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.
Gyles Brandreth is great, a brilliant raconteur and very funny man, I have seen him live
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
Amidst the orgy of regalia and members of the public waiting hours to walk past her majesties coffin spare a thought for the poor reporters having to ask yet more vacuous questions and the behind the scenes staff ringing around to find people like Babs who once served up a cream tea to the Queen . The big question , did her majesty stick the jam or cream on first .
Am I the only one now wondering whether this is now just all a bit too much . This is not written by some rabid Republican , I’m okay with the monarchy , was a huge fan of Diana and liked the Queen .
Perhaps it’s the age we live in , with the 24 hour media and age of the internet but I think even her majesty might now be saying , enough already !
“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.”
You may protest in precisely the manner that we want you to protest.
“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.
Blackadder: Oh, God. What a way to die. Shot by a transvestite on an unrealistic grassy knoll.
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.
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 agree with this.
"Cambridge educated" is as nice an oxymoron as you'll meet on a May morning. Otherwise it is shit.
“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.
Or why anti abortion protestors should not be banned from anywhere within a million miles of an abortion clinic.
Some free speech for those who hold a minority view is more equal than others
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.
Gyles Brandreth is great, a brilliant raconteur and very funny man, I have seen him live
Indeed, they named St Gyles Cathedral in his honour, you know!
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 agree with this.
"Cambridge educated" is as nice an oxymoron as you'll meet on a May morning. Otherwise it is shit.
“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.”
But how do protest about a fat gropey incestuous pedo with dignity and respect?
“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.”
You may protest in precisely the manner that we want you to protest.
Fucking pathetic.
Including turning their back on the Queen's coffin next week and being disrespectful as the funeral procession passes? Even if you think you can be as disrespectful as you like at the King's accession ceremonies, there has to be a limit surely?
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.
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.
Gyles Brandreth is great, a brilliant raconteur and very funny man, I have seen him live
His live experience is second only to Elvis in vegas.
My own view on the Queen is that her death is sad, but I don't grieve over it. 96 is a good age, and hers was a life well-lived.
Charles is probably not a man I'd have much in common with, but I think he'll be okay, and thankfully, Andrew is nowhere near in a position to inherit the throne.
“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.
Or why anti abortion protestors should not be banned from anywhere within a million miles of an abortion clinic.
Some free speech for those who hold a minority view is more equal than others
Indeed. As I mentioned, I'm against people being arrested for this stuff but the blatant hypocrisy of the people moaning about it means I have no sympathy. They'd be the first to moan about Gammon Daily Mail refers whingeing if the shoe was on the other foot.
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.
Gyles Brandreth is great, a brilliant raconteur and very funny man, I have seen him live
Indeed, they named St Gyles Cathedral in his honour, you know!
Amidst the orgy of regalia and members of the public waiting hours to walk past her majesties coffin spare a thought for the poor reporters having to ask yet more vacuous questions and the behind the scenes staff ringing around to find people like Babs who once served up a cream tea to the Queen . The big question , did her majesty stick the jam or cream on first .
Am I the only one now wondering whether this is now just all a bit too much . This is not written by some rabid Republican , I’m okay with the monarchy , was a huge fan of Diana and liked the Queen .
Perhaps it’s the age we live in , with the 24 hour media and age of the internet but I think even her majesty might now be saying , enough already !
It is too much. Unfortunately I think we all knew it was coming.
Outside of the main broadcast stations (particularly the BBC) and the news websites you can however manage to get some time away from it all. Away from that, there are tributes in shops, on billboards etc but I haven’t found them universal and they’re not too pervasive.
I think we in particular notice it more because we all take interest in politics and therefore gravitate to news channels and the media that this has taken over. But everyone will be suffering to some degree!
“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.”
You may protest in precisely the manner that we want you to protest.
Fucking pathetic.
Including turning their back on the Queen's coffin next week and being disrespectful as the funeral procession passes? Even if you think you can be as disrespectful as you like at the King's accession ceremonies, there has to be a limit surely?
If someone wishes to learn his back, let him. It says infinitely more about him than it does about the Queen.
Remember French officers turning their backs on Wellington at a ball in Paris, and the embarrassed hostess apologising to him:
"It is no matter. I am used to seeing their backs."
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.
Gyles Brandreth is great, a brilliant raconteur and very funny man, I have seen him live
Indeed, they named St Gyles Cathedral in his honour, you know!
“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.”
You may protest in precisely the manner that we want you to protest.
Fucking pathetic.
Including turning their back on the Queen's coffin next week and being disrespectful as the funeral procession passes? Even if you think you can be as disrespectful as you like at the King's accession ceremonies, there has to be a limit surely?
If someone wishes to learn his back, let him. It says infinitely more about him than it does about the Queen.
Remember French officers turning their backs on Wellington at a ball in Paris, and the embarrassed hostess apologising to him:
"It is no matter. I am used to seeing their backs."
Though even if the police did not respond I expect the crowd would make their feelings felt very strongly
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
“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.”
You may protest in precisely the manner that we want you to protest.
Fucking pathetic.
Including turning their back on the Queen's coffin next week and being disrespectful as the funeral procession passes? Even if you think you can be as disrespectful as you like at the King's accession ceremonies, there has to be a limit surely?
If someone wishes to learn his back, let him. It says infinitely more about him than it does about the Queen.
Remember French officers turning their backs on Wellington at a ball in Paris, and the embarrassed hostess apologising to him:
"It is no matter. I am used to seeing their backs."
Though even if the police did not respond I expect the crowd would make their feelings felt very strongly
Shouldn't the police thus be policing the lynch mob?
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM? They have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
I posted on here about this, before.
It’s wrong.
We need to change the law on this - a new PM should trigger an election. The PM role has become far more powerful than in the past and our constitution should demand that they have a personal mandate.
“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.
I disagree (in part). The reaction to dissent has been unacceptable, but complaining about the 'using the period to cement Charles' accession as King' as being wrong just seems silly to me. The period is supposed to be about cementing the accession, that's why the new monarch is supposed to do so many things in the public eye, it's why we have the concept of immediate succession, to present a fait accompli. That the state is not rocking, it is already stabilised.
Anyone complaining the new king is promoted a lot in the mourning events seems to be deliberately missing that that aspect is not hidden, it isn't unexpected.
It seems to be a complaint that the state did not wait for a full debate on its own continuation, but instead just carried on as if nothing had changed. Well, of course it did, that's why we have this system. No one promised there'd be space for a frank discussion before he was proclaimed king. People are free to discuss what to do afterwards (if the police are not being foolish).
In today's speech in Westminster Hall, the king went on about the past of that hall, Parliament's traditions, and the "first Elizabeth". No reference to the first Charles then, or how Parliament dealt with that character - in that very same room?
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
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.
I think we'll hear him refer to her an awful lot in his speeches for years. 'By the example of dear mama'.
Politico.com - ‘The environment is upside down’: Why Dems are winning the culture wars
It’s already the consensus that abortion is going to be a good issue for Democrats in November.
What’s only now becoming clear — as Republicans scrub their campaign websites of prior positions on abortion and labor to turn the focus of the midterms back to President Joe Biden and the economy — is just how much the issue is altering the GOP’s standard playbook.
For the first time in years, Republican and Democratic political professionals are preparing for a general election campaign in which Democrats — not Republicans — may be winning the culture wars, a wholesale reversal of the traditional political landscape that is poised to reshape the midterms and the run-up to 2024.
“The environment is upside down,” said Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. “The intensity has been reversed.”
It isn’t just abortion. Less than 20 years after conservatives used ballot measures against same-sex marriage to boost voter turnout in 11 states, public sentiment has shifted on the issue so dramatically that Democrats are poised to force a vote on legislation to protect same-sex marriage to try to damage Republican candidates. Following the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Democrats from Georgia and Wisconsin to Illinois and California are running ads supporting gun restrictions, once viewed as a liability for the left, while openly engaging Republicans on crime. . . .
That’s a far cry from the GOP’s one-time strength: campaigning on God, guns and gays. It was only a year ago that the cultural flashpoints in American politics appeared much more favorable to the GOP, with Republicans driving a flurry of news cycles on mask mandates, critical race theory, transgender student athletes and the perceived excesses of social media and big tech. . . .
But just as Democrats saw the politics of guns begin to shift in 2018 — when candidates favoring restrictions on firearms prevailed in some congressional swing districts — the rejection of an anti-abortion ballot measure in Kansas and Democratic over-performances in special elections in Nebraska, Minnesota and New York this summer revealed the opening for them in Roe. . . .
For Republicans, the toxicity of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade was not singularly in the unpopularity of the decision, but in its undercutting of Republican efforts to brand Democrats as extreme. At the base of every non-economic attack Republicans leveled at Democrats — from crime to immigration and education — was the idea that the left was out of touch. But Roe, supported by a majority of Americans — including independents critical in a midterm election — was a reminder that on one of the most salient issues of the midterms, Democrats were in the mainstream. . . .
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.
Society is ageing, perhaps grey monarchs is what reflects it best?
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.
Society is ageing, perhaps grey monarchs is what reflects it best?
Duke of Kent i say, go for the cartoonishly inbred look at the top
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
In today's speech in Westminster Hall, the king went on about the past of that hall, Parliament's traditions, and the "first Elizabeth". No reference to the first Charles then, or how Parliament dealt with that character - in that very same room?
There was mention of the Glorious Revolution by the Speaker
In today's speech in Westminster Hall, the king went on about the past of that hall, Parliament's traditions, and the "first Elizabeth". No reference to the first Charles then, or how Parliament dealt with that character - in that very same room?
Well, the Speaker did mention the 88/89 revolution, which was marginally cheeky.
I love the plaques in that room. They have no rhyme or reason to them. You pass one saying Mandela gave a speech, then another about some dude tried for treason who was acquitted, then the high court for Charles I.
I've always enjoyed that Parliament has a statue of Cromwell outside it and is right near King Charles Street.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
With the passage of time and benefit of hindsight would it be fair to say the electorate do, in fact, elect complete duffers from time to time? We're not great judges of character, temperament or ability, unfortunately (nor are political parties it seems, either).
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He was elected by Divine Right of the Labour Party, without a contest
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.
Makes perfect sense. It's all going Pete Tong for Vlad.
At the time of the Azerbaijan-Armenia war a few years ago it all felt a bit surreal, since wars which resulted in territorial changes don't feel like the done thing in Europe anymore (or Europe adjacent). Boy has that misconception been disabused lately.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
No it isn't, they also get grand Palaces to live in, round the clock protection and motorcades, regular overseas travel and to meet celebrities and politicians and leaders from all over the world. They get perks with the service to the nation too
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
With the passage of time and benefit of hindsight would it be fair to say the electorate do, in fact, elect complete duffers from time to time? We're not great judges of character, temperament or ability, unfortunately (nor are political parties it seems, either).
Yes that would be fair. We also turn our back on some complete shit too, like Brown. Old Gordy got 7% more than the republican sentiment here tbf to him, so he's not as unpopular as that concept. Just.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He was elected by Divine Right of the Labour Party, without a contest
They passed over 146 Roman Catholics and Female Humans to get to him
Also I am probably in a minority of people who have watched zero news since her death was announced.
I’ve been socialising all weekend (long planned), watching the cricket and have found it fairly easy to avoid the mawkishness, vacuous rolling news and silly trivia.
Oddly, people have only mentioned it only very sporadically.
I have been surprised about how reasonable the government has behaved, avoiding mandating a funereal lockdown.
The Premier League’s decision this weekend was bizarre, but it ended looking rather silly once all other major sports continued.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
He made us pay for his ironing and called a nice old lady a bigot. He's worse than Hitler.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
Sadly not. I fear, in real life, support for an institution would wane a bit if its memebrs were deliberately jumping ship all the time though.
But perhaps we'd get back to the proper jacobean line.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
No it isn't, they also get grand Palaces to live in, round the clock protection and motorcades, regular overseas travel and to meet celebrities and politicians and leaders from all over the world. They get perks with the service to the nation too
You can achieve similarly by being a rock star or leader of a cocaine cartel. None of those routes riches sound great to me. Privacy is more valuable than diamonds.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
No it isn't, they also get grand Palaces to live in, round the clock protection and motorcades, regular overseas travel and to meet celebrities and politicians and leaders from all over the world. They get perks with the service to the nation too
You can achieve similarly by being a rock star or leader of a cocaine cartel. None of those routes riches sound great to me. Privacy is more valuable than diamonds.
I doubt any of the royal family would ever make it as a rock star and leading a cocaine cartel can also lead to jail
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
Sadly not. I fear, in real life, support for an institution would wane a bit if its memebrs were deliberately jumping ship all the time though.
But perhaps we'd get back to the proper jacobean line.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
Sadly not. I fear, in real life, support for an institution would wane a bit if its memebrs were deliberately jumping ship all the time though.
But perhaps we'd get back to the proper jacobean line.
In King Ralph the entire royal family is electrocuted while having their photo taken. So the new King ends up being an American lounge singer played by John Goodman whose grandmother had a brief affair with a royal while working as a waitress that produced a lovechild
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
The racial divide is interesting too, with non-whites fairly evenly split and whites overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the Monarchy.
Politico.com - ‘The environment is upside down’: Why Dems are winning the culture wars
It’s already the consensus that abortion is going to be a good issue for Democrats in November.
What’s only now becoming clear — as Republicans scrub their campaign websites of prior positions on abortion and labor to turn the focus of the midterms back to President Joe Biden and the economy — is just how much the issue is altering the GOP’s standard playbook.
For the first time in years, Republican and Democratic political professionals are preparing for a general election campaign in which Democrats — not Republicans — may be winning the culture wars, a wholesale reversal of the traditional political landscape that is poised to reshape the midterms and the run-up to 2024.
“The environment is upside down,” said Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. “The intensity has been reversed.”
It isn’t just abortion. Less than 20 years after conservatives used ballot measures against same-sex marriage to boost voter turnout in 11 states, public sentiment has shifted on the issue so dramatically that Democrats are poised to force a vote on legislation to protect same-sex marriage to try to damage Republican candidates. Following the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Democrats from Georgia and Wisconsin to Illinois and California are running ads supporting gun restrictions, once viewed as a liability for the left, while openly engaging Republicans on crime. . . .
That’s a far cry from the GOP’s one-time strength: campaigning on God, guns and gays. It was only a year ago that the cultural flashpoints in American politics appeared much more favorable to the GOP, with Republicans driving a flurry of news cycles on mask mandates, critical race theory, transgender student athletes and the perceived excesses of social media and big tech. . . .
But just as Democrats saw the politics of guns begin to shift in 2018 — when candidates favoring restrictions on firearms prevailed in some congressional swing districts — the rejection of an anti-abortion ballot measure in Kansas and Democratic over-performances in special elections in Nebraska, Minnesota and New York this summer revealed the opening for them in Roe. . . .
For Republicans, the toxicity of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade was not singularly in the unpopularity of the decision, but in its undercutting of Republican efforts to brand Democrats as extreme. At the base of every non-economic attack Republicans leveled at Democrats — from crime to immigration and education — was the idea that the left was out of touch. But Roe, supported by a majority of Americans — including independents critical in a midterm election — was a reminder that on one of the most salient issues of the midterms, Democrats were in the mainstream. . . .
There is a very good piece by Nate Cohn in the NYT saying how the abortion issue is leading to problems in the opinion polls because it's leading to more fired up Democrats and conversely more GOP voters refusing to comment. He reckons the Senate is a knife edge.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would
collapse on its own.
Good post. I’m profoundly unkeen on the message that unearned privilege sends: we are supposed to be a meritocracy. But, the royals are far from the only constituency whose privilege is unearned.
Right now, I just don’t see the appeal of King Charles. Are large proportions of the country excited about it?
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
Sadly not. I fear, in real life, support for an institution would wane a bit if its memebrs were deliberately jumping ship all the time though.
But perhaps we'd get back to the proper jacobean line.
If we go back to Henry VIII will and follow it via his chosen line, after Elizabeth we go to Henry's younger sister Mary Queen of France and the current heir is Lady Caroline Child Villiers daughter of the 8th earl of Jersey
In this line in 1701 we would have crowned King Scroop
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
He made us pay for his ironing and called a nice old lady a bigot. He's worse than Hitler.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
E8 abdicated for himself and his descendants, if any. (S1.2, Abdication Act 1936.) Include the same subsection with the words "if any" removed. There was something in another subsection about the "next in succession", but if Parliament can include that in an Act it can also exclude it. Better still, just abolish the f***ing monarchy. As you well know, it was done before.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would
collapse on its own.
Good post. I’m profoundly unkeen on the message that unearned privilege sends: we are supposed to be a meritocracy. But, the royals are far from the only constituency whose privilege is unearned.
Right now, I just don’t see the appeal of King Charles. Are large proportions of the country excited about it?
We aren't a nation built solely on supposed meritocracy and never have been. We are a nation built on tradition, crown and heritage and a welfare state for those who have not had success in their lives.
If you want a nation which is a republic and really built on so called meritocracy and raw capitalism where if you are successful you can have as much wealth as you want with very little state interference and if you aren't you can fall into dire poverty, then move to the USA!
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...
“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.
Or why anti abortion protestors should not be banned from anywhere within a million miles of an abortion clinic.
Some free speech for those who hold a minority view is more equal than others
Indeed. As I mentioned, I'm against people being arrested for this stuff but the blatant hypocrisy of the people moaning about it means I have no sympathy. They'd be the first to moan about Gammon Daily Mail refers whingeing if the shoe was on the other foot.
Yes, apart from feeling sympathy with the family, I've no interest in any aspect of the mourning period, but I think people who want to see the funeral carriage and mourn shouldn't really be gratuitously upset by hecklers shouting abuse. Giving sirtime to people who want to abolish the monarchy, though, absolutely. It's the difference between freedom of expression and freedom for bad manners.
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
No it isn't, they also get grand Palaces to live in, round the clock protection and motorcades, regular overseas travel and to meet celebrities and politicians and leaders from all over the world. They get perks with the service to the nation too
You can achieve similarly by being a rock star or leader of a cocaine cartel. None of those routes riches sound great to me. Privacy is more valuable than diamonds.
I doubt any of the royal family would ever make it as a rock star and leading a cocaine cartel can also lead to jail
Princess Anne was a brilliant horsewoman - had she chosen a sport more popular and exciting than eventing, she might have grown rich through that. Tennis perhaps?
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
He made us pay for his ironing and called a nice old lady a bigot. He's worse than Hitler.
He was right about Mrs Duffy. She was a bigot.
Yet once he lost Mrs Duffy he swiftly lost the nation too
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
E8 abdicated for himself and his descendants, if any. (S1.2, Abdication Act 1936.) Include the same subsection with the words "if any" removed. There was something in another subsection about the "next in succession", but if Parliament can include that in an Act it can also exclude it. Better still, just abolish the f***ing monarchy. As you well know, it was done before.
HUYFD's comment has now set up an image in my mind of all the royal family becoming rock stars, leading cocaine cartels and then going to jail, but in the garish tones of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, in spandex and under theatre lights.
The sheer quantity of the royal coverage is beginning to beginning to spin the head like an LSD trip. The room spins and a giant policeman shaped like a mushroom appears, threatening arrest. Alice and the rabbit run down the corridor.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
He made us pay for his ironing and called a nice old lady a bigot. He's worse than Hitler.
He was right about Mrs Duffy. She was a bigot.
So he was a liar when he said he realised she wasn't? Not sure that really helps his case as a leader.
For what it's worth I didn't think Brown was that bad, but then I disliked Blair's smarm quite a bit.
I'm going to London with a banner saying 'Nobody elected King Charles III, take back control from our unelected rulers.'
Yes, I don't think anyone realised before that no one elected him.
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It also begs the obvious point, how many members of the general public elected Liz Truss or Gordon Brown PM and they have far more power over our lives than King Charles as ceremonial head of state does
81,000 more voted for Truss than Brown. Brown became PM without a single vote being cast by anyone for him, anywhere. He didnt even have people in fancy clothes proclaim him, he just sort of turned up like a mystery turd in an infant school play
Individual CLPs nominated Brown following hundreds of local votes. It would not be hard for the total number of votes exceeded those of Truss.
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
Yes he was ace. Thats why he got such a massive endorsement from the electorate.
He didn’t lie to HM Queen and break his own law. He didn’t rack up 100bn of debt on his second day in the job. He had the wisdom not to call an early election and didn’t destroy his own administration by calling and losing a referendum.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
He made us pay for his ironing and called a nice old lady a bigot. He's worse than Hitler.
Interesting FT front page. Whilst the whole country watches the Queen's last procession and funeral, Truss and Kwasi are planning massive changes to the Treasury.
If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?
I am anti monarchy completely. Sadly the republicans have a worse deal so I would never vote against the monarcy else we might get president johnson, farage or shudders blair
A year from now, I expect the 22% will increase. Doubt republicanism will be a majority view, any time soon, though.
If republicans cannot even get above 22% now Charles and Camilla have replaced the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh they may as well give up, especially with William and Kate to come
It’s an old poll from around the time of the Jubilee, but I was surprised it was so high. I always assumed republicanism was a rare as chicken’s teeth in this country.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It's a curious mix, political alliances. You have monarchists of the (rare) divine right type nonsense, and traditionalists, the 'ain't worth the bother' crowd and so on, and on the republican side you've got the ideologues furious at unearned privilege, to the 'it ain't fair on them' people, the 'not the modern sort of thing' approach.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
No, it would just go down the line of succession to the next person willing to do the role. Have you not seen King Ralph?
E8 abdicated for himself and his descendants, if any. (S1.2, Abdication Act 1936.) Include the same subsection with the words "if any" removed. There was something in another subsection about the "next in succession", but if Parliament can include that in an Act it can also exclude it. Better still, just abolish the f***ing monarchy. As you well know, it was done before.
Under Cromwell and what a disaster that was
Was it? He unified these islands under one government, his troops had successes overseas and established some early imperial possessions (albeit not the one intended), things you seem like you'd applaud, and maintained a stable peace as a result (ok, peace by the sword anyway).
If he had lived another 10-15 years, or had a more suitable heir, who knows, we might have been a republic today (or a de facto monarchy masquerading as one).
Oh. Now, this is interesting. The military turning against Vlad. Silently stopping this madness??
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 3h This is a rather extraordinary claim that is being made today by the Ukrainians and some western intelligence--that Russia, in the midst of the Kharkiv collapse, has ceased sending reinforcements to its struggling army in Ukraine.
Actually I think I regret my last post. Edward is a chap who has just lost his mum. It’s a bit scummy posting about his medals, even if the absurdity is amusing. I wouldn’t say anything if I was witnessing it in person and I should extend the same courtesy online. Maybe wait until after the funeral, then rip the piss.
I’d delete my post if I could. Sadly I’m out of time.
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.
hence why I always denounce necrophilia, bestiality and the missionary position nods
Actually I think I regret my last post. He’s a chap who has just lost his mum. It’s a bit scummy posting about his medals, even if the absurdity is amusing.
I’d delete my post if I could.
It is not his fault he is expected to dress up like this to be honest.
If the monarchy is so popular, let us have a plebiscite on it, why are monarchists so afraid of a little democracy?
I am anti monarchy completely. Sadly the republicans have a worse deal so I would never vote against the monarcy else we might get president johnson, farage or shudders blair
Of course if we had that then Boris and Blair would lie in State when they died and we would file past their coffins before their State Funerals. That is automatic for US Presidents for example, only rare for PMs who have to be truly great like Churchill and Gladstone
Actually I think I regret my last post. He’s a chap who has just lost his mum. It’s a bit scummy posting about his medals, even if the absurdity is amusing.
I’d delete my post if I could.
It is not his fault he is expected to dress up like this to be honest.
The public expect it.
Look, if I must live under aristocratic elites the least they can do is dress like prats in public for me.
Comments
Am I the only one now wondering whether this is now just all a bit too much . This is not written by some rabid Republican , I’m okay with the monarchy , was a huge fan of Diana and liked the Queen .
Perhaps it’s the age we live in , with the 24 hour media and age of the internet but I think even her majesty might now be saying , enough already !
Fucking pathetic.
Some free speech for those who hold a minority view is more equal than others
Charles is probably not a man I'd have much in common with, but I think he'll be okay, and thankfully, Andrew is nowhere near in a position to inherit the throne.
Outside of the main broadcast stations (particularly the BBC) and the news websites you can however manage to get some time away from it all. Away from that, there are tributes in shops, on billboards etc but I haven’t found them universal and they’re not too pervasive.
I think we in particular notice it more because we all take interest in politics and therefore gravitate to news channels and the media that this has taken over. But everyone will be suffering to some degree!
Remember French officers turning their backs on Wellington at a ball in Paris, and the embarrassed hostess apologising to him:
"It is no matter. I am used to seeing their backs."
Given the levels of support it's pretty clear most people are ok with (or do not care about) the Head of State not being elected. I'd focus on the unearned privilege aspect, point to sillier things Charles has said or done. Pointing out the undemocratic aspect just seems to make people shrug, since they already get that part.
It’s wrong.
We need to change the law on this - a new PM should trigger an election. The PM role has become far more powerful than in the past and our constitution should demand that they have a personal mandate.
Anyone complaining the new king is promoted a lot in the mourning events seems to be deliberately missing that that aspect is not hidden, it isn't unexpected.
It seems to be a complaint that the state did not wait for a full debate on its own continuation, but instead just carried on as if nothing had changed. Well, of course it did, that's why we have this system. No one promised there'd be space for a frank discussion before he was proclaimed king. People are free to discuss what to do afterwards (if the police are not being foolish).
Politico.com - ‘The environment is upside down’: Why Dems are winning the culture wars
It’s already the consensus that abortion is going to be a good issue for Democrats in November.
What’s only now becoming clear — as Republicans scrub their campaign websites of prior positions on abortion and labor to turn the focus of the midterms back to President Joe Biden and the economy — is just how much the issue is altering the GOP’s standard playbook.
For the first time in years, Republican and Democratic political professionals are preparing for a general election campaign in which Democrats — not Republicans — may be winning the culture wars, a wholesale reversal of the traditional political landscape that is poised to reshape the midterms and the run-up to 2024.
“The environment is upside down,” said Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. “The intensity has been reversed.”
It isn’t just abortion. Less than 20 years after conservatives used ballot measures against same-sex marriage to boost voter turnout in 11 states, public sentiment has shifted on the issue so dramatically that Democrats are poised to force a vote on legislation to protect same-sex marriage to try to damage Republican candidates. Following the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Democrats from Georgia and Wisconsin to Illinois and California are running ads supporting gun restrictions, once viewed as a liability for the left, while openly engaging Republicans on crime. . . .
That’s a far cry from the GOP’s one-time strength: campaigning on God, guns and gays. It was only a year ago that the cultural flashpoints in American politics appeared much more favorable to the GOP, with Republicans driving a flurry of news cycles on mask mandates, critical race theory, transgender student athletes and the perceived excesses of social media and big tech. . . .
But just as Democrats saw the politics of guns begin to shift in 2018 — when candidates favoring restrictions on firearms prevailed in some congressional swing districts — the rejection of an anti-abortion ballot measure in Kansas and Democratic over-performances in special elections in Nebraska, Minnesota and New York this summer revealed the opening for them in Roe. . . .
For Republicans, the toxicity of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade was not singularly in the unpopularity of the decision, but in its undercutting of Republican efforts to brand Democrats as extreme. At the base of every non-economic attack Republicans leveled at Democrats — from crime to immigration and education — was the idea that the left was out of touch. But Roe, supported by a majority of Americans — including independents critical in a midterm election — was a reminder that on one of the most salient issues of the midterms, Democrats were in the mainstream. . . .
Brown still better than anyone that followed.
I love the plaques in that room. They have no rhyme or reason to them. You pass one saying Mandela gave a speech, then another about some dude tried for treason who was acquitted, then the high court for Charles I.
I've always enjoyed that Parliament has a statue of Cromwell outside it and is right near King Charles Street.
I would favour moving on from the monarchy now, it seems an outdated institution, although the Queen played a remarkable innings.
Are Chaz, Cammy, Wills and Kate really going to be popular as kings and queens? I’m not sure.
Moreover, it’s cruelty of the highest order having that goldfish bowl cast over baby George all his life. The whole idea is inhumane.
It’s a low bar,but he’s better than what followed.
I’ve been socialising all weekend (long planned), watching the cricket and have found it fairly easy to avoid the mawkishness, vacuous rolling news and silly trivia.
Oddly, people have only mentioned it only very sporadically.
I have been surprised about how reasonable the government has behaved, avoiding mandating a funereal lockdown.
The Premier League’s decision this weekend was bizarre, but it ended looking rather silly once all other major sports continued.
Ultimately, even if it feels hard, we can break away from our unbringings. A few abdications for sake of a private life and the institution would collapse on its own.
But perhaps we'd get back to the proper jacobean line.
https://unherd.com/thepost/did-josh-hawley-just-call-for-a-christian-revolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ralph
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9411241/Ethnic-minority-voters-believe-royal-family-racist-YouGov-poll-reveals.html
Right now, I just don’t see the appeal of King Charles. Are large proportions of the country excited about it?
https://twitter.com/Parody_PM/status/1569411108229857281/photo/1
In this line in 1701 we would have crowned King Scroop
Include the same subsection with the words "if any" removed.
There was something in another subsection about the "next in succession", but if Parliament can include that in an Act it can also exclude it.
Better still, just abolish the f***ing monarchy.
As you well know, it was done before.
If you want a nation which is a republic and really built on so called meritocracy and raw capitalism where if you are successful you can have as much wealth as you want with very little state interference and if you aren't you can fall into dire poverty, then move to the USA!
The sheer quantity of the royal coverage is beginning to beginning to spin the head like an LSD trip. The room spins and a giant policeman shaped like a mushroom appears, threatening arrest. Alice and the rabbit run down the corridor.
For what it's worth I didn't think Brown was that bad, but then I disliked Blair's smarm quite a bit.
If he had lived another 10-15 years, or had a more suitable heir, who knows, we might have been a republic today (or a de facto monarchy masquerading as one).
Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
·
3h
This is a rather extraordinary claim that is being made today by the Ukrainians and some western intelligence--that Russia, in the midst of the Kharkiv collapse, has ceased sending reinforcements to its struggling army in Ukraine.
Actually I think I regret my last post. Edward is a chap who has just lost his mum. It’s a bit scummy posting about his medals, even if the absurdity is amusing. I wouldn’t say anything if I was witnessing it in person and I should extend the same courtesy online. Maybe wait until after the funeral, then rip the piss.
I’d delete my post if I could. Sadly I’m out of time.
The public expect it.