The Queen is dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

... 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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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.
 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/stephen-fry-and-dame-emma-thompson-named-among-national-treasures-to-be-buried-with-queen-20220915225764

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Guidance for Monday


https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/am-i-legally-obligated-to-watch-the-funeral-your-bank-holiday-questions-answered-20220914225717

[Gordon]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Ffs!


https://news.sky.com/story/despicable-amateur-football-teams-in-sheffield-face-punishment-for-playing-after-queens-death-12697344

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

I read a Tweet that says it is moving at 0.1 mph, so it must be true.

Hmm

[Nearly Sane]

.

[jeremyp]

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.