It was always going to be the case surely that support for the monarchy would fall off a bit following the death of the Queen. She had a very special appeal built up over the decades and this was something that she could not pass on to her firstborn.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.
I worked with Henry Kissinger. In retrospect, I shouldn't have. Deep in the foreign policy establishment as I was, it seemed like a kind of validation. He was the guy we discussed around our dining room table when I was growing up. He was undoubtedly brilliant. He picked me.
The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.
I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.
The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.
I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;
It’s not convincing, is it?
The problem, as I've said before, is politicians are either lawyers or are absorbed into the legal mindset.
This means that they believe in the absolute primacy of the legal process (obvious caveat - they control it). So the idea that there is a "safe"/"safety deposit box" they can't open with a court order is something like unthinkable.
"The truth is much uglier, much more mixed. I wish we all had the moral clarity and knowledge of history to view the bad as bad and the good as good and recognize they could exist side by side in a single individual."
Eh? No. No, it won’t.
The fact that despite the efforts of the Campaign Group Republic more people voted for Corbyn to become PM even in 2019 than would vote to replace the monarchy with a President shows how little support there is for it in the UK
It is hardly that extreme a position
And Plaid sweep Wales, the Nats Scotland but the DUP and the Shinners still snarl at each other in Norn!
I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.
In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.
He tactlessly asked a very seriously injured outrider, 'do you like your work?'
Well that's one way to put it. Others might call it an accident.
They both strike me as vain enough not to notice the fakery.
'She's hard of thinking.'
(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)
To alter the head of state arrangement there are two quite separate questions: What is the public mood; and the political numbers.
To get to the republican goal several things need to happen, and only Labour can even think of it. It is absolute no go area for Tories.
1) It requires a mandate, so must be in a manifesto
2) It requires a party with this manifesto to win
3) It requires a referendum, and to win,
4) It required enacting.
Support for the monarchy is across the central political spectrum, increasing with age. Older northern WWC are as loyal in this as Sussex flower arrangers.
Elections turn on a % of people vote switching. A few % points means win or lose. Even if only 10% of voters would switch to support the monarchy, the cause and the election is lost. So in any currently foreseeable case, it will not be in a manifesto of any party trying to win.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12
Edit - and on checking I'm wrong about Pakistan. Ireland was the one I was thinking of, but I can't explain why I thought they were similar.
The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
Shame about the others but omelettes and eggs.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.
It’s work. It’s hard. That’s life
But that doesn't change what they did. Or the exemplary issue of their roles in government at the time, Ms F admittedly rather less than Mr C.
There is enough wrong in the world without institutionalising snobbery.
Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.
Meanwhile, the national figures are 47-30-9.
Chopper's Politics Newsletter: Nigel Farage considering 'volcanic' return to politics 💥
"If I were to, there would be a short term volcanic eruption. The wokerarti would be on the smelling salts. Even the vegan community might go for a bacon sandwich."
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
More joy in heaven etc.
There is a lot of State property that is owned by "The Crown" that the Royals themselves effectively can't touch.
Marriage is a human, not religious invention.