Not only that, and following on from your earlier point, she doesn't immediately look like someone off games for another month but I suppose if you are the next queen then you can't be too careful.
BREAKING - Kate says she experimented with editing her amateur photo
Thought it as Will's photo? They need to get the story straight.
I don't know what's behind this (and hope nothing serious) but the sheer ineptitude in the handling of this is quite hilarious. It's like the Thick of It mixed with Alan Partridge.
ETA: Also, this scandal needs a name. Hand-job-gate?
Like.
Apparently we can't use 'Photoshop Gate':
ianVisits @ianvisits · 2h Please remember that Adobe's brand guidelines are clear that you shouldn't say that #KateMiddleton was photoshopped -- you should instead say that The Princess of Wales was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
I think we should elect a President, but candidates can only come from actors who have played Doctor Who on television.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Nope - it’s like democracy - potentially not the best idea but better than the other alternatives.
Although I would prefer our Royal Family to follow the Danish model rather than the current one and not “Lord” it quite so much
It all went wrong when Guthrum converted to Christianity.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Trouble is even the Tories on PB are talking about controlling who succeeds. Even HYUFD doesn't want certain Royals to succeed,which the law requires if a certain succession (no pun intended) of events happens.
It's all nonsense anyway. One moment James VII and II was King, divine right, all the dressings and garnishes. Next thing, it's all evaporated and someone else is It.
I favour a Republic, but I don't think there's a logical problem with a Constitutional Monarchy where divine right is junked and the legislature tries not to interfere in the succession, but will do so if they think it is necessary.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
I think we should elect a President, but candidates can only come from actors who have played Doctor Who on television.
Doctor Who, James Bond, or any dramatic depiction of a British Monarch on stage or screen.
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
I believe that March 27th is the latest that Parliament can be dissolved for a May 2nd election, so in practice the election would have to be announced a day or two before that so that the loose ends of the session could be dealt with.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
There is a series on Netflix that features role models* for an escape.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
I think we should elect a President, but candidates can only come from actors who have played Doctor Who on television.
Doctor Who, James Bond, or any dramatic depiction of a British Monarch on stage or screen.
We should have just started over with Claire Foy when the Queen died.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
Kate chose her future, whereas William was born into it and indoctrinated to accept it. I have more sympathy for those born into it than those who choose it by marriage.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
Is it possible Kate and Wills found the 'Kate is Dead' stuff a bit of a hoot and decided to photoshop Louis' hand to form the Tibetan symbol of the journey to the afterlife on purpose?
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
I mean, the Crown could arguably dissolve parliament and demand the army and police to back them in a military coup - no?
Again, if the British monarchy are so powerless and the head of state powers exist in other politicians anyway - why do we need them? And if they aren't powerless, and actually do have lots of powers invested in them - why is it acceptable for that to reside in people whose only qualification is their bloodline?
POTUS isn't supposed to have that power (for example Congress is supposed to be the body that declares war) - it has evolved into the role it currently has (arguably because nuclear weapons made it so). The other powers the executive branch has have been given to it by Congress, and Congress (and arguably SCOTUS) could take that away if they wished (at least 4 SCOTUS judges do seem up for destroying the modern US administrative state).
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
No, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to obey legal orders.
..do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Sweeping left-wing victory in Salzburg, with the resurgent communists neck and neck with the social democrats and the conservatives and far right far behind. Seems to have been entirely about the cost of living. The Communist rise is startling, from 1% to 12% last time to 23% this time - they seem to have adopted a sort of LibDem strategy of constant leafleting on local issues, plus some Corbynist personal frugalty (they donate their salaries to food banks).
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
It’s the main argument against monarchy that I’ll entertain. Not really bothered about the exclusionary/exclusive/heredity nature of it insofar as it impacts on me or my life, but more about how it affects the people involved psychologically.
BREAKING - Kate says she experimented with editing her amateur photo
Thought it as Will's photo? They need to get the story straight.
I don't know what's behind this (and hope nothing serious) but the sheer ineptitude in the handling of this is quite hilarious. It's like the Thick of It mixed with Alan Partridge.
ETA: Also, this scandal needs a name. Hand-job-gate?
Like.
Apparently we can't use 'Photoshop Gate':
ianVisits @ianvisits · 2h Please remember that Adobe's brand guidelines are clear that you shouldn't say that #KateMiddleton was photoshopped -- you should instead say that The Princess of Wales was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
I don't envy the royals - I agree that it must be awful to be one. But they could just abdicate, they have that choice and freedom (even if they are under pressure not to do it, they can). Not abdicating is as much of a choice as abdicating, and so they chose to perpetuate this awful system on themselves, their children and the country.
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
I believe that March 27th is the latest that Parliament can be dissolved for a May 2nd election, so in practice the election would have to be announced a day or two before that so that the loose ends of the session could be dealt with.
Tuesday March 26th, Easter adds 2 none working days to the calculation.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
Kate chose her future, whereas William was born into it and indoctrinated to accept it. I have more sympathy for those born into it than those who choose it by marriage.
Should we consider Kate as one of those mental fangirls who write to US lifers who’ve made clothes out of the skins of their murder victims and ends up marrying them?
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
I mean, the Crown could arguably dissolve parliament and demand the army and police to back them in a military coup - no?
Again, if the British monarchy are so powerless and the head of state powers exist in other politicians anyway - why do we need them? And if they aren't powerless, and actually do have lots of powers invested in them - why is it acceptable for that to reside in people whose only qualification is their bloodline?
POTUS isn't supposed to have that power (for example Congress is supposed to be the body that declares war) - it has evolved into the role it currently has (arguably because nuclear weapons made it so). The other powers the executive branch has have been given to it by Congress, and Congress (and arguably SCOTUS) could take that away if they wished (at least 4 SCOTUS judges do seem up for destroying the modern US administrative state).
I don't think so - the King can only act on the advice of his ministers. If they advise him to prorogue Parliament, then he can do it (in fact, he has to do it) but he can't wake up one morning and do it of his own volition.
Someone has to do the gig of being head of state - the question is, what powers should one individual have, and how can they use them? I think I prefer the UK emasculated version to the US power trip.
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
I believe that March 27th is the latest that Parliament can be dissolved for a May 2nd election, so in practice the election would have to be announced a day or two before that so that the loose ends of the session could be dealt with.
Tuesday March 26th, Easter adds 2 none working days to the calculation.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
Kate chose her future, whereas William was born into it and indoctrinated to accept it. I have more sympathy for those born into it than those who choose it by marriage.
She was very young when she was selected as a brood mare for the House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The true horror of what she was getting herself into probably wasn't apparent. Like Shamima Begum.
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
I believe that March 27th is the latest that Parliament can be dissolved for a May 2nd election, so in practice the election would have to be announced a day or two before that so that the loose ends of the session could be dealt with.
Tuesday March 26th, Easter adds 2 none working days to the calculation.
A dissolution ready reckoner for all possible election Thursdays:
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
It’s the main argument against monarchy that I’ll entertain. Not really bothered about the exclusionary/exclusive/heredity nature of it insofar as it impacts on me or my life, but more about how it affects the people involved psychologically.
Perhaps a slightly less mad way to do it (for the family themselves) would be to ask every child of the direct line of succession to do a ten-year stint before moving on to the next generation. So you have 10 years of KWIV, 10 years of KHIX, 10 years each of George, Charlotte and Louis, and ten years each for George's children.
They'll have a better idea of when they'll have the job, won't take it on at the death of their parent, will retire after doing a decade, and you don't have a spare who is initially vital, but then becomes surplus to requirements.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
No, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to obey legal orders.
..do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Thanks for the correction - but the defence is a bit thin, isn't it? Which run-of-the-mill junior army or navy officer is going to disobey or countermand an order from his ultimate commanding officer, or even have the knowledge to determine whether or not the order is legal?
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
Sweeping left-wing victory in Salzburg, with the resurgent communists neck and neck with the social democrats and the conservatives and far right far behind. Seems to have been entirely about the cost of living. The Communist rise is startling, from 1% to 12% last time to 23% this time - they seem to have adopted a sort of LibDem strategy of constant leafleting on local issues, plus some Corbynist personal frugalty (they donate their salaries to food banks).
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
I mean, the Crown could arguably dissolve parliament and demand the army and police to back them in a military coup - no?
Again, if the British monarchy are so powerless and the head of state powers exist in other politicians anyway - why do we need them? And if they aren't powerless, and actually do have lots of powers invested in them - why is it acceptable for that to reside in people whose only qualification is their bloodline?
POTUS isn't supposed to have that power (for example Congress is supposed to be the body that declares war) - it has evolved into the role it currently has (arguably because nuclear weapons made it so). The other powers the executive branch has have been given to it by Congress, and Congress (and arguably SCOTUS) could take that away if they wished (at least 4 SCOTUS judges do seem up for destroying the modern US administrative state).
I don't think so - the King can only act on the advice of his ministers. If they advise him to prorogue Parliament, then he can do it (in fact, he has to do it) but he can't wake up one morning and do it of his own volition.
Someone has to do the gig of being head of state - the question is, what powers should one individual have, and how can they use them? I think I prefer the UK emasculated version to the US power trip.
So what are those powers? Like, they have a final veto on legislation... And they open and close parliament? Give that job to the Speaker of the House - sorted. They're an MP, so they are elected. If you believe in representative democracy, then it's fine for the representatives to pick the Speaker and it still be democratic. Sorted. Again - if the head of state is to have power, the head of state should not be an inherited position. If it doesn't have power, then what does it matter if we get shift of the monarchy?
The PM and Cabinet basically have all the powers of a head of state already, so why does the monarchy need to exist?
When is the latest that a May election to coincide with the locals can be called? I assume that Sunak wouldn't want to do that, but I kind of feel now the more time he gives to Reform to campaign the worst things will be for him. I have to imagine more Tory MPs would now like an earlier election than not.
I believe that March 27th is the latest that Parliament can be dissolved for a May 2nd election, so in practice the election would have to be announced a day or two before that so that the loose ends of the session could be dealt with.
Tuesday March 26th, Easter adds 2 none working days to the calculation.
A dissolution ready reckoner for all possible election Thursdays:
Got to say I really think Lee should have waited until tomorrow - we haven’t even seen the polling on how unsuccessful the budget was at changing things round.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
No, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to obey legal orders.
..do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Thanks for the correction - but the defence is a bit thin, isn't it? Which run-of-the-mill junior army or navy officer is going to disobey or countermand an order from his ultimate commanding officer, or even have the knowledge to determine whether or not the order is legal?
It's potentially shaky - but at the same time, it's a principle deeply ingrained in the military. As Gen. Milley's account of events around Jan 6th makes clear.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
Yes. Our system entrusts finality to Parliament (actually the HoC), the Crown, Supreme Court and the Armed Forces. None so far, since about 1688, have wanted to test out which in the four sided baboon v badger contest would come out on top if pushed. Which is how and why our system sort of works. It's a sort of political mutually assured destruction.
BREAKING - Kate says she experimented with editing her amateur photo
Thought it as Will's photo? They need to get the story straight.
I don't know what's behind this (and hope nothing serious) but the sheer ineptitude in the handling of this is quite hilarious. It's like the Thick of It mixed with Alan Partridge.
ETA: Also, this scandal needs a name. Hand-job-gate?
Like.
Apparently we can't use 'Photoshop Gate':
ianVisits @ianvisits · 2h Please remember that Adobe's brand guidelines are clear that you shouldn't say that #KateMiddleton was photoshopped -- you should instead say that The Princess of Wales was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
Smartest thing that Harry and Meghan did was to get out.
I don't think anyone would be surprised by the Anderson news. He's very performative and unwilling to back down after all, so jumping ship escalates things and gives Reform a basis to claim serious party status.
And as with Ukip back in the day a lot if Tory MPs would prefer to be in Reform but aren't brave enough to do it, so a lot of the Tory members and press will be very happy about him digging the knife in to Rishi.
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
However, if you want an outside bet, might it be Boris? He doesn't have an obvious route back via the Tories, his clock is ticking (he's 62 this year), and the window is open for a realignment on the right.
Two questions.
1. Is Boris interested?
I'm sure he feels hard done by in being pushed out as PM, and would love to be vindicated by a return, but he bottled his one good chance for a comeback when Truss was pushed out.
2. Would Farage be happy to play second fiddle?
Farage absolutely hated the experience of having Carswell as a UKIP MP who wasn't willing to do exactly as he was told. Reform UK is the Farage ego vehicle, I don't think there's room for Boris's ego too.
On those (and we're talking hypotheticals here):
1. Who knows? He's interested in a comeback if it were handed on a plate, which is essentially his life's story, in no small way. But there isn't an easy path back now. Maybe he's happy earning big money making easy speeches and penning lazy articles. But I suspect not. He wants the limelight.
2. Yes, he would, to the right lead. As he did in the Brexit referendum.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
But this is it - why does the head of state have to be important? Why do the powers need to sit in a head of state?
The PM is already the "important" politician - there have been many complaints about how we are becoming more "presidential" in our treatment of PMs and campaigns and so on. If the concern is you'd be giving too much power to people if you got rid of the monarch - then that power should be decided by democratic will, not bloodline!
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
Head of State is the kind of dumb role-not-role where the Beeblebrox principle (anyone coveting the role is unsuitable by definition)applies, so doing it by accident of birth and being surrounded by a family that "gets it" is probably no worse than anything else.
But the British version is clearly placing excessive demands on flawed human beings. Is there any way to unwind that?
Ukip veteran: 'Anderson and Tice will be screaming at each other. Lee's staff will suddenly be dealing with the incompetence of Reform's staff and it will be like Carswell all over again.'
Got to say I really think Lee should have waited until tomorrow - we haven’t even seen the polling on how unsuccessful the budget was at changing things round.
Yes we have, actually. It made no detectable difference whatever.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
One compromise option would be to enter an element of democracy into a reformed monarchy.
Create a new elected head of state role, after the death of King Charles, with the same limited constitutional powers as the current king and national ownership of the palaces, crown estate etc. Continue to call the role "King/Queen". Then allow William to stand. He would almost certainly win by a landslide and would be largely unopposed by any serious contenders first time round. Meanwhile reform the civil list so that only the spouse, parents and direct descendants of the head of state benefit from the royal stuff.
Succession would occur on the death of the incumbent, unless overturned via a recall petition with a high bar (say 2 million votes), which would trigger a referendum with a 2/3 threshold. The royals would probably continue to win succession votes and avoid any recalls until and unless a wrongun turned up, at which point you would get meaningful opposition and potentially a new royal lineage.
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
Smartest thing that Harry and Meghan did was to get out.
Without their titles and his place in line of succession, which they haven't given up, Harry is only a minor army officer and Meghan a C- list actress
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
I think the Burkean response is the right one: This works for the Swiss, great, it has developed over centuries and they like it.
The UK also finds what we have, developed from about 600 CE, works for us too.
On the subject of Constitutional Monarchy versus Republicanism, it's worth considering that the British have an hereditary democratic head of state, whereas the Americans have an elected Absolute Monarch, with powers like those of an eighteenth century European King.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
Yes. Our system entrusts finality to Parliament (actually the HoC), the Crown, Supreme Court and the Armed Forces. None so far, since about 1688, have wanted to test out which in the four sided baboon v badger contest would come out on top if pushed. Which is how and why our system sort of works. It's a sort of political mutually assured destruction.
Some years back I was at a city dinner. Some of the Great and the Good at the table were very approving of the reported comments by a Cameron spad - that he couldn’t understand why he owed more to the welfare of U.K. citizens than someone in another country.
An HAC officer pranked them by suggesting that he liked this idea of DIY allegiances and implied that he was planning a coup as a way out of the then Bexit comedy.
Strangely, the suggestion that allegiance to *themselves* was optional was not met with enthusiasm.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
Kate chose her future, whereas William was born into it and indoctrinated to accept it. I have more sympathy for those born into it than those who choose it by marriage.
Yes, I feel pity for those born into it. A cruel life.
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
Why not the Dune system? Knife fights and strategic impregnation.
(It was incredible in IMAX - the Geidi Prime scenes were excellent)
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
The Irish President is himself an ex politician who was in the Dail, he has angered Israel with his Gaza comments and his wife angered Ukraine pushing for a peace deal with the Kremlin. He also brings in no real tourism, royal wedding, coronation or jubilee revenue and his successor is like to be Bertie Ahern, the Irish Blair and another ex politician
The whole "monarchy brings in tourist money" thing just isn't true. France has a huge number of tourists - even to the palaces that don't have living monarchs in them. London is a tourist magnet because it is arguably the cultural hub of the English speaking world - second possibly to NYC. It isn't dependent on the royals still existing. And hell, if Buckingham Palace was turned into a museum, I'm sure that would have a hell of a lot of tourists too. Lots of royal stuff that no longer functions as it does (the Tower of London, for example) is still of interest to tourists. A living, politically powerful, royal family is not necessary for that. And even if it was true - I don't care. It is morally abhorrent, I don't care if it makes money (although I don't believe it does).
Tourists can't even visit the Elysee Palace where Macron lives except on rare open days unlike Buckingham Palace
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
One compromise option would be to enter an element of democracy into a reformed monarchy.
Create a new elected head of state role, after the death of King Charles, with the same limited constitutional powers as the current king and national ownership of the palaces, crown estate etc. Continue to call the role "King/Queen". Then allow William to stand. He would almost certainly win by a landslide and would be largely unopposed by any serious contenders first time round. Meanwhile reform the civil list so that only the spouse, parents and direct descendants of the head of state benefit from the royal stuff.
Succession would occur on the death of the incumbent, unless overturned via a recall petition with a high bar (say 2 million votes), which would trigger a referendum with a 2/3 threshold. The royals would probably continue to win succession votes and avoid any recalls until and unless a wrongun turned up, at which point you would get meaningful opposition and potentially a new royal lineage.
Too many in thrall to the voodoo element of the monarchy (including the royals themselves I suspect), the grubby mechanics of the smelly socks having a say over it would absolutely murder the mystique.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
Smartest thing that Harry and Meghan did was to get out.
Without their titles and his place in line of succession, which they haven't given up, Harry is only a minor army officer and Meghan a C- list actress
At least Meghan hasnt got a husband committing adultery in broad daylight
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
Why not the Dune system? Knife fights and strategic impregnation.
(It was incredible in IMAX - the Geidi Prime scenes were excellent)
Restraining the British Empire at a cost of billions of dead, due to a fanatical death cult worshiping the new Sovereign might be seen as sub-optimal.
Poor old Herbert had to write Dune Messiah to spell it out.
I think some heads will explode if he includes the “Stilgar, check out Emperor Hitler’s high score, bro” scene.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
Jolly good luck to the nation that gets monarch Michael Martin, monarch John Bercow or even the generally suitable monarch Hoyle, who in the end found it impossible to keep out of politics, and was threatened with sacking because of it.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
One compromise option would be to enter an element of democracy into a reformed monarchy.
Create a new elected head of state role, after the death of King Charles, with the same limited constitutional powers as the current king and national ownership of the palaces, crown estate etc. Continue to call the role "King/Queen". Then allow William to stand. He would almost certainly win by a landslide and would be largely unopposed by any serious contenders first time round. Meanwhile reform the civil list so that only the spouse, parents and direct descendants of the head of state benefit from the royal stuff.
Succession would occur on the death of the incumbent, unless overturned via a recall petition with a high bar (say 2 million votes), which would trigger a referendum with a 2/3 threshold. The royals would probably continue to win succession votes and avoid any recalls until and unless a wrongun turned up, at which point you would get meaningful opposition and potentially a new royal lineage.
Too many in thrall to the voodoo element of the monarchy (including the royals themselves I suspect), the grubby mechanics of the smelly socks having a say over it would absolutely murder the mystique.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
The Irish President is himself an ex politician who was in the Dail, he has angered Israel with his Gaza comments and his wife angered Ukraine pushing for a peace deal with the Kremlin. He also brings in no real tourism, royal wedding, coronation or jubilee revenue and his successor is like to be Bertie Ahern, the Irish Blair and another ex politician
The whole "monarchy brings in tourist money" thing just isn't true. France has a huge number of tourists - even to the palaces that don't have living monarchs in them. London is a tourist magnet because it is arguably the cultural hub of the English speaking world - second possibly to NYC. It isn't dependent on the royals still existing. And hell, if Buckingham Palace was turned into a museum, I'm sure that would have a hell of a lot of tourists too. Lots of royal stuff that no longer functions as it does (the Tower of London, for example) is still of interest to tourists. A living, politically powerful, royal family is not necessary for that. And even if it was true - I don't care. It is morally abhorrent, I don't care if it makes money (although I don't believe it does).
Tourists can't even visit the Elysee Palace where Macron lives except on rare open days unlike Buckingham Palace
The Palace of Versailles has ~15 million visitors annually. No monarchs to be seen.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
Smartest thing that Harry and Meghan did was to get out.
Without their titles and his place in line of succession, which they haven't given up, Harry is only a minor army officer and Meghan a C- list actress
At least Meghan hasnt got a husband committing adultery in broad daylight
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
To be fair, she really, really wanted the gig. That’s why she turned up to that student party in that transparent dress. To catch Will’s attention.
“Darling how’s that photo that proves you’re alive coming along?”
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
I actually feel sorry for Kate. There are obviously health issues and whatever the fuck is going on with slaphead. And she's just trapped and knows that a similar lifetime of fuckedupedness awaits all of her children. What fucking inescapable misery.
I agree. That's why those who are envious are so wrongheaded.
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
Smartest thing that Harry and Meghan did was to get out.
Without their titles and his place in line of succession, which they haven't given up, Harry is only a minor army officer and Meghan a C- list actress
Without her title and role as brood mare for the line of succession, Kate is only someone who’s crap at Photoshop.
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
What you want, as in this excellent wish list, and what you get can be different. I want Paul Waugh to be MP for Rochdale. What we got was George Galloway.
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Yes, I agree. But it's not obvious that random selection of head of state by accident of birth solves the problem - we could easily have seen Prince Andrew as next in line, for instance.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
Would King Prince Andrew necessarily be worse than President Donald Trump? I suggest not. The mitigation about the 'you could get anyone' approach of the monarchy is that you are very unlikely to get someone evil and competent, because there aren't very many of them. Much more likely to get someone lazy and bit dim - but such people, while not to be celebrated, can be managed in a way that they don't cause much actual harm. Whereas the evil and competent, while not numerous, tend to be disproportionately good at getting through any system which leaves power in any way up for grabs.
I’ve just finished, by the way, David Mitchell’s ‘Unruly’. I had been bought it as a present, and wasn’t wildly enthusiastic about reading it, but it was very good. I would recommend it to anyone left of HYUFD. I find David Mitchell quite funny, but I had expected it to be a tediously right-on media-luvvy’s view of why Britain is uniquely evil and shit. But it wasn’t. Or at least, it wasn’t solely that. Obviously it contained a fair dollop of that. But it actually gave me a slightly different way of looking at history, and about the monarchy, and how there were advantages in medieval times to the absolute certainty of knowing who the next in line was, however cretinous, over the almost certainty of some sort of civil war while the next king was chosen (as primogeniture didn’t really become accepted as the natural and only system until about, ooh, 1154.) And it was also very funny.
That’s not to argue for the continuation of the monarchy now, by the way. But it’s worth acknowledging that we got here for good reasons, or at least not-entirely-bad reasons.
The Ashfield seat is a bit of an odd one with an Independent who split the Labour vote and came second. The suggestion on WIki is that this independent is going to stand again which confuses matters somewhat but on current polling this looks like an easy Labour win, especially if Anderson, standing for Reform, splits the Tory vote to any extent.
So his political career was coming to an end anyway. Oh dear, never mind etc.
Comments
In 2020, Lee Anderson voted for the Recall of MPs (Change of Party Affiliation) Bill - which requires an MP to call a by-election if they defect.
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1767141305673568735
Apparently we can't use 'Photoshop Gate':
ianVisits
@ianvisits
·
2h
Please remember that Adobe's brand guidelines are clear that you shouldn't say that #KateMiddleton was photoshopped -- you should instead say that The Princess of Wales was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
https://twitter.com/ianvisits/status/1767106606745993405
He's getting some great press.
https://twitter.com/adi_aliza_dg/status/1767139846731030593
Who is the threat to women, again?
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
1m
It may not work, but defecting to Reform is Anderson’s best chance of holding Ashfield
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul
“5 more minutes, I’m just doing a bit of casual photoshopping on it, do you think they’ll notice?”
I mean, I’ll take the explanation at face value, because I can’t imagine any PR team being quite so inept.
https://twitter.com/RobsNotTweeting/status/1767139287387066471
*not necessarily good role models
It's a jail. A gilded one, but still a jail.
POTUS is head of the armed forces, can appoint judges, issue presidential decrees and get up to all sorts of mischief, whereas the UK monarch is trussed (so to speak) with all sorts of restrictions.
FWIW, I think the military thing is the most interesting. Our armed forces (and Police) swear loyalty to the Crown, as a concept embodying the State. In the US, they swear allegiance to their leader, the President. I think the latter makes an abuse of military power against the people much easier to organise and carry out.
Again, if the British monarchy are so powerless and the head of state powers exist in other politicians anyway - why do we need them? And if they aren't powerless, and actually do have lots of powers invested in them - why is it acceptable for that to reside in people whose only qualification is their bloodline?
POTUS isn't supposed to have that power (for example Congress is supposed to be the body that declares war) - it has evolved into the role it currently has (arguably because nuclear weapons made it so). The other powers the executive branch has have been given to it by Congress, and Congress (and arguably SCOTUS) could take that away if they wished (at least 4 SCOTUS judges do seem up for destroying the modern US administrative state).
..do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
https://www.heute.at/s/oevp-absturz-spoe-und-kpoe-jubeln-gruene-schlagen-fpoe-120024552
Some of us don’t sound like that, some of us sound like working class Northerners.
Lucky bastard.
It’s like losing your virginity to a prostitute.
If Farage comes back as leader I reckon they will do very well
Elections of 650 people simultaneously dilutes the toxic material. Election of precisely one person can, and will, give you a Donald Trump.
Someone has to do the gig of being head of state - the question is, what powers should one individual have, and how can they use them? I think I prefer the UK emasculated version to the US power trip.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9921/
"Dissolution is deemed to have occurred just after midnight at the start of the day", so I guess Monday would be the last sitting day.
They'll have a better idea of when they'll have the job, won't take it on at the death of their parent, will retire after doing a decade, and you don't have a spare who is initially vital, but then becomes surplus to requirements.
Don't change a system unless there is something much better available. At the moment I don't think there is.
Same story almost everywhere. Incumbent parties are getting hammered by whichever is the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Inflation does historically seem to make people aggressively radical (right or left) in a way that stagnation doesn't always manage.
Crack on with it before you go to single digits in the polls
Call the election now!
The PM and Cabinet basically have all the powers of a head of state already, so why does the monarchy need to exist?
As Gen. Milley's account of events around Jan 6th makes clear.
And as with Ukip back in the day a lot if Tory MPs would prefer to be in Reform but aren't brave enough to do it, so a lot of the Tory members and press will be very happy about him digging the knife in to Rishi.
I prefer the Swiss system - the Head of State is whoever is currently chair of the Council of Ministers (it rotates annually between them). That gives a political element so you don't get a random monarch, the annual rotation prevents a Trump-like personality cult, the cross-party nature of the Government prevents it becoming a political tool, and the official duties are performed with appropriate dignity without the flummery of titles and castles.
1. Who knows? He's interested in a comeback if it were handed on a plate, which is essentially his life's story, in no small way. But there isn't an easy path back now. Maybe he's happy earning big money making easy speeches and penning lazy articles. But I suspect not. He wants the limelight.
2. Yes, he would, to the right lead. As he did in the Brexit referendum.
But he's definitely lacking in allure. Even DuraAce might flinch in the face of such duty.
The PM is already the "important" politician - there have been many complaints about how we are becoming more "presidential" in our treatment of PMs and campaigns and so on. If the concern is you'd be giving too much power to people if you got rid of the monarch - then that power should be decided by democratic will, not bloodline!
But the British version is clearly placing excessive demands on flawed human beings. Is there any way to unwind that?
Ukip veteran: 'Anderson and Tice will be screaming at each other. Lee's staff will suddenly be dealing with the incompetence of Reform's staff and it will be like Carswell all over again.'
Create a new elected head of state role, after the death of King Charles, with the same limited constitutional powers as the current king and national ownership of the palaces, crown estate etc. Continue to call the role "King/Queen". Then allow William to stand. He would almost certainly win by a landslide and would be largely unopposed by any serious contenders first time round. Meanwhile reform the civil list so that only the spouse, parents and direct descendants of the head of state benefit from the royal stuff.
Succession would occur on the death of the incumbent, unless overturned via a recall petition with a high bar (say 2 million votes), which would trigger a referendum with a 2/3 threshold. The royals would probably continue to win succession votes and avoid any recalls until and unless a wrongun turned up, at which point you would get meaningful opposition and potentially a new royal lineage.
The UK also finds what we have, developed from about 600 CE, works for us too.
https://twitter.com/GabeZZOZZ/status/1766826136405749898
An HAC officer pranked them by suggesting that he liked this idea of DIY allegiances and implied that he was planning a coup as a way out of the then Bexit comedy.
Strangely, the suggestion that allegiance to *themselves* was optional was not met with enthusiasm.
(It was incredible in IMAX - the Geidi Prime scenes were excellent)
These guys would never stand for it.
The Royal Family are frauds and liars.
Poor old Herbert had to write Dune Messiah to spell it out.
I think some heads will explode if he includes the “Stilgar, check out Emperor Hitler’s high score, bro” scene.
But no, it takes me to some Putin apologist/propaganda shite.
The people you follow, eh? You should take a long hard look at yourself and maybe look up the term 'useful idiot'.
I’ve just finished, by the way, David Mitchell’s ‘Unruly’. I had been bought it as a present, and wasn’t wildly enthusiastic about reading it, but it was very good. I would recommend it to anyone left of HYUFD. I find David Mitchell quite funny, but I had expected it to be a tediously right-on media-luvvy’s view of why Britain is uniquely evil and shit. But it wasn’t. Or at least, it wasn’t solely that. Obviously it contained a fair dollop of that. But it actually gave me a slightly different way of looking at history, and about the monarchy, and how there were advantages in medieval times to the absolute certainty of knowing who the next in line was, however cretinous, over the almost certainty of some sort of civil war while the next king was chosen (as primogeniture didn’t really become accepted as the natural and only system until about, ooh, 1154.) And it was also very funny.
That’s not to argue for the continuation of the monarchy now, by the way. But it’s worth acknowledging that we got here for good reasons, or at least not-entirely-bad reasons.
So his political career was coming to an end anyway. Oh dear, never mind etc.
Calling an election is his only card