Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A significant proportion of Brits don’t support the monarchy – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageA significant proportion of Brits don’t support the monarchy – politicalbetting.com

One of the growing issues that is emerging has been the arrest by police of those who are demonstrating against the notion of monarchy. This happened again in Edinburgh today and I for one feel very uneasy about it.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edited September 12
    I think Liz needs to say nothing at all on the subject.

    And first by the way.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 12
    FPT
    Dynamo said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-andrew-uniform-queen-vigil-edinburgh-b2165653.html?amp

    Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.

    Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.

    The king won't last long. Harry isn't stupid and he has a backbone. He has matured amazingly since his Nazi uniform idiocy, the Las Vegas business, and Afghanistan. His spoilt toe-rag of a father will never mature.

    What if...just imagine...Harry were to have written a few alternative versions of one of the chapters in his book...and he chooses the one that really gives his father the almighty kick in the b*llocks he deserves and he leaks a copy later this week? Bye-bye kingy. Bye-bye monarchy. Go for it, Harry.

    All the build-up is in one direction. All the other side have got is to print articles saying trillions of admirers are flocking the streets, blah blah. They've got absolutely nothing else - oh, some stuff about the late queen. WTF has she got to do with anything?
    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,994
    Lol
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 12
    I think it would be unwise for Liz to interfere in Scottish judicial matters?

    Presumably the arrest in Edinburgh happened under Scottish breach of the peace laws? I was looking that up earlier and it says this:

    "In Scottish law, you can be charged with breaching the peace if you engage in any kind of disorderly behaviour which would have a negative effect on other people who bore witness to it."

    I suppose the key word here is what constitutes "disorderly" ? The young mans actions would certainly have had a "negative effect" on the Royal party walking behind the coffin as well as the mourners witnessing the procession.

    Does that constitute being disorderly?

    Regardless Liz should keep her head down and say nothing...
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,707
    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717

    22% is significant polling...if you are a LibDem.

    It may end up being a significant number if you are a Conservative after 18 months of Liz Truss.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,929

    22% is significant polling...if you are a LibDem.

    Republicanism - winning here!
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Everyone always asks why horse

    Nobody ever asks how horse :(

    Look after yourself, my friend.

    Get to your happy place - May 2nd 2024, 10pm, as the chimes of Big Ben fade and BBC, ITV and Sky all announce their exit poll showing a Labour landslide.
    Hi stodge, welcome back.

    Not sure if I asked you this before but are you a Labour member?
    No, my friend. I live in the most Labour of areas but I'm not a supporter.

    That being said, currently, I'd much prefer a Government led by Starmer to one led by Truss.
    Ah, may I ask how you swing? You are one of the most level-headed posters here.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325

    22% is significant polling...if you are a LibDem.

    LOL! :D
  • I can't get too excited by any of this, and have not been watching television coverage.

    To protestors, now is not the time, while feelings run high. To Liz Truss, don't get involved.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    22% for abolishing the monarchy is pathetic, 10% less even than voted for Corbyn in 2019. If republicans cannot even get all Corbyn voters to vote for them who can they get?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    edited September 12
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.

    Ah sorry had missed the skipped generation. But George sadly is likely to take after his parents
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,450
    edited September 12
    The TV and radio coverage is turning me more Republican.
    If a Republic means I don't have to hear from Gyles Brandreth ever again.
    Nor an "hilarious' anecdote from the World #153 golfer about when he met HMQ.
    Then that's good enough for me.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,784
    .
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    I have a feeling Charles's reign will be significantly shorter than that but time will tell as ever...
  • HYUFD said:

    22% for abolishing the monarchy is pathetic, 10% less even than voted for Corbyn in 2019. If republicans cannot even get all Corbyn voters to vote for them who can they get?

    Most countries in the world today are republics, including a majority of democratic countries.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,784
    GIN1138 said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    I have a feeling Charles's reign will be significantly shorter than that but time will tell as ever...
    Yes, he doesn’t look particularly healthy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    I have a feeling Charles's reign will be significantly shorter than that but time will tell as ever...
    Yes, he doesn’t look particularly healthy.
    Dr FoxInSoxInOx said he's not in poor health but I'm still not sure...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    RobD said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
    See edit
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,153

    22% is significant polling...if you are a LibDem.

    Or of course Vladimir Putin seeking approval ratings in the Russian army.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,784
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
    See edit
    He’s to take after his parents (aged 40) at age 31? The poor sod.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Better than being colonised by most historical Empires
  • RobD said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
    Blackadder: If you can't make money you'll have to marry it.

    Prince George: Marry? Never! I'm a gay bachelor, Blackadder. I'm a roarer, a rogerer, a gorger, and a puker. I can't marry. I'm young, I'm firm buttocked, I'm, I'm...

    Blackadder: Broke.

    Prince George: Well, yes, I suppose.

    Blackadder: And don't forget, sir, that the modern church smiles on roaring and gorging within wedlock. And indeed rogering is keenly encouraged.

    Prince George: And the puking?

    Blackadder: I believe it is still very much down to the conscience of the individual church-goer.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    Dynamo said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-andrew-uniform-queen-vigil-edinburgh-b2165653.html?amp

    Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.

    Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.

    The king won't last long. Harry isn't stupid and he has a backbone. He has matured amazingly since his Nazi uniform idiocy, the Las Vegas business, and Afghanistan. His spoilt toe-rag of a father will never mature.

    What if...just imagine...Harry were to have written a few alternative versions of one of the chapters in his book...and he chooses the one that really gives his father the almighty kick in the b*llocks he deserves and he leaks a copy later this week? Bye-bye kingy. Bye-bye monarchy. Go for it, Harry.

    All the build-up is in one direction. All the other side have got is to print articles saying trillions of admirers are flocking the streets, blah blah. They've got absolutely nothing else - oh, some stuff about the late queen. WTF has she got to do with anything?
    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.
    Fat baldy and social climber. Huzzah. Give it to me unlubed your maj, hard as you like
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743


    HYUFD said:

    22% for abolishing the monarchy is pathetic, 10% less even than voted for Corbyn in 2019. If republicans cannot even get all Corbyn voters to vote for them who can they get?

    Most countries in the world today are republics, including a majority of democratic countries.
    So what, we are not and don't want to be most countries
  • 62/22 means there'll be no change for the foreseeable - but also the republican/anti-monarchist side should be given some respect and airtime
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378


    HYUFD said:

    22% for abolishing the monarchy is pathetic, 10% less even than voted for Corbyn in 2019. If republicans cannot even get all Corbyn voters to vote for them who can they get?

    Most countries in the world today are republics, including a majority of democratic countries.
    Of the top 20 best countries according to the 'corruptions perception index' half are monarchies
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Better than being colonised by most historical Empires
    What's your evidence?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,153

    RobD said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
    Blackadder: If you can't make money you'll have to marry it.

    Prince George: Marry? Never! I'm a gay bachelor, Blackadder. I'm a roarer, a rogerer, a gorger, and a puker. I can't marry. I'm young, I'm firm buttocked, I'm, I'm...

    Blackadder: Broke.

    Prince George: Well, yes, I suppose.

    Blackadder: And don't forget, sir, that the modern church smiles on roaring and gorging within wedlock. And indeed rogering is keenly encouraged.

    Prince George: And the puking?

    Blackadder: I believe it is still very much down to the conscience of the individual church-goer.
    No bar to marriage these days, of course.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    edited September 12
    Republicans can get away with whinging about the fact they were not able to scream and shout on the King's accession undisturbed.

    However if next Monday any Republicans turn their back on the Queen's coffin or protest at her funeral never mind the police, the crowd will angrily turn on them too!
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 3,367
    edited September 12
    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.
  • stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    why does a king need to be young and dynamic? they are not a politician
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,602
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Better than being colonised by most historical Empires
    I bet you say that to all the girls
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,153
    HYUFD said:

    Republicans can get away with whinging about the fact they were not able to scream and shout on the King's accession.

    However if next Monday any Republicans turn their back on the Queen's coffin or protest at her funeral never mind the police, the crowd will angrily turn on them too!

    Is it that time already?

    So it is. I'm off to bed.

    Good night.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    But he is neither young nor dynamic, he's a stodgy bore married to a rapidly losing her looks death's head.
    George is married?
    See edit
    He’s to take after his parents (aged 40) at age 31? The poor sod.
    Um, lost me now. "Take after" is a well understood English expression but not by you by the look of it
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,707
    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Probably quite a lot better than being colonialised by Putin's Russia.
  • 22% is significant polling...if you are a LibDem.

    Not sure a May poll is relevant in view of the recent Queen's death and the coverage so far

    I assume more upto date polling will come along, but I am sceptical that, notwithstanding the wall to wall coverage and the inappropriate arresting of protesters, that the popularity of becoming a republic has grown
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    darkage said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Probably quite a lot better than being colonialised by Putin's Russia.
    IQs surprising to the downside this evening.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,602
    HYUFD said:

    22% for abolishing the monarchy is pathetic, 10% less even than voted for Corbyn in 2019. If republicans cannot even get all Corbyn voters to vote for them who can they get?

    Maths still not your strong point.
  • If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
  • I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    I expect most people are more concerned, if at all, about the limited selectorate who gave us Liz Truss.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    HYUFD said:

    Republicans can get away with whinging about the fact they were not able to scream and shout on the King's accession undisturbed.

    However if next Monday any Republicans turn their back on the Queen's coffin or protest at her funeral never mind the police, the crowd will angrily turn on them too!

    And if anyone takes a dump on the catafalque I shall be most displeased. Not clever or funny.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743

    If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?

    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The Conservatives were not elected with a manifesto commitment for a referendum on the monarchy and the republican Corbyn was twice defeated.

    If republicans like you are so desperate to get rid of the King you can vote Green, as Caroline Lucas' party are pro a republic and abolishing the monarchy
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,450

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.

    As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.

    If Charles lives to be 95, William will ascend at 62.

    Perhaps William and Catherine should voluntarily abdicate in favour of George who would be 31 - a new young dynamic King to take Global Britain into the mid 21st century and beyond.
    why does a king need to be young and dynamic? they are not a politician
    Have you seen a US politician?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 12

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    edited September 12
    There is a difference between arguing against the monarchy, or indeed staging a protest on another day in another place, and disrupting the formal events related to the funeral. Those who do so should be moved on. I’d feel differently about the Coronation, where any protest will just be drowned out.

    That said, they obviously shouldn’t be prosecuted for any crime.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    edited September 12

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,006
    HYUFD said:

    If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?

    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The Conservatives were not elected with a manifesto commitment for a referendum on the monarchy and the republican Corbyn was twice defeated.

    If republicans like you are so desperate to get rid of the King you can vote Green, as Caroline Lucas' party are pro a republic and abolishing the monarchy
    So why are you so keen on opinion polls as a tool to suppress representative democracy when it comes to independence referenda?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    edited September 12
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    Better than being colonised by most historical Empires
    Eight out of ten commonwealth countries would recommend our work on their railways and civic institutions. Four stars on trip adviser.
  • FPT on families in political ads - NickPalmer - I think this peaked in the US, with JFK and RFK. (There's a funny segment in "The Last Hurrah" where the young challenger to the old boss uses a TV ad to display his wife and young children, along with a rented dog, and a big painting of the Pope.)

    In more recent years, children have been less prominent in political ads here, and there has been something of a truce covering young children, with attacks on them thought to be out of bounds.

    I don't know, by the way, whether the pattern I have seen here in Washington state is common in the US. The junior senator from Illinois, Thai-American and Democrat, Tammy Duckworth, has, to say the least, an interesting family story to tell. She lost both legs in combat in Iraq in 2006. And after that, with the help of IVF: "Duckworth and [her husband] Bowlsbey have two daughters: Abigail, who was born in 2014,[134] and Maile, born in 2018.[135] Maile's birth made Duckworth the first U.S. senator to give birth while in office.[135][136] Former senator Daniel Akaka helped the couple with the naming of both daughters; Akaka died April 6, 2018, three days before Maile was born.[137] Shortly after Maile's birth, a Senate rule change permitted senators to bring children under one year old on the Senate floor to breastfeed.[86] This was a symbolic moment for Duckworth, as she had previously introduced the bipartisan Friendly Airports for Mothers (FAM) Act to ensure new mothers access to safe, clean and accessible lactation rooms in airports.[48] The day after the rule change, Duckworth brought Maile with her during the casting of a Senate vote, making Duckworth the first senator to cast a vote while holding a baby."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth

    It wouldn't be hard to make a political ad featuring her family.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,824
    Military units of Azerbaijan have opened fire with artillery and drones on Armenia. This takes place on the internationally recognized territory of Armenia itself, outside of disputed Karabakh. A major escalation by Baku.

    https://twitter.com/neilphauer/status/1569433181119737857
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    That would depend. The alternative was very rarely modern liberal democracy. For a lot of people, having a brutal overlord who did not care about your religious beliefs was preferable to having a brutal overlord who cared very much.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Watching the new King in action today I am struck by this thought:

    Charles's primary role will be to be the representative on earth of the late Queen. I am sure he would like to turn some kind of page, but I am not so sure that will happen.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 3,367
    edited September 12
    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Personally, I think that’s uncharitable. He has done a tremendous amount of good work over the years and he has certainly expressed himself well since he took over the throne. He does not come across as the same person he was 30-40 years ago. Of course, time will tell how he performs, but if he manages to keep things relatively inoffensive and as he is at the moment I think he will be a pretty decent monarch.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    Fucking big banner, someone in Luton holding the other end?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Actually I am rather looking forward to Charles' reign, he will be probably our most intellectual monarch since Charles IInd, is a Cambridge educated historian who also did a term at Aberystwyth where I did my Masters and has a wide range of interests. He also takes an interest in those less fortunate, as shown by the brilliant work of the Princes' Trust he set up
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,938
    I'm not sure I understand the headline. Has a 'don't' floated in from somewhere?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    biggles said:

    There is a difference between arguing against the monarchy, or indeed staging a protest on another day in another place, and disrupting the formal events related to the funeral. Those who do so should be moved on. I’d feel differently about the Coronation, where any protest will just be drowned out.

    That said, they obviously shouldn’t be prosecuted for any crime.

    Indeed they should not. It's far better to have such people act like bellends, rather than just have everyone else think that they are bellends.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,654

    Watching the new King in action today I am struck by this thought:

    Charles's primary role will be to be the representative on earth of the late Queen. I am sure he would like to turn some kind of page, but I am not so sure that will happen.

    Yup, Charles knows his place.

  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?

    Before any such vote, don’t we need an actual campaign in favour of a clear alternative proposition (I’m not counting Republic, which seems to be run by one man and a dog)?

    (Yes, yes, fill in your own Vote Leave or Yes Campaign joke here if you want; but the point is they were both structured campaigns).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
    Rubbish, they will do great service to our nation
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
    Does your obsession with adultery suggest that you might yourself have an issue there, in the same way that so many homophobes are privately gay?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181

    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Personally, I think that’s uncharitable. He has done a tremendous amount of good work over the years and he has certainly expressed himself well since he took over the throne. He does not come across as the same person he was 30-40 years ago. Of course, time will tell how he performs, but if he manages to keep things relatively inoffensive and as he is at the moment I think he will be a pretty decent monarch.
    How much good work and what, and what does his hourly rate for it work out at and how does it compare with the average 2.2 graduate from a joke university?

    Carry on grovelling.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?

    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The Conservatives were not elected with a manifesto commitment for a referendum on the monarchy and the republican Corbyn was twice defeated.

    If republicans like you are so desperate to get rid of the King you can vote Green, as Caroline Lucas' party are pro a republic and abolishing the monarchy
    So why are you so keen on opinion polls as a tool to suppress representative democracy when it comes to independence referenda?
    I am opposed to indyref2 full stop and certainly for a generation since 2014. However if Nationalists continue to post pro independence polls I will post polls that give pro Union numbers
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,006
    edited September 12
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?

    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The Conservatives were not elected with a manifesto commitment for a referendum on the monarchy and the republican Corbyn was twice defeated.

    If republicans like you are so desperate to get rid of the King you can vote Green, as Caroline Lucas' party are pro a republic and abolishing the monarchy
    So why are you so keen on opinion polls as a tool to suppress representative democracy when it comes to independence referenda?
    I am opposed to indyref2 full stop and certainly for a generation since 2014. However if Nationalists continue to post pro independence polls I will post polls that give pro Union numbers
    I recall tnhat your view is that pro-indy polls are obviously fiddled.

    But as usual you don't answer my point - which is that representative democracy is only permitted when it suits you. That's pretty subversive.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 12
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Actually I am rather looking forward to Charles' reign, he will be probably our most intellectual monarch since Charles IInd, is a Cambridge educated historian who also did a term at Aberystwyth where I did my Masters and has a wide range of interests. He also takes an interest in those less fortunate, as shown by the brilliant work of the Princes' Trust he set up
    I mean Oliver Letwin and David "Two Brains - No Sense" Willets are intellectuals but you wouldn't let them anywhere near actual positions of power nevermind make them King.

    My suspicion is that the majority of normal folk will struggle to fathom what he's on about half the time. The references to Shakespeare in his speeches since ascending do not bode well...
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If I wanted to protest against the monarchy (spoiler - I don’t) then I’d target the Coronation and not the funeral and contrast the lavishness with homelessness, the state of the NHS, and the increased use of food banks. Basically a “let’s spend £X on the NHS instead” campaign.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,006
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    darkage said:

    I think that much of the possible turn in popularity of the monarchy could be explained by young people being 'educated' about the 'horrors of colonialism' over the past couple of years, plus the Prince Andrew scandal.
    The numbers are ok though, at 62%.

    Why quotes round horrors of colonialism? On a scale of 1-10 how much of a day at the beach do you think it was being colonised by the British?
    That would depend. The alternative was very rarely modern liberal democracy. For a lot of people, having a brutal overlord who did not care about your religious beliefs was preferable to having a brutal overlord who cared very much.
    Compare India before and after the Indian Rising, indeed.
  • pingping Posts: 2,660
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/12/anti-monarchy-protester-charged-with-a-breach-of-the-peace-edinburgh-queen-death-king

    “A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”

    Couldn’t agree more.

    This stinks.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
    Does your obsession with adultery suggest that you might yourself have an issue there, in the same way that so many homophobes are privately gay?
    You equate adultery, the breach of the most serious vow anyone ever takes, with homosexuality, which many people these days regard as a morally neutral sort of thing?

    Well done. Brave of you to take that stance on today's internet. For the avoidance of doubt, I disagree. And to satisfy your rather bizarre curiosity about my private life, I have technically committed adultery, but only after a decree nisi which I don't think really counts.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    Reading people who've (in past years) bragged about their own sexual exploits denouncing the unchastity of the Royal Family is ...amusing.

    I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' comments about televangelists.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    biggles said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If I wanted to protest against the monarchy (spoiler - I don’t) then I’d target the Coronation and not the funeral and contrast the lavishness with homelessness, the state of the NHS, and the increased use of food banks. Basically a “let’s spend £X on the NHS instead” campaign.
    Which is of course rubbish, the Crown Estate largely funds the sovereign grant not taxpayers and taxpayers would have to pay to fund a President and their residence, security etc anyway.

    Plus let us note the only western nation without any form of universal public healthcare is a republic, the USA
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    ping said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/12/anti-monarchy-protester-charged-with-a-breach-of-the-peace-edinburgh-queen-death-king

    “A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”

    Couldn’t agree more.

    This stinks.

    It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 3,367
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Personally, I think that’s uncharitable. He has done a tremendous amount of good work over the years and he has certainly expressed himself well since he took over the throne. He does not come across as the same person he was 30-40 years ago. Of course, time will tell how he performs, but if he manages to keep things relatively inoffensive and as he is at the moment I think he will be a pretty decent monarch.
    How much good work and what, and what does his hourly rate for it work out at and how does it compare with the average 2.2 graduate from a joke university?

    Carry on grovelling.
    I am perfectly entitled to form my own opinions on people in the public eye. Praising them for good work they have done, for instance, the work the Princes Trust has done, is not grovelling. I appreciate Charles is a flawed individual and have said so many times. But so are we all. I still think he will surprise on the upside as monarch. That is my personal opinion.
  • Sean_F said:

    Reading people who've (in past years) bragged about their own sexual exploits denouncing the unchastity of the Royal Family is ...amusing.

    I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' comments about televangelists.

    I'm more concerned about Prince Andrew.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    Sean_F said:

    Reading people who've (in past years) bragged about their own sexual exploits denouncing the unchastity of the Royal Family is ...amusing.

    I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' comments about televangelists.

    Also amazing that they seem to suggest it’s a new or surprising thing for the public to discover.
  • biggles said:

    There is a difference between arguing against the monarchy, or indeed staging a protest on another day in another place, and disrupting the formal events related to the funeral. Those who do so should be moved on. I’d feel differently about the Coronation, where any protest will just be drowned out.


    That said, they obviously shouldn’t be prosecuted for any crime.

    Agreed. You shouldn't be prosecuting people for this. It's ridiculous.

    Having said that, it's hilarious to see it's the types who are most angry about this are the ones who cheer on Christian preachers in the street being arrested for their comments and so late. Not that they will see that, they are too self-absorbed.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
    Does your obsession with adultery suggest that you might yourself have an issue there, in the same way that so many homophobes are privately gay?
    You equate adultery, the breach of the most serious vow anyone ever takes, with homosexuality, which many people these days regard as a morally neutral sort of thing?

    Well done. Brave of you to take that stance on today's internet. For the avoidance of doubt, I disagree. And to satisfy your rather bizarre curiosity about my private life, I have technically committed adultery, but only after a decree nisi which I don't think really counts.
    It's more that people tend to denounce most furiously the sexual practices that they eagerly participate in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    edited September 12
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Actually I am rather looking forward to Charles' reign, he will be probably our most intellectual monarch since Charles IInd, is a Cambridge educated historian who also did a term at Aberystwyth where I did my Masters and has a wide range of interests. He also takes an interest in those less fortunate, as shown by the brilliant work of the Princes' Trust he set up
    I mean Oliver Letwin and David "Two Brains - No Sense" Willets are intellectuals but you wouldn't let them anywhere near actual positions of power nevermind make them King.

    My suspicion is that the majority of normal folk will struggle to fathom what he's on about half the time. The references to Shakespeare in his speeches since ascending do not bode well...
    Letwin and Willetts had more real power as Ministers than Charles ever will as King.

    Charles' role is to represent the nation as a ceremonial figurehead head of state at home and abroad.

    If the population are so dumbed down they do not even understand any references to Shakespeare despite years of secondary education that says more about them than our King.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited September 12
    dixiedean said:

    The TV and radio coverage is turning me more Republican.
    If a Republic means I don't have to hear from Gyles Brandreth ever again.
    Nor an "hilarious' anecdote from the World #153 golfer about when he met HMQ.
    Then that's good enough for me.

    We need to hear from fewer royal journalists and Gyles Brandreths, and more academics and historians . They're also less likely to give a less relentlessly on-message view, and so keeping us deep in the subject while allowing dissent.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,181
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If you take it outside Buckingham Palace, our thoughts and prayers are with you as it is currently filled by a crowd of royalist diehards
    So monarchists are violent thugs who cannot cope with free speech, noted.
    The week leading up to the Queen's funeral is neither the time nor the place but completely disrespectful.

    If you want to do it wait until the coronation next Spring, I will then of course also go to London to boo you and cheer King Charles and the Queen Consort!
    Booing? That doesn't sound very die hard. The adulterers will be so hated by next spring you'll be fleeing across the channel with them on a return trip on an asylum seekers inflatable. These are not nice people. Sorry but there it is.
    Does your obsession with adultery suggest that you might yourself have an issue there, in the same way that so many homophobes are privately gay?
    You equate adultery, the breach of the most serious vow anyone ever takes, with homosexuality, which many people these days regard as a morally neutral sort of thing?

    Well done. Brave of you to take that stance on today's internet. For the avoidance of doubt, I disagree. And to satisfy your rather bizarre curiosity about my private life, I have technically committed adultery, but only after a decree nisi which I don't think really counts.
    It's more that people tend to denounce most furiously the sexual practices that they eagerly participate in.
    Wouldn't know
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    edited September 12

    dixiedean said:

    The TV and radio coverage is turning me more Republican.
    If a Republic means I don't have to hear from Gyles Brandreth ever again.
    Nor an "hilarious' anecdote from the World #153 golfer about when he met HMQ.
    Then that's good enough for me.

    We need to hear from more academics and historians, and fewer royal journalists and Gyles Brandreths.
    Vernon Bogdanor has been on regularly and is a constitution expert, as has Peter Hennessey
  • IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/12/anti-monarchy-protester-charged-with-a-breach-of-the-peace-edinburgh-queen-death-king

    “A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”


    Couldn’t agree more.


    This stinks.

    It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
    It's the Guardian. Waiting to read their column about why it's an outrage to arrest people for expressing anti-trans rights.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    algarkirk said:

    I think Liz needs to say nothing at all on the subject.

    And first by the way.

    She needs to get rid of the offence of causing offence IMO.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    If I wanted to protest against the monarchy (spoiler - I don’t) then I’d target the Coronation and not the funeral and contrast the lavishness with homelessness, the state of the NHS, and the increased use of food banks. Basically a “let’s spend £X on the NHS instead” campaign.
    Which is of course rubbish, the Crown Estate largely funds the sovereign grant not taxpayers and taxpayers would have to pay to fund a President and their residence, security etc anyway.

    Plus let us note the only western nation without any form of universal public healthcare is a republic, the USA
    I agree it’s rubbish; but I reckon it would be the attack line I’d choose if I wasn’t a monarchist.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    edited September 12
    Thinking about the politicsl impact of the Queens death, im not sure! However in an election in the near future the one bet i'd make is Con HOLD West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, monarchist swing and i reckon Gordon would be in play.
    Not sure how that will look in a year and more though!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    An institution that enjoys that level of support can’t be said to be doing particularly badly. Of course the monarchy only remains by consent of the people and if there comes a time when it is clearly the will of the people to put it behind us then that will happen. But I can’t see it happening soon. And I think people over-emphasise Charles’ flaws. He has never been particularly popular, and of course he is still tarnished by the shenanigans of the 80s and 90s, but his ratings have steadily improved in recent years, and I expect him to get a popularity boost from taking the throne.

    As I said on the previous thread the policing deserves criticism but it’s not as if the new king was standing in the background shouting “off with their heads”. It strikes me as a rather over zealous reading of public order laws.

    I think a lot of his improvement in popularity is down to the Queen herself steadily becoming more popular in her final 20 years.

    People are generally fair-minded and wish him all the best but... he's a dud. An inherently selfish, grand, entitled, head in the clouds fuddy duddy. Mean to his staff and yes a dreadful husband and father too.

    He will never be more popular than he is right now and it's going to be down-hill all the way from here for him I'm afraid.
    Actually I am rather looking forward to Charles' reign, he will be probably our most intellectual monarch since Charles IInd, is a Cambridge educated historian who also did a term at Aberystwyth where I did my Masters and has a wide range of interests. He also takes an interest in those less fortunate, as shown by the brilliant work of the Princes' Trust he set up
    I bet he never voted for Plaid Cymru though.

    But I agree. I'm looking forward to seeing what he gets up to.

    Same with Liz Truss.

    Clean slate for the both of them.
  • Military units of Azerbaijan have opened fire with artillery and drones on Armenia. This takes place on the internationally recognized territory of Armenia itself, outside of disputed Karabakh. A major escalation by Baku.

    https://twitter.com/neilphauer/status/156943318
    1119737857

    Makes perfect sense. It's all going Pete Tong for Vlad.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,743
    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/12/anti-monarchy-protester-charged-with-a-breach-of-the-peace-edinburgh-queen-death-king

    “A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”

    Couldn’t agree more.

    This stinks.

    It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
    Responding to the Guardian, the Metropolitan police said: “People have the right to protest. We urge those who want to, to do so with the dignity and respect that is expected during this significant period of reflection.”
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,793

    dixiedean said:

    The TV and radio coverage is turning me more Republican.
    If a Republic means I don't have to hear from Gyles Brandreth ever again.
    Nor an "hilarious' anecdote from the World #153 golfer about when he met HMQ.
    Then that's good enough for me.

    We need to hear from more academics and historians, and fewer royal journalists and Gyles Brandreths.
    Reworking the entire British constitution and abandoning thousands of years of history to avoid Giles Brandreth might be considered extreme. But then you watch him for 60 seconds and you begin to wonder. The trouble is I fear he would do the same thing at the funeral of President Farage. You can’t avoid it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,831

    I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'

    The severity of the beating the old bill give you depends entirely on how theatrical your shoes look.
This discussion has been closed.