly well armed and on a roll? Are they going to settle for an occupied Crimea and Russian puppets in control of much of Donbas? This is internationally recognised Ukrainian territory, and I'm not sure it's going to cut it to say, "Hey, President Zelensky, me old shiner. Putin here - what say we call it a draw?"
On an intellectual level, I am a republican. I feel like monarchy is a betrayal of the principles of equity and meritocracy that I value highly. On a practical level, I have observed how effective constitutional monarchy is as a stabilizing force that prevents politicians masquerading as "father of the people" types. So overall I am happy to continue with the status quo on the principle of if it's not broke, don't fix it.
That said, the police arresting people for saying republican things, or monarchists demanding I well up with tears over the death of an old woman, even an admirable one, born into the right family... well, it makes me think that things maybe are broke. Monarchists are playing with fire here.
You could at least have apologised. We'd sympathise.
Anyone who gets "more republican by the hour" through people simply paying their respects to a funeral cortege or lying in state is sick in the head.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Because the monarchs are only human. And there is so much human misery people choose to allow, actively bask in, that could be prevented, and it is apparently more important that some rich person died. A rich person who was better at noblesse oblige than most modern rich people, sure, but at the end of the day just another aristocrat.
Like, if she's a celebrity you care about, that's fine. But to say we all should care is what I find strange.
On an intellectual level, I am a republican. I feel like monarchy is a betrayal of the principles of equity and meritocracy that I value highly. On a practical level, I have observed how effective constitutional monarchy is as a stabilizing force that prevents politicians masquerading as "father of the people" types. So overall I am happy to continue with the status quo on the principle of if it's not broke, don't fix it.
That said, the police arresting people for saying republican things, or monarchists demanding I well up with tears over the death of an old woman, even an admirable one, born into the right family... well, it makes me think that things maybe are broke. Monarchists are playing with fire here.
There is not going to be a referendum on the monarchy anytime soon and both Starmer and the Tories have pledged loyalty to Charles so it is not really an issue.
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
If I were advising the King on Balmoral, I'd say to be wary of appearing to downgrade the link between the Royal Family and Scotland.
They still have plenty of gaffs up there.
It's a fairly fictitious thing anyway. Scotland, politically, is the central belt. Scotland to English poshos and indeed borderline wannabe poshos is the Highlands, dancing in skirts, drinking whisky and thwacking all sorts of flavour of wildlife with the assistance of Uncle Tom ghillies, stalkers etc. Not a uge overlap.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and run shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
Agree. That's why I support/ed a new Royal Yacht. That was with QEII, let's hope people still want to meet Charles and Camilla to the same extent.
I have been saddened by her death and have had the odd tearful moment, not directly because of the death but because of others speaking well of how she will be missed or her kindness. That seems pretty normal to me. My eldest daughter has been much more upset but her siblings are less bothered, especially my youngest. Those of us of a certain age remember her role in symbolising the nation at various times. At 60 she has been omnipresent throughout my life. It seems normal to be sad but she lived a good and long life so it is more to give thanks for than to lament.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
Plus half the French hate Macron as they would hate any powerful party political elected President here too
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
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
A neutrality which clearly favours one side over the other doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially if dressed upin moral terms as some online do. I'd think a neutral would forego comment.
There’s your bounce? Where it’s coming from I’m even less clear about.
Truss has got a 6% bounce but yes she still becomes the first new PM since maybe Callaghan not to see her party have a poll lead
You really are still a Johnson apparatchik - Johnson saw the collapse of the conservative vote and it will be a long way back but at least now he is gone, Truss has a chance to repair the damage he caused to the conservative party
Good riddance to him
If it was not for Johnson Truss would not have an 80 seat majority
There’s your bounce? Where it’s coming from I’m even less clear about.
Truss has got a 6% bounce but yes she still becomes the first new PM since maybe Callaghan not to see her party have a poll lead
She may get one in the next couple of weeks. +6 is a big change so something's going on and it may have further to go.
In terms of a Tory lead, watch the shares they get. 35 is high end recently, in March to early April they got a few 36s and 2 37s (around the time of the Kantar dead heat poll), the last lead was also the last 38 share in early December.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I also find the whole "nation in mourning" stuff very overdone. The Queen was 96 years old. This was expected and while it is a bit sad that she's no longer here, the whole narrative around it is just getting a bit much. It feels similar to the poppy wankers and NHS clappers finding enemies where few exist.
Accusing people of being insufficiently sad because of this is a few steps too far, I hope the BBC, in particular, calms down over the next few days.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and run shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
What I like about the Monarchy is that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than the the government or a President (although the Monarch can't actually order the army into battle)
That should, in theory, be a big check against a government or politician becoming a dictator and turning the police and army against it's citizens.
The Bill Of Rights has just the right balance between the Monarch and Parliament IMO. I think it's a very neat work. The fact we've avoided revolution and unrest (except electorally with Brexit for example) and we haven't had a civil war since the 1640s is testament to that I think.... Though there were times during the 2017 to 2019 parliament that I wondered if we were about to reenact the civil war lol
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
I think the issue is highlighted where you say "A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years"
The problem is... that was The Queen. Charles lacks her profile and reputation. He may be no better in terms of soft power than an elected President
I've seen very little of the coverage since the Queen's death, but I put the TV on ten minutes ago and am finding the vigil from Edinburgh to be incredibly moving. Her children standing by her coffin, as members of the public walk past.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
There’s your bounce? Where it’s coming from I’m even less clear about.
Truss has got a 6% bounce but yes she still becomes the first new PM since maybe Callaghan not to see her party have a poll lead
You really are still a Johnson apparatchik - Johnson saw the collapse of the conservative vote and it will be a long way back but at least now he is gone, Truss has a chance to repair the damage he caused to the conservative party
Good riddance to him
If it was not for Johnson Truss would not have an 80 seat majority
The problem is Johnson made certain all that, and more, would be thrown away due to his trashing of the brand
He may have won an 80 seat majority but he was on his own throwing it all away by his toxic behaviour
The only strange thing is you cannot see it, and I doubt you will just as Corbynistas hang onto their failed leader
On monarchy and republic ive vacillated at times but then when i see the grotesque levels of personal enrichment in US politics and in Westminster and elsewhere and the foul stench of corruption i can't be arsed to support another 'elected' trougher pushing more partisan shit.
1.4m people in Canada - that’s 1 in 27 - claim Ukrainian ancestry.
My Canadian daughter in law and family do and can trace back to when their family emigrated to Canada
Ukrainian immigration to Canada began in a big way at the previous turn of the century, as part of Canadian govt policy to settle the Prairies. Their descendants still thick on the ground in the Prairie Provinces, with significant numbers having headed west to British Columbia (aka British California).
Note that during WW1, the Canadian government stripped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians of their citizenship, in order to ensure victory at the polls for pro-conscription Union > Conservative government.
Conservatives made some apology for this historic injury when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney nominated Ray Hnatyshyn as Governor General.
In US the Ukrainian American community for most also dates back to turn of century 19th>20th, and was (and mostly still is) concentrated in now-rusting industrial areas of Northeast and Midwest. Which might prove a problem for the likes of MAGA-man & Putin-pimp JD Vance in his US Senate race this year.
In recent decades there has been significant Ukrainian immigration to Washington State, starting with efforts of late Sen. Henry Jackson (D-WA) to compel USSR to allow exodus of religious dissidents. Most of these were Russian, but also plenty of Ukrainians (though here in Seattle it's pretty hard for non-Slavs to tell the difference).
Note that in WA these Ukrainians - and Russians - have become part of the Republican base vote, organized largely through their mainly evangelical (or close enough) churches. Again, will be interesting to see how much impact there will be on these voters re: the RUS-UKR War.
On monarchy and republic ive vacillated at times but then when i see the grotesque levels of personal enrichment in US politics and in Westminster and elsewhere and the foul stench of corruption i can't be arsed to support another 'elected' trougher pushing more partisan shit.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
This is what they said about recent events:
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
On an intellectual level, I am a republican. I feel like monarchy is a betrayal of the principles of equity and meritocracy that I value highly. On a practical level, I have observed how effective constitutional monarchy is as a stabilizing force that prevents politicians masquerading as "father of the people" types. So overall I am happy to continue with the status quo on the principle of if it's not broke, don't fix it.
That said, the police arresting people for saying republican things, or monarchists demanding I well up with tears over the death of an old woman, even an admirable one, born into the right family... well, it makes me think that things maybe are broke. Monarchists are playing with fire here.
Thinking about it though, it can also work the other way. People see the idiotic antics of republicans, thinking it is appropriate to disrupt funeral processions to make political points, and conclude that maybe it is best to not just trash things in the name of 'progress', because the 'republican' future may not be all that brilliant. I don't think anyone is demanding that people grieve the death of the queen, just that some respect is given to those who are.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The Royal thing is central to the UK's 'brand' surely. Bond and her Maj at the Olympics in 2012.
1.4m people in Canada - that’s 1 in 27 - claim Ukrainian ancestry.
My Canadian daughter in law and family do and can trace back to when their family emigrated to Canada
Ukrainian immigration to Canada began in a big way at the previous turn of the century, as part of Canadian govt policy to settle the Prairies. Their descendants still thick on the ground in the Prairie Provinces, with significant numbers having headed west to British Columbia (aka British California).
Note that during WW1, the Canadian government stripped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians of their citizenship, in order to ensure victory at the polls for pro-conscription Union > Conservative government.
Conservatives made some apology for this historic injury when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney nominated Ray Hnatyshyn as Governor General.
In US the Ukrainian American community for most also dates back to turn of century 19th>20th, and was (and mostly still is) concentrated in now-rusting industrial areas of Northeast and Midwest. Which might prove a problem for the likes of MAGA-man & Putin-pimp JD Vance in his US Senate race this year.
In recent decades there has been significant Ukrainian immigration to Washington State, starting with efforts of late Sen. Henry Jackson (D-WA) to compel USSR to allow exodus of religious dissidents. Most of these were Russian, but also plenty of Ukrainians (though here in Seattle it's pretty hard for non-Slavs to tell the difference).
Note that in WA these Ukrainians - and Russians - have become part of the Republican base vote, organized largely through their mainly evangelical (or close enough) churches. Again, will be interesting to see how much impact there will be on these voters re: the RUS-UKR War.
Interesting and my daughter in law and her family live in Vancouver and Alberta
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.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
I think the issue is highlighted where you say "A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years"
The problem is... that was The Queen. Charles lacks her profile and reputation. He may be no better in terms of soft power than an elected President
No, the monarchy is an institution, meeting and rubbing shoulders with the King will be something loads of the world elite want to check off the list just as they did with HMQ. Camilla, to my eyes, seems like the dud. Prince Phillip by all accounts of people who met him was quite charismatic and engaging alongside the Queen. If Charles were still married to an alive Diana I think that duo would have a similar cachet, Camilla drags the ticket down somewhat. Though not nearly enough to make King Charles the equivalent of a German President.
Reverse the roles, if Germany, a nation of 83m, had a Kaiser in charge and the Germans had all the same pomp and ceremony surrounding their royals everyone would want to meet that person, just as they do with Charles today.
On monarchy and republic ive vacillated at times but then when i see the grotesque levels of personal enrichment in US politics and in Westminster and elsewhere and the foul stench of corruption i can't be arsed to support another 'elected' trougher pushing more partisan shit.
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
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
A neutrality which clearly favours one side over the other doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially if dressed upin moral terms as some online do. I'd think a neutral would forego comment.
Are you basing this on what she actually said, or upon your impression of what she allegedly said?
Personally disagree to a degree with Mrs Higgins original statement, and consider it unwise, as she did herself upon mature reflection.
Which is NOT same as concluding that it was intended to "clearly" favor Putin. NOT in Irish context, and not (I think) in her case.
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office, thankfully
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
It's more complex than that. The Hundred is making a fortune for the counties, because of the subsidies that they get for releasing their players. But as it didn't cover its costs last year, that meant it was of no financial benefit to cricket overall. I haven't seen the figures for this year, but it doesn't look as though it was radically different.
On top of that, Sky only signed their broadcast deal when they had assurances the Hundred would stay. So arguably actually without the Hundred even though it makes a loss, without it cricket might make a bigger loss.
Bluntly, the issue is that you can't have the Blast, RLODC and the Hundred all together. It's too much cricket and it dilutes the quality of all matches. However, because the ECB wants to keep all of them because those are the most lucrative financially, it's championship cricket that looks set to be ruthlessly squeezed, despite the fact the review was launched due to the awful state of the men's test team (which was mostly due to poor leadership and selection, plus inadequate batting techniques from playing too much T20).
No blame to the players for taking the most lucrative option. It's even logical for the board to. But the dishonesty and unpleasantness with which the latter are doing it is thoroughly unedifying. One question tonight was whether county members can sack the ECB.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
You could at least have apologised. We'd sympathise.
Anyone who gets "more republican by the hour" through people simply paying their respects to a funeral cortege or lying in state is sick in the head.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Because the monarchs are only human. And there is so much human misery people choose to allow, actively bask in, that could be prevented, and it is apparently more important that some rich person died. A rich person who was better at noblesse oblige than most modern rich people, sure, but at the end of the day just another aristocrat.
Like, if she's a celebrity you care about, that's fine. But to say we all should care is what I find strange.
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office, thankfully
You are glad Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office? Or did you mean "It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand. Thankfully, he has been ejected from office"??
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
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.
Because for many of us, she is none of those things - I don't really see how any of what she did represented me, my beliefs, or a country I wanted. And the idea that we should all feel that way feels almost cultlike.
There's a middle ground here - I liked the Queen, I thought she did the job well and while she doesn't represent me, she represents me better than the BBC or the council or the government or any other institution which purports to represent me. But I didn't know her. And she was 96. I didn't grieve as much as some are doing for my own grandmother.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
What violent displays?
Members here have "joked" that traitors should be hanged
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.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
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
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
A neutrality which clearly favours one side over the other doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially if dressed upin moral terms as some online do. I'd think a neutral would forego comment.
Are you basing this on what she actually said, or upon your impression of what she allegedly said?
Personally disagree to a degree with Mrs Higgins original statement, and consider it unwise, as she did herself upon mature reflection.
Which is NOT same as concluding that it was intended to "clearly" favor Putin. NOT in Irish context, and not (I think) in her case.
She repeatedly made the point that Ukraine cannot win and endorsed an article calling it a proxy war in which the West was "pouring arms into a losing battle" and arguing that there would be no peace "if Ukraine does not agree to demilitarise and to eschew any ambition to join Nato". Apparently the continuation of the war "may help western leaders save face but its gruesome price will be paid by Ukraine and its people".
You're usually quick to denounce Putinist useful idiots. Why is she different?
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office, thankfully
You are glad Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office? Or did you mean "It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand. Thankfully, he has been ejected from office"??
To be honest I have no idea how you interpret such a simple statement
Nowhere did I say I was 'glad' he trashed the brand
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
What violent displays?
Members here have "joked" that traitors should be hanged
He was referring to violent displays on the streets
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963. We also have our first new monarch for 70 years which needs to be formally done
Comments
Reagan would be appalled.
That said, constitutional monarchy comes in various shapes and sizes and comes ultimately to reflect indeed mirror the society itself. Our monarchy works for us - I'd argue the Danish monarchy (Queen Margrethe II has been their monarch over 50 years) works perfectly well for them though it's different.
The Irish have a President who seems genuinely admired and reflects Irish society which is fair enough.
Grief and loss is a very weird thing. It affects us all differently.
And I did NOT need to google to tell you my bit about Michael D.
Of course he's NOT a household word, like the late Queen or current King. At least as Mr. Higgins.
However, PLENTY of people care about & give respect to the President of Ireland, whether or not they know his or her name.
You’re a deeply unpleasant little man.
I am very disturbed by the police action in England an Scotland and it needs an immediate review
I'm logging off before I lose my cool again.
The Queen was an exemplary monarch - she epitomised dignity, stability and duty. A perfect figurehead for our nation. King Charles will be excellent too I don't doubt.
But I am a bit indifferent to the Queen's death I admit - but only because of her age. It was hardly unexpected. And I'm not fascinated or even particularly interest in the royal family though I wouldn't say I'm a republican.
Pragmatically, we are where we are and I see the benefits of having a monarchy - though a nation created from scratch probably wouldn't take that route. To me it seems cruel to the particular family - like living in a glorified zoo really. So I'm grateful that they want to continue serving and would oppose abolition (or even a referendum on the matter).
That's the best I can do I'm afraid - respectful agnosticism if you like - and I'm confident that my feelings on the matter are widely held.
It’s quite funny how Anglo-Americanism is the ancestry that dare not speak it’s name.
Yet New England is so weirdly English and fundamentally American at the same time.
I don't mean this to upset you, but that's where I stand.
Of course they are going to crack down on anyone who doesn't conform to their desired behaviour.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
MacGregor was nominated to be Ambassador to Germany by Trump, and continued to hang around after his rejection by the Senate, like a particularly foul smell. The most generous possible characterisation of him is as a dangerous crackpot.
It's said that Lachlan Murdoch is keen to distance himself from Trump. I can see the difficulties, commercially, of doing so. But he doesn't need to give a platform to people whose loyalties are highly, highly questionable.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Good riddance to him
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
That said, the police arresting people for saying republican things, or monarchists demanding I well up with tears over the death of an old woman, even an admirable one, born into the right family... well, it makes me think that things maybe are broke. Monarchists are playing with fire here.
Like, if she's a celebrity you care about, that's fine. But to say we all should care is what I find strange.
It's a fairly fictitious thing anyway. Scotland, politically, is the central belt. Scotland to English poshos and indeed borderline wannabe poshos is the Highlands, dancing in skirts, drinking whisky and thwacking all sorts of flavour of wildlife with the assistance of Uncle Tom ghillies, stalkers etc. Not a uge overlap.
There is no movement at all from Labour since the last poll
That seems pretty normal to me. My eldest daughter has been much more upset but her siblings are less bothered, especially my youngest.
Those of us of a certain age remember her role in symbolising the nation at various times. At 60 she has been omnipresent throughout my life. It seems normal to be sad but she lived a good and long life so it is more to give thanks for than to lament.
It’s been a strange week.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
Accusing people of being insufficiently sad because of this is a few steps too far, I hope the BBC, in particular, calms down over the next few days.
That should, in theory, be a big check against a government or politician becoming a dictator and turning the police and army against it's citizens.
The Bill Of Rights has just the right balance between the Monarch and Parliament IMO. I think it's a very neat work. The fact we've avoided revolution and unrest (except electorally with Brexit for example) and we haven't had a civil war since the 1640s is testament to that I think.... Though there were times during the 2017 to 2019 parliament that I wondered if we were about to reenact the civil war lol
The problem is... that was The Queen. Charles lacks her profile and reputation. He may be no better in terms of soft power than an elected President
A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
He may have won an 80 seat majority but he was on his own throwing it all away by his toxic behaviour
The only strange thing is you cannot see it, and I doubt you will just as Corbynistas hang onto their failed leader
Note that during WW1, the Canadian government stripped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians of their citizenship, in order to ensure victory at the polls for pro-conscription Union > Conservative government.
Conservatives made some apology for this historic injury when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney nominated Ray Hnatyshyn as Governor General.
In US the Ukrainian American community for most also dates back to turn of century 19th>20th, and was (and mostly still is) concentrated in now-rusting industrial areas of Northeast and Midwest. Which might prove a problem for the likes of MAGA-man & Putin-pimp JD Vance in his US Senate race this year.
In recent decades there has been significant Ukrainian immigration to Washington State, starting with efforts of late Sen. Henry Jackson (D-WA) to compel USSR to allow exodus of religious dissidents. Most of these were Russian, but also plenty of Ukrainians (though here in Seattle it's pretty hard for non-Slavs to tell the difference).
Note that in WA these Ukrainians - and Russians - have become part of the Republican base vote, organized largely through their mainly evangelical (or close enough) churches. Again, will be interesting to see how much impact there will be on these voters re: the RUS-UKR War.
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-forces-retake-control-of-key-russian-stronghold/6739595.html
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
I don't think anyone is demanding that people grieve the death of the queen, just that some respect is given to those who are.
Reverse the roles, if Germany, a nation of 83m, had a Kaiser in charge and the Germans had all the same pomp and ceremony surrounding their royals everyone would want to meet that person, just as they do with Charles today.
Personally disagree to a degree with Mrs Higgins original statement, and consider it unwise, as she did herself upon mature reflection.
Which is NOT same as concluding that it was intended to "clearly" favor Putin. NOT in Irish context, and not (I think) in her case.
On top of that, Sky only signed their broadcast deal when they had assurances the Hundred would stay. So arguably actually without the Hundred even though it makes a loss, without it cricket might make a bigger loss.
Bluntly, the issue is that you can't have the Blast, RLODC and the Hundred all together. It's too much cricket and it dilutes the quality of all matches. However, because the ECB wants to keep all of them because those are the most lucrative financially, it's championship cricket that looks set to be ruthlessly squeezed, despite the fact the review was launched due to the awful state of the men's test team (which was mostly due to poor leadership and selection, plus inadequate batting techniques from playing too much T20).
No blame to the players for taking the most lucrative option. It's even logical for the board to. But the dishonesty and unpleasantness with which the latter are doing it is thoroughly unedifying. One question tonight was whether county members can sack the ECB.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her.
And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end?
I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
You're usually quick to denounce Putinist useful idiots. Why is she different?
Nowhere did I say I was 'glad' he trashed the brand
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963. We also have our first new monarch for 70 years which needs to be formally done