Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on September 08, 2022, 06:46:09 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/queen-elizabeth-ii-britains-longest-reigning-monarch-dies-aged-96
If she'd manged anothe two-and-a-bit years, she'd have beaten Louis XIV to become the longest-reigning monarch in history.
-
Did a slight double-take when I read "The King and Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening..." Who? Oh, Charles and Camilla!
-
Did a slight double-take when I read "The King and Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening..." Who? Oh, Charles and Camilla!
More's the pity: pity that the institution of the monarchy didn't die with her.
-
More's the pity: pity that the institution of the monarchy didn't die with her.
A touch uncharitable, Gord, old bean...
-
A touch uncharitable, Gord, old bean...
In what way? It's a statement about the institution.
-
In what way? It's a statement about the institution.
And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment. Mind you, I'll be disappointed if 'Private Eye' doesn't do a spectacularly tasteless cover in a fortnight's time...
-
And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment. Mind you, I'll be disappointed if 'Private Eye' doesn't do a spectacularly tasteless cover in a fortnight's time...
Surely a change in monarch is precisely when you ask about continuing the institution?
-
And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment.
Then when is the moment?
-
hmm...
If you want the institution, constitution changed or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?
-
hmm...
If you want the institution, constitution or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?
I just want it to stop: but it seems the received wisdom is that approval of the monarchy is a given that requires no discussion.
-
Then when is the moment?
Exactly.
Tomorrow, the proclamation of 'Charles III' (and I take issue with THAT number) and the accession council in the privy will confirm his tenure.
When WOULD be the time to debate, if not now?
I respect Elizabeth not-the-second's life of service to duty, even if I see no need for that duty - but we need an end to this rigmarole now.
-
hmm...
If you want the institution, constitution changed or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?
That's a different issue to Steve's idea that it was uncharitable to raise now. And there would be many who would have said it would have been uncharitable to mention before the Queen's death.
-
Exactly.
Tomorrow, the proclamation of 'Charles III' (and I take issue with THAT number) and the accession council in the privy will confirm his tenure.
When WOULD be the time to debate, if not now?
I respect Elizabeth not-the-second's life of service to duty, even if I see no need for that duty - but we need an end to this rigmarole now.
It has long been the convention that when a monarch has different regnal numbers in England and Scotland, the higher number is used. It cuts both ways: If we ever get another James,he will be James the VIII in both countries.
-
It has long been the convention that when a monarch has different regnal numbers in England and Scotland, the higher number is used. It cuts both ways: If we ever get another James,he will be James the VIII in both countries.
Technically, he'd be James IX.
James VIII was proclaimed in Edinburgh in 1709, and again in 1715.
His son was Charles III.
The Hanovarians/saxe-Coburgs were usurpers.
-
Technically, he'd be James IX.
James VIII was proclaimed in Edinburgh in 1709, and again in 1715.
His son was Charles III.
The Hanovarians/saxe-Coburgs were usurpers.
I'm baffled when a republican is bothered by regnal numbers. It's like an atheist getting narked by someone being put into the 'wrong' circle of hell.
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
-
Astonishing, indeed!
-
Surely a change in monarch is precisely when you ask about continuing the institution?
No. You need to ask about it before the change so that you are ready when it happens.
Now is definitely the wrong time because the people on one side of the argument are likely in mourning and won't engage properly. You can say "we need a republic" but a lot of those in opposition will just try to shut you down because a much loved queen has just died and "how dare you".
I don't agree with that tactic even though I am most definitely not a republican, but it will happen.
-
Astonishing, indeed!
How long did the Daily Mail have to search the archives for a photo of the Queen that matched that cloud?
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
Lovely tribute, Trent.
I'm not for the monarchy and all that goes with it but I was very fond of the queen. Loved her grace, humility, sincerity and commitment to a life of which she was given no choice. She also gave a great sense of stability. No matter what was happening here or in the rest of the world she always displayed a sense of calm and strength.
It's rather like losing a good friend and I found myself quite tearful listening to all the tributes. She certainly radiated love and care towards all she met with a smile that would melt the hardest of hearts.
May she rest in peace a good and faithful servant.
-
I'm baffled when a republican is bothered by regnal numbers. It's like an atheist getting narked by someone being put into the 'wrong' circle of hell.
It's all part of what keeps the show going and adds to the plot. The slogans are 'There's no business like show business' and 'The show must go on'. It's a pity the production costs are so high. I've lived through three reigns now and the publicity and revelations have expanded enormously over that time since television came on to the scene. I wonder if it will subside as the Internet takes over.
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
My feelings too, Trent. Like you I am no lover of the institution of the monarchy but I too feel a sense of upset. In my case it is a feeling of sadness as if an ever reliable old but distant friend has died. I can still remember my parents clustered round the wireless listening to news of the death of King George VI in 1952, and, although I was only 11 years old and didn't really understand, I also felt the sense of sombreness around me.
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
My feelings are similar to yours, Trent, and I would add something else too.
Effectively she has been living for most of her life in a condition of house arrest. Apparently free, but every action she performed under some kind of scrutiny - unable to say about many subjects what she really thought and constrained from reacting as she wanted in difficult situations.
Was she obscenely privileged? If she was then she had little control over that privilege. And Charles has also effectively been in a prison without visible walls for all his adult life. A consequence of those invisible walls has been that every time he has shown some misdirection of thought, purpose or action it has become manifest to the world and the subject of feasting by the popular press.
-
My feelings are similar to yours, Trent, and I would add something else too.
Effectively she has been living for most of her life in a condition of house arrest. Apparently free, but every action she performed under some kind of scrutiny - unable to say about many subjects what she really thought and constrained from reacting as she wanted in difficult situations.
Was she obscenely privileged? If she was then she had little control over that privilege. And Charles has also effectively been in a prison without visible walls for all his adult life. A consequence of those invisible walls has been that every time he has shown some misdirection of thought, purpose or action it has become manifest to the world and the subject of feasting by the popular press.
Chairlie has enjoyed a degree of freedom in exercising his creativity at Dumfries House estate, where he spends much of the time when in Scotland.
The press were in error yesterday; he wasn't at Birkhall when the medics summoned him - an RAF helicopter left Dumfries house heading north around eight o'clock yesterday morning - the flight path is directly over my house.
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
Brilliant words Trent - I think you summed up my feelings pretty well too.
Like you I am also not in favour of a monarchy, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the greatest admiration for the Queen. And like so many she has been pretty well the only constant throughout my life so her death really does mean something.
The instant mention of King Charles III seems so clunky and really emphasises many of the issues I have with hereditary monarchy. Very few of us had had this experience before - our monarch is the Queen and she built and earned her respect. I don't think you can somehow demand it or expect it simply because you are now King Charles III but yesterday you were Prince Charles.
The coming months and few years will be critical for the monarchy - how many monarchists were in reality Queen Elizabeth II-ists - in favour of a particular person as the monarch, but really not wholly comfortable with the notion of a hereditary monarchy in principle. We will see.
-
I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?
I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.
And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.
I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.
Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.
So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.
My feelings exactly - excellent post. As a long-time republican, I'm surprised at how sad I feel - i.e. a bit sad. I shouldn't feel sad at all, but I do.
-
My feelings exactly - excellent post. As a long-time republican, I'm surprised at how sad I feel - i.e. a bit sad. I shouldn't feel sad at all, but I do.
An elderly lady has died who has spent an entire lifetime suppressing her sense of self to portray a passively disinterested head of state - I'm a little sad for her, too. I've long been of the opinion that the monarchy does a disservice both to us and to the country, but it's a testament to the Queen's capacity at the role that we still have one. To have navigated the various waters she has without running the ship ashore is a testament to her.
O.
-
That's a different issue to Steve's idea that it was uncharitable to raise now. And there would be many who would have said it would have been uncharitable to mention before the Queen's death.
My tack was more about when a discussion on the constitution should be held ... maybe belongs in a separate thread anyway.
-
This is an excellent piece from Simon Schama.
https://archive.ph/nDAtF
-
No Waitrose delivery slots being offered for Monday 19th.
-
I wondered whether the fact that my mother who is in her 90s has had her own health issues of late might have an effect on my reaction to the Queen's death but it seems not. I ferl neither sad nor even a feeling of the end of an era. I find many of the reactions from the sadly vicious attacks to the sycophantic maunderings just bizarre.
I don't see why expressing republican sentiments at this time is in any sense disrespectful, and while I understand that expressing those won't make a difference in the short term but shutting up about it seems counterproductive to me in the long term because it tacitly buys it to the idea of there being inappropriate times. The very fact that this is the first death in 70 years makes it to me a significant time for the discussion to be had, not least because else there is a flood of encomiums to the institution unchallenged.
-
More's the pity: pity that the institution of the monarchy didn't die with her.
This looks penned by one that wants things not just to go but to be destroyed.
As an affective force, British republicanism lies somewhere between Cornish nationalism and Yorkshire nationalism.
-
Astonishing, indeed!
-
I wondered whether the fact that my mother who is in her 90s has had her own health issues of late might have an effect on my reaction to the Queen's death but it seems not. I ferl neither sad nor even a feeling of the end of an era. I find many of the reactions from the sadly vicious attacks to the sycophantic maunderings just bizarre.
I don't see why expressing republican sentiments at this time is in any sense disrespectful, and while I understand that expressing those won't make a difference in the short term but shutting up about it seems counterproductive to me in the long term because it tacitly buys it to the idea of there being inappropriate times. The very fact that this is the first death in 70 years makes it to me a significant time for the discussion to be had, not least because else there is a flood of encomiums to the institution unchallenged.
In much the same boat: Both mother and mother-in-law in their 90s with health problems, so not unsympathetic to women in that position, but I feel no particular impact from the death of the Queen. Looking back over the years I think the only point at which her existence has had any relevance to me was as a figurehead, a picture on the wall, for loyalty when I was a scout.
However, I can see how, as suggested by jeremyp earlier, people who do feel an impact are unlikely to engage seriously in a discussion of republicanism or constitutional reform at this time or on a channel where they are trying to express their emotions.
-
Beyond parody
-
I agree with this - but it won't happen because, it seems to me, the subservient forelock-tuggers won't let it happen.
Charles III’s coronation, set for next year, cannot be a copy of his mother’s, a ceremony whose authority was derived from the Anglican church where the aristocracy paid homage to the crown. The past is another country. Should not parliament take advantage of this period to consider the constitutional and legal framework of the monarchy in a formal and measured manner? If done by a joint committee, no government would be beholden to its outcome. A chance to rethink rarely arises in a constitutional monarchy. A new king, and a new prime minister, ought to seize the opportunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/09/the-guardian-view-on-king-charles-iii-a-central-character-in-historys-new-chapter
-
Good tribute from Johnson, (https://fb.watch/frX1nLA7dk/) even if he is a narcissistic, psychopathic, mendacious arsehole. Like his anecdote about the Middle-Eastern head of state at London 2012.
-
I wonder if William will have a ceremonial investiture as Prince of Wales, as Charles did in 1969.
-
In much the same boat: Both mother and mother-in-law in their 90s with health problems, so not unsympathetic to women in that position, but I feel no particular impact from the death of the Queen. Looking back over the years I think the only point at which her existence has had any relevance to me was as a figurehead, a picture on the wall, for loyalty when I was a scout.
However, I can see how, as suggested by jeremyp earlier, people who do feel an impact are unlikely to engage seriously in a discussion of republicanism or constitutional reform at this time or on a channel where they are trying to express their emotions.
I agree with that but that's ignoring my point that by just shutting up you cede the entire conversation at a time of change to those saying how marvellous the institution is, and that's problematic. A friend is on a FB soup making group, and on Thursday, one of the admins said people shouldn't post soup recipes 'out of respect'. I doubt no matter how persuasive my arguments might be that I sm ever going to win such a person over to republicanism, but for those who are winnable, a flag that there is a conversation to be had is, I think, necessary else we end up back where it was argued to be rude to mention it when the Queen was still going.
One of the difficulties that has to be got round is that peooke could feel that it would be rude to talk about what happens to the monarchy because Chuck 3 has waited so long.
To an extent, I view this as all a bit of an intellectual exercise since it seems unlikely that we will see a change in the foreseeable future, and it's never been that high up my list of objectives, but I've seen enough much more fringe beluefs rise and become central over the years to think that it is not worth making the arguments.
-
.
-
Yep.
That is definitely me!
-
Good tribute from Johnson, (https://fb.watch/frX1nLA7dk/) even if he is a narcissistic, psychopathic, mendacious arsehole. Like his anecdote about the Middle-Eastern head of state at London 2012.
I agree and am one of those he describes as affected by this event and wondering why. I think it is the realisation of having something, a point of constancy, and only noticing it when it’s gone.
I’m more than willing to discuss the pros and cons and arguments for a republic which given the length of the reign should be encyclopaedic by now.
-
Charles III’s coronation, set for next year, cannot be a copy of his mother’s, a ceremony whose authority was derived from the Anglican church where the aristocracy paid homage to the crown.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/09/the-guardian-view-on-king-charles-iii-a-central-character-in-historys-new-chapter
Where would the authority for a republic be derived?
-
Where would the authority for a republic be derived?
Literally it's in the word 'republic'.
-
I agree with that but that's ignoring my point that by just shutting up you cede the entire conversation at a time of change to those saying how marvellous the institution is, and that's problematic. A friend is on a FB soup making group, and on Thursday, one of the admins said people shouldn't post soup recipes 'out of respect'. I doubt no matter how persuasive my arguments might be that I sm ever going to win such a person over to republicanism, but for those who are winnable, a flag that there is a conversation to be had is, I think, necessary else we end up back where it was argued to be rude to mention it when the Queen was still going.
One of the difficulties that has to be got round is that peooke could feel that it would be rude to talk about what happens to the monarchy because Chuck 3 has waited so long.
To an extent, I view this as all a bit of an intellectual exercise since it seems unlikely that we will see a change in the foreseeable future, and it's never been that high up my list of objectives, but I've seen enough much more fringe beluefs rise and become central over the years to think that it is not worth making the arguments.
Agreed, and there is no case for just shutting up, just that maybe conversations should occur "in parallel".
Charles III is in place and unless there is some kind of revolution or coup I expect he will reign until his death in, possibly, around 20 years. I don't think the institution of the monarchy can be discussed or resolved without having the constitution put on a written basis, with appropriate reform wrt. HoL, devolution/independence of the UK nations and so on.
There will be a general election in around 2 years, I would like whoever wins that election to have a plan that will enable constitutional questions to be resolved democratically. I think my preference would be for a citizens assembly to be formed to look at the issue and make recommendations over a long term, independently of political considerations.
-
Literally it's in the word 'republic'.
So a Republic gets it's authority from itself......circular argument.
-
So a Republic gets it's authority from itself......circular argument.
You are showing here you don't understand the term 'circular argument', the term 'republic' and quite possibly 'authority'.
-
Agreed, and there is no case for just shutting up, just that maybe conversations should occur "in parallel".
Charles III is in place and unless there is some kind of revolution or coup I expect he will reign until his death in, possibly, around 20 years. I don't think the institution of the monarchy can be discussed or resolved without having the constitution put on a written basis, with appropriate reform wrt. HoL, devolution/independence of the UK nations and so on.
There will be a general election in around 2 years, I would like whoever wins that election to have a plan that will enable constitutional questions to be resolved democratically. I think my preference would be for a citizens assembly to be formed to look at the issue and make recommendations over a long term, independently of political considerations.
I don't really get what you mean by 'in parallel' here.
-
I see that pageantagious flummery is in full swing now: my term for what afflicts those who, on being infected with a liking for pageantry, have no resistance to it and who fail to spot that it really is no more than pointless window-dressing and/or entertainment - but with added lashings of faux gravitas.
-
So a Republic gets it's authority from itself......circular argument.
Not even wrong, Vlad.
-
Agreed, and there is no case for just shutting up, just that maybe conversations should occur "in parallel".
Charles III is in place and unless there is some kind of revolution or coup I expect he will reign until his death in, possibly, around 20 years. I don't think the institution of the monarchy can be discussed or resolved without having the constitution put on a written basis, with appropriate reform wrt. HoL, devolution/independence of the UK nations and so on.
There will be a general election in around 2 years, I would like whoever wins that election to have a plan that will enable constitutional questions to be resolved democratically. I think my preference would be for a citizens assembly to be formed to look at the issue and make recommendations over a long term, independently of political considerations.
A citizens assembly would only wore wwere one set up in each of the nations of the union.
Our wishes will not be subsumed by the wishes of one nation by sheer dint of population.
-
You are showing here you don't understand the term 'circular argument', the term 'republic' and quite possibly 'authority'.
In what way?
If authority is gained from the public, how does that work?
How does a republic differ from a constitutional monarchy in any important sense.
Your dismissive post added to Gordon’s show that it is you and him that won’t engage.
-
Not even wrong, Vlad.
Meaningless bollocks, Gordon, “Not even wrong, indeed”.
-
A citizens assembly would only wore wwere one set up in each of the nations of the union.
Our wishes will not be subsumed by the wishes of one nation by sheer dint of population.
But surely that’s what a unitary British Republic entails since it’s authority is definitionally derived from the public.
Also since the monarch has the same function for all there are no national peculiarities to be accommodated.
-
I see that pageantagious flummery is in full swing now: my term for what afflicts those who, on being infected with a liking for pageantry, have no resistancence to it and who fail to spot that it really is no more than pointless window-dressing and/or entertainment - but with added lashings of faux gravitas.
You can always turn the TV off Gordon...although perhaps more useful advice. Might be you can always turn your computer off.
-
You can always turn the TV off Gordon...although perhaps more useful advice. Might be you can always turn your computer off.
I'm aware of that, Vlad - thank 'God' (and there is a lot of 'God' going in the background of current events - the Anglican variety that is) for Netflix, cable channels, Prime Video and Disney+.
-
I don't really get what you mean by 'in parallel' here.
Just that a discussion of the ending of the monarchy can be continued or plans proposed etc. Those too busy at the moment praying or parading or whatever can join it later if they want.
Ridiculous edits such as the admin that wants to prohibit soup recipes or the general shutdown of normal media due to the death are nothing to do with the constitution or monarchist / republican views and need to be countered on their own terms.
-
A citizens assembly would only wore wwere one set up in each of the nations of the union.
Our wishes will not be subsumed by the wishes of one nation by sheer dint of population.
Sure. In fact I doubt that there is anything preventing them setting up suitable assemblies to consider such issues at the moment.
Really, I don't understand why Scotland does not have one now (maybe they do?). Someone needs to work out how an independent Scotland could work instead of leaving it up to party politics and non-definitive or ambiguous referenda?
-
In what way?
If authority is gained from the public, how does that work?
How does a republic differ from a constitutional monarchy in any important sense.
Your dismissive post added to Gordon’s show that it is you and him that won’t engage.
Who said it differed from a constitutional monarchy as regards authority? Or that monarchists won't engage? Straw, unlike most things, is obviously still cheap.
-
I see that pageantagious flummery is in full swing now: my term for what afflicts those who, on being infected with a liking for pageantry, have no resistance to it and who fail to spot that it really is no more than pointless window-dressing and/or entertainment - but with added lashings of faux gravitas.
I don't know what you mean...
-
Dont like the idea of these 'ere citizens assemblies. We elect MPs, councillors, etc. to make decisions, and they devote themselves ( in theory) to studying all aspects of each question. a citizen's assembly would attract every bigot, gammon, loony lefty, rabid righty and conspiracy nut around.
-
So Chairlie is bringing Truss with him when he tours the union capitals?
I thought he was going to stay out of politics?
Bringing Truss to Scotland at this time is as political as it gets.
-
So Chairlie is bringing Truss with him when he tours the union capitals?
I thought he was going to stay out of politics?
Bringing Truss to Scotland at this time is as political as it gets.
How is he bringing Truss with him?
-
So Chairlie is bringing Truss with him when he tours the union capitals?
I thought he was going to stay out of politics?
Bringing Truss to Scotland at this time is as political as it gets.
If that is the case, and I haven't seen any reports confirming that is the plan, then I suppose it will depend on how they organise it.
Generally speaking Tory PMs visiting Scotland don't go walkabout among the general public, and and my impression is that access to them while they are here tends to be heavily controlled and restricted to to senior figures and other Tories. If some kind of 'joint tour' is envisaged I'm not sure that creating a perceived link between the monarchy and the Tories works well either way.
It is also the case that support for the monarchy is weaker in Scotland.
...... In May, the British Future thinktank found only 45% in Scotland wanted to retain the monarchy – compared with six in 10 people across Britain – while 36% believed the end of the Queen’s reign would be the appropriate moment to become a republic.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/10/charles-iii-what-people-in-scotland-wales-and-ni-think-of-their-new-king
-
What Anchorman says is indeed the case, from the Guardian live blog.
Liz Truss to accompany King Charles III on tour of Britain
The UK’s new prime minister Liz Truss will accompany King Charles on a royal tour of Britain’s four nations to lead days of national mourning for his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
The prime minister’s spokesman said: “In terms of the prime minister’s involvement, she will join the King as he leads the national mourning across the United Kingdom, attending services of reflection in Scotland on Monday afternoon, in Northern Ireland on Tuesday, and Wales on Friday.”
Be interesting to see the reaction to her here.
-
A mistake.
I can feel my republican tendencies firming up.
(that is not a euphemism)
-
I'm aware of that, Vlad - thank 'God' (and there is a lot of 'God' going in the background of current events - the Anglican variety that is) for Netflix, cable channels, Prime Video and Disney+.
I knew the English church would be at the root of your disgruntledness.
-
I knew the English church would be at the root of your disgruntledness.
Is the Anglican Church, which is the term I used, exclusively English?
-
Is the Anglican Church, which is the term I used, exclusively English?
Odd fact the Scottish Episcopal Church is the only national church in the Anglican communion (apart, of course, from the Church of England itself) which did not originate as an extension of the C of E. It had its own separate origin at the Reformation, and only later joined the Anglican communion.
-
Who said it differed from a constitutional monarchy as regards authority? Or that monarchists won't engage? Straw, unlike most things, is obviously still cheap.
Do you want to debate British republicanism or what?
-
Do you want to debate British republicanism or what?
This seems both a non sequitur and an incoherent question. I'm happy to have a discussion about why I am a republican but not sure if that's what you are trying to ask. Could you try again, please?
-
This seems both a non sequitur and an incoherent question. I'm happy to have a discussion about why I am a republican but not sure if that's what you are trying to ask. Could you try again, please?
OK. What is it about a British Republic that appeals to you?
Do you find joy in the accompanying deprivation of others of a beloved institution?
-
OK. What is it about a British Republic that appeals to you?
Well, speaking personally, I'd prefer a Scottish republic, Vlad, not a British one: and in that scenario I don't much care what NI, Wales and England do since that would be a matter for them.
Do you find joy in the accompanying deprivation of others of a beloved institution?
No - because 'joy' is an inappropriate term here, but of course this is you deploying another straw man in misrepresenting the motivations of those of us who would like to see the dissolution of the monarchy.
-
OK. What is it about a British Republic that appeals to you?
Do you find joy in the accompanying deprivation of others of a beloved institution?
I don't find anything particularly appealing about a 'British republic'. Hence why I phrased my post about why I am a republican, rather than a 'British republucan'. Nor is it sonething that I support because it is 'appealing'. Rather it seems to me that the hereditary principle in terms of a head of state is a illogical restriction on democracy which instills an establishment into the govt. Further it seems an inwarranted restriction on any individuals who are part of that institution.
To answer your second question, no.
-
A mistake.
I can feel my republican tendencies firming up.
(that is not a euphemism)
Given what you reported in your first post on this thread, I suggest you have given insufficient time to explore your initial response.
-
I'm a republican in principle, but a mild one, and I'm realistic enough to realise that it's not going to happen in the near future.I'll be quite happy if Charles slims down the monarchy and reduces the amount of meaningless ritual, as he apparently intends to do. What does need radical change or abolition, because, unlike the monarchy it has profound influence in politics, but like the monarchy is unelected, is the House of Lords.
-
Given what you reported in your first post on this thread, I suggest you have given insufficient time to explore your initial response.
Don't know where you get that idea.
I think I've been fairly clear on my feelings and thoughts on this matter.
I'm confused. The reasons are clear to me.
The conditioning (some of us - me for one, are finding hard to shake off) we have all experienced about the monarchy allied with some personal affection and admiration for the Queen; vying with the rational, intellectual side of the argument that NS outlines so clearly above.
-
Given what you reported in your first post on this thread, I suggest you have given insufficient time to explore your initial response.
Given that you trust trentvoyager's first post, may I suggest your different reaction to the second is simply your bias showing.
-
That's perhaps what republicans would call the abolition of the monarchy, if it ever happens (not in the foreseeable future, I don't think).
We need a thread to debate republicanism versus royalism, to avoid derailing the "The Queen is dead" thread. As I said there, I'm a mild republican n principle, whod be content with a slimmed-down monarchy with less meaningless ritual.
-
See new thread "The end of an error?" in 'Politics and Current affairs', to maybe continue the debate about republicanism.
-
Walt Z. - I'd be interested in a concise explanation for your rejection of republicanism.
-
I'm a republican in principle, but a mild one, and I'm realistic enough to realise that it's not going to happen in the near future.I'll be quite happy if Charles slims down the monarchy and reduces the amount of meaningless ritual, as he apparently intends to do. What does need radical change or abolition, because, unlike the monarchy it has profound influence in politics, but like the monarchy is unelected, is the House of Lords.
I'd say that the monarchy, the House of Lords and the role of the C of E as the established church are all symptoms of the same disease - so I'd further say that we disestablish the C of E and remove both the monarchy and the House of Lords.
If there needs to be a second chamber and Head of State then the arrangements for these should be based on a democratic process that the electorate express support for.
-
Don't know where you get that idea.
I think I've been fairly clear on my feelings and thoughts on this matter.
I'm confused. The reasons are clear to me.
The conditioning (some of us - me for one, are finding hard to shake off) we have all experienced about the monarchy allied with some personal affection and admiration for the Queen; vying with the rational, intellectual side of the argument that NS outlines so clearly above.
That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.
With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.
I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?
-
I'd say that the monarchy, the House of Lords and the role of the C of E as the established church are all symptoms of the same disease - so I'd further say that we disestablish the C of E and remove both the monarchy and the House of Lords.
If there needs to be a second chamber and Head of State then the arrangements for these should be based on a democratic process that the electorate express support for.
Yes I gathered you were treating British monarchist in light of the disease model AKA the “OI...nutter” approach.
-
Yes I gathered you were treating British monarchist in light of the disease model AKA the “OI...nutter” approach.
Then, as is usually the case for you, you 'gather' in error.
-
I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre.
You can hazard that if you want. You'd be partially correct.
Why I am so confused is because I can see that the present system is flawed and grounded in privilege based on nothing more than an accident of birth. As has been pointed out so often during the recent suffocating coverage, the Queen was only in her position because of an accident of history, which in itself makes a mockery of the hereditary principle. However, I am also aware that a presidential system to elect someone "above politics" has its flaws in that you can end up with washed-up politicians/film stars, and very often rather than acting as a stabilising influence, as I freely admit the Queen has done, they act as an altogether more disruptive force.
Short of finding eternal life for David Attenborough I'm not convinced there is a satisfactory answer to this constitutional issue.
As to the whole "she was above politics" stick. She clearly wasn't, what with weekly meetings with her PM's and constant meetings with world leaders. It may have been soft, unspoken political power, but it was very real. So that is an influence on politics that we had/have no control over, and is profoundly undemocratic.
I do find myself coming down on the softer side of republicanism for the reason that the idea that somebody should be in the position that royalty is in due to the aforementioned accident of birth makes nonsense of the democratic process.
-
On BBC1, beautiful scenes of the Aberdeenshire countryside as they follow the queen's journey to Edinburgh.
-
An elderly lady has died who has spent an entire lifetime suppressing her sense of self to portray a passively disinterested head of state - I'm a little sad for her, too. I've long been of the opinion that the monarchy does a disservice both to us and to the country, but it's a testament to the Queen's capacity at the role that we still have one. To have navigated the various waters she has without running the ship ashore is a testament to her.
O.
With you here, Outy, Elizabeth gave up her life to serve her country. She may not have known anything else, as is said, but all the same it's a huge commitment to be 'on duty' 80% of your life. No wonder she loved to escape to Balmoral a place of calm and tranquility where she could just be herself.
-
Then, as is usually the case for you, you 'gather' in error.
I think not Gordon, for you yourself brought up the idea of disease.
-
Lovely piece by Frank Cottrell-Boyce:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/11/when-we-asked-queen-to-tea-with-paddington-something-magic-happened-most-lovely-goodbye
-
I think not Gordon, for you yourself brought up the idea of disease.
I had forgotten your tendancy to fall into concrete thinking.
-
That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.
With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.
I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?
That probably sounds quite clever to you, but to most other people, certainly to me, it sounds like pretentious gobbledegook. You can apply a sort of Occam's razor to the question:: Do we need a monarchy? obviously not, since many democracies manage perfectly well without one. Therefore, let's get rid of it!
-
That supposes that republicanism is the rational, intellectual side of the argument. Something which is unlikely since both monarchy and republicanism appeal to some spiritual reference point.
Nonsense - I've never seen an argument in favour of republicanism that involves 'spirituality' (whatever that actually means).
With republicanism that is some kind of common human spirit with constitutional monarchy that is also supposed but it takes a high view of natural rhythms of life, birth and death, of happenstance and/or the divine.
Shoehorning in 'human spirit' as an aspect of republicanism is meaningless unless you can define and demonstrate this 'human spirt' notion.
I would hazard that your view of republicanism places the responsible placing of a persons vote at it’s centre. Why do you think the provision for this is inadequate in our present constitutional monarchy?
I'd have thought the reason was obvious: we don't get a vote to decide who should be the monarch.
-
Looks like the penny has dropped - from the Guardian live blog.
Number 10 have clarified that Liz Truss will not be accompanying King Charles on a tour of the nations over the coming days - an announcement which had raised eyebrows.
Giving new details, No10 said her role was only to attend Services of Reflection in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
“The King is leading national mourning across the UK and the prime minister will join and attend the services,” a Number 10 source said. “The PM is not “accompanying” the King and it is not a “tour.” She is merely attending the services.”
Over the weekend, newspapers had reported the pair would “tour the UK” and Truss’ spokesman had stressed her presence was “not a requirement” but one she felt was important to be present in order to offer support. The Telegraph said the mini-tour called Operation Spring Tide would see them greet members of the public.
First Ministers of Scotland and Wales Nichola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford, as well Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate Michelle O’Neill, will attend the memorial events in their respective capitals.
-
OK; monarchists - and monarchist Christians:
I'm cheesed off with this constant parroting of 'God save the King'.
If I believe that Chrles, like his mother, is Christian, then he is saved through accepting Christ as Lord.
To continually ask God to save him either doubts his faith or God's ability to do so.
Either way it is not Christian.
-
I see from reports that there is a lot of 'proclaiming' going on, with lots of costumes and silly hats - not that it makes any difference, and these days we have more effective means of updating prople.
For me this is exactly the type of pointless flummery that is utterly silly
-
Walt Z. - I'd be interested in a concise explanation for your rejection of republicanism.
I appreciate that UK republicanism has only had seventy years to work up an argument from a feeling to a concise explanation so while we wait I am pleased to offer a concise explanation for my unease of a united republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.(Part one)
1: President (insert name here). This is a well known objection to republicanism whether we are talking about Boris Johnson or Tony Blair. The most popular person is bound to be a celebrity in fact, our democracy in our constitutional monarchy has produced Prime minister Johnson a celebrity. The succession of a ceremonial head of state by birth is definitionally above politics since there is no election or committee decision.
2: We have as much effective democracy as a lot of republics.
3: Many of us have discovered a dimension to life and the place of a permanent reference embodied in monarchy on the death of the queen.
4: It has heightened our connection to history and lifted people to a view of the world world above the consciousness of existence imposed upon us by press, media and the here today gone tomorrow poltician.
5: The four or five year cycle of election reflects no natural cycle.
6: The false impressions given by republicans regarding the amount and quality of democracy enjoyed in a constitutional monarchy and the reduction of constitutional monarchy to ''it's just an accident of birth''. It isn't just that, it's about succession, heirship, what the queen and King Charles would call an apprenticeship,
7: The link between the Tory party and the monarchy is subsiding and has been replaced by Brexit in my view.
-
I see from reports that there is a lot of 'proclaiming' going on, with lots of costumes and silly hats - not that it makes any difference, and these days we have more effective means of updating prople.
For me this is exactly the type of pointless flummery that is utterly silly
Might be an ingrained Scottish thing.
After all, the Stewarts were a weak lot - child kings meant that monarch were tolerated, ignored or bumped off.
After 1603, monarchs were absentee landlords - or, in the case of Charles I, completely out of touch interfering idiots - meaning that attitudes in the two lingdoms took differing paths.
Even monarchists here - with the obvious exception of the Orange sect - treat the institution with a wry sense of 'I kent his faither' - and no harm in that.
-
Hmmm....
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-abolish-monarchy-sign-in-edinburgh-17351692/
-
I see that pageantagious flummery is in full swing now: my term for what afflicts those who, on being infected with a liking for pageantry, have no resistance to it and who fail to spot that it really is no more than pointless window-dressing and/or entertainment - but with added lashings of faux gravitas.
A lot of what is going on is to do with the way it was done before the era of instant news. I quite like the pagaentry but the media seem to have well and truly ruined it by talking about hardly anything else.
-
What on earth does point 3 mean?
-
Oh it's the nonc... Aw lovely doggies
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62870783
-
What on earth does point 3 mean?
Only WZ knows.
-
What on earth does point 3 mean?
I mean we have realised we have a point of consistency and permanence in our lives. Something immune from transient fashion a reliable link to hour past separate and immune from the political and media driven idea that we are all under probation....although it is the right wing press that tries to impose this on the monarchy.
When the Queens body is courteged through the Scots countryside it is the strongest reminder of an existent Scottish nationhood not least because it has it’s own monarch lying in state in it’s capital. That is certainly a blow to ReesMogg, Truss and the English nationalists who have sought to ignore Scotland.
-
Only WZ knows.
Hopefully I’ve clarified and we can now finally debate. I look forward to seeing the argument for a republic.
-
Moderator:
Please note that this thread has been moved here from the General Discussion Board and also that the posts in a separate thread (the end of an error?) have been merged into this thread.
-
1: President (insert name here). This is a well known objection to republicanism whether we are talking about Boris Johnson or Tony Blair. The most popular person is bound to be a celebrity in fact, our democracy in our constitutional monarchy has produced Prime minister Johnson a celebrity.
But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.
The succession of a ceremonial head of state by birth is definitionally above politics since there is no election or committee decision.
And why is that a good thing Vlad - I think having someone elected provided that person with far more credibility than simply being 'proclaimed' by ancient protocol simply because they happened to be born to a particular person 74 years previously.
-
2: We have as much effective democracy as a lot of republics.
That is certainly arguable.
We have some major limitations in our democracy compared to many mature democracies that are republics. Not least that our Head of State has no democratic mandate, and also that we have a completely unelected second chamber of our parliament. And of course those two are linked. So sure you can trade off democratically dubious republics with a president (Putin anyone), which I can counter with monarchies with equal or poorer democratic credibility, e.g. Saudi Arabia, but that isn't the issue.
Would we have more democracy if we elected our Head of State rather that have them appointed by birth - all other things being equal, well certainly we would. That seems to be unarguable against.
-
3: Many of us have discovered a dimension to life and the place of a permanent reference embodied in monarchy on the death of the queen.
Not entirely sure what you mean, but if I reading you correctly I'd argue that you are wrong.
Many people have felt a sadness and a sense of loss because the Queen has died - the feelings relate to this specific monarchy, a particular person, not to do with the monarchy itself. And the feeling is related to natural reaction to 'end of an era' stuff - and the whole point about the end of an era is that it is the antithesis of permanence isn't it. We are sad because we feel the lack of permanence of the Queen - that the whole royal rigmarole trundles on doesn't really impact, our sadness, sense of loss and feeling of end of an era is because, regardless of whether there a royal family remains, a monarch remains, the Queen doesn't.
-
But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.
If they are ceremonial and non executive then why bother starting to call them a president? If they are ceremonial and non executive then why does a bad un make any difference? Let me ask you this question, Davey...Name a bad president in recent history...and then try and name a bad constitutional monarch...the only ''Bad'' british monarch eliminated himself from officeAnd why is that a good thing Vlad - I think having someone elected provided that person with far more credibility than simply being 'proclaimed' by ancient protocol simply because they happened to be born to a particular person 74 years previously.
a presidential system would be easily politicised, in fact politicisation is guaranteed wherever there is an election and as we know some circumstances which are voted for are at least semi permanent and turn out to be a disaster vis Brexit. Again you ignore that Charles has served a lifelong apprenticeship. I did toy with the idea that a head of state be chosen by lot but that would turn up people who could not cut the ceremonial and wouldn't have time to mature into the job.
British society is not Irish society, intellectuals wouldn't in my view get a look in and Britain has form in the election of celebrity and men off the telly so I'm not sure what type of president the land of Boaty McBoatface would turn up.
-
The timing of her demise apparently couldn't have been worse for Denmark, where they were planning a week of celebrations this week to mark Queen Margarethe II's Golden Jubilee. They've had to cancel some events and scale down others as a mark of respect. The news report where I read that said that she and our Queen were third cousins, which means they have a great-great-grandparent in common. I was not too surprised to discover when I worked it out that Liz's great-great-grandmother was Victoria, who seems to be the fons et origo of European monarchs.
-
But we wouldn't would we as we'd still have the PM - the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position. So the equivalents would be, for example, Ireland. As far as I'm aware they'd never elected someone like Johnson or Blair as president, nor have they elected a 'celebrity'. And even if we did, then we'd be able to get rid of them in, say 7 years when their term is up. If we get a 'wrong-un' as monarch, we've got them for life.
But since it is a purely ceremonial position. Why does it matter if they are elected or simply inherit the position?
-
Actually, I'm coming round to think that a drastically slimmed-down and reformed in various ways and much less expensive monarchy might be best. I don't want an executive President like America's much, and if we have a ceremonial one like Ireland's and Israel's, we may as well keep the monarchy. It'd be a pity to get rid of such an ancient institution - over a thousand years. What does need to go is the House of Lords, to be replaced by a fully directly-elected senate. Hereditary peers could still keep their titles.
-
That is certainly arguable.
We have some major limitations in our democracy compared to many mature democracies that are republics. Not least that our Head of State has no democratic mandate, and also that we have a completely unelected second chamber of our parliament. And of course those two are linked. So sure you can trade off democratically dubious republics with a president (Putin anyone), which I can counter with monarchies with equal or poorer democratic credibility, e.g. Saudi Arabia, but that isn't the issue.
You are conflating constitutional monarchs with absolute monarchs.
Would we have more democracy if we elected our Head of State rather that have them appointed by birth - all other things being equal, well certainly we would. That seems to be unarguable against.
I think perhaps we should be also talking about democracy and where it would be appropriate and where it's absence constitutes a real or felt deficit. A constitutional monarchy has been shown to be more durable and reflective of the British experience and indeed more useful in terms of soft national power than any presidency I know of.
-
Not entirely sure what you mean, but if I reading you correctly I'd argue that you are wrong.
Many people have felt a sadness and a sense of loss because the Queen has died - the feelings relate to this specific monarchy, a particular person, not to do with the monarchy itself.
I take issue with that. The emotions are to do with her being queen. You cannot legitimately separate that from the woman. She was an excellent examplar of what that role can mean and be.
-
The bloke behind the Princess Royal must have come straight from the billiard hall.
-
I mean we have realised we have a point of consistency and permanence in our lives. Something immune from transient fashion a reliable link to hour past separate and immune from the political and media driven idea that we are all under probation....although it is the right wing press that tries to impose this on the monarchy.
When the Queens body is courteged through the Scots countryside it is the strongest reminder of an existent Scottish nationhood not least because it has it’s own monarch lying in state in it’s capital. That is certainly a blow to ReesMogg, Truss and the English nationalists who have sought to ignore Scotland.
I haven't realised that and don't see that the cortege demonstrates anything other than there are people who support the monarchy, whereas some don't. Nothing new there.
I don't think that the country should have a hereditary monarchy because it represents a society where privilege and ancestry is seen to be more important than achievement and who the person is, their qualities, rather than what they are.
-
A constitutional monarchy has been shown to be more durable and reflective of the British experience and indeed more useful in terms of soft national power than any presidency I know of.
Not really - it is only "durable" because nobody with political clout seems prepared to have a serious discussion regarding the ongoing role of the monarchy and/or its relevance - forelock-tugging seems to be the order of the day.
I was listening to Radio Scotland while driving this morning and one of the commentators mentioned that support for the monarchy in Scotland is in the mid-40s %: a minority, and reduces further among younger age groups, and that among supporters of Scottish independence that figure drops to around 20% - I missed the reference but I'll try and find it.
In other words it simply isn't the case that support for the monarchy is at a steady state everywhere or across the age range.
-
I haven't realised that and don't see that the cortege demonstrates anything other than there are people who support the monarchy, whereas some don't. Nothing new there.
I don't think that the country should have a hereditary monarchy because it represents a society where privilege and ancestry is seen to be more important than achievement and who the person is, their qualities, rather than what they are.
Whether you like it or not, the ceremonial will demobnstrate the separate nature of the union.
The monarch's coffin rests under the Scottish, not the UK, royal standard.
The service this afternoon will be in a Scottish presbyterian Kirk, not the official English state church.
The dcoffin will have the Scots crown placed on it - this has not happened since the time of James V.
The monarch, will be addrerssed by the Scots Parliament, where, unlike that of England, he will sit on a level below elected members. The government here is not HM government, but the Scottish Government.
Yes, minor differences, but differences all the same.
-
You are conflating constitutional monarchs with absolute monarchs.
No more than you were conflating executive presidents with non-executive presidents - that was my point.
-
Whether you like it or not, the ceremonial will demobnstrate the separate nature of the union.
The monarch's coffin rests under the Scottish, not the UK, royal standard.
The service this afternoon will be in a Scottish presbyterian Kirk, not the official English state church.
The dcoffin will have the Scots crown placed on it - this has not happened since the time of James V.
The monarch, will be addrerssed by the Scots Parliament, where, unlike that of England, he will sit on a level below elected members. The government here is not HM government, but the Scottish Government.
Yes, minor differences, but differences all the same.
Thanks, I haven't taken much notice of the plans for the cortege, laying in state etc so good to have that info.
-
But since it is a purely ceremonial position. Why does it matter if they are elected or simply inherit the position?
I didn't say it is a purely ceremonial position - because it isn't.
What I said was that "the president would be a ceremonial and non-executive position". Our head of state, regardless of whether they are a monarch or a non-exec president wields considerable soft power, way beyond a purely ceremonial position. We hear this all the time - the importance of the soft power of the head of state.
So yes it does matter who has this role - and my point is that a role of this nature and importance should be something that everyone should (so they wish) be able to aspire to. Currently most people cannot - they can aspire to be PM, aspire to be a doctor, aspire to be Archbishop of Canterbury etc, etc, but they cannot aspire to be head of state. Whether they have the skills etc is a different matter, they can still aspire to that position. And there will be plenty of people in the UK who have the right skills etc to be a fantastic head of state, but they are barred due to accident of birth.
So in some respect it doesn't really matter if the head of state is elected or appointed (although I think elected would be preferable), the point is that theoretically everyone should have the opportunity to hold that role.
-
Again you ignore that Charles has served a lifelong apprenticeship.
Why is that necessary, or even desirable.
The reality isn't that Charles has had a lifelong apprenticeship - really he was brought up to be King and has spent most of his life simply waiting for his opportunity. I'd actually argue that having spent effectively 55 years of his adult life in a non-job, waiting for the job he was born to hold has been pretty damaging. One of the great positives for the Queen was that she became monarch young - she was a blank page in terms of political opinions, gaffs, controversies etc. And therefore was able to maintain a level of neutrality, knowing that her private views weren't known. Charles isn't like that at all - we all know his views on all sorts of issues - that he won't profess them publicly as King is irrelevant, we know what he thinks in the background.
And further, why is 74 years of apprenticeship such a positive for Charles, when the Queen had just 15 (from the point when it became apparent she'd be Queen) and her father literally weeks. Didn't seem to impact their abilities to do the job.
-
4: It has heightened our connection to history and lifted people to a view of the world world above the consciousness of existence imposed upon us by press, media and the here today gone tomorrow poltician.
But the royals are the epitome of the famous for being famous. Their profile is entirely due to a symbiotic (or parasitic, you take your choice) relationship with the media and the press. There is absolutely nothing noteworthy about, for example William (or George) except for who their parents were. Their profile within the press and media isn't based on the fact that they are good at x, talented at y. We are pumped with a constant stream of press and media pieces about the royals due to nothing more than the quirk of birth. Without that media and press profile the royals are nothing.
-
I take issue with that. The emotions are to do with her being queen. You cannot legitimately separate that from the woman. She was an excellent examplar of what that role can mean and be.
Which rather demonstrates my point.
People are mourning the death of a monarch, they aren't mourning the monarchy, because that trundles on. The sorrow etc is about the person, not the institution.
-
..and then try and name a bad constitutional monarch...the only ''Bad'' british monarch eliminated himself from office
Presume you mean Edward VIII - so what made him 'bad'? Was it his desire to marry a divorcee (which was what made his abdicate), or his views on a range of matters.
What if he'd decided not to marry and didn't abdicate - would he have suddenly become a 'good' King, on the throne until the 70s.
And let's not forget that if it were today he wouldn't have had to abdicate as we've decided that it is fine to have a monarch married to a divorcee - we've had one for the last 5 days.
And on other 'bad' monarchs - well it depends on how you set your standards, but certainly the notion of duty, accessibility, engagement with the public etc we've seen with the Queen is pretty recent and seems largely started with her father. Earlier monarchs, e.g. George V, Edward VII simply didn't operate like that at all. By modern standards they'd all be bad monarchs.
And Victoria largely vanished from public life for decades of her reign. She simply wasn't really doing the job at all.
And were earlier monarchs (e.g. Edvard VII) subject to the levels of media scrutiny we have today I think one or two would have given Andy a run for his money.
-
Presume you mean Edward VIII - so what made him 'bad'?.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal
-
But the royals are the epitome of the famous for being famous.
No, they are famous for being royal
-
No, they are famous for being royal
But they are only royal by accident of birth, not due to anything that warrants fame - hence famous for being famous. And there are plenty of royals, particularly in other countries, who aren't really famous at all as the media/press simply leave them alone. So the notion that the profile and fame of our royals is somehow detached from the media and press is ludicrous. Have you ever looked at lots of our celebrity press - they endlessly pump our sycophantic stories about the royal (or unfairly biased ones is it is a royal deemed to now be a pantomime villain). They create the celebrity and then feed off the celebrity.
-
But they are only royal by accident of birth, not due to anything that warrants fame - hence famous for being famous. And there are plenty of royals, particularly in other countries, who aren't really famous at all as the media/press simply leave them alone. So the notion that the profile and fame of our royals is somehow detached from the media and press is ludicrous. Have you ever looked at lots of our celebrity press - they endlessly pump our sycophantic sorties about the royal (or unfairly biased ones is it t a royal deemed to now be a pantomime villain). They create the celebrity and then feed off the celebrity.
The Queen wasn't a good monarch because she was hyped up to be so.
As for a sycophantic press, The Guardian for instance shows a bit of bias towards British republicanism and inflates it's actual affective force and the Right wing press seems to have for a long time put the monarchy and royal family on some kind of probation and, with it's concentration on William and Kate at the expense of the King and Camilla shows a disregard for the monarchy and history. The ''skip a generation to appoint, by popular acclaim, the next monarch'' is just backdoor republican mischief making.
-
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal
Yes I'm well aware of his view.
But he didn't have to abdicate - that was his choice, and not one he'd be forced to make today. So in a manner of speaking, we dodged a bullet because he had to abdicate not because of his views but because of his choice of partner. Had that not happened, he'd have been King until 1972.
And your argument about the apprenticeship really doesn't hold water does it - Edward VIII (who you seem to consider to be a bad king who could easily have been a bad king for 35 years rather than 300 days) had over 40 years of apprenticeship (as you call it). His brother, who never expected to become king, had no real apprenticeship before being thrust into a role he didn't expect and appears not to have wanted.
-
Yes I'm well aware of his view.
But he didn't have to abdicate - that was his choice, and not one he'd be forced to make today. So in a manner of speaking, we dodged a bullet because he had to abdicate not because of his views but because of his choice of partner. Had that not happened, he'd have been King until 1972.
And your argument about the apprenticeship really doesn't hold water does it - Edward VIII (who you seem to consider to be a bad king who could easily have been a bad king for 35 years rather than 300 days) had over 40 years of apprenticeship (as you call it). His brother, who never expected to become king, had no real apprenticeship before being thrust into a role he didn't expect and appears not to have wanted.
The system held Edward the eighth in Check at the point at which it could. Edward was asked to demonstrate sacrifice and restraint for the sake of the country but in the end our swerve away from being an ally of the reich was luck. Edward demonstrated that in Dangerous times (The age of Dictatorship) he was not the ideal monarch. There is also the possibility that he could have opposed his friend Hitler in the way that George V opposed his cousin Wilhelm and repudiated another cousin Nicholas.
Would Edward VIII have been an ally of Hitler and have survived wartime defeat? And would the British monarchy have survived that defeat? I'm not sure.
So much for what might have been, what was, was that the kings and Queens of the 20th century were by and large Good Monarchs and Edward the eighth was a good apprentice lured to the dark side in a few respects.
-
The system held Edward the eighth in Check at the point at which it could. Edward was asked to demonstrate sacrifice and restraint for the sake of the country but in the end our swerve away from being an ally of the reich was luck. Edward demonstrated that in Dangerous times (The age of Dictatorship) he was not the ideal monarch. There is also the possibility that he could have opposed his friend Hitler in the way that George V opposed his cousin Wilhelm and repudiated another cousin Nicholas.
But the point is that it was his choice - if Edward VIII had chosen not to abdicate I don't think constitutionally we'd have been able to do anything about it. He'd have remained king until he died.
And historians think that he wasn't the only sympathiser amongst his siblings.
So much for what might have been, what was, was that the kings and Queens of the 20th century were by and large Good Monarchs and Edward the eighth was a good apprentice lured to the dark side in a few respects.
Were they? On what basis? Certainly by current standards Edward VII was a dud - considered lazy and unsuited by his mother and was a serial adultery, gambler etc. More akin to Andrew.
George V seems to have been more interested in enjoying his traditional pursuits, rather than engaging in his public duties as monarch, and was considered boring and uninspiring.
-
Were they? On what basis?
On the basis of Brand survival and gauged by how the populace responded at the conclusion of each reign. That response has been little support for a republic as opposed to an evolvable constitutional monarchy.
Thinking of which isn't it up to both sides of a debate to make an outline of their case. Please feel free to give the case for a republic.
-
On the basis of Brand survival and gauged by how the populace responded at the conclusion of each reign. That response has been little support for a republic as opposed to an evolvable constitutional monarchy.
That's the equivalent of thinking that because we continue to elect (or have appointed) a new PM periodically, that the public automatically approve of the predecessor - it is non-sense.
Given that over generations monarchy has been rammed down our throats as 'a good thing' by the establishment (that err includes the monarchy) it is hardly surprising that the narrative is that the King/Queen was universally loved, respected etc and a 'good monarch'. I don't think you can make that judgement whatsoever because the public isn't provided with any alternative, nor is there any meaningful way to assess such popularity.
So I have no idea (and nor do you) what the rank and file really thought of, for example, Edward VII in 1910 when he died, nor whether they really had the information to make a judgement, which I doubt.
Out of interest - early evening yesterday my wife and I popped past Buckingham Palace on the way back from the cricket. Loads of people there and loads of flowers so clearly people wanted to be there/see it etc. But what was noticeable was that a high proportion appeared to be tourists (huge numbers of languages), but also how many people were posing for selfies which struck both of us as deeply inappropriate. This felt rather more like an event people needed to see, rather than a solemn paying of respects.
But of course most people won't go and will probably just be getting on with their lives as best they can until things return to a level of normality. There certainly seems little appetite for the kind of enforced mourning, with events being cancelled - there has certainly been a big backlash against the football for cancelling fixtures compared to other sports who have carried on.
-
That's the equivalent of thinking that because we continue to elect (or have appointed) a new PM periodically, that the public automatically approve of the predecessor - it is non-sense.
No i've already outlined in numbered points what the advantages of a British constitutional monarchy are over it's dismantlement and replacement. What we have not heard from the republican side is why and how the benefits of the British monarchy can and should be substituted with a republic.
Why for instance is democracy more fitting for ceremonial and non executive functions of state?
How does the election of a president improve our lot?
How is historical continuity and our sense of nationhood preserved in and by a short term President with whom we cannot possibly develop any kind of respectful trust and sense of security with in a five year period?
Until you put a case we don't know what a British presidency is for. There is no reason as in a newly independent state for a complete break from history. That which is elected is political.
-
But of course most people won't go and will probably just be getting on with their lives as best they can until things return to a level of normality. There certainly seems little appetite for the kind of enforced mourning, with events being cancelled - there has certainly been a big backlash against the football for cancelling fixtures compared to other sports who have carried on.
Hmmm I can smell the scent of revolution already, I can see the maelstrom of the foment of discontent and the tidal wave of republicanism sweeping through our nation.
Davey, listen!
Do you hear the punters sing singing the songs of angry men. It is the sound those who will not be slaves again.
-
.
-
Hmmm I can smell the scent of revolution already, I can see the maelstrom of the foment of discontent and the tidal wave of republicanism sweeping through our nation.
Unlikely as they'll be arrested - as is already happening in a number of instances where people have been peacefully and lawfully protesting against the proclamation of a new monarch which they do not agree with, which is completely legitimate expression of free speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested
More seriously - no there won't be a sudden republican wave, but there is already a trickle that could easily run a little faster bit by bit over the next few years. Notably support for the monarchy has dropped considerably over the past 10 years, from 73% in 2012 to 62% earlier this year. Now that is still a solid majority but not the kind of overwhelming majority support some would like to have you believe. But that 62% is with the Queen as monarch and we know her popularity way outstrips overall popularity for the monarchy and she is, but some margin, the most popular royal. Problem for Charles is his popularity lags behind that of the monarchy overall, and he is 4th-7th most popular royal (depending on your polling) and consistently more people wanted the throne to pass straight to William than to Charles. So all these things point to a bit more of a shift against the monarchy with Charles in place.
I don't think this will happen overnight, but in the next few years I think there will be people whose attitude is 'well he's not like the Queen is he' - others frustrated that their preferred monarch is kicking his heals as Prince of Wales and other still no longer seeing the point at all now that the Queen (ever present in their lives as monarch) is gone so the bubble of stability/continuity is burst.
-
You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.
No i've already outlined in numbered points what the advantages of a British constitutional monarchy are over it's dismantlement and replacement. What we have not heard from the republican side is why and how the benefits of the British monarchy can and should be substituted with a republic.
That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents.
Why for instance is democracy more fitting for ceremonial and non executive functions of state?
Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
How does the election of a president improve our lot?
I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.
How is historical continuity and our sense of nationhood preserved in and by a short term President with whom we cannot possibly develop any kind of respectful trust and sense of security with in a five year period?
Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing.
Until you put a case we don't know what a British presidency is for. There is no reason as in a newly independent state for a complete break from history, that which is elected is political.
Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.
Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.
-
You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.
That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents.
Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.
Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing.
Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.
Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.
I think the point is who is head of state and who is effective custodian of the constitution. I get that you don't need a president, but realistically if you don't have one then the PM (or first minister) becomes head of state and de facto executive president in all but name.
The question is whether this is desirable and whether it is preferable to have someone else who is head of state and has a role in constitutional matters, particularly in a situation where you don't have a written constitution. That seems to be the approach of Ireland, Germany, Italy etc. Others, e.g. France, USA have determined that the executive lead and the head of state are one and the same.
-
Article on how the monarchy is viewed her in Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear
-
The question is whether this is desirable and whether it is preferable to have someone else who is head of state and has a role in constitutional matters, particularly in a situation where you don't have a written constitution. That seems to be the approach of Ireland, Germany, Italy etc. Others, e.g. France, USA have determined that the executive lead and the head of state are one and the same.
I'd say that if there is to be a Head of State role, and if that role involves active participation in the processes and decisions of political governance: in essence, it is more than just ceremonial, then the occupant should be the result of an electoral process.
What that electoral process should be will require proposals for the electorate to consider: should it be part of the GE arrangements, so that a new Head of State is elected/re-elected wherenever there is a GE, or should it be a separate election and done on a PR basis, and what are the requirements that candidates must meet.
-
I'm pretty much with Gordon. I think we need to look at how we create checks and balances in the constitution. The constitutional monarchy we have doesn't work for that, and I don't think a ceremonial HoS would either. I'd get rid.
-
You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.
That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents.
Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.
Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing.
Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.
Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.
I'm thinking of the bad presidents Gordon. This includes Trump, several 'El Presidentes', Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin.
''It's democratic innit and that's all that needs to be said'' begs the question Gordon as long as you and your wee wizards refuse to outline any benefits a British Republic would bring in terms of connecting with our history and national soft power, economic and cultural. The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of.
So given that Gordon, ''Sell me the republic''. Same goes for Sane, and Davey.
-
I'm thinking of the bad presidents Gordon. This includes Trump, several 'El Presidentes', Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin.
''It's democratic innit and that's all that needs to be said'' begs the question Gordon as long as you and your wee wizards refuse to outline any benefits a British Republic would bring in terms of connecting with our history and national soft power, economic and cultural. The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of.
So given that Gordon, ''Sell me the republic''. Same goes for Sane, and Davey.
I put why I'm a republican earlier. You ignored it.
You also appear to have replied to Gordon here by completely ignoring what he posted.
-
I put why I'm a republican earlier. You ignored it.
You also appear to have replied to Gordon here by completely ignoring what he posted.
Sorry but ''Get rid'' seems a bit vague as a motivation since we need to know why and how.
Let me help you. You aren't selling it to me. How does a republic elevate the human spirit ...which is all the constitutional monarchy is all about?
-
Article on how the monarchy is viewed her in Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear
I'm sorry but as a Guardian reader I feel the organ is exaggerating the affective force of British Republicanism. Being opposed to the right wing media this is causing me to think we're surrounded by B******s.
-
Sorry but ''Get rid'' seems a bit vague as a motivation since we need to know why and how.
Let me help you. You aren't selling it to me. How does a republic elevate the human spirit ...which is all the constitutional monarchy is all about?
That's not the post I was referring to. I answered when you asked me the question about 'British republicanism ' earlier in the thread.
You ignored it.
-
I'm sorry but as a Guardian reader I feel the organ is exaggerating the affective force of British Republicanism. Being opposed to the right wing media this is causing me to think we're surrounded by B******s.
What do you disagree with in the article?
-
''It's democratic innit and that's all that needs to be said'' begs the question Gordon as long as you and your wee wizards refuse to outline any benefits a British Republic would bring in terms of connecting with our history and national soft power, economic and cultural.
I think Britain overstates its soft power, particularly trying to link it to the royals. All sorts of countries have significant soft power - currently China's soft power is coursing through Africa and many other parts of the globe.
There is no doubt that our soft power is diminished compared to when the Queen first came to the throne and is diminishing still. And there are far more important reasons than the monarchy for why we might still punch a little above our weight in terms of soft power. The most obvious being language - being an English speaking country, when much of the world uses English as their second language, if not the first, is hugely important. It makes cultural and economic links and ties much, much easier. And that, of course, has nothing to do with the monarchy per se, but our imperialist legacy and the fact that one of the earlier colonies to break free (the USA) is the biggest economy and the most powerful nation on the planet.
The notion that some hard nosed business people in, say, Indonesia will do a deal because we have a Queen (or a King) who they know exists but have likely never met and never will meet, is non-sense.
-
The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of.
For you maybe - but some of us Scots don't share your sense of Scottishness, as the link I posted earlier outlines: what is the basis of your sense of Scottishness?
So given that Gordon, ''Sell me the republic''. Same goes for Sane, and Davey.
I'll try again - the obvious benefit of a republic would be the removal of the archaic and dysfunctional monarchy.
-
Nicola Sturgeon looking daggers* at Liz Truss in St Giles' Cathedral.
*or possibly sgian dubhs.
-
For you maybe - but some of us Scots don't share your sense of Scottishness, as the link I posted earlier outlines: what is the basis of your sense of Scottishness?
Born there, all relations are Scottish. The effect Scotland has on me. Are you saying you have to be aloud nationalist to be a Scotsman? Are you about to commit the no true Scotsman fallacy?
I'll try again - the obvious benefit of a republic would be the removal of the archaic and dysfunctional monarchy.
Fallacy of Modernity, begs the question, dysfunction could be fixed, no actual description of a republic although models of republics go back thousands of years and are also thus archaic and dysfunctional.
You are still not selling it since the impression of a republic your republic is where everything is politicised, Puritan, dour, Driech and dull.
I’ll try again. What inspiration does such a republic offer to real people?
-
Nicola Sturgeon looking daggers at Liz Truss in St Giles' Cathedral.
Good, Truss forced into Edinburgh by the protocol of monarchy.
-
Born there, all relations are Scottish. The effect Scotland has on me. Are you saying you have to be aloud nationalist to be a Scotsman?
No - I didn't say that at all. You said that "The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of." and I simply wondered where that sense of Scottishness derived from in your case since I being, according do you, a "mere nationalist fumbler" don't share the sentiment you describe.
Are you about to commit the no true Scotsman fallacy?Fallacy of Modernity, begs the question, dysfunction could be fixed, no actual description of a republic although models of republics go back thousands of years and are also thus archaic and dysfunctional.
Understanding fallacies has never been your strong point, Vlad, as you again demonstrate - you are very good at deploying them though.
You are still not selling it since the impression of a republic your republic is where everything is politicised, Puritan, dour, Driech and dull.
I don't know if you have noticed, Vlad, but politics is ubiquitous.
I’ll try again. What inspiration does such a republic offer to real people?
The removal of an archaic and anti-democratic aspect of the political governance process - but it seems you're too busy thrashing about in faux outrage to process that fairly simple point.
-
Wouldn't disagree with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/the-guardian-view-on-monarchy-as-religion-parliament-should-not-bend-the-knee
-
I think Britain overstates its soft power, particularly trying to link it to the royals.
Where can this overstatement be found? All sorts of countries have significant soft power - currently China's soft power is coursing through Africa and many other parts of the globe.
Not denying that but their soft power is by dint of the peculiarities of their circumstances e.g. The soft power bestowed by our tradition of constitutional monarchy
There is no doubt that our soft power is diminished compared to when the Queen first came to the throne and is diminishing still.
This is due to a rash of institutional abolitions with inadequate replacement wrought by right wing politics And there are far more important reasons than the monarchy for why we might still punch a little above our weight in terms of soft power.
So what? I'm thinking of tourist draw, the Commonwealth, that 14 countries have the same head of state, Monarchical patronage has raised institutions that aren't half bad. The RCMP, RSPB, RSPCA, Princes trust, RSA
The notion that some hard nosed business people in, say, Indonesia will do a deal because we have a Queen (or a King) who they know exists but have likely never met and never will meet, is non-sense.
Never suggested it.
-
I don't know if you have noticed, Vlad, but politics is ubiquitous.
Insufficiently so for you, it seems
The removal of an archaic and anti-democratic aspect of the political governance process -
It doesn't remove for instance first past the post, Gerrymandering or a whole number of things in politics.
Look, I like a demolition and perhaps an abolition as much as the next man, Gordon. But they must be done competently, thoughtfully and with something as good or better to put in the gap left. You come over as someone who just likes a quick bang.
So since we are going to get no further with you regards the merits of a republic I am pleased to know you as Gordon the Abolitionist.
-
Where can this overstatement be found?
https://conservativehome.com/2016/10/02/britain-the-soft-power-superpower-of-global-liberalism-boris-johnsons-conservative-conference-speech-full-text/
-
Wouldn't disagree with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/the-guardian-view-on-monarchy-as-religion-parliament-should-not-bend-the-knee
Hmmmmm The last time parliament decided on abolition things didn't quite go according to plan.
-
https://conservativehome.com/2016/10/02/britain-the-soft-power-superpower-of-global-liberalism-boris-johnsons
Hup....let me stop you at ''Boris Johnson''.
-
Insufficiently so for you, it seems
Now you're guessing what my opinions are.
It doesn't remove for instance first past the post, Gerrymandering or a whole number of things in politics.
Now you're indulging in whataboutery: but I do agree that aspects of the electoral process, such as FPP, need to be reviewed.
Look, I like a demolition and perhaps an abolition as much as the next man, Gordon. But they must be done competently, thoughtfully and with something as good or better to put in the gap left. You come over as someone who just likes a quick bang.
I'd imagine that most demolitions, however messy and chaotic it might appear from the sidelines, involves some kind of plan involving a sequence of actions - I'd imagine the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords would similarly require a plan, and I'd be concerned if it didn't: although Brexit certainly creates a precendent for making major changes without proper planning.
So since we are going to get no further with you regards the merits of a republic I am pleased to know you as Gordon the Abolitionist.
Then I'll get that printed on a T-shirt and wear it with pride.
-
I'd say that if there is to be a Head of State role, and if that role involves active participation in the processes and decisions of political governance: in essence, it is more than just ceremonial, then the occupant should be the result of an electoral process.
IMO, we should have the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Head of State.They'd be elected (and unelected) by the same process and available for all the ceremonial things.
What that electoral process should be will require proposals for the electorate to consider: should it be part of the GE arrangements, so that a new Head of State is elected/re-elected wherenever there is a GE, or should it be a separate election and done on a PR basis, and what are the requirements that candidates must meet.
Get elected by a constituency, get elected by the MPs. Seems okay to me.
-
Hup....let me stop you at ''Boris Johnson''.
The then Foreign Secretary. Stopping me at that pount is merely you sticking your fingers in your ears.
-
Hmmmmm The last time parliament decided on abolition things didn't quite go according to plan.
Whereas with this royal family we paid £12m to get to protect a nonce.
-
Where can this overstatement be found?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power#Measurement
Note that the UK ranks second in two of the rankings, 5th in another and not even in the top 10 in another.
Believe the hype about the UK being the soft power super-power and you'd have thought we'd be top by some distance 'cos of the Queen'.
Interesting that France ranks higher overall when you look at the 4 measures - must be because of the selling power of their royals ... err ... nope that's wrong.
-
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power#Measurement
Note that the UK ranks second in two of the rankings, 5th in another
There you go then and not even in the top 10 in another.
Believe the hype about the UK being the soft power super-power and you'd have thought we'd be top by some distance 'cos of the Queen'.
Where do you think we would be on the ratings without the monarchy?
-
Now you're guessing what my opinions are.
Don't have to as they are advertised on here
Now you're indulging in whataboutery:
Don't think so since my argument is that the monarchy is independent of the British Political system in many respects not least it doesn't impinge on the adequacy of the democracy I enjoy.
I'd imagine that most demolitions, however messy and chaotic it might appear from the sidelines, involves some kind of plan involving a sequence of actions - I'd imagine the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords would similarly require a plan, and I'd be concerned if it didn't: although Brexit certainly creates a precendent for making major changes without proper planning.
Sorry did I say demolition? I meant cultural vandalism for the sheer sake of it.. The point was you are seem more interested in the removal of something cherished rather than the replacement.
-
IMO, we should have the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Head of State. They'd be elected (and unelected) by the same process and available for all the ceremonial things. Get elected by a constituency, get elected by the MPs. Seems okay to me.
On face value looks appealing since the speaker is a traditional figure BUT Do they hold too much power? and how and when do they get out and about?
-
not least it doesn't impinge on the adequacy of the democracy I enjoy.
There is absolutely no way you can provide proof for that assertion. We simply do not know how the monarchy impinges on the political system.
It could be a true statement. It could equally be a load of old bollocks.
We don't know. We aren't told.
We're just the little people.
-
There is absolutely no way you can provide proof for that assertion. We simply do not know how the monarchy impinges on the political system.
It could be a true statement. It could equally be a load of old bollocks.
We don't know. We aren't told.
We're just the little people.
I get to vote for local and national lawmakers, I would like a vote for an English assembly. I don't want a vote for a ceremonial and non-executive head of State since i'm okay with the one natural forces have delivered.
I admit I have less votes than say Gordon or welsh friends but that is not related to monarchy.
-
I get to vote for local and national lawmakers, I would like a vote for an English assembly. I don't want a vote for a ceremonial and non-executive head of State since i'm okay with the one natural forces have delivered.
I admit I have less votes than say Gordon or welsh friends but that is not related to monarchy.
Wholly non sequitur, Vlad man!
-
Wholly non sequitur, Vlad man!
really? How would you have answered Trentvoyager?
-
really? How would you have answered Trentvoyager?
Yes, really. Your ineptitude is not my concern to help.
-
There you go then. Where do you think we would be on the ratings without the monarchy?
Perhaps like the French and the Germans who seems to comfortably beat us on the overall measures for soft power, without the need for a monarch.
-
Perhaps like the French and the Germans who seems to comfortably beat us on the overall measures for soft power, without the need for a monarch.
I’m sure you can rise and fall in such ratings and of course soft power isn’t the only reason for not bothering with a republic.
-
Yes, really. Your ineptitude is not my concern to help.
No republic? No problem.
-
I admit I have less votes than say Gordon or welsh friends but that is not related to monarchy.
Do you Vlad - I guess it depends where you live in England and how many layers of democratic government there are in your area.
When my father was alive he (living in Dumfries) had exactly the same number of votes as I did - four - in my case District Council, County Council, UK parliament and at the time EU Parliament. My father Unitary Council, Scottish Parliament, UK parliament and at the time EU Parliament.
Had I been living about half a mile away I'd have had more votes then my father as I'd have had a Parish Council too.
-
I’m sure you can rise and fall in such ratings and of course soft power isn’t the only reason for not bothering with a republic.
But the point is that there seems to be no evidence that monarchies add to soft power so your point isn't justified as it implies that being a republic would somehow be a drag on soft power. You cannot sustain that view with evidence.
-
Don't think so since my argument is that the monarchy is independent of the British Political system in many respects not least it doesn't impinge on the adequacy of the democracy I enjoy.
I repeat for the Vlard of hearing, you have no idea or not whether the monarchy impinges on the adequacy of the democracy you enjoy, because you don't know how the Royal family impinges on that democracy, because they don't tell us.
-
But the point is that there seems to be no evidence that monarchies add to soft power so your point isn't justified as it implies that being a republic would somehow be a drag on soft power. You cannot sustain that view with evidence.
There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy. Do you have the figures for when France and Germany became republics?
-
No republic? No problem.
And yet another non sequitur from you.
-
There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy. Do you have the figures for when France and Germany became republics?
So we can, by your own admission, dismiss your claims about soft power.
-
I don't find anything particularly appealing about a 'British republic'. Hence why I phrased my post about why I am a republican, rather than a 'British republucan'. Nor is it sonething that I support because it is 'appealing'. Rather it seems to me that the hereditary principle in terms of a head of state is a illogical restriction on democracy which instills an establishment into the govt. Further it seems an inwarranted restriction on any individuals who are part of that institution.
To answer your second question, no.
Just to help out Vlad, this is my post about why I am a republican that he's ignored
-
Just to help out Vlad, this is my post about why I am a republican that he's ignored
You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.
-
You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.
Too late to worry about him now, Vlad: this is now, and we need to be rid of the lunacy of a hereditary monarchy a.s.a.p.
-
There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy.
Each ranking approach has its own way of measuring things, which you can get by following the links from wiki to the various organisations. The value of a 'basket of rankings' in this case four, is that the approach of one is likely to balance the approach of another, so this is probably a pretty good overall picture.
Overall there seems to be no relationship between whether a country is a republic or has a monarchy in terms of soft power. So if I am reading this correctly 17 countries appear at least once in the various rankings - of those 10 are republics and 7 are monarchies.
So if pressed you could argue that being a republic correlates with better soft power (note that the number one in all cases is a republic and at least two of the top three in all cases is a republic). But I wouldn't go that far at all - what isn't sustainable from the evidence is a view that a monarchy helps soft power.
-
Too late to worry about him now, Vlad: this is now, and we need to be rid of the lunacy of a hereditary monarchy a.s.a.p.
Good luck with that...although the attention seeking behaviour and opinions of republicans seems to be garnering exaggerated coverage at this time...
-
You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.
Being in the 'royal family' extends well beyond the first in line. And Eddie's action then led to exile.
Simply saying you don't accept an argument isn't a argument
-
In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.
Sure, any monarch can abdicate - but that is their decision. Edward VIII chose to abdicate - as far as I'm aware he couldn't have been forced out constitutionally had he chosen to stay.
And the thing that forced him out, if you like, wasn't his nazi sympathies or his unsuitability for the role, but his desire to marry a divorcee. So it wasn't that he was 'bad' that forced him out, merely that his choice of spouse wasn't approved of. But that wouldn't happen now as we know that a monarch can be married to a divorcee.
Over to you for an example of a monarch being forced out for being bad - or even just being a bad monarch or, as has happened several times either a totally absent monarch [Victoria] or a monarch completely incapable of fulfilling their duties [George III].
-
Each ranking approach has its own way of measuring things, which you can get by following the links from wiki to the various organisations. The value of a 'basket of rankings' in this case four, is that the approach of one is likely to balance the approach of another, so this is probably a pretty good overall picture.
Overall there seems to be no relationship between whether a country is a republic or has a monarchy in terms of soft power. So if I am reading this correctly 17 countries appear at least once in the various rankings - of those 10 are republics and 7 are monarchies.
But aren't republics are more numerous than monarchies. That would make monarchies over-represented in some way wouldn't it. So if pressed you could argue that being a republic correlates with better soft power
Not if monarchies are over-represented. (note that the number one in all cases is a republic and at least two of the top three in all cases is a republic). But I wouldn't go that far at all - what isn't sustainable from the evidence is a view that a monarchy helps soft power.
Although you did mention language which in the case of Britain was spread by it's imperial and commonwealth activities
-
One of the interesting things about Vlad's position is that he thinks that the UK electorate cannot be trusted to elect an 'intellectual president' like the Irish because they will just elect a celebrity but they are to be trusted on choosing a constitutional monarchy. The basic disconnect between these 2 ideas illustrate Vlad's flawed 'thinking'.
-
But aren't republics are more numerous than monarchies. That would make monarchies over-represented in some way wouldn't it. Not if monarchies are over-represented. Although you did mention language which in the case of Britain was spread by it's imperial and commonwealth activities
Interesting to see Vlad cheerleading for imperialism. Bit racist of you, Vlad.
-
Interesting to see Vlad cheerleading for imperialism. Bit racist of you, Vlad.
And desperately clutching at straw.
-
One of the interesting things about Vlad's position is that he thinks that the UK electorate cannot be trusted to elect an 'intellectual president' like the Irish because they will just elect a celebrity but they are to be trusted on choosing a constitutional monarchy. The basic disconnect between these 2 ideas illustrate Vlad's flawed 'thinking'.
This may be the Land of Boaty McBoatface, Brexit and electing that funny man off the telly but at least they haven't seriously toyed with the disasterous idea of replacing the constitutional monarchy with a Republic.
-
Some interesting polling - I think the first comprehensive polling since the Queen has died.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf
My summary.
1. Despite wall to wall royal family for days the proportions supporting/not supporting a monarchy have hardly budged - current numbers vs numbers in May in brackets
Support monarchy - 64% (62%)
Oppose monarchy - 21% (22%)
2. Hugely majority feel the Queen was a good monarch
3. Despite having been monarch for so long very few people had actually met the Queen - just 2%, with 27% having 'seen' her.
4. Big winner is Charles - far higher proportion say he will do a good job as King (63%) compared to previously, which was way lower at 30-40% as recently as May. This is often the case when a hypothetical leader actually becomes the person in the role, as it becomes 'real'. Will be interesting to see how public opinion settles, and we won't know that for a considerable time, but interestingly ...
5. A majority of people think Charles should continue to voice his opinions - not sure he will, but suspect that if he does he will get into hot water as monarch.
6. Most people, by a country mile, aren't planning to pay their respects in person - just 4%. Could still be a massive record breaking number heading down to London, but not really the media impression that somehow just about everyone will be making plans to attend.
7. Tories, women and oldies are far more likely to be pro-monarch.
-
And desperately clutching at straw.
and that monarchies are over-represented in your top 17 of countries with soft power?
-
This may be the Land of Boaty McBoatface, Brexit and electing that funny man off the telly but at least they haven't seriously toyed with the disasterous idea of replacing the constitutional monarchy with a Republic.
Except you praised Ireland for being able to vote for an intellectual unlike the British, so your contradiction remains.
-
Some interesting polling - I think the first comprehensive polling since the Queen has died.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf
My summary.
1. Despite wall to wall royal family for days the proportions supporting/not supporting a monarchy have hardly budged - current numbers vs numbers in May in brackets
Support monarchy - 64% (62%)
Oppose monarchy - 21% (22%)
2. Hugely majority feel the Queen was a good monarch
3. Despite having been monarch for so long very few people had actually met the Queen - just 2%, with 27% having 'seen' her.
4. Big winner is Charles - far higher proportion say he will do a good job as King (63%) compared to previously, which was way lower at 30-40% as recently as May. This is often the case when a hypothetical leader actually becomes the person in the role, as it becomes 'real'. Will be interesting to see how public opinion settles, and we won't know that for a considerable time, but interestingly ...
5. A majority of people think Charles should continue to voice his opinions - not sure he will, but suspect that if he does he will get into hot water as monarch.
6. Most people, by a country mile, aren't planning to pay their respects in person - just 4%. Could still be a massive record breaking number heading down to London, but not really the media impression that somehow just about everyone will be making plans to attend.
7. Tories, women and oldies are far more likely to be pro-monarch.
It's the Tories thing that causes Vlad problems. He thinks the electorate are dumb and venal for voting Tory, as he did for their vote for Brexit but their support for the monarchy which are highest amongst those voters he thinks is great. It's a deep fundamental contradiction in his witterings.
-
So much for the gush of emotions and support!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen
-
and that monarchies are over-represented in your top 17 of countries with soft power?
Are they Vlad.
As far as I can see the top 3, when balancing across the 4 rankings are:
Germany - republic
France - republic
USA - republic
-
So much for the gush of emotions and support!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen
Classy!
This is were the differences between Charles and the Queen become apparent - both in judgement (I simply don't think the Queen would have done this and certainly not at this timing), but all relationship with the media. I think the mainstream press would have been very reticent to run a negative story of this kind with the Queen, but we've already seen a number for Charles with the media unwilling to hold back. So we've seen:
Pen-gate
Failure to inform, let alone, consult FM of Wales on appointment of Prince of ... err ... Wales-gate, and now
Redundancy-gate
Charles seems to have evoked more negative press stories in just a couple of days than the Queen managed in the past couple of decades.
-
Are they Vlad.
As far as I can see the top 3, when balancing across the 4 rankings are:
Germany - republic
France - republic
USA - republic
Let me remind you that in your top 17 7 were monarchies and 10 were republics.
What you failed to take into account is that there are around 156 republics and 44 monarchies. So monarchies are over represented and republics underrepresented in your own measure.
So that puts republics in a poorer light.
You offered 4 different measurements of soft power France exceeded the UK at number one with the UK at number two once and Germany in another where the UK was number two.
-
'The BBC has also announced it will broadcast the first Paddington film on Saturday 17 September as a tribute to the Queen - who starred with the Peruvian bear in a sketch marking her Platinum Jubilee earlier this year.
Paddington 2 will then be shown on Monday 19 September, following coverage of the Queen's funeral'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62894460
-
Let me remind you that in your top 17 7 were monarchies and 10 were republics.
What you failed to take into account is that there are around 156 republics and 44 monarchies. So monarchies are over represented and republics underrepresented in your own measure.
So that puts republics in a poorer light.
Not really - given that by combining the rankings the top three are all republics, eight of the top ten are republics. The numbers of monarchies are bulked up by countries grumbling around the bottom with 4 appearing only once across all four top ten rankings.
Now I'm not arguing that republics are clearly better at soft power, but there is no evidence to support a notion that the presence of a monarch enhances soft power and indeed the type of constitutional arrangement seems to have little impact, except that democracies dominate.
You offered 4 different measurements of soft power France exceeded the UK at number one with the UK at number two once and Germany in another where the UK was number two.
Err, you seem to have forgotten that the UK didn't even make the top 10 in one of the rankings.
-
I can understand the police removing the bloke for his own safety given the people in the crowd attacked him but he should just have been told to fuck off because they had a hard enough job to do. After all Andrew is indeed a dirty old man.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62889396
-
Classy!
This is were the differences between Charles and the Queen become apparent - both in judgement (I simply don't think the Queen would have done this and certainly not at this timing), but all relationship with the media. I think the mainstream press would have been very reticent to run a negative story of this kind with the Queen, but we've already seen a number for Charles with the media unwilling to hold back. So we've seen:
Pen-gate
Failure to inform, let alone, consult FM of Wales on appointment of Prince of ... err ... Wales-gate, and now
Redundancy-gate
Charles seems to have evoked more negative press stories in just a couple of days than the Queen managed in the past couple of decades.
I think you need reminding that had the queen been succeeded by a republic a whole load more would have got the sack. But your lack of consideration seems to point to you not giving a shit about that.
-
Ffs!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/13/worthy-of-the-stasi-british-cycling-in-queens-funeral-u-turn-after-ridicule?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
There's a kind of 'respect'-driven hysteria going on - it's bizarre. Large supermarkets that normally stay open on bank holidays are staying closed on the 19th as a 'mark of respect': what utter bollocks!
-
There's a kind of 'respect'-driven hysteria going on - it's bizarre. Large supermarkets that normally stay open on bank holidays are staying closed on the 19th as a 'mark of respect': what utter bollocks!
Yep.
Not much respect for those folk who can't shop days ahead (mainly due to 'HM' government's criminal treatment of the poorest in society)
Still, I suppose kids growing hungry and crying adds to the mournful atmosphere.
-
I think you need reminding that had the queen been succeeded by a republic a whole load more would have got the sack.
Pure speculation. Firstly that is a completely irrelevant comparison - these people are being made redundant because one monarch is being replaced by another monarch. It isn't a situation where one type of constitution is being replaced by another - whether that be monarchy by republic or republic by monarchy. So Vlad, for your point to have any kind of validity (it doesn't by the way) you'd also need to explain why a situation where a republic is replaced by a monarchy wouldn't result in redundancies while a monarchy replaced by a president would.
Secondly I'm not sure that the creation of a republic would have such an effect - you'd replace a monarch, requiring staff, administrative functions etc, with a president performing similar functions and similarly requiring staff, administrative functions etc. So presumably many, if not most of those people would be transferred to similar roles (possibly requiring TUPE) to serve the new non-royal head of state.
The reason why these people are being made redundant is that we have one less royal to serve with costly admin - so the whole functions of Clarence House are no longer needed as Charles acquires the functions that served his mother.
But your lack of consideration seems to point to you not giving a shit about that.
Nope - it is you who is showing lack of consideration - these are real people, many of who have served Charles for years and decades who are casually being told they may be made redundant at a time when I suspect many of these people are feeling raw and emotional and during an unprecedented cost of living crisis. And the timing and manner of the notice really stinks - firstly to make the announcement right now, before the Queen has even been buried. So apparently it is completely unacceptable to be on holiday in Center Parts on Monday, but perfectly acceptable to sack people in the royal household.
Also people found out in an impersonal letter from a minion - if you are going to threaten people with redundancy have the guts to do it yourself and do it in person. Once during my career I had to preside over a restructure that placed a significant number of people under threat of redundancy in the department I headed - I told the staff in person, in a meeting, face-to-face (obviously followed up by formal letters).
So yes I do feel for these people, real people whose real jobs are under threat. By contrast all you can do is make a political point about a hypothetical situation involving hypothetical people and hypothetical jobs. And I thought christians were supposed to be compassionate - not much of that on show from you Vlad.
-
Yep.
Not much respect for those folk who can't shop days ahead (mainly due to 'HM' government's criminal treatment of the poorest in society)
Still, I suppose kids growing hungry and crying adds to the mournful atmosphere.
Also the Center Parcs situation is bonkers.
Many people will have booked to stay for a week - Friday to Friday. They are now being told that they can still have their holiday, except that Monday is cancelled. How are families expected to find some alternative accommodation for Monday night.
I think we really need to get a sense of proportion here - there is a funeral on Monday, it has been declared a Bank holiday, so I understand that the businesses which normally close on a bank holiday will do so. But those that are normally open I'd expect to open too, all being with perhaps altered opening hours. So essential shops should perhaps close for a couple of hours when the funeral is actually taking place, but otherwise should open. Individuals can make their own decision what they choose to do on Monday (and between now and then). What happened to keep calm and carry on.
-
Anyone know if the dotty 'Hexagons of lightning' AKA Emiliy Windsor, who used to haunt the BBBC board, is still around?
It might be interesting to hear her.....er.....insight.......
-
Second pen-gate in just a few days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/queen-king-charles-northern-ireland-b2166557.html
What is interesting is firstly how petulant and unprofessional Charles appears (cannot imagine his mother having the same response), but also in both instances he seems to take his frustrations out on his staff, who presumably aren't to blame.
Now I think his mother was a calmer and much more measured presence - she'd probably have just carried on without anyone noticing or just laughed it off. But also there is a very different relationship with the press - the Queen's was very good but rather remote, so I suspect the press wouldn't have reported the incident at all in any significant manner. Charles, by contrast, has a very bad relationship with the press dating back over many years. And while that is completely understandable given what happened to his former wife it doesn't change the fact that a bad relationship with the press means that incidents like this will be reported and the spin will be able the temperament of Charles.
There is a final point - Charles has just lost his mother - that is difficult for any of us, but certainly more difficult if you have to perform various functions as well. So in that respect I have great sympathy. Except, he doesn't need to - this whole tour of the UK thing has no precedent - his mother didn't do it before George VI's funeral, nor his grandfather etc. This is being presented as an aspect of royal protocol during official mourning of a monarch, but it is no such thing. I suspect he decided he must be super visible to try to shore up the credibility of succession. But there is nothing in royal protocol or royal precedent that requires (or expects) a new monarch to go on a whistle stop tour of the 4 nations, attending ceremonies, signing documents, doing walkabouts. This is all new.
-
Friend posted up this conversation woth his 6 year old daughter
“Is the news meant to tell us new things that have just happened, daddy?”
“Yes, love”
“Things we don’t already know?”
“Yes, love”
“Well, everyone in the world must know the Queen died by now so they can definitely move onto something else tomorrow.”
-
Friend posted up this conversation woth his 6 year old daughter
“Is the news meant to tell us new things that have just happened, daddy?”
“Yes, love”
“Things we don’t already know?”
“Yes, love”
“Well, everyone in the world must know the Queen died by now so they can definitely move onto something else tomorrow.”
Nae chance: most of the media are going to milk this for the next week or so on the presumption that we are all happy to be force-fed sychophantic sentiment to overdose levels: some of us aren't, but thankfully the nonsense can be largely avoided provided one is also happy to avoid most of the mainstream media for the next week when, hopefully, said nonsense will subside.
-
Anyone know if the dotty 'Hexagons of lightning' AKA Emiliy Windsor, who used to haunt the BBBC board, is still around?
It might be interesting to hear her.....er.....insight.......
Emily wasn't Hexagons of Lightning. That was Frankie who didn't claim to be the true royal heir but was just as nutty
-
Nae chance: most of the media are going to milk this for the next week or so on the presumption that we are all happy to be force-fed sychophantic sentiment to overdose levels: some of us aren't, but thankfully the nonsense can be largely avoided provided one is also happy to avoid most of the mainstream media for the next week when, hopefully, said nonsense will subside.
Only you guys could make yourselves look a bunch of miseries by NOT being involved in a mourning.
-
Only you guys could make yourselves look a bunch of miseries by NOT being involved in a mourning.
If you want to mourn, then go ahead and mourn.
What I don't like is the notion of enforced mourning - that would are required to, or at least should, mourn and that mourning should take a particular form. Whether or not to mourn is a personal matter. I also don't like the notion that there is an 'expected' way in which you should pay your respects - people that do want to pay their respects will have all sorts of ways in which they will want to do this, that are personal to them.
Queuing for hours to file pass the coffin of a person you probably never met and didn't know is one way - and that's fine if you want to do it (although don't buy into the myth that public lying in state is some centuries-old tradition and protocol - it isn't). But others won't want to do this, but may mark their respects in their own private and personal manner - and that is nothing to do with anyone else and it isn't your business how they choose to pay their respects or whether they choose to pay their respects.
-
Anyone know if the dotty 'Hexagons of lightning' AKA Emiliy Windsor, who used to haunt the BBBC board, is still around?
It might be interesting to hear her.....er.....insight.......
Here she is, or was!
Last posted Feb 2021.
Given her age that might not be good or maybe she has moved on to another platform?
I would have expected something from her though.
https://youtu.be/ufHMrFT7dEU
-
Anyone know if the dotty 'Hexagons of lightning' AKA Emiliy Windsor, who used to haunt the BBBC board, is still around?
It might be interesting to hear her.....er.....insight.......
This is her "claim to the throne" page, not been updated.
http://www.holyconservancy.org/1CLAIM.html
-
Actually a pretty good article from the BBC. My take is that there isn't really any evidence of some 'fascist' clampdown on protest but a number of fairly understandable mistakes by police in a bizarre situation. I think the breach of the peace charge for the bloke shouting at Andrew should be quietly dropped.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-62887745
-
Just switched on the telly (out of curiosity to get an update on what's happening with late queenie) and the BBC were interviewing a woman that had stayed out all night to get a front row view of the coffin's journey to Westminster hall. She was absolutely soaked, hair dripping and looking exhausted. Don't ask me .... guess it's the price you pay for devotion. :-X
-
Or delusion
-
Just switched on the telly (out of curiosity to get an update on what's happening with late queenie) and the BBC were interviewing a woman that had stayed out all night to get a front row view of the coffin's journey to Westminster hall. She was absolutely soaked, hair dripping and looking exhausted. Don't ask me .... guess it's the price you pay for devotion. :-X
There will always be people who are prepared to go to what others might consider extreme lengths in order to see something, get tickets for something etc etc. If they wish to, that's fine with me.
What does concern me is the level of bias in the reporting, particularly from the BBC. Those few (and proportionately they are few) who will queue to see the lying in state, or those turning up for a glimpse of the coffin go past, or perhaps to see Charles at a walk-about etc aren't representative of the vast majority of the country, who although they may be saddened by the Queen's death and feel there is the end of an era, won't go to such extreme lengths. But if you'd accept the BBC editorial line you'd consider this to be the norm rather than the exception.
But it goes further - of course the BBC feels the need to then interview these people to get their views - well guess what, interview ardent monarchists (i.e. those likely to drop everything to walk past a coffin or get a glimpse of the new King) and they will tell you how great the monarchy is - that the Queen was beyond reproach and that Charles will be great. But these views aren't representative nation-wide, merely representative of people who go are prepared to do anything to turn up at a royal event. It is a bit like only interviewing tory members as Truss became PM - you are hardly likely to get a balanced view.
What it creates is a distorted narrative that everyone is planning to turn out to these events and that everyone thinks unflinchingly that the monarchy is great. That isn't the case.
I'd argue that a more typical person in the UK is:
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.
-
To add to Prof Davey's point, there has been a strong subtext, and often just text, from BBC Scotland that the crowds that turned out in Edinburgh and along the routes have been indicative of support for unionism.
There were a couple of suggestions about splitting out the political posts on this thread to a different thread but the problem is the subject is inherently political. You can't really discuss the accession of a new monarch and avoid it.
-
Maybe some of those queuing have 'The king's ill' - scrofula - and hope Chairlie's alternative medicine might just work....
Just saying.
-
I'd argue that a more typical person in the UK is:
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.
And possibly most importantly looking forward to everything getting back to some semblance of normality in a week or so.
-
Just to use Prof D's list as a personal checklist:
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
Yes - saddened probably too strong a term. Understanding that it is sad for others.
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
No
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
No
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
Yes
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
No
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
No
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
Yes
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally
No
-
Maybe some of those queuing have 'The king's ill' - scrofula - and hope Chairlie's alternative medicine might just work....
Just saying.
There are certain hints of this. The royal family seem like some form of sin eaters, or harvest royalty, for some people.
-
Just to use Prof D's list as a personal checklist:
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally
No
Wasn't really adding this as a checklist, but would be interesting to see what other poster responses are.
NS - on this one, is it a 'No' because you don't want things cancelled, or because you'd not be unhappy is you were personally affected by cancelled events. I suspect I know the answer, but it would be helpful to clarify. I guess my statement doesn't have a simple yes/no answer as it is in two parts.
-
To answer my own points
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
Yes, but it is difficult to be overly saddened by the death of someone who lived to 96 and seemed in pretty good health nearly to the end
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
Yes - it feels like the end of an era and something constant in my life has gone. Probably did a good job but hard to tell really as no comparisons and there isn't really any proper scrutiny
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
Actually yes - although it was pretty evident last Thursday afternoon that she was dead or dying, I heard the official news while at a school Trustees meeting and later in the evening went to a choir rehearsal (neither were cancelled). Somehow it seemed right to be coming together with people I knew at that time, even though there was no mention at the latter and brief mention at the former, partly because we were all finding out in 'live time' by text/social media etc, but also as it has impacts on the school.
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
Kind of - no plans to go to see lying in state etc, but did walk past Buckingham palace on my way back from the cricket on Sunday, largely out of curiosity rather than any general sense of needing to. The atmosphere was weird.
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
Kind of - will probably see bits of it, but have no desire to sit down and watch it in full
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
No - I don't support the monarchy
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
Yes - too much coverage, too little actual news, and if you have so much coverage as part of news then you need more balance.
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.
No - I don't think events should be cancelled, and not just for things I planned to do. Seems to me that most events can be tweaked a little to make them more appropriate and preventing people from coming together at events at this time seems wrong. The only exception to my mind is actually on Monday morning during the funeral itself.
-
Wasn't really adding this as a checklist, but would be interesting to see what other poster responses are.
NS - on this one, is it a 'No' because you don't want things cancelled, or because you'd not be unhappy is you were personally affected by cancelled events. I suspect I know the answer, but it would be helpful to clarify. I guess my statement doesn't have a simple yes/no answer as it is in two parts.
Actually it's a bit of both. I think cancelling some events is just odd, and I am going to an event on Saturday that I did think might be cancelled, it isn't, but I wouldn't be that bothered.
ETA: I had been going to attend an event tomorrow. A protest in front of the Scottish Parliament in support of women's sex based spaces. Given the shut down of the parliament for the week, it meant the protest was obviously pointless. Seemed all reasonable to me.
-
Actually it's a bit of both. I think cancelling some events is just odd, and I am going to an event on Saturday that I did think might be cancelled, it isn't, but I wouldn't be that bothered.
I guess it will depend on the nature of the event. I would have been really hacked off had the cricket been cancelled on Sunday - would have been totally unnecessary and the event was a little different because of the Queen's death, which seems right, but people could come together.
The cancellation that really seemed odd to me was the Proms - surely if there is anything that is a celebration of Britishness etc etc it is the last night of the Proms. Now I know usually it is a bit jingoistic flag-waving, but it would have seemed really straight forward to something a little more respectful and sombre. They did this after 9/11. So had it gone ahead I think it would have been different but probably incredibly special and appropriate. But nope, had to be cancelled, and in this regard I think the BBC has a lot to blame.
ETA: I had been going to attend an event tomorrow. A protest in front of the Scottish Parliament in support of women's sex based spaces. Given the shut down of the parliament for the week, it meant the protest was obviously pointless. Seemed all reasonable to me.
Well I guess that's a bit different isn't it - this isn't a cancellation as a direct result of the Queen's death, but because it would be pointless if the people you wanted to protest against aren't there.\
Would you have thought it correct to cancel the event if Parliament had decided to sit and were discussing this issue?
-
I guess it will depend on the nature of the event. I would have been really hacked off had the cricket been cancelled on Sunday - would have been totally unnecessary and the event was a little different because of the Queen's death, which seems right, but people could come together.
The cancellation that really seemed odd to me was the Proms - surely if there is anything that is a celebration of Britishness etc etc it is the last night of the Proms. Now I know usually it is a bit jingoistic flag-waving, but it would have seemed really straight forward to something a little more respectful and sombre. They did this after 9/11. So had it gone ahead I think it would have been different but probably incredibly special and appropriate. But nope, had to be cancelled, and in this regard I think the BBC has a lot to blame.
Well I guess that's a bit different isn't it - this isn't a cancellation as a direct result of the Queen's death, but because it would be pointless if the people you wanted to protest against aren't there.\
Would you have thought it correct to cancel the event if Parliament had decided to sit and were discussing this issue?
In what way is a cancellation because the people you mean to protest to not being there because of the Queen's death not a direct result of the Queen's death?
-
In what way is a cancellation because the people you mean to protest to not being there because of the Queen's death not a direct result of the Queen's death?
I'd argue that it is indirectly the result of the Queen's death.
The direct reason is that the Scottish Parliament aren't sitting. Why they aren't sitting is because the Queen had died, hence indirect.
If the parliament had chosen to sit this week and debate the issue that you were protesting, the organisers of the protest may have decided to go ahead with the protest. Possibly they'd have thought that even if the parliament had been sitting that a protest would not have sat well with public perception and would have been counterproductive in changing opinion. In that case cancellation would have been a more directly the result of the Queen's death rather than primarily due to the pointlessness as parliament not sitting.
Semantics really.
-
My take on Prof D's list.
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable.
No more so than on hearing of the death of anyone, but at 96 and in declining health it really isn't a tragedy.
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
Nope - I'm indifferent to a role I think to be superfluous so I feel no personal loss.
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
Nope - in personal terms her demise means nothing to me so in no sense do I feel insecure because she has died.
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
If wouldn't go if these things were happening at the end of the road I live in - no idea why people would bother.
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
Will avoid all coverage of this like the plague.
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
Nope - I want to see the monarchy dispensed with.
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
The coverage is beyond OTT. I've even stopped watching BBC news since it seems that for now nothing else matters.
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally
I really can't see the need for stuff to be cancelled at all - seems like a hysterical over-reaction to me, and in some cases little more that virtue signalling (such as in cancelling weather forecasts 'out of respect').
-
My take on Prof D's list.
...
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
The coverage is beyond OTT. I've even stopped watching BBC news since it seems that for now nothing else matters.
...
Same here. But the media/news, especially the BBC, is supposed to be balanced. Clearly it is no way "balanced", just pandering to the monarchy obsessed.
- Let alone all the non-authorities issuing edicts about what should be cancelled or not - all based on their personal whim.
-
Same here. But the media/news, especially the BBC, is supposed to be balanced. Clearly it is no way "balanced", just pandering to the monarchy obsessed.
I think part of the issue here is that the BBC feels itself to be part of the 'holy quadrangle' of establishment - along with the royals, parliament/government and the church of england.
So rather than be a dispassionate observer of the events (which is what a news broadcaster should be) it sees itself as intimately part of the process - each of the parts play their role, but they are all part of the process. And you cannot be both part of the process and a dispassionate observer.
-
On face value looks appealing since the speaker is a traditional figure BUT Do they hold too much power?
No. They'd sign the bills for every act (or act for bills? I forget which is which. :-X )and how and when do they get out and about?
There is (currently) a deputy. So if the visitors or ceremony was more important, they'd go there and let the Deputy of the HoCs deal with the speeches, questions and voting. (Much the same as the royalty.)
MPs have a lot of holidays (apart from those who do work for their consistuents while the HoCs is closed). So there might be plenty of time to arrange tours and ceremonies.
-
Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!
-
Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!
I'd agree with the first part but I suspect this would be something the vast majority of terrorists would avoid because of the security, and the optics of attacking a funeral.
-
Another article that highlights why the monarchy needs to be binned.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/king-charles-billionaire-inheritance-tax-heating-eating
-
Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!
I think NS may be right that terrorists may think better of attacking a funeral.
But there is another aspect - I think to plan a major terrorist attack takes months - given that we didn't know until a week ago that there was going to be a funeral that would make it much harder to plan for than an event, whose date, location, overall organisation etc are known months or even years ahead.
-
I think NS may be right that terrorists may think better of attacking a funeral.
But there is another aspect - I think to plan a major terrorist attack takes months - given that we didn't know until a week ago that there was going to be a funeral that would make it much harder to plan for than an event, whose date, location, overall organisation etc are known months or even years ahead.
Good point. I think that what the security forces will be more concerned about is random nutters. Given it's thought that this may be the biggest ever broadcast audience, there may well be some who think its their chance to become 'someone'.
Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day. I can see mistakes being made if so.
-
Good point. I think that what the security forces will be more concerned about is random nutters. Given it's thought that this may be the biggest ever broadcast audience, there may well be some who think its their chance to become 'someone'.
Indeed - much harder to counter a random nutter.
Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day. I can see mistakes being made if so.
That's right and it may well not be linked to protests. Apparently there have been a number of altercations, currently not getting beyond verbal, between people taking photos videos etc as the coffin came past and those that think it to be inappropriate and are frustrated that they cannot see anything because there is a first of phones held aloft in front of them.
Personally I think this is a legitimate complaint - if you've come to watch, then watch and don't prevent others from doing the same. As I walked past Buckingham Palace I was struck by the number of people posing for selfies, smiling and striking a pose like you might as a tourist in front of Buckingham Palace in normal times. I didn't think that was appropriate and clearly I wasn't the only one as the looks of others confirmed. Nothing was said, but the tension was clear - easy for this to have turned nasty.
-
Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day.
I don't think there should be protests on the day - this is a funeral for crying out loud.
And over recent days I think there has been (or should be) a distinction between events that are linked to the death/funeral and those linked to the proclamation of the new King. I don't think protesting at the former is appropriate, even if there probably isn't a law that should outlaw it. Protesting, peacefully, at the latter seems perfectly reasonable to me - as a republican if you cannot protest the proclamation of a new monarch, when can you. As far as I'm aware the republican protests (those that have received news coverage, arrests etc) have all been at the latter type events. The one in Edinburgh seems to be a direct protest against Prince Andrew with no suggestion of a specifically republican angle.
-
I don't think there should be protests on the day - this is a funeral for crying out loud.
That's why I wrote 'Apart from it being the funeral'.
-
That's why I wrote 'Apart from it being the funeral'.
Sorry, wasn't making a point aimed at you, but a general comment, agreeing with you, that I don't think there should be protests on the day.
However I would go further - in my mind there have clearly been two sets of events over the past few days, and that will continue through to Monday. The first are a set of events involving the Queen - the moving of her body, lying in state through to the funeral itself. These are associated with her death and elements leading to the funeral. The second are events clearly associated with the proclamation of a new king - the weird town crier stuff, Charles trundling off to Scotland, NI and tomorrow Wales. The former, in my opinion, are not appropriate for protests, the latter, absolutely fair game.
-
Sorry, wasn't making a point aimed at you, but a general comment, agreeing with you, that I don't think there should be protests on the day.
However I would go further - in my mind there have clearly been two sets of events over the past few days, and that will continue through to Monday. The first are a set of events involving the Queen - the moving of her body, lying in state through to the funeral itself. These are associated with her death and elements leading to the funeral. The second are events clearly associated with the proclamation of a new king - the weird town crier stuff, Charles trundling off to Scotland, NI and tomorrow Wales. The former, in my opinion, are not appropriate for protests, the latter, absolutely fair game.
Until the basic logic of a change in the UK from a constitutional monarchy is explained then these protests are going at best to be regarded as a pop up transient movement scribbling slogans on old cardboard and at worst a form of behavioural incontinence under stress. It looks suspiciously like there is no real case.
-
Until the basic logic of a change in the UK from a constitutional monarchy is explained then these protests are going at best to be regarded as a pop up transient movement scribbling slogans on old cardboard and at worst a form of behavioural incontinence under stress. It looks suspiciously like there is no real case.
Of course there is a case. You may not find it convincing but that doesn't mean there isn't a case for it.
-
I am sad that The Queen has died, she was a wonderful Monarch. I am hopeful that her son will follow in his mother's footsteps, he seems to have made a good start.
Having said that I think the coverage of The Queen's death on the media has become rather OTT, I suspect she would have thought so too. I am glad next Monday is a bank holiday, and my husband and I will of course be watching the funeral on TV, after that it will be a relief to get back to normal again.
-
Until the basic logic of a change in the UK from a constitutional monarchy is explained then these protests are going at best to be regarded as a pop up transient movement scribbling slogans on old cardboard and at worst a form of behavioural incontinence under stress. It looks suspiciously like there is no real case.
Currently the argument against the monarchy is being drowned out by the wall-to-wall pro-monarchy coverage, with dissenting voices barely allowed to be seen, let alone heard.
But that will change - I'd be pretty confident that over the next few months and years there will be a much greater focus on the arguments for and against the monarchy. This was pretty difficult to do while the Queen was alive as it was difficult to unpick arguments for/against the monarchy, with those for/against the monarch. That has changed and once the immediate royal-fest is over there will be space and time for a broader debate.
Very interesting that The Times (probably the most pro-monarchy, rather than pro-individual royals, and establishment paper) has a number of articles etc just in today's edition which are critical of Charles and the monarchy - I counted four including their editorial page cartoon. I think that would have been unheard of when the Queen was monarch - I doubt there had been four articles in the last four years critical of the Queen, yet we get four in a single edition.
So once the monarch themselves ceases to be irreproachable it opens up the opportunity to discuss the monarchy more generally.
Do I think we will end up with a republic any time soon - nope. But I do think that without the Queen the institution of the monarchy will be significantly diminished and two of its greatest pro arguments (the Queen is simply exceptional, you couldn't do better, and but the monarch is an ever present in our lives) have gone.
-
... he seems to have made a good start.
Really?!? He seems to have made more 'mis-steps' in days than his mother did in decades.
When The Times is printing a negative cartoon about you less than a week after becoming King, that doesn't suggest to me that you've made a good start.
-
Of course there is a case. You may not find it convincing but that doesn't mean there isn't a case for it.
And what do you think that case is? Because this post merely exemplifies the usual declaration of a case without bothering to define it.
-
Currently the argument against the monarchy is being drowned out by the wall-to-wall pro-monarchy coverage, with dissenting voices barely allowed to be seen, let alone heard.
Great he is now going to tell us what the argument for a UK republic is.
But that will change - I'd be pretty confident that over the next few months and years there will be a much greater focus on the arguments for and against the monarchy. This was pretty difficult to do while the Queen was alive as it was difficult to unpick arguments for/against the monarchy, with those for/against the monarch. That has changed and once the immediate royal-fest is over there will be space and time for a broader debate.
Very interesting that The Times (probably the most pro-monarchy, rather than pro-individual royals, and establishment paper) has a number of articles etc just in today's edition which are critical of Charles and the monarchy - I counted four including their editorial page cartoon. I think that would have been unheard of when the Queen was monarch - I doubt there had been four articles in the last four years critical of the Queen, yet we get four in a single edition.
So once the monarch themselves ceases to be irreproachable it opens up the opportunity to discuss the monarchy more generally.
Do I think we will end up with a republic any time soon - nope. But I do think that without the Queen the institution of the monarchy will be significantly diminished and two of its greatest pro arguments (the Queen is simply exceptional, you couldn't do better, and but the monarch is an ever present in our lives) have gone.
Oh dear....still no case for a UK republic.
-
And what do you think that case is? Because this post merely exemplifies the usual declaration of a case without bothering to define it.
If there wasn't any credible case for a republic rather than a monarchy then why are there plenty of republics around the globe. I guess the case is based on:
1. Accountability - an elected head of state is accountable to the people, a monarch isn't
2. Equality - no-one should be fundamentally barred from aspiring to be head of state - determining head of state by accident of birth is a million miles from equality
3. Risk - you can get rid of a rubbish elected head of state, even if you have to wait a few years - you cannot get rid of a rubbish monarch without a constitutional crisis
4. Reputation - it is very hard for a monarch to dissociate themselves from past imperialism due to monarchical continuity and that the monarchy massively benefitted personally from aspects of our history that we feel aren't filled with glory. An elected head of state likely has no such baggage, and if they do you can vote against them.
5. Values and influence - to have influence you need to live your values - hard to argue for democracy in the face of dynastic leaders if our head of state is themselves dynastic
Vlad - you might not agree with these points, but they form a perfectly valid argument and one that I imagine most countries around the globe accept.
-
Great he is now going to tell us what the argument for a UK republic is. Oh dear....still no case for a UK republic.
Yup - see my previous post.
Five fundament reasons, based on principle, why a republic is favourable to a monarchy.
-
And what do you think that case is? Because this post merely exemplifies the usual declaration of a case without bothering to define it.
You seem to be fond of thrashing dead horses these days, Vlad.
A fundamental reason for the UK, and hopefully Scotland in due course, electing to become a republic would be to remove the situation of having a heridatry head of state: for me the disposal of the archaic institution of the monarchy, given it is the opposite of democratic equality or accountability, is reason enough.
Add to that a wholescale review of the political governance process, such as removing the House of Lords, disestablishing to C of E, clearly stating what scope the role of a Head of State would have and making the position subject to electoral approval, and also reviewing the electoral arrangements such as FPP - and I'd say that these are pretty good reasons to look at change. So there are some reasons Vlad - so please don't say that nobody has explained why they want change.
To put it simply: the current situation involving a monarchy is rotten, and it stinks, so we need to dispose of that and implement fresher arrangements.
-
And what do you think that case is? Because this post merely exemplifies the usual declaration of a case without bothering to define it.
And again to note I made my argument many many posts ago, and you ignored it.
-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/stephen-fry-and-dame-emma-thompson-named-among-national-treasures-to-be-buried-with-queen-20220915225764
-
Add to that a wholescale review of the political governance process, such as removing the House of Lords, disestablishing to C of E ...
In my argument against the monarchy I deliberately steered clear of the whole establish church element, specifically because this is a problem with our monarchy, not a problem will all monarchies. It is perfectly possible to have a constitutional monarchy without any established religion and with no link to any particular religion.
However in our case there is the compounding issue with the established church, so for the UK specifically there are some additional problems/arguments against, such as:
1. Fundament right to freedom of religion, including the freedom not to be religious and to change one's religion. If the monarch is head of an established church that is fundamentally contradictory to freedom of religion on an individual basis.
2. Equal status for all subjects/citizens - if the head of state also clearly favours a particular religion, which is therefore established some subjects/citizens have a poorer status than others on the basis of their religion.
Hence the problem with Defender of the Faith - defending it against who? Presumably those who hold a different faith. Charles ties himself up in knots over this and potentially makes it worse, through his Defender of Faiths or Defender of all Faiths. I cannot accept Defender of the Faith may simply be seen as some anachronistic tradition that those of other faiths and none (presumably those who are the threat that needs defending). But changing this to, in effect place about half the country (those who may claim to have a faith) as needing defending, presumably agains the other half who do not have a faith is divisive, deliberately divisive and unnecessarily divisive.
-
Guidance for Monday
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/am-i-legally-obligated-to-watch-the-funeral-your-bank-holiday-questions-answered-20220914225717
-
In my argument against the monarchy I deliberately steered clear of the whole establish church element, specifically because this is a problem with our monarchy, not a problem will all monarchies. It is perfectly possible to have a constitutional monarchy without any established religion and with no link to any particular religion.
However in our case there is the compounding issue with the established church, so for the UK specifically there are some additional problems/arguments against, such as:
1. Fundament right to freedom of religion, including the freedom not to be religious and to change one's religion. If the monarch is head of an established church that is fundamentally contradictory to freedom of religion on an individual basis.
2. Equal status for all subjects/citizens - if the head of state also clearly favours a particular religion, which is therefore established some subjects/citizens have a poorer status than others on the basis of their religion.
Hence the problem with Defender of the Faith - defending it against who? Presumably those who hold a different faith. Charles ties himself up in knots over this and potentially makes it worse, through his Defender of Faiths or Defender of all Faiths. I cannot accept Defender of the Faith may simply be seen as some anachronistic tradition that those of other faiths and none (presumably those who are the threat that needs defending). But changing this to, in effect place about half the country (those who may claim to have a faith) as needing defending, presumably agains the other half who do not have a faith is divisive, deliberately divisive and unnecessarily divisive.
In addition: not all of us living in the current UK have an identity that is in any sense 'English' and yet the C of E has seats in the House of Lords!
-
In addition: not all of us living in the current UK have an identity that is in any sense 'English' and yet the C of E has seats in the House of Lords!
You don't have to not be English to oppose CofE bishops having automatic seats in the HoLs. But this is a somewhat separate issue as you could have an established church with the monarch as head without them having any seats and that would still be a problem as it implies that although all are equal, some are more equal than others - specifically the approx. 1 million members of the CofE.
-
Ffs!
https://news.sky.com/story/despicable-amateur-football-teams-in-sheffield-face-punishment-for-playing-after-queens-death-12697344
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxDwDzAwEs&t=0s
The Queue is currently 4.3 miles long and will take you nearly two days to get through it. I can't imagine a more British tribute to the Queen than The Queue.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxDwDzAwEs&t=0s
The Queue is currently 4.3 miles long and will take you nearly two days to get through it. I can't imagine a more British tribute to the Queen than The Queue.
The queue is really moving at 500 feet an hour?
-
The queue is really moving at 500 feet an hour?
I read a Tweet that says it is moving at 0.1 mph, so it must be true.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxDwDzAwEs&t=0s
The Queue is currently 4.3 miles long ...
So it appears.
and will take you nearly two days to get through it.
Where do you get that information from?
4.3 miles in 40 (or so hours) is about 0.1 miles an hour. The people passing by the coffin seem to be moving somewhat faster than that - they'd need to spend about 30 minutes passing through the hall to be travelling that slowly.
-
The queue is really moving at 500 feet an hour?
My point exactly - see below.
It isn't - friend just posted - took them 8 hours start to finish when queue was about 2.5 mile long.
-
I read a Tweet that says it is moving at 0.1 mph, so it must be true.
Hmm :o
-
.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxDwDzAwEs&t=0s
The Queue is currently 4.3 miles long and will take you nearly two days to get through it. I can't imagine a more British tribute to the Queen than The Queue.
Breaking news. The Queue is now officially known as The Queue E2. May God bless her and all who wait in her.
-
Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!
Don't worry, the bins are going to be knob proof.
https://inews.co.uk/news/preparations-queens-funeral-police-expansion-bomb-proof-1854325
...or bomb proof.
... or, maybe both?
-
.
-
.
-
.
Beyond parody - so small children aren't allowed to enjoy a ride because it is disrespectful. Really, the country needs to get a grip.
-
The BBC are especially bad - but it is all virtue-signalling on the basis that the received wisdom is that we are all grieving: we aren't, but some of us are pissed off at the constant sychophantic bollocks that current infests much of the media.
The media seems immune to a bit of instrospection about their coverage: and where is the 'balance' that allows anti-monarchy views to be expressed?
-
Currently the argument against the monarchy is being drowned out by the wall-to-wall pro-monarchy coverage, with dissenting voices barely allowed to be seen, let alone heard.
and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.
But that will change - I'd be pretty confident that over the next few months and years there will be a much greater focus on the arguments for and against the monarchy.
Not if the past is anything to go by This was pretty difficult to do while the Queen was alive as it was difficult to unpick arguments for/against the monarchy, with those for/against the monarch. That has changed and once the immediate royal-fest is over there will be space and time for a broader debate.
If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.
-
and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.Not if the past is anything to go by If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.
And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.
-
and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.
Don't be silly: some of us have been looking to dispose of the monarchy for quite some time.
Not if the past is anything to go by
Here in Scotland stated support for the monarchy is at 45%
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2022/09/the-monarchy-and-the-union-a-symbiotic-relationship/
If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.
Even dafter - brexit supporters tend to be pro-monarchy (and pro-tory).
-
1. Accountability - an elected head of state is accountable to the people, a monarch isn't
Has anyone told King Charles the first? You say this Davey but then we find this from our own GordonA fundamental reason for the UK, and hopefully Scotland in due course, electing to become a republic would be to remove the situation of having a hereditary head of state
So there is apparent accountability.
I was selected for many of the offices I have held because of my training I had great accountability, even to the point of being subject to criminal prosecution if I was found to have failed in my duties yet in no way could I have been said to be elected to that role and in the end that didn't matter. A king can be as accountable as that.2. Equality - no-one should be fundamentally barred from aspiring to be head of state - determining head of state by accident of birth is a million miles from equality
And yet apparently there can be no President Schwartzeneger because he, by accident of birth, was not born in the USA. Are people fundementally born equal?, In what fundamental way are they equal? Of course there are prescriptions for this. The US constitution states that all are equal under God. Does your belief in the equality of man operate on the basis of things that are superior to humanity or what. Until you answer this you have no fundamental answer as to why a president is superior to a constitutional monarch. You have no warrant to say you have a case based on equality. There can also only be one head of state whose passage in republics has often been eased by wealth and connection.
Secondly is it logical for Democracy to be ubiquitous? I'm sure we can all think of situations where democracy isn't relevant or appropriate. And here we should not conflate absolute and constitutional monarchs.
3. Risk - you can get rid of a rubbish elected head of state, even if you have to wait a few years
Not guaranteed e.g presidents emeritus in China I believe - you cannot get rid of a rubbish monarch without a constitutional crisis.
And of course that would be an issue in an absolute monarchy of course a constitutional monarch can be limited in what areas they can be rubbish in. Of course this is where the ''President Boris Johnson argument comes in''
4. Reputation - it is very hard for a monarch to dissociate themselves from past imperialism due to monarchical continuity and that the monarchy massively benefitted personally from aspects of our history that we feel aren't filled with glory. An elected head of state likely has no such baggage, and if they do you can vote against them.
Again Russia abolished it's monarchy and now has both a monarchical and republican past to live down, and as far as the latter is concerned, the Russian republic is having another go!. I can't see becoming a republic wiping the slate and if commonwealth countries become republics what constitutional leverage do they then have on our state? 5. Values and influence - to have influence you need to live your values - hard to argue for democracy in the face of dynastic leaders if our head of state is themselves dynastic.
Conflation of democracy, absolute monarchy, dynasty and deliberate confusion of absolute and constitutional monarchy. Might have had some traction but your resort to dodginess and sleight of hand weakens this argument. Britain is a well known example of parliamentary democracy globally respected until Brexit and the Tories. That is why the president Boris Johnson argument against a republic is so persuasive.
-
.
-
.
-
Woildn't disagree.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/dissenting-voices-royal-mourning-queen-silenced-cancel-culture
-
Has anyone told King Charles the first?
Are you really claiming that because you can murder someone then accountability exists :o
As far as I am aware there are no lawful mechanisms by which a monarch can be removed against their will. Sure you could argue you could change the law, but that would also be impossible without the consent of the monarch as they have to give royal assent to any new law. Now you might argue that the monarch will never refuse and certainly if they did their would be a constitutional crisis. But that doesn't alter the fact that the monarch is not accountable constitutionally to the people in any way - if a monarch refused to go and refused to give royal assent there is nothing lawfully under our constitution that could be done.
-
And yet apparently there can be no President Schwartzeneger because he, by accident of birth, was not born in the USA. Are people fundementally born equal?, In what fundamental way are they equal? Of course there are prescriptions for this. The US constitution states that all are equal under God. Does your belief in the equality of man operate on the basis of things that are superior to humanity or what.
Why are you focussing on the USA - I've already said that it is unlikely that UK republicanism would support and exec president, more likely a non-exec one with the PM retaining executive functions.
And you are quibbling over details of eligibility (personally I don't agree with the US, born in the USA criterion) - I'm talking about principle. Currently no-one can aspire to be head of state unless they are born to it (and that isn't really aspiration is it). I think that is wrong - on the principle of equality I do not think that we should say to people that you are not allowed to aspire to be a teacher, or aspire to be astronaut, to aspire to be PM, to aspire to be head of state. Now of course many people won't have the attributes ultimately to achieve their aspirations, and in some cases where there is a single job they may be unsuccessful, but that is a world away from saying that you cannot, because you weren't born to a particular person who happens to be in an elite establishment position.
-
Not guaranteed e.g presidents emeritus in China I believe
Err - I think you missed the word 'elected' - and hardly an inspiring argument if your only way t defend the position of the monarchy in terms of ability to get rid of them is to nod to authoritarian effective dictatorships.
Bottom line - we cannot constitutionally get rid of a rubbish monarch - if we had an elected president, we would be able to get rid of them as their term would be time limited and if they rubbish we can choose not to re-elect them.
-
Beyond parody - so small children aren't allowed to enjoy a ride because it is disrespectful. Really, the country needs to get a grip.
Yes, because that's definitely a genuine thing and not the work of the picture taker.
-
And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.
Citation needed.
-
Err - I think you missed the word 'elected' - and hardly an inspiring argument if your only way t defend the position of the monarchy in terms of ability to get rid of them is to nod to authoritarian effective dictatorships.
Bottom line - we cannot constitutionally get rid of a rubbish monarch - if we had an elected president, we would be able to get rid of them as their term would be time limited and if they rubbish we can choose not to re-elect them.
But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter? If all you do is open and close parliament and sign bills into law, it's difficult to see how you could be rubbish at it.
And if we cannot constitutionally get rid of the monarch, how are you proposing we get rid of the monarch? You want to do something that you claim is impossible.
-
But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter? If all you do is open and close parliament and sign bills into law, it's difficult to see how you could be rubbish at it.
Actually constitutionally the powers of the monarch are far greater than that, we simply work on trust (rather than constitution) that the monarch will not exercise those powers.
So for example constitutionally a monarch could refuse to sign a bill into law. Constitutionally a monarch could have refused to accept Johnson's resignation, or have refused to appoint Truss as PM.
So the powers of the monarch go well beyond the merely ceremonial and while we operate simply on trust that the monarch won't exercise those powers we cannot guarantee that a future (bad) monarch might do so, in which case we'd be in constitutional crisis.
And constitutionally, we cannot get rid of a monarch that has gone rogue - we can try to change the law via parliament, but that would ... err ... require royal assent that a monarch constitutionally, can refuse to give.
If we had an elected head of state with similar powers, then at worst, we'd simply need to wait until their elected term ended (rather than until they died). Better still we can put in place checks and balances within the constitution that allow us to get rid of a poor head of state prior to the end of their elected period, in the manner that we have for the PM - vote of no confidence, and MPs - recall petitions.
-
And if we cannot constitutionally get rid of the monarch, how are you proposing we get rid of the monarch? You want to do something that you claim is impossible.
Good question.
The reality is that we can only get rid of the monarchy by consent of the monarch or via revolution.
Under our constitution and laws a government could propose to get rid of the monarchy and bring forward legislation to change the constitution (likely requiring direct democratic consent via a referendum). However if the monarch refuses to allow themselves to be abolished by refusing to sign the royal assent then there is nothing within our lawful process that could be done. So the only option would be revolution.
-
Don't be silly: some of us have been looking to dispose of the monarchy for quite some time.
I can't recall you saying anything on this forum about disposing of the monarchy prior to Her Majesty's passing.
-
So the only option would be revolution.
We're in the middle of a right wing revolution already
-
I can't recall you saying anything on this forum about disposing of the monarchy prior to Her Majesty's passing.
I can.
-
I can.
Citation please.
-
But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter?
We actually have very little transparency on the influence that the monarch has on the PM and government. We know that the monarch has weekly meetings with a PM - we also know that our new King is famous for routinely writing to PMs, ministers etc expressing his views on what he thinks should and should not happen.
Can we really be confident that, let's say, a perfectly reasonable proposal to fully tax members of the royal family isn't quietly opposed by the monarch during the privileged meetings with the PM and a 'compromise' developed whereby some income is taxed but other income retains a special privilege. The point is that under these circumstance the monarch (under the expected standard for public life) should declare an interest and absolve his or herself from any form of privileged conversation with those making the decisions.
So I'd suspect (and this cannot really be denied) that a level of gentle persuasion is regularly exercised in privileged audiences sufficient to influence the government of the day. I think this is likely to be greater with Charles, as although he may be a little more careful now he is King, he has spent years using his privileged position and special access to those in power to promulgate his own personal views and agenda.
-
Citation needed.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
-
Citation please.
A citation for me remembering something? Well the post you replied to is that.
-
And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.
You do not have to be a brexiteer to use their tactics on how to move from being the minority position to being the majority(if not the overwhelming majority).
-
You do not have to be a brexiteer to use their tactics on how to move from being the minority position to being the majority(if not the overwhelming majority).
What tactics are you talking about? Are you saying that these are only used by those who start in a minority position?
-
What tactics are you talking about? Are you saying that these are only used by those who start in a minority position?
The tactics used by Farage and UKIP to turn the topic of withdrawal of the country from a minority concern into a 52% referendum majority. UK republicans are in a similar minority and with a desire to turn a whole country. I presume the same tactics are necessary to the same task.
However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.
I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.
-
Citation needed.
Not sure that NS's hyperbole that "And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number."
However brexit supporters are markedly more likely to support the monarchy than remainers.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf
Poll from just a couple of days ago.
Leave voters support the monarch by 78% to 13% who oppose
Remain voters support the monarch by 60% to 27% who oppose
That's a fairly sizeable difference - remain voters are more than twice as likely to be republics than leave voters.
Hardly surprising given that tories and older people disproportionately support the monarchy and ... err ... tories and older people disproportionately voted leave.
-
However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.
No I didn't - stop misinterpreting me.
I said that the monarchy could only be abolished constitutionally with the consent of the monarch (by directly consenting to leave or by not refusing to give royal assent to a bill that changed to constitution to remove the monarchy). Otherwise the only other route would be revolution.
Of course it is most likely that a monarch, hypothetically in the face of a government backing removal of the monarchy with general consent via a referendum, would recognise that their time is up and consent to go. However my point is that were they to refuse constitutionally we couldn't do anything about it lawfully and we couldn't change the constitution without the monarch consenting either.
-
The tactics used by Farage and UKIP to turn the topic of withdrawal of the country from a minority concern into a 52% referendum majority. UK republicans are in a similar minority and with a desire to turn a whole country. I presume the same tactics are necessary to the same task.
However Professor Davey tells us that even then a revolution would be needed.
I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.
That's not an answer to what those tactics are. And ignored my second question.
As to the rest of your post, as so often you seem utterly confused, you've made reference to as yet undefined tactics which you cited as changing a minority position into a majority position, i.e. tactics that worked. You then say people have used those undefined tactics here and not convinced you and therefore those undefined tactics don't work.
-
Not sure that NS's hyperbole that "And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number."
However brexit supporters are markedly more likely to support the monarchy than remainers.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf
Poll from just a couple of days ago.
Leave voters support the monarch by 78% to 13% who oppose
Remain voters support the monarch by 60% to 27% who oppose
That's a fairly sizeable difference - remain voters are more than twice as likely to be republics than leave voters.
Hardly surprising given that tories and older people disproportionately support the monarchy and ... err ... tories and older people disproportionately voted leave.
could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only
27% of remainers are republican.
-
I believe for myself I have invited republicans to sell me the republic. Their signal failure in this so far doesn't bode well for their task ahead.
For crying out loud, Vlad: I suspect nobody here feels that they are in any sense required to "sell" you anything.
You're just indulging in your trademark evasive and confused blustering.
-
could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only
27% of remainers are republican.
You can but you seem to be straying into ad populum territory if you are using it to show anything about the validity of the arguments.
-
That's not an answer to what those tactics are. And ignored my second question.
As to the rest of your post, as so often you seem utterly confused, you've made reference to as yet undefined tactics which you cited as changing a minority position into a majority position, i.e. tactics that worked. You then say people have used those undefined tactics here and not convinced you and therefore those undefined tactics don't work.
Either you ''sell'' the republic to a presently sceptical public or there won't be one.
Rubbishing the people who you need to convince isn't a very good tactic.
-
Either you ''sell'' the republic to a presently sceptical public or there won't be one.
Rubbishing the people who you need to convince isn't a very good tactic.
So this 'rubbishing' is not one of the Brexiteers tactics then? Or is it? As so often, you are not making coherent points.
-
It's what she would have wanted
-
You can but you seem to be straying into ad populum territory if you are using it to show anything about the validity of the arguments.
I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic. I have suggested an example republicans could follow in their bid for a republic.
-
I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic. I have suggested an example republicans could follow in their bid for a republic.
That's a non sequitur to my post.
-
could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only
27% of remainers are republican.
So what?
-
I have argued a constitutional monarchy and issued a rebuttal of Davey's arguments for a republic.
Your arguments of typically rather muddled and poorly argues Vlad, but you have surpassed yourself on your claimed rebuttal to my points.
So apparently the argument against a republic centres around the fact that we can execute our monarch should we choose (actually lawfully we couldn't as we no longer have the death penalty) and it is unfair that someone born in Austria cannot become head of state of the USA (which isn't an argument against a republic but an argument against the constitution of the USA). But presumably for your narrowly defined argument to hold any kind of credence, you'd be confident that Arnold schwarzenegger could become head of state in the UK ... oh, wait, err that's not right. And nor realistically can 99.99999% of the UK population, assuming that only the top five in line to the throne could ever realistically become monarch.
-
could I also add that 60% of remainers are pro monarchy and only
27% of remainers are republican.
The point was whether leave voters were more likely to be monarchists than remain voters, and the answer is 'yes'.
I never said, nor implied, that remain voters were somehow majority pro-republican. And nor have I ever indicated anything other than that the UK retains a majority (currently a pretty large majority) who support the monarchy.
However that level of support - a little over 60% - is not as great as the unflinchingly pro-monarchy media coverage would imply. I suspect anyone watching the coverage would presume that support for the monarchy would be far higher than 60-ish%.
Also the direction of travel - support for the monarchy has dropped by approx. 10% in the 10 years since the diamond jubilee in 2012 (and that is based on current post-Queen's death polling, which probably temporarily inflates monarchy support). That is a big decline and the sorts of declines we've seen with other institutions, notably religion. And I suspect the underlying reasons are the same - generational replacement, pro-monarchy/religious (delete as appropriate) generations dying and being replaced by younger generations who are less pro-monarchy/religious (delete as appropriate). If that is the case, we can expect further drops in support over the next 10 years as the most pro-monarchy people die and are replaced by the least pro-monarchy.
-
The Dug barks.
Gaun yersel, Paul......
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/notes-from-normal-island/
-
Actually constitutionally the powers of the monarch are far greater than that, we simply work on trust (rather than constitution) that the monarch will not exercise those powers.
So for example constitutionally a monarch could refuse to sign a bill into law. Constitutionally a monarch could have refused to accept Johnson's resignation, or have refused to appoint Truss as PM.
But we all know it will never happen. Even if it is not actually written down anywhere, our monarch effectively has no real power.
So the powers of the monarch go well beyond the merely ceremonial and while we operate simply on trust that the monarch won't exercise those powers we cannot guarantee that a future (bad) monarch might do so, in which case we'd be in constitutional crisis.
And constitutionally, we cannot get rid of a monarch that has gone rogue - we can try to change the law via parliament, but that would ... err ... require royal assent that a monarch constitutionally, can refuse to give.
So how are you planning to get your republic?
I think you are wasting time and energy on this. The system isn't really broken. We could maybe formalise some of the conventions but, realistically, the monarch isn't going to go rogue as you put it.
-
But we all know it will never happen.
Do we - it can happen unless we actually make it constitutionally impossible to happen. If not, then we are simply basing matters on trust.
Even if it is not actually written down anywhere, our monarch effectively has no real power.
He/she actually does - that they choose not to is merely a matter of trust and were they to choose to exercise the constitutional powers they actually have, we'd be in a constitutional crisis. Surely it would be better to ensure constitutionally that they do not have those powers rather than keep our fingers crossed that they don't use them.
So how are you planning to get your republic?
This isn't an issue I'm going to die in a ditch over. But rather like secularism (I'm in favour of this too) I think time is on my side. Over time public opinion will gently shift and ultimately we will look at the notion of choosing our head of state on the basis of who's womb they popped out of as bizarre, anachronistic and ill-fitting with a modern democratic nation. Will this happen in my lifetime - probably not, but that doesn't mean that the direction of travel isn't going in one direction, even if its rate of travel is slow.
We could maybe formalise some of the conventions but, realistically, the monarch isn't going to go rogue as you put it.
How do you know - the monarchy could easily have gone rogue in the 1930s - we probably dodged a bullet because Edward wanted to marry a divorcee (something that wouldn't lead to abdication now) - had he not have abdicated, who knows what his influence would have been on UK relationships with nazi Germany. The current lot seem particularly dysfunctional in many respects and how would we feel had it been Charles and not his brother with the rather too close relationship with Epstein. Could easily have happened.
-
The Dug barks.
Gaun yersel, Paul......
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/notes-from-normal-island/
Interesting article which raises some interesting points provided you get beyond the one-eyed nationalism.
Something the article discusses which I've also thought about is the notion that so much of what we have seen over the past week has been justified, uncritically, on the basis that this is centuries old tradition and protocol and therefore 'just is what happens' so to speak. Yet actually scratch below the surface and quite of lot of the decisions being made are actually without precedent, and if you can breach prior tradition in that respect, why not in other respects. So as examples.
1. Public lying in state - centuries old tradition - nope, only since 1910 - Edward VII was the first and actually this was based on the funeral of Gladstone.
2. Immediately making William Prince of Wales - nope. Of course Charles spent 17 years as heir to the throne before he became Prince of Wales. Ah, you'll say, but that was because he was a child, protocol dictates that you become Prince of Wales when you become the heir unless you are under 21. Nope, wrong again - Edward VIII became Prince of Wales at 16, Edward VII soon after birth. Making William Prince of Wales one day after the death of the pervious monarch, is as far as I can see, without precedence - typically, weeks, months or even (e.g. Charles) years.
3. New monarch making public address to the nation and touring the nations prior to old monarch's funeral - as far as I can see this is without precedent. The Queen made no such addresses nor travelled outside London (other than to accompany the body back from Sandringham) during the period before her father's funeral (albeit she did have to return from Kenya, arriving back the day after her father's death). So Charles addressing the nation and touring Edinburgh (OK the body was there), NI and Wales in this period is without precedence.
So Charles has ridden roughshod over precedence in a number of ways (far enough, that's his choice), but let's be honest, his trip to Wales today isn't something based on precedence, but his decision, presumably to try to cement the notion that he is King as early as possible.
Yet having ignored precedence he then folds back into it when appointing his Counsellors of State (de-facto deputies), somehow implying that he has no choice over appointing Andrew (disgraced), Harry (no longer active royal - disgraced, well depends on whether you read the Daily Express) and Beatrice (who on earth is she), rather than including Anne (almost certainly preferred by the public and more suited). If he can make choices in other areas that area consistent with precedent, why not in this case.
-
...
Yet having ignored precedence he then folds back into it when appointing his Counsellors of State (de-facto deputies), somehow implying that he has no choice over appointing Andrew (disgraced), Harry (no longer active royal - disgraced, well depends on whether you read the Daily Express) and Beatrice (who on earth is she), rather than including Anne (almost certainly preferred by the public and more suited). If he can make choices in other areas that area consistent with precedent, why not in this case.
My understanding is that the counsellors being the spouse and next 4 in line to throne is specified by legislation
-
My understanding is that the counsellors being the spouse and next 4 in line to throne is specified by legislation
Is it? Perhaps it is - evidence please.
-
Is it? Perhaps it is - evidence please.
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
-
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
Fair enough, although your article does state:
"Counsellors of State are appointed from among the four adults next in succession (provided they have reached the age of 21)."
And that there can be a minimum of two. So my reading is that Charles is not obliged to appoint spouse plus four, but could have chosen to appoint just Camilla and William (on the basis that the other three next in line are either unsuitable, or unknown).
So perhaps not in his gift to appoint Anne, but appears in his gift not to appoint Andrew.
-
Fair enough, although your article does state:
"Counsellors of State are appointed from among the four adults next in succession (provided they have reached the age of 21)."
And that there can be a minimum of two. So my reading is that Charles is not obliged to appoint spouse plus four, but could have chosen to appoint just Camilla and William (on the basis that the other three next in line are either unsuitable, or unknown).
So perhaps not in his gift to appoint Anne, but appears in his gift not to appoint Andrew.
Think it would have to be Camilla who isn't in line, and William and Harry then.
-
Fair enough, although your article does state:
"Counsellors of State are appointed from among the four adults next in succession (provided they have reached the age of 21)."
And that there can be a minimum of two. So my reading is that Charles is not obliged to appoint spouse plus four, but could have chosen to appoint just Camilla and William (on the basis that the other three next in line are either unsuitable, or unknown).
So perhaps not in his gift to appoint Anne, but appears in his gift not to appoint Andrew.
Had a quick look at the Regency Act 1937 and it states:
'F3(2)Subject as hereinafter provided, the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the Crown, or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than four, then all such persons'
So looks like it includes Andrew and Beatrice
-
Had a quick look at the Regency Act 1937 and it states:
'F3(2)Subject as hereinafter provided, the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the Crown, or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than four, then all such persons'
So looks like it includes Andrew and Beatrice
Yes - looks that way, albeit would be interested to know what would disqualify an individual - qv Andrew!
But I guess this is where plenty of people just lose the will to live and it demonstrates the disconnect between royal protocol and what people might think reasonable. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who simply won't care about some seemingly archaic Act, but cannot understand how someone so disgraced as Andrew can then simply be appointed to this position. The fact that he is actually just being reappointed will be lost as I suspect most people won't have known that he was a Counsellor of State before the Queen died, but may have picked up that Charles had appointed him as one.
-
At last - a Labour MP has the guts to speak out, and in spite of the fact that his party leader wants all his underlings to join in the seemingly mandatory virtue-signalling for fear of upsetting monarchists.
Well done Clive Lewis.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/mourning-republicans-system-privilege
-
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
Further reading!
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/01/21/craig-prescott-harry-and-meghan-regency-counsellors-of-state-and-a-slimmed-down-royal-family/
Would appear that the Counsellors of State aren't actually appointed until needed, so the media implication of appointments is wrong and he only change is the addition of Beatrice in the 'pool'. Seems somewhat badly handled by the press/media team.
However there remains some issues, given that there is just one working royal (excepting Camilla) in the pool, and I think they cannot act if overseas. So if Charles is overseas then the only person as a working royal is William - but what if he is overseas too. And it would appear that some decisions would need to be taken jointly by two counsellors - so we will have a situation where non working royals (including disgraced ones) will be performing the functions of the monarch. Hmm.
Seems completely incompatible with both the positions of Andrew and potentially Harry, and not reasonable for Beatrice plus hardly compatible with the notion of a slimmed down royal family. Some amendment surely required.
-
.
-
At last - a Labour MP has the guts to speak out, and in spite of the fact that his party leader wants all his underlings to join in the seemingly mandatory virtue-signalling for fear of upsetting monarchists.
Well done Clive Lewis.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/mourning-republicans-system-privilege
I hope this isn't just attention seeking, a rash of which seems to be grabbing republicans.
-
I hope this isn't just attention seeking, a rash of which seems to be grabbing republicans.
Doesn't read like attention seeking to me - reads more the the views of someone who realises that the king has no clothes on and is perplexed that those attracted by the ongoing pantomime can't see this for themselves.
-
I hope this isn't just attention seeking, a rash of which seems to be grabbing republicans.
Because the mourning is so discreet.
-
What on earth was Princess Anne wearing during the vigil in Westminster Hall? She looked like a character out of Gilbert and Sullivan!
-
What on earth was Princess Annewearing during the vigil in Westminster Hall? She looked like a character out of Gilbert and Sullivan!
https://inews.co.uk/news/princess-anne-was-military-royal-uniform-why-service-explained-1853004
-
What on earth was Princess Annewearing during the vigil in Westminster Hall? She looked like a character out of Gilbert and Sullivan!
My word it's september and panto season is with us.
-
Because the mourning is so discreet.
Quite.
All those people filming proceedings with their little mobile phones are definitely doing that out of sincere, respectful reverence for the Queen.
Nothing to do with an "I was there" syndrome, or look at me "I'm really patriotic".
Patriotic Bingo is needed:
Queued for 10 hours for 4 corners.
Cried while queuing for a top line.
Cried, managed to film the coffin discreetly whilst Charles was standing vigil gives you a full house.
-
https://inews.co.uk/news/princess-anne-was-military-royal-uniform-why-service-explained-1853004
There has to be a chocolate box in it somewhere, now that tin soldiers are out of fashion.
-
https://inews.co.uk/news/princess-anne-was-military-royal-uniform-why-service-explained-1853004
From the article:
"The uniform she has been pictured in is a Royal Navy ceremonial uniform – she was made a Rear Admiral in 1993, before being promoted to Vice Admiral in 2009 and finally Admiral in 2012.
In 2020 Anne was also made a General in the British Army and an Air Chief Marshal in the Royal Air Force."
Impressive for someone who has never been in the military. :o
-
.
-
Quite.
All those people filming proceedings with their little mobile phones are definitely doing that out of sincere, respectful reverence for the Queen.
Nothing to do with an "I was there" syndrome, or look at me "I'm really patriotic".
Patriotic Bingo is needed:
Queued for 10 hours for 4 corners.
Cried while queuing for a top line.
Cried, managed to film the coffin discreetly whilst Charles was standing vigil gives you a full house.
I think it's both mass hypnosis and mass hysteria that is happening. I put the blame firmly on the media, they absolutely milk it, as the saying goes. People are completely mesmerised by what they see when they turn on their televisions or look at a newspaper. I actually find it quite worrying and feel myself concerned for some folks' mental health.
The waiting time in the queue to visit Westminster Hall is now 16hrs. There are stewards on hand to provide emotional support to folk after they leave the hall. Some apparently are so distressed they have more assistants to guide them to places for counselling. I mean this is far from a satisfactory situation. Once again. why put yourself through this 'ordeal'.
-
From the article:
"The uniform she has been pictured in is a Royal Navy ceremonial uniform – she was made a Rear Admiral in 1993, before being promoted to Vice Admiral in 2009 and finally Admiral in 2012.
In 2020 Anne was also made a General in the British Army and an Air Chief Marshal in the Royal Air Force."
Impressive for someone who has never been in the military. :o
Penguins can do it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Olav
-
I think it's both mass hypnosis and mass hysteria that is happening. I put the blame firmly on the media, they absolutely milk it, as the saying goes. People are completely mesmerised by what they see when they turn on their televisions or look at a newspaper. I actually find it quite worrying and feel myself concerned for some folks' mental health.
The waiting time in the queue to visit Westminster Hall is now 16hrs. There are stewards on hand to provide emotional support to folk after they leave the hall. Some apparently are so distressed they have more assistants to guide them to places for counselling. I mean this is far from a satisfactory situation. Once again. why put yourself through this 'ordeal'.
It is essentially the same as the religious motivation or feeling behind arduous pilgrimages or tasks, parading of idols, mass religious expressions such as the Hajj, Kumbh Mela .. etc. I'm surprised Charles hasn't called for deification. Even Augustus only lived 75 years, reigning for 41 - over an empire smaller than Elizabeth's.
-
It is essentially the same as the religious motivation or feeling behind arduous pilgrimages or tasks, parading of idols, mass religious expressions such as the Hajj, Kumbh Mela .. etc. I'm surprised Charles hasn't called for deification. Even Augustus only lived 75 years, reigning for 41 - over an empire smaller than Elizabeth's.
Though pretty well non-existent at the end of the reign.
I think it's been interesting watching the reaction to those who have used their position to jump the queue.
-
I am a little surprised that no one has done the queue on their knees.
-
It is essentially the same as the religious motivation or feeling behind arduous pilgrimages or tasks, parading of idols, mass religious expressions such as the Hajj, Kumbh Mela .. etc. I'm surprised Charles hasn't called for deification. Even Augustus only lived 75 years, reigning for 41 - over an empire smaller than Elizabeth's.
Yes, absolutely. The same took place when Diana died i.e. the mass hypnosis and hysteria. What is annoying is the media, especially the BBC, who practically encourage it by interviewing so-and-so who has travelled miles or a mum who has carried her toddler all through the night. Poor toddler, am sure late maj. would have thought, 'that child should be tucked-up in bed'. These people deserve a medal is the psychological undertone but then the media thrive on such an action. Ah, well, nothing stranger than folk ...
-
I am a little surprised that no one has done the queue on their knees.
Or dressed as a smurf.
-
Yes, absolutely. The same took place when Diana died i.e. the mass hypnosis and hysteria. What is annoying is the media, especially the BBC, who practically encourage it by interviewing so-and-so who has travelled miles or a mum who has carried her toddler all through the night. Poor toddler, am sure late maj. would have thought, 'that child should be tucked-up in bed'. These people deserve a medal is the psychological undertone but then the media thrive on such an action. Ah, well, nothing stranger than folk ...
Indeed, as Prof D suggested earlier this is probably because the BBC sees itself as being a core part of, and maintaining, the UK Establishment. If this was happening elsewhere, say Iran, India or any non-Christian nation, it would be portrayed as religious fanaticism.
-
'Don't tell Jeffrey that!'
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1569776818189656065?t=pt80bFCzbHLyOtHEwrHpZw&s=08
-
Ffs! Even in the morass of mournsickness we are seeing, this is the stupidest piece of vacuous idiocy by a feckin distance.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-funeral-most-important-event-world-will-ever-see-lindsay-hoyle-says/ar-AA11Y5Go
-
I'd always thought he seemed like one of the more grounded and sensible people in the Westminster circus: turns out I was wrong since he's clearly caught the mindless sychophantic hysteria that is doing the rounds among the monarchically inclined.
Hopefully, come Wednesday, he and lots of others will be over the worst of it.
-
I'd always thought he seemed like one of the more grounded and sensible people in the Westminster circus: turns out I was wrong since he's clearly caught the mindless sychophantic hysteria that is doing the rounds among the monarchically inclined.
Hopefully, come Wednesday, he and lots of others will be over the worst of it.
He's been utterly useless as Speaker.
-
He's been utterly useless as Speaker.
Agreed. Everytime I've watched PMQs, it looks like he's making sure everyone is quiet while he fills in a crossword puzzle.
-
Ffs! Even in the morass of mournsickness we are seeing, this is the stupidest piece of vacuous idiocy by a feckin distance.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-funeral-most-important-event-world-will-ever-see-lindsay-hoyle-says/ar-AA11Y5Go
Ridiculous thing to say, even for a devout monarchist, but everyone says silly things occasionally.
You missed a goood joke by not calling it "mourning sickness" - or was that what you meant to say? keyboard playing up?
-
Just seen Pres. and Dr Biden arriving at Buck House. Dr Biden actually appeared to say "thank you" to the gorilla in a suit who opened the car door for her! Most VIPs ignore car-door-openers.
-
Ridiculous thing to say, even for a devout monarchist, but everyone says silly things occasionally.
You missed a goood joke by not calling it "mourning sickness" - or was that what you meant to say? keyboard playing up?
Different joke. But I prefer your's
-
Been watching BBC news channel, with some tiresome bloke doing sign language for the deaf to one side, which is bloody irritating if you don't need it. I'm deaf enough to usually use subtitles myself, but they don't appear to be available (it's live, of course, but live subtitles are usually possible.) I do hope the sign-language bloke isn't going to be there throughout the coverage. Why do sl interpreters pull such ridiculous faces?
-
Been watching BBC news channel, with some tiresome bloke doing sign language for the deaf to one side, which is bloody irritating if you don't need it. I'm deaf enough to usually use subtitles myself, but they don't appear to be available (it's live, of course, but live subtitles are usually possible.) I do hope the sign-language bloke isn't going to be there throughout the coverage. Why do sl interpreters pull such ridiculous faces?
Because in BSL facial expressions are used to convey meaning.
Most Deaf people who use sign language in the UK use British Sign Language (BSL). It is a rich combination of hand gestures, facial expressions and body language and, like English, has its own grammar, syntax and lexicons.
https://signhealth.org.uk/resources/learn-about-deafness/british-sign-language-and-english/
-
I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.
-
I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could e a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.
It is a structured means of communication, and for many deaf people it is their primary means of communication - hence in families (such as in one family I know) with deaf children the hearing family members may learn to use BSL.
If you have ever seen deaf people signing to each other I think you'd probably agree that they are using a non-verbal language.
-
It is recognised as a language:
https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/deaf-awareness/british-sign-language/
-
I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.
https://youtu.be/oK9gfTxM1g8
-
https://youtu.be/oK9gfTxM1g8
I'm going to start learning some of these immediately!
-
.
-
BSL is
I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.
recognised as a language in its own right, just as Gaelic, Welsh, Scots and English are.
-
BSL is recognised as a language in its own right, just as Gaelic, Welsh, Scots and English are.
Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.
-
Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.
I'll go with the opinion of deaf people.
-
Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.
Languages on the Indian subcontinent frequently use English words when they don't exist in their languages, I wouldn't dismiss their languages on that basis.
-
Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.
Have to say - I think you are wrong.
-
Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.
No
Not necessarily.
Finger-spelling uses the Deaf-Blind alphabet.
Some signs are actually contractions, as in braille, where a character can stand for an abbreviated word, a number, a phrase or punctuation dependant on the position of the sentence.
The blind club which I run used to have a deaf/blind member, and many of us learned DBA to communicate.
It's come a long wa y since the days of Hellen Keller.
-
Voices not represented on our TV screens:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/19/undemocratic-facade-four-people-on-why-they-avoided-the-queens-funeral?
-
So the numbers are in.
Official viewing figures of 28 million (or 26 million if you read the Times!). Sure that's a bid number, but I would suggest nowhere as high as the hyperbole which suggested this would be the most watched event in the UK ever, only question being how much higher than the previous record.
But the reality is that the viewing figures broke no records, indeed aren't even the highest of the 2020s (that record remains with the 2021 Euros final). And not close to the numbers that watched Diana's funeral. And putting the 28 million in context - despite the wall-to-wall mourn-fest just 42% actually watched the funeral - the majority didn't. Believe the BBC and you'd have thought that everyone would be respectfully watching except half a dozen hardened republicans (whose voices weren't permitted to be heard) and a bunch of weird and undesirable Scots nats.
And we also have the official numbers for 'The Queue' - we were being told that a million people would participate, then 750,000 or maybe 400,000. The reality, 250,000 - over 4 days, so about the capacity of Arsenal's stadium over a 24 hour period. Yet we were told that 'unprecedented' (overly used in the past 10 days) numbers of people would come to London to pay their respects, causing huge challenges for TfL etc. Yet transport etc comfortably gets the same number of people attending the queue in 24 hours into a stadium in about a hour and out again probably in 15 mins.
Security issues I get, challenge with dealing with the numbers - nope. London does these numbers all the time.
-
So perhaps to update my earlier views on the attitudes of a typical person - updates highlighted:
I'd argue that a more typical person in the UK is:
1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
5. Thought they might (or felt obliged to say that they would) watch all or some of the funeral on the tv, but in the end didn't
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.
9. Glad it is all over and we can get back to something like normality
-
My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.
Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.
Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance. Lots of people present on the way. Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.
-
My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.
Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.
Where were you watching Sriram and on which broadcaster - I'd be interested to know whether different broadcasters in differing parts of the world took a different approach to the coverage.
BBC in UK was as expected - the big names all there - Huw Edwards lead in the morning then passing onto the elder statement of them all, David Dimbleby, later on.
Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance.
I think he's pretty fit but suspect he'd be exhausted by the end. Funerals, particularly when you are one of the people near the top of the tree, are exhausting in my experience and this was a very very long one.
Lots of people present on the way.
Rather fewer than I imagine many expected - crowds, even in the best spots, seemed only three or so deep.
Very few people seemed to have attended the big screen screenings around the country. I was at one, the only for a considerable distance - perhaps 100 or so people there. When they ran round the county to equivalent screenings in Edinburgh, Cardiff etc, etc they seemed pretty sparely populated. Even Hyde Park was quiet - nothing like the huge crowd that was there in 1997 for Diana (I know I was there).
So I suspect most people were saddened by the Queen's death and thought she did a good job, but after 10 days of astonishingly one sided mourn-fest, almost expecting/requiring people to be distraught, perhaps people had just had enough by Monday. I don't think anyone predicted that the viewing figures would place it just 3rd in the 2020s and just crept into the top ten for most viewed events in the UK overall.
Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.
I never claimed it was.
However it will be diminished - once we get back to a semblance of normality I think we will find that the respect and affection for Charles will be way lower than for the Queen, and that will impact the overall support for the monarchy, much of which was actually for the Queen as monarch, rather than for the monarchy er se.
-
My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.
Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.
Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance. Lots of people present on the way. Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.
In what way was no commentary 'good'?
Some of us depend on audio description, you know.
-
In what way was no commentary 'good'?
Some of us depend on audio description, you know.
Surely audio description would have been available.
The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof is the maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.
-
Surely audio description would have been available.
The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof ist he maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.
No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.
Radio covered some of the event, but they concentrated on the music...and the commentators uttered inane banalities over the music they didn't like.
-
The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof ist he maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.
But the same is true for recent big events. I suspect far more people watch football in a big screen fan-zone, or in a pub than would watch a funeral.
Also the nature of the demographic of likely watchers will impact the proportion of those watching by streaming rather than traditional broadcasting. Again more likely for something like football with a broader age demographic, rather than the royals, whose support is typically older who are less likely to stream than younger people.
The point remains that there was a hyperbolic expectation that this was going to be the most watched event in UK history - it wasn't, indeed it wasn't even close. I think that tells us a lot about a disconnect between the media uber pro-royal wall to wall mourn-fest and the realities of real public opinion from ... err ... real people.
-
Where were you watching Sriram and on which broadcaster - I'd be interested to know whether different broadcasters in differing parts of the world took a different approach to the coverage.
BBC in UK was as expected - the big names all there - Huw Edwards lead in the morning then passing onto the elder statement of them all, David Dimbleby, later on.
I think he's pretty fit but suspect he'd be exhausted by the end. Funerals, particularly when you are one of the people near the top of the tree, are exhausting in my experience and this was a very very long one.
Rather fewer than I imagine many expected - crowds, even in the best spots, seemed only three or so deep.
Very few people seemed to have attended the big screen screenings around the country. I was at one, the only for a considerable distance - perhaps 100 or so people there. When they ran round the county to equivalent screenings in Edinburgh, Cardiff etc, etc they seemed pretty sparely populated. Even Hyde Park was quiet - nothing like the huge crowd that was there in 1997 for Diana (I know I was there).
So I suspect most people were saddened by the Queen's death and thought she did a good job, but after 10 days of astonishingly one sided mourn-fest, almost expecting/requiring people to be distraught, perhaps people had just had enough by Monday. I don't think anyone predicted that the viewing figures would place it just 3rd in the 2020s and just crept into the top ten for most viewed events in the UK overall.
I never claimed it was.
However it will be diminished - once we get back to a semblance of normality I think we will find that the respect and affection for Charles will be way lower than for the Queen, and that will impact the overall support for the monarchy, much of which was actually for the Queen as monarch, rather than for the monarchy er se.
I was watching BBC. We get it 24 hours. Even CNN was showing the funeral I noticed, though I don't know whether they showed it full time.
-
I was watching BBC. We get it 24 hours.
Same as me and most people in the UK it seems.
I thought the coverage of the funeral by the BBC was very good - where the BBC failed over the past two weeks, in my opinion, was their endlessly asking the most uber-royals (e.g. people in the queue or people turning up for a glimpse of Charles in Belfast or Cardiff etc) the same old questions and getting the same old answers. Unsurprisingly if you continually ask people prepared to wait in line for 12 hours to file past the coffin (unlike over 99% of the UK population) then you'll get endless sycophantic pro-royal comments. Sure they all felt the Queen was a saint and Charles and William are just brilliant - what do you expect. Ask more generally across the population and you'd have got a more balanced view about the monarchy. But the media, and particularly the BBC haven't been interested in balance over the past two weeks.
The coverage was good because most of it was simply left to the viewer, with very little commentary. And where there was commentary it was largely factual, rather than opinion.
One slight gripe - the music - on a couple of occasions the information about the piece and composer wasn't complete.
-
No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.
Really? That is astonishing. I would have thought that a public service broadcaster would be obliged to support those with additional needs to be able to follow a state event.
-
The point remains that there was a hyperbolic expectation that this was going to be the most watched event in UK history - it wasn't, indeed it wasn't even close.
Dirty Den and Angie beat that figure.
-
Dirty Den and Angie beat that figure.
Indeed.
When you add regular tv programmes to events (news/sports) then the funeral was the 13th most watched programme in the UK. And you have to note that the funeral was on multiple channels, which tends to bolster viewing figures. And you also have to take into account the size of the population now compared to, say 1966 (world cup) or 1969 (moon landings) and the availability of tv coverage to the nation.
So if I am getting this right 58% of the UK population watched the 1966 world cup, the same proportion who didn't watch the funeral.
-
I wonder how much public money was spent on the funeral and all the associated pantomime activities - I suspect we won't ever be told.
-
I wonder how much public money was spent on the funeral and all the associated pantomime activities - I suspect we won't ever be told.
A huge amount - some estimates are flying around, but I don't think we will know for sure and I don't believe official costs for other big royal events (weddings, funerals etc) have been released.
And there were some 'jaw dropping' - 'why do they need to do that elements' - so on the London news afterwards they were interviewing technicians who were reinstalling traffic lights that had literally been removed. Yup removed, not just turned off, but completely removed. And this wasn't for security reasons as all similar street furniture had been opened, checked and sealed, but presumably because they might obscure a view for a fraction of a second - despite the fact that the huge numbers of flagpoles installed also obscured the view for a fraction of a second.
Important for the world to think that the capital city of the UK is devoid of any traffic lights.
-
And there were some 'jaw dropping' - 'why do they need to do that elements' - so on the London news afterwards they were interviewing technicians who were reinstalling traffic lights that had literally been removed. Yup removed, not just turned off, but completely removed. And this wasn't for security reasons as all similar street furniture had been opened, checked and sealed, but presumably because they might obscure a view for a fraction of a second - despite the fact that the huge numbers of flagpoles installed also obscured the view for a fraction of a second.
Important for the world to think that the capital city of the UK is devoid of any traffic lights.
Possibly to stop people climbing them, falling off and breaking their necks.
-
Possibly to stop people climbing them, falling off and breaking their necks.
No that doesn't seem to be the case - they were removed so that traffic lights weren't in shot for cameras, filming etc:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/traffic-lights-being-removed-around-westminster-for-perfect-shots-of-the-queen/video/ef7d7ce2bb02f746f1aead82194ba2e1?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2022-09-15
Sure there is a risk of people climbing up and tall object, but it was only traffic lights that were removed - other tall objects, such as flagpoles weren't removed and, of course, plenty were added.
It is, clearly, grossly disrespectful to the monarch if there is a traffic light at the edge of a photograph of her coffin. :o
-
No that doesn't seem to be the case - they were removed so that traffic lights weren't in shot for cameras, filming etc:
...
It is, clearly, grossly disrespectful to the monarch if there is a traffic light at the edge of a photograph of her coffin. :o
Apparently she never had to take a driving test and her motorcades could ignore all traffic lights anyway .. so the films will at least show the world from her perspective!
-
Going back to the queues, I now feel rather a hypocrite as I remember queuing for 4hrs in 1972 to see the Tutankhamun exhibition at the British Museum. At the time I thought the wait was worth every minute and looking back, still do now. Not sure I would have stood for 16hrs though or walked 5 miles.
-
No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.
Radio covered some of the event, but they concentrated on the music...and the commentators uttered inane banalities over the music they didn't like.
This was not my experience. During the funeral I went to the "Accessibilty"section in my LG tv's "Settings" function and was surprised to hear a female voice describing the the onscreen setting and activity. I had intended to turn on the subtitles for the hard of hearing.
-
Going back to the queues, I now feel rather a hypocrite as I remember queuing for 4hrs in 1972 to see the Tutankhamun exhibition at the British Museum. At the time I thought the wait was worth every minute and looking back, still do now. Not sure I would have stood for 16hrs though or walked 5 miles.
I guess there weren't any alternatives back in 1972 - if you wanted to go into the exhibition you had to queue.
But that isn't the case nowadays - there are very well established mechanisms to manage large numbers of people wanting to attend a time limited event (or even a non time limited one). This involves issuing timed entry tickets. Now it would have been perfectly possible for those organising the lying in state to arrange entry in this manner, and I can't imagine that they didn't think of this, but chose not to. Timed tickets would, of course, be free but would ensure that people wouldn't have to wait for hours.
Now one argument against is that some people might be put off as they don't have access to a computer to order a timed ticket. Well I'd argue that there aren't many people who do not have friends or family who would be able to sort this for them if they couldn't do it themselves. Further, I imagine there were huge numbers of people for whom the length of the wait would have been a massive disincentive or even a deal breaker in their decision whether or not to attend.
Others might argue that timed entry tickets simply wouldn't be able to cope with the expected footfall and rate of entry of people. This is non-sense.
I visited the Louvre a few weeks ago, which claims to be the most visited museum in the world with just under 10 million visitors per year. When you calculate the rate of entry per hour (the Louvre isn't open 24 hours a day and not at all on Tuesdays) then the numbers entering per hour are comfortably greater than the numbers entering per hour for the lying in state.
We visited in peak tourist season, on a Sunday and mid morning entry, so probably about as busy as it gets. Were there huge queues - nope. With our timed tickets from joining the queue we were were into the museum, including bags and people through airport style scanners in, I'd say 15 minutes max. And you don't need a timed ticket (although I think most people get them) - you can just pitch up. But because of the timed ticketing the queue for people without tickets wasn't long at all - no way in the world that those people would have been waiting hours to get in.
Point being that the lying in state organisers made decisions that made queuing for hours needed, when there a completely robust alternative that would have prevented the queues.
-
Odd fact: Prince William and Queen Camilla are both directly descended from Charles II, but King Charles isn't. William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side.
-
Odd fact Prince William and Queen Camilla are both directly descended fro Charles II, but King Charles isn't. William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side.
So direct descent is not possible through the female line, then? Are you a remaining believer that the female role in reproduction is to act as an incubator for male seed?
-
So direct descent is not possible through the female line, then? Are you a remaining believer that the female role in reproduction is to act as an incubator for male seed?
What on earth are you on about? I said that William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side!
-
Charles' ancestry, (https://britroyals.com/royaltree.asp) back to Alfred the Great. As you can see, his direct line of ancestors skirts round most of the Stuarts.
-
Charles' ancestry, (https://britroyals.com/royaltree.asp) back to Alfred the Great. As you can see, his direct line of ancestors skirts round most of the Stuarts.
Since Bruce was descended from the Aetheling's sister, Margaret, when he fought the Plantagenet at Bannockburn in 1314, technically HE was the legitimate claimant to the English throne, the Plantagenet having gained it through his ancestor, William the Bastard's usurpation.
History, eh?
Talking of which, through his Ceann Mhor (Canmore) line, Bruce could trace his lineage back to Constantin II Mac Aed, king of Alba.
Through the Bowes-Lyon strand, there is a tentative trace from the present king to Fergus Mhor macErc, first king of Dalriada, who settled on the Argyle coast from Antrim.
-
I love the fact that Malcolm Canmore/Ceann Mhors surname can be translated either as "great leader" (to his face), or "big-head" (behind his back).
-
I love the fact that Malcolm Canmore/Ceann Mhors surname can be translated either as "great leader" (to his face), or "big-head" (behind his back).
I'm not even going to tell you what the Gaelic name for the chief of clan Campbell is, then........
-
Odd fact: Prince William and Queen Camilla are both directly descended from Charles II, but King Charles isn't. William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side.
Er .. yeah. But that is simply because Charles II left no legitimate successor but had plenty of illegitimate offspring.
-
Er .. yeah. But that is simply because Charles II left no legitimate successor but had plenty of illegitimate offspring.
Apparently there's a link from Meghan to one of James V's - many - illegitimate offspring - and therefore back to the Bruce.....Wee Airchie's more royal than we thought........
-
Apparently there's a link from Meghan to one of James V's - many - illegitimate offspring - and therefore back to the Bruce.....Wee Airchie's more royal than we thought........
hmm ... "more royal" or "less royal" mean nothing to me :)
Does he have any ideas worth mentioning?
-
hmm ... "more royal" or "less royal" mean nothing to me :)
Does he have any ideas worth mentioning?
It meant a lot to the 'Guidman o Ballengich" - James V.
He wanted his many illegitimate sons to have status, so he insstalled them as 'secular clergy' in abbeys and cathedrals.
One such was installed in the Abbacy of Arbroath, then the second richest benefice in the Kingdom.....at the age of four.
It was actions such as this which fuelled the seeds of the Reformation in Scotland.
In enriching the crown, James helped weaken it.
-
Er .. yeah. But that is simply because Charles II left no legitimate successor but had plenty of illegitimate offspring.
No, it's because the Hanoverian monarchs were descended from Elizabeth Stuart, sister of Charles I, who married some kraut, leaving the Stuart monarchs out on a limb. Anyway, so what? the fact still stands.