If the Tories replace Sunak, they would be declaring themselves a fundamentally unserious party and would suffer the consequences at the subsequent election. They would be destroyed. He’s the best hope they have - by a long distance.
The Mordaunt love really perplexes me. I thought she looked really peculiar. Her outfit was utterly bizarre. Her whole set-up and demeanour screamed high camp, nothing more. But I am clearly in the minority - at least on here!
Mordaunt appeals to certain Tory tastes. She was smart, composed and competent yesterday, which distinguishes her from many of the leaders in her party.
Personally, not my cup of tea. I generally seek more from a leader than being able to carry a big metal stick and look severe, but appreciate how she might look refreshingly dignified to a certain type of Tory.
Will she be leader? I doubt it.
'Certain type of tory' includes Emily Thornberry and Alastair Campbell who have been unstinting in their praise for her !!
Big space between doing her part excellently yesterday and being a suitable party leader or PM.
If we can get round her having been politically partisan for quite a while, might she make a more than decent speaker?
Another thought on yesterday- it was splendid to have Rishi reading an epistle, but jarring in that case. It was a pretty hardcore bit of explicitly Christian theology being read by a non-Christian. Full marks to Rishi but not fair on him. There's plenty of "be excellent to each other" readings in both Testaments that would have been more appropriate. Someone on the Church side should have spotted that.
I through it unfair to ask him to read that piece,
I don't think he will have minded in the slightest.
I wouldn't have minded reading out a religious text for a friend at a ceremony, and indeed have worn a skull-cap at a synagogue before for a friend's wedding and joined in the chanting. I like tradition and ritual anyway and would view it as a sign of respect and would do my best to both appreciate it and understand it.
This sort of sentiment is more about our own discomfort with our own religion and traditions.
FWIW my faith teaches the notion that if you say something, you should believe it. The question is whether a reading is mere ceremonial recitation or has actual meaning and significance. At a CoE coronation, I think it tends towards the later, which meant I was sympathetic to the position Sunak found himself in with that particular reading. 🤷♂️
I think most faiths draw a distinction between making a personal pledge or commitment to your faith, or the equivalent in your private life - which is about sincerity and integrity- and a ceremonial one where you are respectfully playing a role for others. To some extent he might even have looked for lessons he could draw from and agree with in the text as well, which is what I would do. Religious people can often appreciate other religions rather well - they're not all fanatics.
We think he must have because he's non-white and a Hindu - and feel a bit cringey about him being "forced" to do our culture, again reflecting our own discomforts not his - but I can assure you he won't have minded in the slightest.
It's a total non-issue.
I noticed the BBC cut briefly to Humza not singing one of the hymns (and why should he) then cut away again. Sunak was behind him and didn’t look like he was singing either.
Subsequent tweets verge into potentially libellous territory;
In fact, the National Crime Agency were NOT called in by Police Scotland. The NCA were involved by a suspicious activity report generated by a bank. Such reports automatically go the the NCA. 2/8
Look no further for why the Tories are finished and need time out of Government, than somebody who you voted against twice suddenly being PM material because she wore a nice dress and held a sword for half an hour.
The next Conservative leadership contest should feature these questions:
Are house prices too high ?
Do too many people go to university ?
Should the UK continue to have a trade deficit ?
Do you prefer taxes on work or taxes on property ?
Yes Yes Probably If in opposition, neither. If in power, whatever I can get away with.
On topic, Sunak won't go anywhere because other factions are too small/disorganised/comedy to be able to get anywhere against him. However, I do expect them to increase their sniping now - which will go all the way down to the general.
The Brexit link weakening doesn't surprise me. Once Brexit was "done" it was always going to be the case that voters would then want delivery and that's where the Tories are perceived to be failing.
I can't see Sunak surviving a defeat where Starmer gets an overall majority, indeed it is difficult to see him sruviving any defeat where Labour takes over. The Tories are ruthless with their leaders
In which case who succeeds Rishi?
This is where Mordaunt has a chance, simply because she has name recognition and a kind of brand. Apart from her there's Kemi Badenoch. Maybe Cleverley, like @SouthamObserver says?
Jeremy Hunt will go down with the ship
The bookies have Badenoch as favourite, Boris 2nd favorite (just not going to happen, surely) then Mordaunt next, then Wallace
Who can pin the most blame on Rishi whilst looking like a fresh-ish face? Kemi and Mordaunt have a decent shot, and if Wallace wanted the job he'd have it by now.
It's worth thinking about seats when it comes to a future LOTO.
Badenoch is in a seat where if there were a 100 Tory MPs left she would be one of them. Mordaunt would be under pressure on current polls but ought to be alright with a modest closing of the gap. Boris is currently underwater in Uxbridge so needs a much larger closing of the gap or he needs to chicken run. Wallace's problem is that his nice safe seat is being abolished so he either needs to go against the MPs for Fylde or Ribble Valley, or try and find a new seat elsewhere.
It's also worth noting that Hunt's SW Surrey is going and he has been adopted for the successor Godalming and Ash, which is quite a bit safer (though not rock solid)
I think Mordaunt will be ok barring a complete wipeout because by all accounts she is quite a good constituency MP and she now has the positive profile from the coronation too - the “my MP is the Sword Maiden” effect.
It does however need to be highlighted as you have that Badenoch has an incredibly safe seat, and it does naturally improve her chances.
I don’t think Mordaunt will get it for a myriad of reasons, most importantly:
1. The DM and some in the Tory establishment seem to hate/distrust her.
2. The woke stuff will get dragged out again and will end up turning the membership against her vs an anti woke warrior like Braverman or Badenoch.
Always worth remembering that any leader has to be approved by the members. And the members chose Liz Truss and IDS. Yes they chose Cameron, but that was after 8 years of opposition and a sense of desperation that they weren’t making sufficient headway to really challenge for power. Following an election defeat they’ll want someone who makes them feel good about themselves, who speaks to their sensibilities. Penny is the sort of candidate who might win a next-but-one leadership contest, when they start thinking about chances of winning another GE.
I see little at the moment that dissuades me from the idea that the next leader will be one of Badenoch or Braverman, and probably the former.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
How would that be any more democratic than the Monarchy? And you would be losing the massive bonuses of the Monarchy for a sad politician or activist who would inspire exactly zero pride in the country from its citizens or interest from the rest of the world.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
Yes, I don’t think the “you’d have president Boris now” argument is the strongest because we’d almost certainly have a purely ceremonial presidency. With ageing national treasures as head of state.
Would still lose the fun Harry Potter style flummery though, which would be a shame.
Would be quite fun to have David Attenborough or Helen Mirren as head of state.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
Agree wholeheartedly with all of this.
As an aside, one amusing tongue in cheek posting I saw yesterday was pointing out to our American cousins that the coach that took the King and Queen from Westminster Abbey was older than their country.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
Yes, I don’t think the “you’d have president Boris now” argument is the strongest because we’d almost certainly have a purely ceremonial presidency. With ageing national treasures as head of state.
You're very optimistic about our ability to place ageing national treasures above politics. It's probably impossible to find someone whose elevation wouldn't become a culture war these days.
I have no doubt change is coming but not sure just how it will pan out
I very much doubt the conservatives will move against Sunak and, apart from the siren voices of the Nadine Dorries Johnson obsessives, Sunak will lead into GE 24
Johnson's attire yesterday was a disgrace as he showed no respect to anyone attending the event
Compare and contrast Johnson to the unexpected star of the coronation, Penny Mordaunt who has received congratulations and admiration for her 'sword bearing' from across the political divide including Emily Thornberry and most surprisingly Alistair Campbell
Well done Penny and one to watch
I would just add as an ambivalent monarchist, I do believe yesterday mattered to millions and even the Church of England tradition, while archaic, is important to many so why just not be pleased for everyone enjoying themselves rather than carping on the side
The 1953 coronation I witnessed was in a very different time with Churchill as PM and of course Britain was very much a colonial power and when I contrast it to yesterday, there has been a very welcome change to more inclusion and diversity.
I expect Charles will continue to adapt the monarchy to today's world and I wish him well and much prefer a monarchy to a republic but also fully understand why so many Commonwealth countries will become republics in time
There is obviously a disease in England and seemingly Wales now as well, a fake pretendy one day reserve Navy clown holds a sword for a few minutes at an arsehole's halloween party and Tories are gushing all over the place about how wonderful the no user is and how the Tories are no longer grifting , cheating , lying crooks. It is just unbelievable.
Good morning Malc
Bonny day here and hope the same in Ayrshire
The compliments Penny are receiving are from many different political and non political people and I doubt you have experienced carrying anything like the sword she did yesterday and somethings are above politics and sniping and this is one of them
I am about to continue a DIY project and hope you have an enjoyable day
Enjoy your project G, I ma off to airport to pick up my daughter. I for sure could carry a sword far better than that big fake. I have had to work all my life which these clowns would never understand having never done a real days work. I would not fare so well on the grifting , troughing and lining my own pockets though.
"Never done a day's work"
Really? Penny Mordaunt?
This is her backstory
"Mordaunt was 15 when her mother died of breast cancer and after leaving school, she became her younger brother Edward's primary caregiver. The following year her father was also diagnosed with cancer, from which he recovered. In order to support her time at university Mordaunt worked in a Johnson & Johnson factory,"
The right wing press ripped her apart last summer, giving her the treatment usually reserved for Labour leaders. It’s possible that yesterday changed that, but up against an ideologically pure conservative I suspect she will suffer the same fate.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
On the other hand, if that's what the public wants...
However, we also miss out on the chance of President Penny. Ding, as they say, Dong.
If the Tories replace Sunak, they would be declaring themselves a fundamentally unserious party and would suffer the consequences at the subsequent election. They would be destroyed. He’s the best hope they have - by a long distance.
The Mordaunt love really perplexes me. I thought she looked really peculiar. Her outfit was utterly bizarre. Her whole set-up and demeanour screamed high camp, nothing more. But I am clearly in the minority - at least on here!
No, you are in a minority everywhere
From the Guardian
"Pippa Middleton of the coronation: Penny Mordaunt steals the show"
Yup. My staunchly Labour family was united in admiration of Ms Mordaunt's contribution to the Coronation. Of course, looking fabulous during some arcane ceremonials isn't exactly a recommendation for high office, but the fact that she found a way to shine without appearing to be trying to upstage the King does at least suggest some decent political/comms antennae. I suspect she has more appeal to people outside the Tory base than most high ranking politicians in her party - the fact that her alleged wokeness ruled her out for the leadership is indicative I think of how the ideological obsessions of hard right culture warriors are damaging the Tory brand.
No, of course. "Strange women lying about in ponds is no basis" etc etc
And yet when Sunak is toppled and the Tories look in a cupboard for a replacement, that cupboard is going to be stark and empty. I can see Mordaunt making it into a final V Kemi Badenoch, and she could win
Also it wasn't simply her Wokeness that ruined her chances last time. It was her oddly wooden performances in the Debates, when many of us were willing her on, and when she is known to be an articulate and witty speaker. Now we know that she was going through some horrible family stuff, and was understandably distracted
Of course there is the minor point that she seems to lack any serious, coherent political philosophy but that is true of Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak
I just looked in to the outcome of the case against her brother. He didn't go to jail and as far as I can see from the reporting, wasn't put on the sex offenders register. On a personal level I don't disagree with this outcome but if it gets dug up in the future I think it could cause problems, as it seems to be unusually lenient.
Edit - this could actually be construed to be a real example of what labour have been attacking Sunak on, ie where someone convicted of child sex offences doesn't go to jail.
You can't choose your family. All rather sad
They are Tories , what do you expect. She is a complete fibber Naval fantasist.
Subsequent tweets verge into potentially libellous territory;
In fact, the National Crime Agency were NOT called in by Police Scotland. The NCA were involved by a suspicious activity report generated by a bank. Such reports automatically go the the NCA. 2/8
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
I was fascinated by the ceremony yesterday and impressed by the way that even the newly introduced parts of the Coronation felt like they were age-old. But as wonderful as the Coronation was, in my mind it doesn't justify King Charles having a veto over legislation just because he was born to the right woman at the right time. We could do just as much ceremonial with a President after all, you don't have to chop up the Gold State Coach if there wasn't a monarch.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
The other thing that we would lose is the international name recognition of our head of state (assuming a figurehead rather than an executive).
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
If the Tories replace Sunak, they would be declaring themselves a fundamentally unserious party and would suffer the consequences at the subsequent election. They would be destroyed. He’s the best hope they have - by a long distance.
The Mordaunt love really perplexes me. I thought she looked really peculiar. Her outfit was utterly bizarre. Her whole set-up and demeanour screamed high camp, nothing more. But I am clearly in the minority - at least on here!
Doesn't do much for me, either - other than recall some of the outfits in Disney's Alice in Wonderland - though I didn't actually watch the ceremony, so WDIK ? Lot of middle aged men on PB probably explains it.
I was a bit surprised to see Mordaunt is 50, I must be getting old as she seems quite young looking to me. ..
Catherine Deneuve once remarked that you can stay slim, or keep away the wrinkles. Not both.
Neither in my case, sadly.
Re The Graduate, it has an interesting UK ratings history reflecting changing attitudes: 1968 - X, 1970 - AA, 2007 - 15, 2017 - 12A, 2023 - 12.
At this rate is will be a U by 2030.
The Graduate is the epitome of what changed in the Sixties in terms of fashion. In the film even the young people dress old. The breaking away from that is visible now with the Peter Pan approach to clothes. Outside work I dress much as I did 40 years ago, only with less hair.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
"Only someone with an utterly closed mind"
really? you found it moving and inspiring. others didn't.
Temperatures hitting 40C in Bangkok right about now. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in the city
The Carolean age: drought, floods, heatwaves, famine, death.
Can't say he didn't warn us.
Feels hotter due to the humidity there too.
Also I note power consumption was up about 22% there. People cranking up the Aircon will just add to the overall heat.
The rooftop swimming pool is basically deserted (and the hotel is full)
It is that hot in Bangkok: it is too hot to go outside and take a dip in a pool. Never seen that before
That sounds like the sandpit in summer. Only 33ºC here today, but 60% humidity, which is on the edge of not wanting to spend too much time outside.
Pah! That's nowt! Bangkok is 53% today. Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today. That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
The other thing that we would lose is the international name recognition of our head of state (assuming a figurehead rather than an executive).
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
But it cuts both ways. The British royal family are celebrities, but the image they give of Britain isn't entirely positive. It actually reinforces some of the (often somewhat unfair) negative stereotypes people have about Britain.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
Yes - and just one example: London is a royal city. It is designed around its palaces and ceremonial avenues, and its great and regal churches: from the Tower to St Paul’s, to Westminster Abbey, Whitehall and the Mall.
Remember Diana on the steps of St Paul’s? Charles praying in the Tower before her funeral. And so on
These avenues and routes are like arteries and veins, and they need royal blood flowing through them to make them truly come alive. To achieve their assigned purpose. Without royalty London would be a vastly diminished city
Where would the president live? It wouldn’t be Buck House as it’s too grand, it would be some nice villa in Regents Park or a new build in Newent. So, then, suddenly, Buck House and all these other chapels and avenues and palaces become lifeless sterile museums, shorn of purpose, like the centres of many other cities which dumped their monarchs. Vienna is the classic example of this
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
The other thing that we would lose is the international name recognition of our head of state (assuming a figurehead rather than an executive).
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
But it cuts both ways. The British royal family are celebrities, but the image they give of Britain isn't entirely positive. It actually reinforces some of the (often somewhat unfair) negative stereotypes people have about Britain.
I think it needs to be carefully balanced with other aspects of our brand. We have a number of features that support our creative industries and tourism: the royal family and stuff like yesterday, London as a major world capital, pop music, premier league football, Harry Potter, the Scottish highlands, pubs, the bbc, Attenborough documentaries. Some are old fashioned, others more modern. Important that royalty alone isn’t the entirety of our brand.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
I do wonder who'll be the first prominent tory to break kayfabe on Brexit once they are in opposition and denounce it as an economic chastity belt. Maybe Gove.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
The only closemindedness on show is that from the PB Royalists who seemingly need an outdated institution in silly outfits to feel national pride. It’s a bewildering prospectus.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
The other thing that we would lose is the international name recognition of our head of state (assuming a figurehead rather than an executive).
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
But it cuts both ways. The British royal family are celebrities, but the image they give of Britain isn't entirely positive. It actually reinforces some of the (often somewhat unfair) negative stereotypes people have about Britain.
Within weeks I can guarantee we’ll be back to the “he said, she said” bitchfest between Hazza, Willy, Meg and Mad Kate. A tawdry and embarrassing soap opera - EastEnders but with even less convincing acting.
Temperatures hitting 40C in Bangkok right about now. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in the city
The Carolean age: drought, floods, heatwaves, famine, death.
Can't say he didn't warn us.
Feels hotter due to the humidity there too.
Also I note power consumption was up about 22% there. People cranking up the Aircon will just add to the overall heat.
The rooftop swimming pool is basically deserted (and the hotel is full)
It is that hot in Bangkok: it is too hot to go outside and take a dip in a pool. Never seen that before
That sounds like the sandpit in summer. Only 33ºC here today, but 60% humidity, which is on the edge of not wanting to spend too much time outside.
Pah! That's nowt! Bangkok is 53% today. Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today. That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
Some years ago we arrived in Bangkok on route for Sydney and well remember it was just impossible to stay at the rooftop pool due to the terrible heat and humidity
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
So much this. I don't want any more Brexit wars so think we shouldn't be dreaming of another referendum for at least 20 years. There are signs of this country starting to heal with Labour getting a hearing in the likes of Medway, Thanet and Dover so SKS shouldn't rip off the plaster.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
The chances of our returning to the EU in the foreseeable future are precisely nil. It’s a closed issue. Labour can forge better links, align more regulation and instigate a more benign and sensible visa regime for young people, which would go a long way to reducing the idiotic barriers to trade Boris’ blundering ‘deal’ visited upon us.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
I was fascinated by the ceremony yesterday and impressed by the way that even the newly introduced parts of the Coronation felt like they were age-old. But as wonderful as the Coronation was, in my mind it doesn't justify King Charles having a veto over legislation just because he was born to the right woman at the right time. We could do just as much ceremonial with a President after all, you don't have to chop up the Gold State Coach if there wasn't a monarch.
I agree with your point, but one of the key messages of republicans I saw on Twitter yesterday was that the ceremony and pomp makes us look silly and an outlier to the rest of the world, and that the money should be used to pay for nurses/feed families/[insert other non-objectionable social good].
The fact that many republics also have grand ceremonies that can be equally ridiculous and frivolous (see Macron being driven down the Champs-Élysées in a grand military parade, with a further military parade each Bastille Day) seemed to just be ignored throughout.
As a soft monarchist, I wouldn't particularly care if the country decided it was time to move away from the institution. However, the idea it should be done because people think no money should ever be used to mark national moments and every single penny should be funnelled into basic services would be a massive shame.
The only closemindedness on show is that from the PB Royalists who seemingly need an outdated institution in silly outfits to feel national pride. It’s a bewildering prospectus.
Totally agree, hereditary nonsense, has never been more irrelevant than it is now
The only closemindedness on show is that from the PB Royalists who seemingly need an outdated institution in silly outfits to feel national pride. It’s a bewildering prospectus.
Unlike your attitude which was “this felt really underwhelming, I’m glad I didn’t see a minute of this boring stupid ceremony which I only glimpsed for a few minutes but it was all a washout when I did actually watch it but thank God I didn’t see any of it anyway”
I suspect you have deep personal conflicts about monarchy, which leads to the bizarre twaddle you gave us yesterday. Probably your politics inclines you to republicanism and anti-monarchism, but on the other hand your heart and emotions are powerfully drawn to the British monarchy, certainly at pivotal moments like Coronations, so you end up talking contradictory gibberish
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
The chances of our returning to the EU in the foreseeable future are precisely nil. It’s a closed issue. Labour can forge better links, align more regulation and instigate a more benign and sensible visa regime for young people, which would go a long way to reducing the idiotic barriers to trade Boris’ blundering ‘deal’ visited upon us.
"Foreseeable". Let's be concrete. Will you offer me a price of 10^6:1 (stake £1) for Britain rejoining before the end of 2039?
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
I was fascinated by the ceremony yesterday and impressed by the way that even the newly introduced parts of the Coronation felt like they were age-old. But as wonderful as the Coronation was, in my mind it doesn't justify King Charles having a veto over legislation just because he was born to the right woman at the right time. We could do just as much ceremonial with a President after all, you don't have to chop up the Gold State Coach if there wasn't a monarch.
I agree with your point, but one of the key messages of republicans I saw on Twitter yesterday was that the ceremony and pomp makes us look silly and an outlier to the rest of the world, and that the money should be used to pay for nurses/feed families/[insert other non-objectionable social good].
The fact that many republics also have grand ceremonies that can be equally ridiculous and frivolous (see Macron being driven down the Champs-Élysées in a grand military parade, with a further military parade each Bastille Day) seemed to just be ignored throughout.
Temperatures hitting 40C in Bangkok right about now. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in the city
The Carolean age: drought, floods, heatwaves, famine, death.
Can't say he didn't warn us.
Feels hotter due to the humidity there too.
Also I note power consumption was up about 22% there. People cranking up the Aircon will just add to the overall heat.
The rooftop swimming pool is basically deserted (and the hotel is full)
It is that hot in Bangkok: it is too hot to go outside and take a dip in a pool. Never seen that before
That sounds like the sandpit in summer. Only 33ºC here today, but 60% humidity, which is on the edge of not wanting to spend too much time outside.
Pah! That's nowt! Bangkok is 53% today. Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today. That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
Some years ago we arrived in Bangkok on route for Sydney and well remember it was just impossible to stay at the rooftop pool due to the terrible heat and humidity
This is exceptional, however. 40C and 54% humidity
Yesterday was the hottest day in the history of Bangkok, apparently
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
The chances of our returning to the EU in the foreseeable future are precisely nil. It’s a closed issue. Labour can forge better links, align more regulation and instigate a more benign and sensible visa regime for young people, which would go a long way to reducing the idiotic barriers to trade Boris’ blundering ‘deal’ visited upon us.
I think that it is more about change. Brexit was a cry out in those constituencies for a change. But the Conservative response of levelling up is not happening quick enough and thus the reversion back to mother (knows best).
As a consequence the Brexit voters are starting to move away from the conservatives as they are not getting what they want. The move is not necessary to Labour but to fringe parties such as Reform.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true if we became a parliamentary replublic, like Ireland or Germany, None of the recent taoisigh in Ireland have gone on to become President, nor German Chancellors.
But you just know that Thatcher, Blair and Johnson would have gone for it. Imagine the figurehead of the country on the world stage being the shambling mound that shuffled into Westminster Abbey yesterday.
The other thing that we would lose is the international name recognition of our head of state (assuming a figurehead rather than an executive).
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
But it cuts both ways. The British royal family are celebrities, but the image they give of Britain isn't entirely positive. It actually reinforces some of the (often somewhat unfair) negative stereotypes people have about Britain.
I think it needs to be carefully balanced with other aspects of our brand. We have a number of features that support our creative industries and tourism: the royal family and stuff like yesterday, London as a major world capital, pop music, premier league football, Harry Potter, the Scottish highlands, pubs, the bbc, Attenborough documentaries. Some are old fashioned, others more modern. Important that royalty alone isn’t the entirety of our brand.
Yes, I agree with that. Certainly we don’t need our entire national identity to be tied up with Kings and Queens and the legacy of Empire. We are blessed with some tremendously creative individuals and industries and sportsmen and women in this country too and that helps build other elements of our global brand and culture. But I think the monarchy has a role to play in all that.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Totally. Going too remainery was the way to throw the Tories a chance in a FPTP general election. The vast majority of English seats voted Leave and Labour simply have to get a big chunk of this vote next year.
Temperatures hitting 40C in Bangkok right about now. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in the city
The Carolean age: drought, floods, heatwaves, famine, death.
Can't say he didn't warn us.
Feels hotter due to the humidity there too.
Also I note power consumption was up about 22% there. People cranking up the Aircon will just add to the overall heat.
The rooftop swimming pool is basically deserted (and the hotel is full)
It is that hot in Bangkok: it is too hot to go outside and take a dip in a pool. Never seen that before
That sounds like the sandpit in summer. Only 33ºC here today, but 60% humidity, which is on the edge of not wanting to spend too much time outside.
Pah! That's nowt! Bangkok is 53% today. Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today. That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
Some years ago we arrived in Bangkok on route for Sydney and well remember it was just impossible to stay at the rooftop pool due to the terrible heat and humidity
This is exceptional, however. 40C and 54% humidity
Yesterday was the hottest day in the history of Bangkok, apparently
Not sure if it's of any interest - but might be worth digging into https://www.bangkokpodcast.com/. Run by wwo guys living in Bangkok (long term). Quite often just chit-chat about day to day life - but a good few sections on things going on, exhibitions, new food and bars etc.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
Yes, I don’t think the “you’d have president Boris now” argument is the strongest because we’d almost certainly have a purely ceremonial presidency. With ageing national treasures as head of state.
Would still lose the fun Harry Potter style flummery though, which would be a shame.
Reflections on yesterday - the anticipation, the weather, that sense of witnessing something truly historic yet knowing this was a unique moment for those involved....
That's enough about Frankie Dettori winning the 2000 Guineas on CHALDEAN. The deluge changed the game and we knew this was a horse that went on slow ground but he was impressive as was the rider afterward. I hope those who follow my periodic utterances on matters equine had a nice each way bet on ROYAL SCOTSMAN and at least came out a slice of coronation quiche to the good.
With the ground now soft at Newmarket, the money has come for the Moyglare winner TAHIYRA in this afternoon's 1000 Guineas. It's been a while since her trainer, Dermot Weld, had a Guineas type but his record speaks for itself and this filly may just be something special. REMARQUEE won the Fred Darling on the soft and she's second favourite at 6s. Second to REMARQUEE was STENTON GLIDER and I've had a small each way bet at 40s as I think she was running on and will aprpreciate the extra furlong.
If being fit and able to hold a sword is the new baseline person spec for PM, how about Uma Thurman or Michelle Yeoh?
To be honest, the way people have gone about it as a qualification for being PM makes me wonder if we shouldn't simply have made Pippa Middleton's arse PM back in 2011.
It'd not have done a worse job than the five arses we've had in the role since.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
I don’t feel a strong sense of patriotism (it has never really made sense to me philosophically) but Leon’s brand of patriotism makes more sense to me than Anabob’s.
The history and tradition of the coronation speaks to me more than the (what I would see as) manufactured appeal to our tribal ancestry in sport (I’m not judging those who do feel that).
I’m sure this is just my own prejudices speaking though!
Look no further for why the Tories are finished and need time out of Government, than somebody who you voted against twice suddenly being PM material because she wore a nice dress and held a sword for half an hour.
The next Conservative leadership contest should feature these questions:
Are house prices too high ?
Do too many people go to university ?
Should the UK continue to have a trade deficit ?
Do you prefer taxes on work or taxes on property ?
A splendid interactive map from Unherd which breaks down constituencies by their views on Monarchy, Gender, Free Speech. Migration, etc. Some really unexpected results
Reflections on yesterday - the anticipation, the weather, that sense of witnessing something truly historic yet knowing this was a unique moment for those involved....
That's enough about Frankie Dettori winning the 2000 Guineas on CHALDEAN. The deluge changed the game and we knew this was a horse that went on slow ground but he was impressive as was the rider afterward. I hope those who follow my periodic utterances on matters equine had a nice each way bet on ROYAL SCOTSMAN and at least came out a slice of coronation quiche to the good.
With the ground now soft at Newmarket, the money has come for the Moyglare winner TAHIYRA in this afternoon's 1000 Guineas. It's been a while since her trainer, Dermot Weld, had a Guineas type but his record speaks for itself and this filly may just be something special. REMARQUEE won the Fred Darling on the soft and she's second favourite at 6s. Second to REMARQUEE was STENTON GLIDER and I've had a small each way bet at 40s as I think she was running on and will aprpreciate the extra furlong.
Yes this one is a winning fav imo. Tahiyra. Twenty on the nose from me.
A splendid interactive map from Unherd which breaks down constituencies by their views on Monarchy, Gender, Free Speech. Migration, etc. Some really unexpected results
A splendid interactive map from Unherd which breaks down constituencies by their views on Monarchy, Gender, Free Speech. Migration, etc. Some really unexpected results
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
Yes, I don’t think the “you’d have president Boris now” argument is the strongest because we’d almost certainly have a purely ceremonial presidency. With ageing national treasures as head of state.
Would still lose the fun Harry Potter style flummery though, which would be a shame.
Temperatures hitting 40C in Bangkok right about now. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in the city
The Carolean age: drought, floods, heatwaves, famine, death.
Can't say he didn't warn us.
Feels hotter due to the humidity there too.
Also I note power consumption was up about 22% there. People cranking up the Aircon will just add to the overall heat.
The rooftop swimming pool is basically deserted (and the hotel is full)
It is that hot in Bangkok: it is too hot to go outside and take a dip in a pool. Never seen that before
That sounds like the sandpit in summer. Only 33ºC here today, but 60% humidity, which is on the edge of not wanting to spend too much time outside.
Pah! That's nowt! Bangkok is 53% today. Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today. That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
Some years ago we arrived in Bangkok on route for Sydney and well remember it was just impossible to stay at the rooftop pool due to the terrible heat and humidity
I haven’t been to Bangkok since I was a kid. I don’t remember much, but I remember eating breakfast on a balcony overlooking the city with the King’s personal secretary, whose house it was. And that’s the closest I’ve ever gotten to any royalty.
I like the 'exclusions'. Excludes the shooter themselves, excludes it if only three people or less die, and excludes 'gang related killings', which it doesn't define. Maybe gangsters dying don't really count.... (assuming they are gangsters)
Ie, things are MUCH worse than the graph shows. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Reflections on yesterday - the anticipation, the weather, that sense of witnessing something truly historic yet knowing this was a unique moment for those involved....
That's enough about Frankie Dettori winning the 2000 Guineas on CHALDEAN. The deluge changed the game and we knew this was a horse that went on slow ground but he was impressive as was the rider afterward. I hope those who follow my periodic utterances on matters equine had a nice each way bet on ROYAL SCOTSMAN and at least came out a slice of coronation quiche to the good.
With the ground now soft at Newmarket, the money has come for the Moyglare winner TAHIYRA in this afternoon's 1000 Guineas. It's been a while since her trainer, Dermot Weld, had a Guineas type but his record speaks for itself and this filly may just be something special. REMARQUEE won the Fred Darling on the soft and she's second favourite at 6s. Second to REMARQUEE was STENTON GLIDER and I've had a small each way bet at 40s as I think she was running on and will aprpreciate the extra furlong.
I got Chaldean yesterday , I agree that Tahiyra looks likely winner but I think Dream of Love is the better each way bet at 15/2 or maybe as a place on the TOTE.
I like the 'exclusions'. Excludes the shooter themselves, excludes it if only three people or less die, and excludes 'gang related killings', which it doesn't define. Maybe gangsters dying don't really count.... (assuming they are gangsters)
Ie, things are MUCH worse than the graph shows. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
From a criminology point of view gun deaths that are related to gangs are different to mass shootings which aren't gang-related, so it's worth looking at the two separately.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
The chances of our returning to the EU in the foreseeable future are precisely nil. It’s a closed issue. Labour can forge better links, align more regulation and instigate a more benign and sensible visa regime for young people, which would go a long way to reducing the idiotic barriers to trade Boris’ blundering ‘deal’ visited upon us.
I think that it is more about change. Brexit was a cry out in those constituencies for a change. But the Conservative response of levelling up is not happening quick enough and thus the reversion back to mother (knows best).
As a consequence the Brexit voters are starting to move away from the conservatives as they are not getting what they want. The move is not necessary to Labour but to fringe parties such as Reform.
Surely what the local elections tell us currently is exactly the opposite. Parties like Reform which are overtly ultra-conservative in their views are being shunned in favour of a combination of other national opposition parties and local independents. There is no sign of any growth in support for Reform or any of the other aspirants to the UKIP crown.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
I was fascinated by the ceremony yesterday and impressed by the way that even the newly introduced parts of the Coronation felt like they were age-old. But as wonderful as the Coronation was, in my mind it doesn't justify King Charles having a veto over legislation just because he was born to the right woman at the right time. We could do just as much ceremonial with a President after all, you don't have to chop up the Gold State Coach if there wasn't a monarch.
I agree with your point, but one of the key messages of republicans I saw on Twitter yesterday was that the ceremony and pomp makes us look silly and an outlier to the rest of the world, and that the money should be used to pay for nurses/feed families/[insert other non-objectionable social good].
The fact that many republics also have grand ceremonies that can be equally ridiculous and frivolous (see Macron being driven down the Champs-Élysées in a grand military parade, with a further military parade each Bastille Day) seemed to just be ignored throughout.
As a soft monarchist, I wouldn't particularly care if the country decided it was time to move away from the institution. However, the idea it should be done because people think no money should ever be used to mark national moments and every single penny should be funnelled into basic services would be a massive shame.
Yes, but from the outside, do those French parades make Macron look like a wally or do they give France loads of 'soft power'?
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
I do wonder who'll be the first prominent tory to break kayfabe on Brexit once they are in opposition and denounce it as an economic chastity belt. Maybe Gove.
It would be someone who opposes full employment, in particular full employment for the northern working class, and supports ever higher property prices in southern England.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
I like the 'exclusions'. Excludes the shooter themselves, excludes it if only three people or less die, and excludes 'gang related killings', which it doesn't define. Maybe gangsters dying don't really count.... (assuming they are gangsters)
Ie, things are MUCH worse than the graph shows. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Yes. It is the most exclusive definition of mass shooting used by criminologists,. Some are much more widely cast - ie more than two people need to be shot in any way, etc. By these more expansive definitions there is basically a mass shooting every single day in the USA
My sequence of non-political national treasures for ceremonial president: David Attenborough (96) Joanna Lumley (77) Tanni Grey-Thompson (53)
That'll takes us quite a way, time for future generations to emerge
Is it known how Lumley voted in 2016?
And there's the problem - even the most apolitical candidate would have every syllable they ever uttered since for the slightest political nuance.
Inevitably, organisations which would themselves contain political people, would form to support one candidate or another and it wouldn't take long before we had a "Conservative candidate for President" or a "Labour Candidate for President" and so on.
The Monarchy isn't perfect by a long shot but it's better than any of the alternatives. In truth, many of the so-called Democratic Republics are effectively monarchies as the President (or his/her party or tribe) has so manipulated the constitutional and political system as to make their non-violent removal almost impossible and how often does their favourite friend or family member find themselves as Vice-President?
Faced with two possible outcomes, would you rather hold on to office with Boris, or go down to a narrow defeat with Rishi?
I suspect HY is right that Johnson enthuses RedWall hard of thinking voters, but does he repell even more BlueWall feudal Tories? I suspect he does.
The Conservatives can go in one of two directions to make themselves electable at the next GE. By installing caring, one nation Conservative serial foodbank openers like Penny Mordaunt as PM or to promote the Conservative Party of 30p Lee Anderson ("if you don't like the Coronation, leave the country") in the corpulent shape of Johnson.
Even if the second option is enough to win the next GE, I suspect it dooms the party in the longer term.
It really is amazing that if you give away free food there's an unlimited number of people willing to take it.
What a dreary and implicitly unpleasant comment.
Rather like your comment up thread then about the red wall and it’s voters. Physician, heal thyself
"RedWall hard of thinking voters" is the term to which you are alluding I suspect. I stand by every word. For clarity that was not meant as a blanket coverage of RedWall voters, just those who vote for Johnson because " he's just like us" or "he understands us" or "he's got our backs".He hasn't, he's just a venal t***.
Look no further for why the Tories are finished and need time out of Government, than somebody who you voted against twice suddenly being PM material because she wore a nice dress and held a sword for half an hour.
The next Conservative leadership contest should feature these questions:
Are house prices too high ?
Do too many people go to university ?
Should the UK continue to have a trade deficit ?
Do you prefer taxes on work or taxes on property ?
Do you prefer a long sword or a short sword? 😈
(Already answered, but I'll answer the extra question too)
Yes Yes Don't know. Probably? Can we have both, but shift away from taxes on income and shift towards taxes on property please? Long sword. It does d8 damage compared to d6 and the loss in initiative speed I'm not really bothered by.
If the Tories replace Sunak, they would be declaring themselves a fundamentally unserious party and would suffer the consequences at the subsequent election. They would be destroyed. He’s the best hope they have - by a long distance.
The Mordaunt love really perplexes me. I thought she looked really peculiar. Her outfit was utterly bizarre. Her whole set-up and demeanour screamed high camp, nothing more. But I am clearly in the minority - at least on here!
Doesn't do much for me, either - other than recall some of the outfits in Disney's Alice in Wonderland - though I didn't actually watch the ceremony, so WDIK ? Lot of middle aged men on PB probably explains it.
I was a bit surprised to see Mordaunt is 50, I must be getting old as she seems quite young looking to me. ..
Catherine Deneuve once remarked that you can stay slim, or keep away the wrinkles. Not both.
An interesting comment as PennyMordaunt has both the look and hairstyle of Catherine Deneuve.
Looking at her Rubensesque figure, I’d say Ms Mordaunt has gone for fending off the wrinkles - as did Catherine Deneuve
Not my sort of politician, but she really did look fabulous. A brilliant cut of dress, and tbh regardless of politics it’s great to see all these sad pervy tongues lolling out at a full-figured woman in her 50s. Balancing out, I thought Rishi looked very smart and youthful indeed too; a very subtly smart suit. Quite classy.
My sequence of non-political national treasures for ceremonial president: David Attenborough (96) Joanna Lumley (77) Tanni Grey-Thompson (53)
That'll takes us quite a way, time for future generations to emerge
Is it known how Lumley voted in 2016?
And there's the problem - even the most apolitical candidate would have every syllable they ever uttered since for the slightest political nuance.
Inevitably, organisations which would themselves contain political people, would form to support one candidate or another and it wouldn't take long before we had a "Conservative candidate for President" or a "Labour Candidate for President" and so on.
The Monarchy isn't perfect by a long shot but it's better than any of the alternatives. In truth, many of the so-called Democratic Republics are effectively monarchies as the President (or his/her party or tribe) has so manipulated the constitutional and political system as to make their non-violent removal almost impossible and how often does their favourite friend or family member find themselves as Vice-President?
Eventually we’d have president ChatGPT of course. But then even AI is political now.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
Inoffensive doesn't necessarily mean non-political, for example we could do worse than have a President Major even though he's a Tory he's also fundamentally a decent human being who could be trusted to navigate a constitutional crisis.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
A splendid interactive map from Unherd which breaks down constituencies by their views on Monarchy, Gender, Free Speech. Migration, etc. Some really unexpected results
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
I do wonder who'll be the first prominent tory to break kayfabe on Brexit once they are in opposition and denounce it as an economic chastity belt. Maybe Gove.
You're not the first person to make this point, but it doesn't make sense because prominent Tories have been opposing Brexit all along.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
Is it necessarily one of the most divisive? Eg the German presidency seems far less divisive than the British monarchy. Even when the last but one had to resign because he faced prosecution for corruption in 2012 (he was later acquitted of all charges) nobody gave much of a shit.
Hard to imagine Charles facing prosecution for corruption, no matter what he's been up to.
Inoffensive doesn't necessarily mean non-political, for example we could do worse than have a President Major even though he's a Tory he's also fundamentally a decent human being who could be trusted to navigate a constitutional crisis.
The John Major who had an affair with Edwina Currie and later launched a morality crusade ?
There's plenty of other 'do as I say not as I do' episodes with him.
Though I suppose he hasn't indulged in money grubbing after leaving office.
Mark Drakeford seems a rather angry man to me who looks like he's escaped from a 1970s Wilson cabinet, possibly as an undersecretary to Tony Benn. He is governing Wales in a generally, crap, incompetent and useless way, but for some reason seems to stimulate the erogenous zone of Corbynites.
I have no idea how or why.
I don't believe he is remotely angry, in the same way Corbyn seldom was. Drakeford is on that side of the fence too, so you are right about that and he does come up with bulls*** policies. I am not entirely sure how he managed to replace Carwyn who was a Blaitite moderate. Drakeford is not my cup of tea, but then I prefer to drive at more than 20 mph (and 50 on motorway) so I have an agenda and if I want to plant a tree, I will buy my own. That said despite what BigG says, the Welsh NHS is on most measure only as crap as it's English counterpart (Betsi Cadwallader excepted).
Drakeford however is where he is because the gene pool in Welsh Labour is rather thin and the alternative of Andrew RT Davies and his army of clowns is even worse. I do know people whose visceral hatred of Drakeford is enough for them to take action should they believe they could get away with it.
Aside from the Mordauntist fervour on here from some, bordering on Mordaunticism (that's a new word), where will politics take us next?
The local elections will soon be forgotten as is the way of things by the electorate at large but within parties the fallout can have lasting impacts. The impact of victory isn't always as significant as the impact of defeat.
For the victorious party, the assumption of power and the strong local publicity will need to be followed by active recruitment as your former activists are now councillors and the re-election campaign for the Wards lost last Thursday begins now and that means changing the focus of communication to the successes of the Council rather than its failings (apart from where these can be clearly attributed to the previous administration).
For the defeated party, the psychological impact can be traumatic. It's rarely the case yesterday's councillors become tomorrow's activists and the local organisations which had likely atrophied will need to be rebuilt often with new people from the ground up. The positive is the role of criticising the council is now yours and there will over time be an influx of new blood eager to take the fight to the ruling administration.
That's the warp and weft of democracy - in 2027, IF we are in the midterm of a Labour Government, there will be gains aplenty for the Conservatives but if we are in the midterm of another Conservative Government, even those who survived the bloodbath of last Thursday may be on the defensive.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
If the Tories replace Sunak, they would be declaring themselves a fundamentally unserious party and would suffer the consequences at the subsequent election. They would be destroyed. He’s the best hope they have - by a long distance.
The Mordaunt love really perplexes me. I thought she looked really peculiar. Her outfit was utterly bizarre. Her whole set-up and demeanour screamed high camp, nothing more. But I am clearly in the minority - at least on here!
Doesn't do much for me, either - other than recall some of the outfits in Disney's Alice in Wonderland - though I didn't actually watch the ceremony, so WDIK ? Lot of middle aged men on PB probably explains it.
I was a bit surprised to see Mordaunt is 50, I must be getting old as she seems quite young looking to me. ..
Catherine Deneuve once remarked that you can stay slim, or keep away the wrinkles. Not both.
An interesting comment as PennyMordaunt has both the look and hairstyle of Catherine Deneuve.
Looking at her Rubensesque figure, I’d say Ms Mordaunt has gone for fending off the wrinkles - as did Catherine Deneuve
Not my sort of politician, but she really did look fabulous. A brilliant cut of dress, and tbh regardless of politics it’s great to see all these sad pervy tongues lolling out at a full-figured woman in her 50s. Balancing out, I thought Rishi looked very smart and youthful indeed too; a very subtly smart suit. Quite classy.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
I do wonder who'll be the first prominent tory to break kayfabe on Brexit once they are in opposition and denounce it as an economic chastity belt. Maybe Gove.
You're not the first person to make this point, but it doesn't make sense because prominent Tories have been opposing Brexit all along.
And look what happens to them. Not Tories any more, as far as the bulk of the party is concerned.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
Of course it is the attraction of the monarchy that is bringing all the small boats over too...
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
Is it necessarily one of the most divisive? Eg the German presidency seems far less divisive than the British monarchy. Even when the last but one had to resign because he faced prosecution for corruption in 2012 (he was later acquitted of all charges) nobody gave much of a shit.
Hard to imagine Charles facing prosecution for corruption, no matter what he's been up to.
The current German President is a nonentity nobody outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him in 2009 in the German Federal election for the Chancellry
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
"Only someone with an utterly closed mind"
really? you found it moving and inspiring. others didn't.
Yes really. If you have any onterest what so ever in the history of our country as Anabob claims to have (and I do recognise that as a German that does not apply to you in the same way as it would to a Briton) then yesterday's proceedings were absolutely moving and inspiring. The use of a gospel dating from the 6th century, a ceremony that dates back to the 10th century and all performed in a building that dates back to the 11th century. All utterly authentic and unique. If someone who purports to be a 'patriotic Englishman' is not inspired by that in favour of a couple of ball games no more than 250 years old then they surely do have a closed mind.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
Is it necessarily one of the most divisive? Eg the German presidency seems far less divisive than the British monarchy. Even when the last but one had to resign because he faced prosecution for corruption in 2012 (he was later acquitted of all charges) nobody gave much of a shit.
Hard to imagine Charles facing prosecution for corruption, no matter what he's been up to.
The current German President is a nonentity nobody outside Germany has head of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him in 2009 in the German Federal election for the Chancellry
Yes, as I said, the German presidency far less divisive in Germany than the British royal family is in the UK.
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
There are ways of electing a head of state that avoid division. How about the President being elected by combined Houses of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority being required. That would force Conservative and Labour to agree on very inoffensive candidates, We could be living under the rule of President Attenborough right now.
More likely we would just end up with President Ed Miliband or President Hague if Parliament elected the President. So as Germany does you end up with the head of state being a ceremonial consolation prize for politicians who failed to become head of government which would be even worse than having a directly elected executive President. Without much tourism revenue either
Yeah, London would be without foreign tourists if we became a republic, what fools France and Italy were to get rid of their monarchy because now no-one visits Paris or Rome.
France and Italy have sunny weather and beaches and skiing resorts we don't. We get coronation, jubilee and Royal wedding revenue however
Of course it is the attraction of the monarchy that is bringing all the small boats over too...
Also, how often do we get coronation revenue?
And why is it the taxpayers who pay for the coronation while commercial operations get the revenue, in the absensce of hotel/overnight taxation on tourists?
Comments
In fact, the National Crime Agency were NOT called in by Police Scotland. The NCA were involved by a suspicious activity report generated by a bank.
Such reports automatically go the the NCA.
2/8
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1655066356235087872?s=20
Yes
Probably
If in opposition, neither. If in power, whatever I can get away with.
It does however need to be highlighted as you have that Badenoch has an incredibly safe seat, and it does naturally improve her chances.
I don’t think Mordaunt will get it for a myriad of reasons, most importantly:
1. The DM and some in the Tory establishment seem to hate/distrust her.
2. The woke stuff will get dragged out again and will end up turning the membership against her vs an anti woke warrior like Braverman or Badenoch.
Always worth remembering that any leader has to be approved by the members. And the members chose Liz Truss and IDS. Yes they chose Cameron, but that was after 8 years of opposition and a sense of desperation that they weren’t making sufficient headway to really challenge for power. Following an election defeat they’ll want someone who makes them feel good about themselves, who speaks to their sensibilities. Penny is the sort of candidate who might win a next-but-one leadership contest, when they start thinking about chances of winning another GE.
I see little at the moment that dissuades me from the idea that the next leader will be one of Badenoch or Braverman, and probably the former.
Attenborough or Helen Mirren as head of state.
As an aside, one amusing tongue in cheek posting I saw yesterday was pointing out to our American cousins that the coach that took the King and Queen from Westminster Abbey was older than their country.
However, we also miss out on the chance of President Penny. Ding, as they say, Dong.
Does anyone know (beyond those interested in international politics) who the President of Germany is? Of Italy? Of Greece?
It was one of the things I fundamentally disagreed with David Olusoga on the BBC on yesterday when he said the monarchy does not project soft power. It fundamentally does. The coronation was an event covered as headline news in pretty much every corner of the world yesterday. People know who the “King of England” (sic) is. They get involved in the whole soap opera and drama and love to see the show that is put on. That in and of itself is a kind of soft power, in that it reminds the world of our history and culture.
Now I do think that there are faults with our system. It was hard to get away from a lot of the anachronistic elements of the service yesterday. Thank god they got rid of all the stuff around the homage of the peerage etc because that would have looked utterly insane. But crowns and costumes and oaths and 1500 year old books? Yep, I’ll keep all that over some dull character chosen by MPs to shake some hands now and again.
really? you found it moving and inspiring. others didn't.
Bangkok is 53% today.
Taipei averages 82% year round. It's 91% today.
That's sitting in front of a huge fan stark bollocks and still sweating profusely weather.
It was the Game of Thrones look which benefited Mordaunt - a bit of a cross between Cersei and Brienne.
But she needed to be flying a dragon for the full effect.
Remember Diana on the steps of St Paul’s? Charles praying in the Tower before her funeral. And so on
These avenues and routes are like arteries and veins, and they need royal blood flowing through them to make them truly come alive. To achieve their assigned purpose. Without royalty London would be a vastly diminished city
Where would the president live? It wouldn’t be Buck House as it’s too grand, it would be some nice villa in Regents Park or a new build in Newent. So, then, suddenly, Buck House and all these other chapels and avenues and palaces become lifeless sterile museums, shorn of purpose, like the centres of many other cities which dumped their monarchs. Vienna is the classic example of this
The fact that many republics also have grand ceremonies that can be equally ridiculous and frivolous (see Macron being driven down the Champs-Élysées in a grand military parade, with a further military parade each Bastille Day) seemed to just be ignored throughout.
As a soft monarchist, I wouldn't particularly care if the country decided it was time to move away from the institution. However, the idea it should be done because people think no money should ever be used to mark national moments and every single penny should be funnelled into basic services would be a massive shame.
I suspect you have deep personal conflicts about monarchy, which leads to the bizarre twaddle you gave us yesterday. Probably your politics inclines you to republicanism and anti-monarchism, but on the other hand your heart and emotions are powerfully drawn to the British monarchy, certainly at pivotal moments like Coronations, so you end up talking contradictory gibberish
Let's be concrete. Will you offer me a price of 10^6:1 (stake £1) for Britain rejoining before the end of 2039?
Cromwell's rule.
Yesterday was the hottest day in the history of Bangkok, apparently
As a consequence the Brexit voters are starting to move away from the conservatives as they are not getting what they want. The move is not necessary to Labour but to fringe parties such as Reform.
Yes, I agree with that. Certainly we don’t need our entire national identity to be tied up with Kings and Queens and the legacy of Empire. We are blessed with some tremendously creative individuals and industries and sportsmen and women in this country too and that helps build other elements of our global brand and culture. But I think the monarchy has a role to play in all that.
Reflections on yesterday - the anticipation, the weather, that sense of witnessing something truly historic yet knowing this was a unique moment for those involved....
That's enough about Frankie Dettori winning the 2000 Guineas on CHALDEAN. The deluge changed the game and we knew this was a horse that went on slow ground but he was impressive as was the rider afterward. I hope those who follow my periodic utterances on matters equine had a nice each way bet on ROYAL SCOTSMAN and at least came out a slice of coronation quiche to the good.
With the ground now soft at Newmarket, the money has come for the Moyglare winner TAHIYRA in this afternoon's 1000 Guineas. It's been a while since her trainer, Dermot Weld, had a Guineas type but his record speaks for itself and this filly may just be something special. REMARQUEE won the Fred Darling on the soft and she's second favourite at 6s. Second to REMARQUEE was STENTON GLIDER and I've had a small each way bet at 40s as I think she was running on and will aprpreciate the extra furlong.
It'd not have done a worse job than the five arses we've had in the role since.
The history and tradition of the coronation speaks to me more than the (what I would see as) manufactured appeal to our tribal ancestry in sport (I’m not judging those who do feel that).
I’m sure this is just my own prejudices speaking though!
How long can you hold a sword up?
https://election.unherd.com/immigration/
David Attenborough (96)
Joanna Lumley (77)
Tanni Grey-Thompson (53)
That'll takes us quite a way, time for future generations to emerge
With the exception of Scotland - illustrating how much the In vote there was boosted by Scottish nationalism.
Ie, things are MUCH worse than the graph shows. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Ben Stokes (31)
My daughter (9)
Inevitably, organisations which would themselves contain political people, would form to support one candidate or another and it wouldn't take long before we had a "Conservative candidate for President" or a "Labour Candidate for President" and so on.
The Monarchy isn't perfect by a long shot but it's better than any of the alternatives. In truth, many of the so-called Democratic Republics are effectively monarchies as the President (or his/her party or tribe) has so manipulated the constitutional and political system as to make their non-violent removal almost impossible and how often does their favourite friend or family member find themselves as Vice-President?
Seems about right
Yes
Yes
Don't know. Probably?
Can we have both, but shift away from taxes on income and shift towards taxes on property please?
Long sword. It does d8 damage compared to d6 and the loss in initiative speed I'm not really bothered by.
At least he doesn’t resemble much his dad who now looks like the corrupt, entitled old rsole that he is.
Apols, one of them sideways pics that iPhones do on PB.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_international_visitors
Hard to imagine Charles facing prosecution for corruption, no matter what he's been up to.
There's plenty of other 'do as I say not as I do' episodes with him.
Though I suppose he hasn't indulged in money grubbing after leaving office.
Drakeford however is where he is because the gene pool in Welsh Labour is rather thin and the alternative of Andrew RT Davies and his army of clowns is even worse. I do know people whose visceral hatred of Drakeford is enough for them to take action should they believe they could get away with it.
The local elections will soon be forgotten as is the way of things by the electorate at large but within parties the fallout can have lasting impacts. The impact of victory isn't always as significant as the impact of defeat.
For the victorious party, the assumption of power and the strong local publicity will need to be followed by active recruitment as your former activists are now councillors and the re-election campaign for the Wards lost last Thursday begins now and that means changing the focus of communication to the successes of the Council rather than its failings (apart from where these can be clearly attributed to the previous administration).
For the defeated party, the psychological impact can be traumatic. It's rarely the case yesterday's councillors become tomorrow's activists and the local organisations which had likely atrophied will need to be rebuilt often with new people from the ground up. The positive is the role of criticising the council is now yours and there will over time be an influx of new blood eager to take the fight to the ruling administration.
That's the warp and weft of democracy - in 2027, IF we are in the midterm of a Labour Government, there will be gains aplenty for the Conservatives but if we are in the midterm of another Conservative Government, even those who survived the bloodbath of last Thursday may be on the defensive.
Eg Bangkok is at the top of that list yet last year it got about 8 visitors
And why is it the taxpayers who pay for the coronation while commercial operations get the revenue, in the absensce of hotel/overnight taxation on tourists?