The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed.
Personally I've found it borderline sickening.
If there was a curtain that could have slipped, we all knew what would be behind it: a bunch of cherry-nosed coffin-dodgers with old-school-tie chums ensconced in the machinery of state, parliament, the military, whatever.
Sure. Fine. Yadda yadda, blah blah. The "deep state" dancing hand-in-hand with the old school elites. Yuck. Disgusting but hardly a clear and present danger.
But to see this machinery spring rustily, creakily into action has been truly eye-opening. Hitherto unknown people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. And this has been broadcast 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. Elected representatives from all political parties have fallen into line.
It is not okay to ritualistically march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country, under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
And yet, that's what has happened. And it keeps happening.
It's bizarre in the extreme, and we really should not be okay with this.
I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape.
Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.
That's not correct, crown consent cannot stop a vote. And regardless of this, parliament is sovereign [0], that supremacy overrides any power any monarch could have in the UK.
The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate:
It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is sovereign then ultimately the limits of crown consent are for parliament to decide. So the crown does not truly have a binding veto, if that veto can be removed or undone by parliament.
That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
Consent blocks votes from happening because Royal Assent has never been challenged. To avoid conflict, Royal Consent has been respected to avoid votes that might go against the Crown.
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
> There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).
The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored.
A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
> The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored.
IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it.
If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
What actually matters is that those breaking the constitution, be it written or not, can be held criminally liable. Can you be held criminally liable for breaking "a set of customs and principles" in the UK?
> What actually matters is that those breaking the constitution, be it written or not, can be held criminally liable. Can you be held criminally liable for breaking "a set of customs and principles" in the UK?
Not exactly. If there's enforcement, it will be done by other actors in the system will cooperate to enforce those "customs and principles." There's no appealing to some higher authority for enforcement (and especially not criminal law, which would be a lower authority).
The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
Of course I agree that there is no written constitution, I said as much above. But there _is_ a constitution. Constitutions do not have to be written, unless you think otherwise?
Doesn’t that make it very difficult to determine what the constitution actually is, and leave a lot of room for different versions of the same constitutions?
It makes the constitution some abstract thing, rather than a very factual set of rules, which you want the constitution to be.
> If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial.
Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
But those who do not agree with it do not have any other custom or tradition which they claim is actually the constitution.
Original claim stands on the argument that if there was really a single constitution, it would be trivial to write it down, not that everyone needs to agree on it, which is not a viable criteria anyway to test if something is constitution or not.
Leaving aside whether there is only one constitution, when has writing any governing document ever been trivial? Literally, humanity has struggled and continues to struggle to write down and effectively communicate even documents of much lesser importance, API documentation or text books for example. I'm sorry but I don't see how this point can be made seriously.
If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries.
To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc.
Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
>Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best.
I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly.
But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
Precedence is written down, I find it acceptable. It’s a good way to make sure the “constitution” evolves.
Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is.
The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change.
You suggest:
> The UK constitution is based on precedence.
It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents.
It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated.
Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt.
Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here).
Why not write it down?
Imagine running a project like this.
Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?"
Boss: "We've always used MATLAB."
Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?"
> "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
And as has been said a few times - precedence and literally ‘written down’ are not mutually exclusive - you’re after a red herring by obsessing on the ‘unwritten’ part.
Most legal systems use precedence - the US uses judicial precedence to interpret the constitution - because the written one isn’t usable without it!
If as you say there's no difference, then why not write it down? If there is a difference, why is that? (I'm asking these questions to point out that your statement raises them - I'll have a go at answering them below.)
More correctly, I believe 'unwritten' is not accurate, since as you point out precedent can be set e.g. in the courts or parliament, and these precendents are written in judgements and Acts. So a more accurate term would be uncodified rather than unwritten, meaning there is no single constitution but an ever-changing collection of precedents. (This isn't to accuse you of inaccuracy - everyone in this thread has used the same inaccurate terms, including me.)
There are pros and cons to a codified constitution. We see some cons in the USA, where the Constitution has become sacred, and changes to it are extremely difficult to achieve. That's a shame, and an artefact of its importance within the partisan politics of the USA. Most other nations have a codified constitution and don't seem to have this issue - at least, not to such a paralysing degree.
Another con is so-called wiki-constitutionalism [0] i.e. the attrition of the utility of the constitution by continually amending it to strengthen and expand the role of government.
One pro of a codified constitution would be to clarify the customs surrounding existing precendents, especially the consequences attendent with flouting them. See proroguement [1]
> > "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
> Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
My larger point was about admitting the possibility of change. If an authority figure says "we do X because we've always done it" then we need a way to challenge that. Personally, I'd prefer that to be written and codified, and open to change. You're quite right to point out that legal precedent provides a way to do this in law, and democracy ostensibly enables that. The thread was about protestors being arrested at ceremonial events; my concern was about silencing the questioning of the status quo and authority, and the deferential manner in which public representatives and protectors have fallen in line. Protest is central to change. Arresting protestors at the recent events is a bad look - it smacks of protecting incumbent power. Quelling protest is something that has historically been done on the say-so of authority figures. I'd prefer that to be consigned to the past.
My smaller (?) point was about monarchic ceremony. Personally I find it extremely distasteful for people [2] in archaic uniform to march into cities across the Commonwealth at the behest of tradition. It's not mere "cosplay" (as someone else here described it), it's emblematic of incumbent power, and a harking back to more authoritarian times.
As for my 'obsessing', I didn't introduce the 'written down' bit, and it feels to me that you're the one obsessing over the status quo. Perhaps we're looking past each other. I see no reason to continue with a non-codified constitution. Apparently you do. We've tried to explain to each other, but clearly we're not getting through. Oh well, we tried!
yep, still better. “less worse” might be a better term here though.
The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
Well that is within the context of young, impressionable, geopolitically and economically sheltered people expressing emotional views. So it's good that we don't enact these amendments on a whim
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that there should be lots of safeguards.
But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.
I'm genuinely interested to know what you think should happen after a monarch passes. This has been the process for over 1000 years and while we have a constitutional monarchy this is what happens. I'm actually not in favour of a monarchy myself but I don't get how people would be surprised at what's currently happening.
That person may be from a culture with no monarchy. As an American I find the whole process and institution disgusting (yes, before you type out a clever reply, I know we have our own problems and I also probably find those disgusting). So many resources dedicated to one family with no real functional role and not even a veneer of merit…
I think part of it is that culturally the British monarchy is the most relevant in the English speaking world, so it’s just considered a bigger deal than if the Swedish monarch died. It gets TV time even in other countries. But yes, it does also expose a huge amount of excess and brings to light a lot of lesser known aspects of the monarchy.
The constant drumbeat in the news media of the royal family's dedication to "service". How is gorging on the public's teat while maintaining a $25 billion family "business" that is exempt from UK inheritance taxes in any way, shape or form consistent with liberal democracy?
Same tactic as the robber barons both new and old. Steal so much that giving away a fraction of it makes you seem like a saint. At least industrialists and (most) tech billionaires contributed something. A hereditary, neutered monarchy doesn’t contribute much at all beyond gossip and spectacle
Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 it's pretty much plain inheritance. In fact even more restricted because much of the royal family holdings cannot be sold and must be passed down.
Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native Americans? Will individual tribes hand land back over to the tribes to originally inherited it before historical conquests? Etc. It's a more complex issue than first appears with history so long that it's almost impossible to track who is owed what.
Oh yeah for sure. They don't _have_ to pay taxes, that's codified legally. QEII paid income and other taxes by personal choice, but they're not bound to.
Whether that's fair or not/applicable in the modern world is totally a discussion to be had by the public. Though perhaps the monarchy being so up-front and visible contributes to this.
Meanwhile companies sit in Ireland/Malta/Switzerland/etc and go on tax dodge binges and the public don't bat an eye. People seem to have a very short memory/modern world is so complicated we have to resort to apathy to handle it; remember the Panama papers? Was anything _really_ done about those?
You have a point. OP probably doesn’t think twice about letting pop culture exert its authority but balks at a culture that seems from another age. A little more perspective is needed here.
There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere.
Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
> In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.
To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
Because you do not understand it does not mean you can call it “ridiculous”. It’s insulting to brits who have been very attached to their queen for decades (and maybe before that as well). Lots of people do not understand it, that’s ok, and you can say as much.
Maybe a public conversation about extreme privilege which is backed by the military, the police, the media, and politicians of all stripes. Throw in a discussion about who owns "public" spaces and the laws governing how many people can gather there to do what.
"Smooth transition of power" is a good way to put it in the modern era. In centuries past, citizens would pray on their hands and knees for a system as quick and streamlined as this one.
When there is ambiguity in who holds power, there is conflict, instability, bloodshed, etc. This is why countries used to throw enormous festivals celebrating the birth of a monarch's first-born son — it means the succession plan has become entirely unambiguous, and stability has been ensured for years to come.
The normalisation of the rituals is part of the problem.
The public proclamations of the accession of Charles to King have included representatives of the state, military, police, and church. They have been made in public spaces. The mildest of protestations have resulted in arrests (albeit very few, and by seemingly confused police officers).
For me, the issues here are around obeisance and imposition. Apparently it's fine and "normal" for some elite [1] class of people to march into public spaces and make declarations that cannot be challenged.
The ornate outfits and ceremony are there to indicate a few things, the most obvious being that you are not one of them. In the strange post-modern Western world, pompous ceremonies come across as quaint and fun, another one of those bizarre things that the upper classes apparently get up to, silly them, aren't they funny hahaha. But it's not quaint, it's a public declaration that a tiny number of the ultra-priveleged still call the shots.
Bizarrely it seems that we lap it up. The message is almost subliminal now: you're there and we're here, and that's the way it's going to stay.
[1] I know the word elite is a dog-whistle but have you seen these dudes?? A more florid flaunting of elitism is hard to imagine.
As I replied to the other poster, if you dislike monarchy then thats fine. But you're basically saying you don't like certain rituals because they remind you of a political system you despise, which is a hilariously roundabout way of shoehorning your hatred of monarchy into a thread.
Silly rituals are a pretty big part of monarchies, IMHO because monarchs have always understood they have no legitimate right to rule so they use the pomp and circumstance as a form of fake legitimacy.
Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense?
I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago.
Honestly, be grateful. I watch parliament for some sort of fucked up cathartic release because even the worst of your MPs have a base moral compass that would dwarf almost anyone in the US government. Just the fact that Johnson's party initiated the no-confidence is incredible, I can't imagine that happening in the US - 15% of a party turning against their party representative? Impossible here.
If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.
>If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.
is it though? The UK isn't the only country that has removed its leader in a no-confidence vote. Republics do it regularly just fine. The relationship to the monarchy you have to explain to me, British people don't receive their moral compass from the crown, although the barrage of Netflix shows on that family may create that image in the mind of people who romanticize Britain.
I haven't watched any Netflix shows, so I really couldn't say. I just watch parliament, unedited, and sometimes BBC coverage. It's a leisure, I'm hardly an academic about it.
That said, I think you've misunderstood my post entirely.
a) If you think this system is just now creaking into life, I frankly don't know how. Again, major news very recently with Black Rod stomping in and various MPs protesting.
b) It's not that big of a deal relatively speaking. The monarchy is very clearly increasingly irrelevant, as it has been for some time. Obviously abolish that shit, but the initial post is a bit dramatic.
c) You should compare parliament to cspan sometime - our illiterate representatives don't even bother to show up.
Obviously the UK has plenty of issues, it's an interesting system to watch. Removing the monarchy might be a good step forward, obviously you should all do that. But it's not some 'creeking' 'deep state' system, it's very front and center, and it's really not your biggest problem by a longshot.
Hopefully the British people don't receive their moral compass from elected officials either, given the recent occupants of the office of Prime Minister...
"Royalty" never really ruled anything completely in history. There were always ministers, even a prime minister, bureaucracy under the King/Queen. The King/Queen only maintained enough political power to veto any decision in any branch of the government. That's pretty much it.
Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. Bureaucracy still remains the largest and still a unelected branch of the government. You still can't interfere with anything to do with Armed Forces and Judiciary, and they too are unelected. Only thing the public got was a way to elect the (prime-)minister(s). But even the merits of this are up for a debate, Democracy doesn't work well if your masses are not empowered to make good decisions, or they have all the empowerment or they just can't make right decisions for themselves.
Ask yourself this, why would anybody want to be elected? To serve the people? People do anything because its personally profitable to them, that begs the question, do they even have your best interests in their decisions and work?
Regardless a huge range of decisions remain outside the control and scope of the common masses.
Also beyond all this, these are political definitions, just like boundaries they expand and contract every century or so, this is with any country. So you really have to ask at the end of the day, what are you fighting for?
"Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. "
Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy?
"what are you fighting for"
Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
>>rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it.
>>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is.
The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
"Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks."
At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society.
"The monarchy just maintains a veto"
Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable.
There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
It's possible to disagree with something and yet tolerate it, especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter. While they may not have your respect, I suspect those who tolerate the monarch have plenty of self-respect.
"especially when you've got bigger problems like affording food and warmth this winter."
All the wealth the royal family hordes could help with that. Those "Royal" palaces could be converted to museums or hotels and earn money instead of costing money.
To be a monarchist is to accept the claim of inherent superiority by self-professed "Royalty".
> Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense?
I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol
Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.
Are entirely sure you think it's okay to "march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country [edit: multiple countries], under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets"?
To be frank, it seems the onus is on you to explain your position. My explanation here and in other comments seems fairly clear: I find bald-faced elitism supported by the state, church, government and opposition, police, and media to be worrying. You may say that's just my "opinion", but I have explained my position.
FYI, it wasn't me even once. I actually appreciated the note because the distinction never crossed my radar even once. Plus I'm technically ESL so why not learn.
Thank you. That's the problem with butt-hurt crybabies who reject LEARNING. And I was polite, and I agreed with the sentiment! What kind of asshole rejects THAT?
People's excuse for being lazy illiterates online is, "FU grammer nazi its only online so hu carez"
EVERYONE should care. People learn by READING. And where does most reading take place now, sadly? ONLINE. So people propagating ignorance and lashing out against those who promote literacy ARE the problem.
It's sad to see that on a site like this. It indicates decline.
> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken.
You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
By the standards of the question in the US the monarchy did not transition power at all, and per the article it's not exactly happened peacefully, so what exactly is your point?
Consistently this Schroedinger's Monarchy defense.
"The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her?
"Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power!
The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
The UK Monarch has real power, but not absolute power.
From wikipedia:
"The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements."
This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
But it's not "real power", it's theoretical power.
The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment.
Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly.
Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.
> You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft.
The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's an accomplishment of inherited power backed by incumbent powers-that-be.
Unless you mean the ceremonial aspects are "state craft"? In which case I'd say they're certainly large, complex, and dangerous (terrorist risks etc), but more administration than state craft.
> This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean resistance against elected representatives? It certainly is remarkable. It's not exactly modern, though, is it?
> Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
Elizabeth hung on until death. Hard to retain power beyond that (although many have tried). It was discussed ad nauseam that she could have stepped down long ago, that the monarchy could have reformed further. I guess reframing the question you quote, and asking Elizabeth or Charles, it might become "will you consider transitioning all your inherited authority to more modern, democratic processes?" But - like Trump, only to a far greater extent - there are thousands of people whose livelihoods and reputations derive from working with the incumbent powers.
I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long too, as do all governments on pork projects and subsidies.
"Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament."
Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time.
"Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
Sure, and the monarchy could be abolished by a simple parliamentary vote, and the weekly meetings where the PM briefs the monarch on anything that could hurt the latters financial interests could be abolished even more easily.
Except the monarch is a billionaire with power over even more money and public opinion and elected representatives are rightfully afraid of the monarchy's well funded and well oiled propaganda machine being turned against them.
"We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement.
"Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy.
"But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
All of the crown's powers can be changed or removed by parliament, the recent Prorogation of Parliament [0] case saw the supreme court of the UK reaffirm the "sovereignty of Parliament". So the (valid) issues with consent you are raising should be taken up with your local MP, since the power of conset is based upon the power of the UK's democratically elected body. By the by, I daresay I'm not a royalist.
"Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A parliamentary Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options."
I would think that a head of state with substantial assets administered by the government and a massive public subsidy for the royal family would be in a position to lobby the government. The ruling party in the UK at the moment is pretty favorable to the monarchy so it isn't surprising they would provide the monarch with some ability to lobby the government.
I'm not a royalist or British but I would be more concerned about the financial subsidy and the ruling party's deference to the monarchy than the theoretical possibility of them witholding consent. It isn't much of a negotiation if one side can immediately win though right? The prime minister can just threaten to go public that he can't obtain consent and the monarch has to back down immediately.
The king of England can't be arrested or sued, so that puts a huge amount of asymmetry into this situation. You get arrested for shouting during his parade, but he could (and please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong) shoot you in Trafalgar Square and get away with it.
Many people believe Princess Diana was murdered. If she was, there’s literally jack squat that could be done about it. What are they gonna do? Arrest the Queen?
I've heard that many times but I've always wondered whether is is a net positive given all the tax spending that goes towards the royal family. I guess we'll never know since it's impossible to tell exactly how much tourism is in part based on the queen/king/monarchy sentiment.
It ignores the fact that the royal family owns a tremendous amount of assets that are not directly used in tourism or used by the state. And that they live off those taxes and spending.
If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
> 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets
yes
> government can magic up 150 billion
that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
> that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
It is a tremendous amount indeed, but i don't know why you think it's only pensioners and skiers who would benefit from not having to choose between food and energy.
The king is paid from earnings generated by the Crown Estate [0], which is basically a state owned property investment fund. From my understanding, taxpayer money hasn't been used to fund the monarchy since the 1700s.
I lived in the UK for half a decade, and found there's always something going on. Roads are being blocked off for parades, bicycle events, football crowds, public transport strikes, identical swathes of finance bros filling out areas after work, and just general throngs of people.
You get used to falling in line with whatever going on, cause you're not getting to the traffic light before the corner-shop, if you fight it.
It's not "deep state" in the UK, it's the peak of the class system (or anglican faith). People aspire to go up these ranks, and having the royal family guide it all, directly or as a counterbalance.
It's no less or more weird than people stopping to watch the new Pope get elected or George Clooney and Julia Roberts try and go for a quite coffee on some sleepy sunday morning, just to be surrounded by people who should have better things to do than gawp at hollywood stars.
I'm not of the UK, but I live here. And the people chose for it to be this way after they beheaded Charles I. If enough people wanted to dissolve the monarchy then it would happen, though I'm sure without as much bloodshed as in 1649.
Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless centuries of history embedded into almost every location.
If this wasn't the case then I wouldn't have learnt so much as to why my life in New Zealand was so different to my one here.
But who knows, maybe people here really are ready to forgo all that, but from what I have seen so far I don't think so. Hell even the religious differences (NZ, it's not a huge part of our lives) are stark.
Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as much surprise :)
Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether.
Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.
Totally agree. My point is view at the moment is that QEII was the last true royal, ie she had such close ties to the monarchy of old.
I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".
Recent survey 62% of Brits support having a monarchy, 22% think we should ditch it for a republic.
Not sure what the problem is with a decidedly popular multi century tradition? I'm okay with this even if you don't like it. The British people could always vote the them out if they actually wanted to.
See my comment elsewhere here. Support dips to 31% in those aged 18-24. It's very high in the over 65s, with 77% supporting the monarchy.
As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some sort of referendum. Unlikely for a long time :) And as you point out, not currently likely to be popular.
As for what's wrong with an unelected elite family of multi-millionaires who are protected by the police, military, church, and all other state machinery... plenty has been written elsewhere :)
It seems odd to me that the monarchy could be viewed as merely "tradition", and a benign one at that. I guess this view has been aided by the way Elizabeth kept a steady hand on the wheel and expressed only the most anodyne opinions in public. I confess I am intrigued to see how Charles manages.
> 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries.
UK is understandable. Why other countries, even supposedly "hostile" nations, constantly, year after year shove this British royal crap down our throat (and we barely ever hear about other so-called royal families but they do exist) is an interesting question. "People want it" is the usual excuse like advertising is the usual pretext/excuse for surveillance capitalism. And who are these "people" who are clamoring to know every tiny details of this not so noble family? The lumpen masses? The media usually doesn't give an F about what they "want", except on this topic. [They comprehensively saturate the information space, from highbrow journals all the way to tabloid sheets. There is no other topic like this.] Very interesting.
For years now I have trained my eyes to immediately look away from any headline that mentions a Brit royal family member. They are like the Kardashians. A completely 'who cares and why should I care' informational nuisance.
It’s really not that bizarre, not conspiratorial, and not “public passivity and capitulation”.
The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized.
You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.
Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.
Why are you so irrationally afraid of politics, specifically the Royal family? Did they form a child army, did they smuggle heroin, did they kick puppies?
> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces
The one and only time I visited London I just happened to wander by Buckingham Palace on the opening day of Parliament, so all the royals were coming out.
The part that floored me was all the pop and show of the uniforms, bayonets and those massive black fluffy hat things with the chin strap.
I've never been to the UK or Russia before, but I felt 100% like I was watching a Russian show of pop and flair, not a British one.
It dawned on me then that in many ways, they're indistinguishable.
One thing I will never understand about people who pretty much hate where they live for one reason or another: Why don't they leave?
Seriously. I am not taking sides here. I have visited the UK as a tourist and on business a zillion times over the last four decades. And yet, I am not qualified to voice opinion as to the realities of living there. From the outside, as someone visiting from the US, for lack of a better term, it feels like home. Comfortable. Orderly. A place where anyone can live and, should they be inclined to, excel.
I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere. It isn't like the world is closed to relocation. It happens all the time. My own family emigrated to the US when I was almost a baby precisely for this reason. My grandparents fled from genocide, that's more of a forced migration.
The point is: If it is so bad. If it is revolting. Find your paradise, sell your possessions, book a flight and leave.
The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics (which is a revolting thought pretty much anywhere in the world) or violence (which some seem to think is a way to make things better, which is as weird as can be).
I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all. As the son of immigrants who decided "enough is enough", I am grateful for the very hard decision my parents made.
It is because I understand this that I am perplexed by people who hate where they live and choose to stick around living in misery. Relinquishing your life to a sunk costs fallacy scenario isn't a formula for success. Go find your paradise. The world is a very large blue marble with lots of wonderful places you can call home and be happy.
One thing I will never understand about people who argue with others preferences on the internet: Why don’t they just not post? I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate.
Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and family for a less familiar setting. By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
Another thing I don't understand. This time online:
People who read comments and make-up shit the post didn't actually say. At all.
I was expressing a general idea; one that was not at all addressed at the OP. Just a thought, inspired by reading a comment. I even went out of my way to clarify this much with:
"I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all."
> If the point of your comment wasn't about people who criticize their own country, then what was it about?
It was about that and a lot more if anyone bothered to engage with me rather than the opposite. There's much depth in the concept. I'll discuss this at the end of this comment.
To address @opportune's post specifically:
> people who argue with others preferences on the internet
I was not arguing with anyone. That was made abundantly clear.
It was not an attack aimed at the OP.
It was not critical of the OP.
In fact, the example I give is:
"I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere."
The OP is in the UK. I don't even suggest the OP should move out of the UK, at all. Why this need to fabricate a story where one does not exist?
> I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate.
Show me where I said I hated any post on this entire thread.
You can't. Because that's a fantasy.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
Another fantasy.
In fact, I very much said that: "The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics".
The fact that politics is revolting (is anyone going to argue with that?) does not mean one cannot seek change through voting, at all.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
These things are completely unrelated.
I'll show you just how unrelated they are: A good friend of mine is a UK citizen who lived in the US for many decades, became a US citizen, didn't like the direction the country was on and moved his entire family to New Zealand.
He votes on every single US election, because he is a US citizen.
You can move elsewhere and still engage in voting to affect change. You can do that while enjoying a different environment.
Over the decades I have met lots of people who, for a variety of reasons, are miserable where they live. Not just in the US. Without fail, those who go-on to have a happy life are those who make the decision to change their circumstances.
For example, the aforementioned UK citizen ending-up in New Zealand after decades of living in the US. I know US citizens who did the same and moved to Costa Rica. Another family left Australia for Singapore. Ecuador for Los Angeles. Argentina for Spain. Peru for Miami. Various spots in the Middle East for the US, Europe and Latin America. I know loads of people who left California for Arizona (sometimes you don't have to go another country). Etc.
It is false to say people can't move due to financial or family links. Sure, it's hard, yet the history of immigrants tells a very different story. My parents left everything behind --parents, siblings, friends, profession, etc.-- to move to the US. They came with nothing and barely spoke the language. And yet, they managed, lived a happy life and made something of themselves. Yes, it's hard. No, it is not impossible.
Philosophically speaking, this is about an expression of freedom like not other.
This applies to jobs as well. How many people do you know who are miserable at work and never do a thing about it? I have known more than a few over the decades. They have nothing good to say about their company, and yet, endure misery for years.
Denying your contribution to a society or business is probably the most powerful expression of freedom one can possibly exercise.
If a society or company isn't serving you, why continue to contribute in any way? Go become a part of one whos values you share. The first entity loses one of the most valuable assets anyone can have; people interested in being a part of it in various ways.
My post was about freedom and the most powerful way to express it.
Not to go too far, just a couple of weeks ago I fired one of our clients. This account was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to us. And yet, I had to vote with my feet. This client was miserable to work with. Nobody at the office enjoyed working with them. So, we walked. Was it hard? Of course. Impossible? Nope. Done deal. We feel 100% better about our work and will soon have a better client who will likely appreciate our contribution to their mission. And, in turn, we are going to feel great about working with them.
You (plural, not addressing anyone in particular) might want to consider the idea that a better life could exist elsewhere. There is no need to suffer through decades of grief. You are free. And, yes, this means you are free to vote with your feet. Their loss, not yours.
Don't put-up with shit you don't want to live with, at work or where you happen to live.
I suspect every right and freedom each of us enjoy in our respective countries is the result of people unhappy with their country seeking to better it. In the UK we even had a civil war over the monarchy centuries ago! Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Also it completely ignores that people have family, dependents, friends, history that they may not wish to abandon.
For some additional context, in the UK, "why don't you leave" is a particularly toxic argument often directed exclusively at ethnic minorities - including those who were born here, or are eg third generation Brits. You'll typically find it paired with calls to "go back where you came from".
You have a overly-romanticised vision of the UK based on a few visits, which I'm afraid doesn't quite match the reality.
> You have a overly-romanticised vision of the UK based on a few visits, which I'm afraid doesn't quite match the reality.
Of course. I say this much. Over a dozen visits, yet mostly as a tourist and one business (which means you don't get to see anything because you are in meetings and conferences all the time).
That's the nature of tourism, right? It's the fantasy of where we visit vs. the reality of it.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the philosophical core of my comment is more about freedom than anything else. It isn't aimed at the UK at all. In fact, the example I gave is about the US.
We can apply this to working a job or company one dislikes. The highest expression of freedom is to leave and find a job one might enjoy and a company that appreciates what one might contribute.
It's about freedom. One can choose to stay and endure, hoping things change. That, too, is freedom.
> Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Matters of history at that level are far more complex than the idea of mere peasants like us seeking a better life and better outcomes by choosing the playing field --whether that means career, employer or where we live.
As I mentioned in another comment, as you get older you tend to move away from complexity and stress in your life. When one it in their 20's it is easy to think about being a revolutionary. Later in life those ideas tend to lose their shine very quickly. The only people who live in that kind of mayhem are, for the most part, the politicians who get to directly benefit from driving masses of young people into resonance with ideology and movements that benefit them --often at the expense of everyone else.
BTW, thanks for the insight into "why don't you leave" in the UK. I think that is somewhat universal. I know there are idiots in the US who use that kind of language. I hope it is obvious that isn't what I was saying or implying at all.
I am talking about exercising the freedom to choose who will benefit from your contributions to society or your work. This isn't about nations. There are places in the US I would not live in because I know I would be miserable. A simple example, I am an atheist. I don't think I would be happy in some of the more intensely religious areas of this country. I don't have a problem with those who are religious, just not my thing and I prefer not to have it in my face all day, every day.
> One thing I will never understand about people who pretty much hate where they live for one reason or another: Why don't they leave?
Hate is a very strong word. What about people who love the place they live in, but have a few things which they would like to chane?
It is perfectly conceivable that someone would love their life in the UK yet thinks that there should be no exceptions written into the law about the business of a particular family.
> Hate is a very strong word. What about people who love the place they live in, but have a few things which they would like to chane?
Then they don't hate where they live. Right?
You are right, it is a matter of degrees. That's why I chose a strong word. If someone has reached that level, they can exist in anguish or choose to go elsewhere.
As I mentioned in other comments, this applies to a job one might hate just as well.
I don't hate where I live (far from that) but I can understand this lack of eagerness to migrate, even when you hate it.
You're still emotionally attached to a few people around you, who might not be so eager to migrate. Migration is often messy, and incurs on financial, temporal, and emotional costs. Adaptation itself also incurs on the same costs, as you learn that your native land's "common sense" is "crazy talk" in your new land and vice versa. There's a real risk that the locals of your new place actually hate you.
And nothing prevents you from hating that new place too, and if you hate it as much as your older place you spent a lot of your money, time, and emotions on nothing. You know that you have incomplete information about the new place. No paradise survives experience.
Furthermore: people are fairly verbose on what they hate, and often their complains about a specific aspect of that place might give you an impression that they hate everything there, or at least hate it enough to be better off elsewhere.
A couple of counterpoints. I think you underestimate how difficult it can be to emigrate to another country without plenty of money (although it is relatively for EU citizens, rights the British have recently given up). Secondly, why should they leave rather than fight hard for change? The love it or leave it argument is so lazy.
> I think you underestimate how difficult it can be to emigrate to another country without plenty of money
I don't. My parent did it with nearly nothing. So did my grandparents before them. It isn't easy. Yet it is not impossible.
> why should they leave rather than fight hard for change?
It's a matter of degrees, right? I know people who hate the US to the bone and yet, they still live here. That's the kind of thing I don't understand. And, in the case of the couple of people I have in mind, money isn't problem at all.
Also, if you notice, I did mention the option to stay and fight for change is still there.
The question is one of what someone might want to have their life focus be about. I have to tell you that as you get older you tend to appreciate the idea of moving towards less drama and complexity in life. Why live life in a fever of anguish and dissatisfaction when other options might exist.
Also note that, philosophically speaking, my comment extends to situations related to working at a job or for a company one might not enjoy. One can stay and fight for change or just go. It's one of the most powerful expressions of freedom I can think of. They lose. You win. And someone (a nation or company) who might appreciate what you have to offer benefits from your decision.
Uprooting your life to move to another country is a big decision, and while your country might not be perfect, there may not be a country that treats immigrants as well as your original country does native citizens, or if there is, it might not be easy to get in to.
Exactly how feasible do you think that suggestion is? What’s your guess on the budget you’d need for legal fees alone? (Using EU freedom of movement laws is cheating.)
> Exactly how feasible do you think that suggestion is?
My grandparents emigrated with absolutely nothing to their names. My parents emigrated US with very little. It isn't easy. At all. It also isn't impossible.
I hope from my comments here and this of others that recent events are not just a "pageant". If you can explain how there is really "nothing more" to it and why we shouldn't care, I'd be grateful for the revelation.
Criticism of monarchy spreads around with remarkable petulance. When I watch the ceromonies and rituals, I just see it like a cosplay event; if I am completely honest. But that doesn't mean that my new found 'revelation' needs to be weaponized to gain internet points.
I just find it immature. I've got better things to do that either praise or disdainfully scorn at the monarchy. Exactly, who cares! On internet points, ufff... I see the irony already.
I've heard several variations of this argument recently: that democracy or peace or [other favourable circumstance] are an aberration rather than a norm.
The problem here is that none of us can see the future. We can't know if democracy is a "blip". Let's come back in oooh another 10,000 years and see.
Most of humanity's time on earth was spend in small pre-historic tribes, I don't see any reason to assume those societies were monarchies. They probably didn't have the resources to support deeply entrenched power structures.
Humans come with built-in abilities to establish small ad-hoc social structures. You'd probably have some members of the community that were generally charismatic or bright (or particularly good at violence) who'd generally tend to get their way, but it is a complex web of social pressures.
I mean, just think of your friends -- you've probably got somebody who is broadly the "ideas guy" or kind of a natural leader, but they don't just automatically over-rule everybody.
There are plenty of issues with this line of argument. Black swans (monarchies everywhere we look), crystal ball gazing (we can't see the future so we can't identify if we're living in aberrant times), might is right (the powerful are the first to take control, which is interpreted as governance), elitism (power passes to the powerful), and probably more.
Although "proof by Civ" is incontrovertible, of course.
Bluntly, actual anthropology does not agree with this at all. It's some Enlightenment technocratic fantasy, so it's fitting you invoke Civ and not, like, a real survey.
If I am wrong, then you are being cruel to me simply for being ignorant. I personally do not find cruelty appealing, do you? Instead of cruel taunts that I'm on the wrong end of an information asymmetry, how about a link?
If I am right, and you know it, then you are arguing in bad faith attempting to derail the convo or just troll.
If I am right and you don't know it, and arguing in good faith, then I think the exercise of supporting your claim would be good for you. You might be surprised.
So: do you have a link to a "real survey" of the type you mean?
This is not an academic survey, but wikipedia is probably a better source than Civilization at least (good games, though). You can look at their sources if you really want to get rigorous.
> Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[17] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule.[18][19] For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.
> Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.
Anyway, IMO the null hypothesis should be that small humans tribes in nature act like large extended families or groups of friends and acquaintances -- generally friendly, collaborative, and driven by a consensus of stakeholders interested in a given problem. With less ability to horde wealth, you'll get shallower power structures -- more need to keep everyone broadly happy (or at least convinced that they are better off working with you).
For a guy who flippantly dismissed my reply to your bullshit by saying it's like denying the earth is round, you also have a bad definition of "cruelty".
Nobody owes you a refutation of your vibes-based nonsense historical theories.
They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that ‘King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and that the Monarchy should be abolished’ arrested? No.
If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
There were arrests in which the arrestee has been unarrested, when the police made a mistake. Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’ when King Charles was pronounced King.
You can, quite legally, protest the Monarchy. Being a dick about it and trying to upset people mourning will however be considered a breach of the peace or some other public order offence.
1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral"
2. It wasn't a funeral
3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
"we need room for the dissenting voices too" - I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
I also find the sheer amount of coverage a bit overwhelming but in the end no one knows what is appropriate - it's not happened before like this - and let's face it, if you were running a TV channel or radio or whatever, you would probably err on the side of caution too unless you were decidedly commercially stupid!
No one really knows what is appropriate. A lot of the ceremonies are only now being televised.
I have to say that, whilst the sheer bulk of 'er Maj programmes is starting to feel a little excessive, I understand why. Some of them are pretty good too.
We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
They are an odd lot and they are our odd lot. If it helps, I understand that they are a net gain financially via tourism alone. Not sure how that is costed but I suspect it is probably true.
It's fine to imply you prefer a republic instead or perhaps something else but why not be positive about your preferred solution instead of sniping at the current situation.
"That seems a bit crass to me." Not anymore crass than creating a cargo cult of monarchist sycophants, and expecting it to go on unopposed into the 22nd century for the sake of 'civility', particularly given the most recent decade of endless, hapless, idiocy and amoral gobshite.
Scotland in particular has a long running loathing of the monarchy, so any superheated response is not remotely surprising.
> What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
Yeah, its a crass term I will agree with you there. The public has come out in droves to support the royal family and respect the ongoing proceedings and a small number have vocally voiced their opposition to the situation and are being condemned for doing so. So, I used this charged term rather cheaply to paint with broad strokes the kind of person I imagine to lap up this unique moment.
> I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
Here I also agree with you that its nice to hear that C4 was airing voices of people with dissenting perspectives, but I don't necessarily think it should be confined to the TV or the internet as the "appropriate place" to air such views. I think going out and publicly protesting it is much more impactful
> What exactly do you want?
For people to realise that this isn't just a private occasion for immediate family to pay their respects to the recently departed. That the Royal family, for better or worse, has and continues to play a significant role in the ongoing story of this country and in having such a prominent and public position should be tolerant (even understanding?) of those who oppose, rather than to have it simply be quashed and scrubbed away
Thankfully we - you and I can have a reasoned discussion and someone with super powers is dispensing justice on the noddys that drip with hate and malice. There are quite a few greyed out comments in this thread!
I'm not too sure yet what on earth is going on here. It is unprecedented and I think the media are quite scarred by what happened when Diana died and the subsequent events. I remember those days quite well.
I think that we are still learning how to grieve as a nation. I lost my mum 25 odd years back (about a year after Diana passed away) and have buried quite a lot of family since and come to terms with some of the seamier sides of life. It is the way of things but I don't think that Britain, let alone any other country has worked out how to deal with death properly.
It sometimes looks quite bizarre but I think that the UK has the basics laid for a pretty good mechanism for dealing with grief. It will work itself out somehow.
That said, I understand that not everyone is a fan of the royals and would prefer a republic. For now, why not recognise a loss of a person who has been here for 90+ years and tomorrow we'll debate the future.
>We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
If that "pretty decent human" saw you were on fire, she wouldn't have deigned to put you out with her piss, and neither would any of her "odd lot." She wasn't your doddering, sweet old grandma, she was literally draped in blood-jewels stolen from two subjugated and enslaved continents.
Wait, is this a reasonable criteria for what makes someone a good person. I genuinely believe she’d stop and alert those around her better able to help to get a fire extinguisher or otherwise attend to the enflamed victim. What is your evidence for her callousness?
It is because humans have an irrational tendency towards sycophancy. This was true throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations and before them.
Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
We can’t just snap our fingers and fix the tendencies that make us human, nor do we have the energy to resist every diversion from your perception of what is ideal.
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
I'm not proscribing perfection. Rather asking why can't each generation try to do better? Ideally without giving up on gains made elsewhere.
And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)
If I try to see the millennial generation as a single decision-maker, I’d say it looks an awful lot like someone with multiple personalities.
Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
> Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
Citation needed.
> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.
Contradictory biblical logic to the rescue. Guess I shouldn't expect anyone to avoiding resisting any demons, don't want to multiply them sevenfold! Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
Surely you could have made your point without the unprovoked attack on Christianity?
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
I copied and pasted it because it articulated what I wanted to say but was crafted better than I could have said it. Likely I should have attributed it to the source (Reddit) but it was spur of the moment on a thread with 5 comments and 3 votes. Alas.
You're noticing that this is copy-pasta from somewhere else. It seems credible that there might be some bad actors like with the Coronavirus or the election. But maybe I struggle to imagine how people could be so incredibly actively loyal to a royal family.
I also don't understand the undying loyalty to the royal family either :) And I don't doubt that there are bad actors around, fanning the flames. But in this instance (and without really doing any further digging) I assumed I just came across a person who felt their comment was worthwhile enough to post in multiple places
I live in Edinburgh. Can confirm major disruption and likely costs based on the sheer number of police and event staff I've seen just walking through town.
>Can confirm major disruption and likely costs based on the sheer number of police and event staff I've seen just walking through town.
To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953, the cost spread out over that much time really isn't that much.
>"To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953"
Did you miss the whole Platinum Jubilee celebration two months ago for the Queen? [1] The scope of that was also over the top and costs 10's of millions of pounds. There was also the Saphire Jubilee 5 years ago, the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Golden Jubilee in 2002, there's at least a few others as well.
What are the Crown Estate assets worth? How many billions? And the public are not only expected to foot the bill for this over the top pageantry but they are supposed to do so with unwavering fealty? And at a time when the average person is worried about skyrocketing inflation and energy costs?
Based on revenue from the crown holdings, since the sovereign grant only represents a small percentage of overall revenues, much of the "public paid" money is paid back by that surplus being made available for public spending.
"In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending."
Basically by allowing the monarchy a fund to be used to carry out their public (and private) duties, the surplus of royal holdings revenue goes into public spending. I don't know the exact numbers but the situation is a LOT more complex than "the taxpayer pays for the monarchs, reeee".
Well not really and that article clearly shows that is only really in part taxpayer funded.
The RF owns the Crown Estate. Of this estate the UK government sits on/uses part of that estate. Therefore they're essentially paying "rent" for what they're using.
However it used to be that the RF received all of the income from the Crown Estate. The SG was an agreement that they would forgo taking all of the income and only a portion of it; the rest goes to public spending.
Hell, they even had to invoke a provision to make up the amount should it fall: "A decrease in the Crown Estate's rental income during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the first use of the provision that prevents the value of the Sovereign Grant from falling, with the Treasury committing to make up the shortfall.".
It's a weird system for sure. The treasury pays out rent for all Royal Holdings that are being used by the goverment/public. Then 15%~ of that rent (plus income from other parts of the holdings) is available to the RF as a part of the SG. The rest goes back to the public.
There is a valid point made that security isn't included in these costs/returns, though. But at the end of the day, it's because the RF owns huge swathes of land and businesses, etc that they are paid. Sure they could be stripped of them but that sets a precedent.
I'm not overly concerned by cost given how much the procession seems to matter to so many people. But I do think people should be allowed to protest if they wish given we tax payers are paying for it.
This isn't a private funeral. Hell it's not even a funeral, it's a procession and a tax payer funded public event as well. I can _maybe_ get asking the person with the "fuck imperialism" sign to not use a sign with "fuck" on it (Don't mind myself but I know plenty of old folk will) but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone declaring "Not my King".
On the plus side we now have viral examples of how Tory policies have in fact stepped on freedom of speech, contrary to their claims.
If the Scottish independence referendum was called for today, after Brexit, Boris Johnson and the Queen's passing away, it would probably have an entirelly different outcome.
No, he just partied during Prince Philip's funeral, while everyone else was either in lockdown or mourning. Maybe he's patrying now, just as the late Queen is touring England.
> surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices?
To the procession or the monarchy? If you say the procession, sure. If you're talking about dissenting voices against the monarchy, I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service.
> I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service
This point is being made all over the thread and seems disingenuous. The extremely public memorial service for the reigning monarch is a deeply political event. If this was some private service being protested, even if it was the royal family, the point would stand. But this is not that. Not only is the transfer of power to the heir at the moment of death a huge part of the monarchy by design, the memorial service itself is used to affirm that same system in an extremely public and official way. If people can't protest that because it's a "memorial service" then when can they protest the monarchy? I'm sure protesting it when the queen was ill would also be in poor taste. And apparently protesting the new king right now as he is being declared king is also not possible. What's left?
I do some sales into a long cycle (annual and multi-year) with institutional customers. It can be hard to find the right timing to make contact. “Too early” and “too late” often overlap.
If they want to avoid making a change, they use this to put us off. The objections seem so plausible. But I’ve learned to use it to gauge when they have no intention of ever listening to us.
I would say both; you can oppose the procession itself for all of its pomp and archaic tradition at a time where the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis and also have that also be more broadly a protest against the monarchy in general.
A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen
Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards
> a cost of living crisis > funded by the taxpayer
To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.
Firstly, taxation:
“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].
Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.
Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?
“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].
Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.
Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).
Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].
Fair & valid points overall. I did hesitate to put the comment about the taxpayer bearing some of the burden for funding the monarchy because I realised I would quickly be out of my depth when someone with more insight into the numbers came along :D
But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer
I merely did some googling because I was sceptical! Disclaimer: I am not a royal apologist: born and live in the “colonies”, and I am not a fan of the remaining encumbrances that New Zealand has with any royalty.
That’s not how money works in the UK. The taxpayer isn’t funding the monarchy or anything else. If anything the Crown is funding the taxpayer via the Bank of England.
Except the Royals themselves say something else. You linked to a webpage about how money gets created which isn't germane to the provenance of the already existing money that is owned by the royal family.
Take a look at "the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [1]
That website has a webpage devoted to the "Royal Finances" [2] that says, "There are three sources of funding for The Queen, or officials of the Royal Household acting on Her Majesty’s behalf, in both a public and private capacity. These are: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse and The Queen’s personal wealth and income."
"The Sovereign Grant: This is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Queen’s official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks."
The sovereign grant is 15% of the income from the Crown estates. Depending on who you think owns / should own the Crown estates (it was once the monarchs personal property) this is potentially a big subsidy to the tax payer from the monarch.
Ultimately the origins of most property is tied up in violence, not just that of the royal family.
In the sense that the Crown leases the Crown Estate to Parliament in exchange for a guaranteed income? Sure.
In the sense that that arrangement could be reversed without massive upcry, a constitutional crisis, and the dissolution of the monarchy? Not realistically. The government has de facto control of the Estate, and the monarchy receives a de facto taxpayer-funded income (plus their private ownership through other property.)
Or, more precisely, he was going around with this blank sign, asking officers whether he would be arrested if he were to write that on the blank paper, according to the account here:
As an American, it is hard for me to properly grasp the fact that the UK almost seems closer to Saudi Arabia than the US in this regard.
It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
Yeah, nothing like being arrested _and sentenced to four years in prison_ for talking to a cop while being black, in the land of the free, where this would NEVER happen because of some often-invoked 1st amendment.
It was not my intention to say, for instance, that the US is not deeply racist; which is central to the case you quoted. It's likely far more so than the UK.
But the principle of freedom of speech seems generally more accepted, which is why Brittany Martin's case would be recognized by most Americans here for the racist outrage that it is. On the other hand, you have UK people elsewhere in the thread shrugging "yeah, that's a law" [1]), which is what was surprising to me.
But it very clearly is not. Quite the opposite is upheld by a court.
Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.
The US had a revolution from King George III and created a Constitution with 10 Amendments in order to guard against this exact type of behaviour from the government. Discussion on the subject of the people's rights independent of their government isn't widely held today. Maybe that should change.
I'm kinda puzzled. I know the US is wide and there's many pockets of everything, but in so many ways the US seems more religious and actively putting it into laws than the UK.
Digging far away, only the US tried to ban alcohol consumption, an angle only islamic countries are also interested in as far as I know. Looking back only a few weeks ago, abortion protection has been abolished nation wide. To only take super salient points.
The US banned alcohol because at the time we consumed an absolutely HUGE amount and it was causing all kinds of social ills like wife-beating and child neglect.
That's part of why the USA got created in the first place. Some people were discriminated against and/or locked in the Tower of London for inconveniencing the King or the establishment. Some of these people moved over and colonized the New World and achieved independence from the British Empire. That's also part of why the UK are your closest allies. Cultural heritage.
> It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
Okay, fair point – I missed the fact that SA is also currently a somewhat key US ally.
But you know what I mean, hopefully. The UK has typically been close enough socially and politically that the term "Special Relationship" has its own Wikipedia page [1].
As a person from Northern Ireland, I'm not sure what holiday you're referring to.
Closest I can think of is the 12th July, which is a holiday, but not one celebrating burning Catholics[0]. You might be referring to the bonfires that are lit on the 11th, but that's not a holiday.
Aside from some small events in Scotland, the 12th July is not celebrated in the rest of the UK.
Is Guy Fawkes Day in November not a big thing in NI? It is in England, at least. Although the traditional burning of the effigy of Catholic dissident/terrorist Guy Fawkes is becoming less common and people just are more commonly just treating it as a general holiday.
No, we don't observe it at all, in either community. Halloween is bigger here, and observed by both main communities, it's probably close enough to 5th November that we've just ended up forgetting about Guy Fawkes.
Plus it's taught in school as an English event, and we have enough of our own history going on in the early 1600s.
It was a terrible tragedy, but it’s patently absurd that we should give someone a jail sentence for making a joke about it.
(The jail sentence was suspended, but that’s hardly the point. Any criminal conviction, even a fine, carries the ultimate threat of jail, or, if you resist arrest, even death — all this, for a joke).
Are you sure you condone joking about the deaths of people in Grenfell Tower?
I've lived on these shores (South Somerset) for 52 years now and I have made the most awful jokes about some things as anyone probably has here. However, there is a point beyond which I won't go - causing deliberate hurt.
I don't know about the particular case that you refer to or actually skirt around - citation needed please.
A joke does not cause hurt beyond a slight nick with a possible small amount of blood loss. Beyond that it is not a joke and is an insult.
I don't condone the actions, but a jail sentence is utterly absurd and is, frankly, very unsettling. Why should insulting people be a jailable offense? There wouldn't be a stand up comedian left walking free if we consistently enforced this.
It's likely for "disturbing the peace" which is a little more cut-and-dry than rudeness. So many weird people on both sides of this event, though. I don't care about the queen but props to you if you do. Let's just not make it a thing more than it needs to be.
It's super important to note that many of the people being arrested and otherwise lead away are not attending a funeral. That's 6 days away. Some have been at processions and that might be distasteful. Grossly offensive or abusive though?
Whatever your view on those cases, many of these interactions have happened at proclamations and just in public places, well away from the Queen. One shouldn't be threatened with imprisonment for peacefully airing their personal views.
You defend it all like it's one horrific thing that needs to be stopped, and I find that far more distasteful than anything any of these people have said.
>"You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is."
The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested.
>"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday.
Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased.
The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science.
>"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall."
Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
But this is a case in the UK. They have different laws and observe different decorum.
Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
The article describes an activist who specifically took pains to avoid any disparagement of the outgoing Queen, limiting his protest to the incoming coronation.
If that falls under the rule you're describing, doesn't that render it impossible to protest a ceremony, as long as it happens after a funeral? It seems you're defining away the protest of hereditary succession as unacceptably rude?
> limiting his protest to the incoming coronation.
The coronation is months away, he was protesting the ascension at the Queen's funeral procession. That does not avoid disparagement of the Queen.
I certainly don't think he should be arrested but he's clearly boneheaded. He'll have plenty of time to protest both the ascension and the coronation, of someone who is a much softer target that the Queen, especially considering she's just died.
PR own goal if ever there was one. Even Extinction Rebellion have had the good sense to postpone their demos. Is there anyone but the Western Baptist Church who thinks it's a good idea to protest at funerals?
They say if you support free speech you'll end up defending vile people, and it's true, he shouldn't be arrested, he should be allowed to say what he said, but he is vile and it was stupid.
Because, for whatever reason, I read the article then promptly dumped the information about his arrest in Oxford and conflated it with the arrests at the funeral procession on the way to St. Giles' Cathedral.
Which means it was still not a coronation, it also wasn't a funeral procession, I still think he's boneheaded but not as much as before or nearly as much as the ones in Edinburgh, and none of them should've been arrested (maybe perhaps the one that shouted at Prince Andrew, but definitely not the others).
I mean, the WBC is a well known agitator and not representative of people or even protestors at large. In any case, I contend it's in extremely poor taste and does not help further the cause, and actively creates antipathy.
Sure, but talking about the effectiveness of the protest tactic is totally different than whether or not the state should arrest and imprison you for protesting that way.
Other than maths and physics, there is no natural law that says this and that are so and right. People make the laws amd they are not Americans and don't observe our laws. ASBOs were repealed in England but not Scotland; in England they were replaced by new laws (targeting economically disruptive protests, I guess).
Yeah but the UK is where you can get arrested for making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute as a joke (but somehow Father Ted doing similar Nazi jokes gets a pass)
Citation needed but I suspect you are probably right about the pug.
Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
Everything about your second paragraph is incorrect. Father Ted was never pitched to RTE. The creators had a prior working relationship with Channel 4 so it was pitched to them, not the BBC. It was produced by Hat Trick Productions, a UK based television production company who also make Have I Got News For You. All indoor scenes were filmed in London with outdoor scenes being filmed in different parts of Ireland.
Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
Are you referring to Synder v Phelps where the Supreme Court held that a distant (1000 ft away) protest didn't qualify for monetary (tort) damages for the deceased's family?
Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
This is a very clear distinction in the UK. There are a number of constraints on someone's rights to make loud noises in the UK, of which probably Section 5(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act is most often used -- it states
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening (or abusive)"
with all of the usual lawyerly finness about what (b) means being defined by common law precedent and the right to freedom of expression largely being worked out by the courts together with reference to the ECHR. Note that things like animal rights protestors making loud noises at university graduations (where the graduates have nothing to do with animal experiments) have successfully been challenged under this statute – the usual remedy is a high court injunction relocating them to somewhere visible and nearby, but out of earshot, of the thing they are protesting against.
It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that:
"[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on protests they believe would otherwise constitute an existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such instructions from the police may be committing a criminal offence."
In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what I find to be legitimate protest – "on 28 June 2022, the day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act. The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1].
As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge.
Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it
typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on
works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour
in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges.
It also includes obstructing the public highway, though now this is also a statutory offence.
Public nuisance therefore is a much lower bar to offence than either the public order act or breach of the peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no requirement for a mens rea: there is no requirement that the defendant intended or was reckless about whether his conduct caused
the relevant kind of harm. This is quite a key point as it de facto lets the police decide what the line is, with no input required on the part of the defendant. I would be very interested to see a reconciliation of these rights with that of freedom to expression and the broader constitutional right to protest in the UK.
as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest.
I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns.
>What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest.
You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first.
>For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable?
Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime.
Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat.
Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech.
You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme.
Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1].
For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion:
> a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
Well to start, right now there is 24/7 news coverage about how an ex-president took state documents with him on his way out. Seperation of office from officeholder is a pretty key part of a functioning democracy (hell even the british monarchy can do that one).
Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
See the dozens of voting restrictions which were passed in various states over the last two years. See the 200 year old compromise with slave holder states which is still in effect to this day. See the consistent disenfranchisement efforts over the last decade led by a particular major political party. See any and all voter rights laws being stymied by that same party.
First past the post is inherently undemocratic. Combine with the facts that Senate representation is based on lines on a map and not population, and House of Representatives representation is based on population numbers from a century ago, there's blatant gerrymandering to abuse the first past the post. Did you also miss the former president attempting a coup, getting away with multiple crimes while in office due to political affiliation? Or how about the fact that your supreme court wields enormous power and is blatantly political, with life appointments.
There's a bunch of reasons why the US is considered a flawed democracy, with the score going down every year, in the Democracy Index.
I think you're just seeing an example of the raging inferiority complex that many members of the rest of the West exhibit towards the US. There's a noticeable cultural difference along certain axes, with both significant downsides and significant upsides for both sides of the cultural divide. But there are many out there who aren't cognitively capable of processing the breathtaking nuance of global cultural differences, and unsurprisingly they end up with a reductive view of the culture they don't understand (same as it ever was).
My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
You will also be arrested for shouting "who elected him" at the new King's proclamation ceremony apparently.
These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting "who elected him" during the proclamation of the new king so it's not just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or unacceptable language.
But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is an offence since it precipitates violence, its a provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
Why do you arrest someone just to de-arrest them minutes later once there are away? I think this rather proves the point that the police knew that person was not actually committing an offence but wanted to take them away.
I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along with at all aren't invited - they've never been particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if they don't stir shit in a time of healing.
This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
Sorry about your father. I don't like using personal examples since emotions can be strong, especially at a time like this. If they were to show up and stand peacefully with a sign, I don't think that should be illegal. But if they did that it would certainly show the rest of the family what kinds of people they are.
I mean - whenever we're talking about funerals it's an extremely personal event for some. Just because you can't see the person - or it's a person of privilege - doesn't mean it doesn't hit just as hard.
Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
Protesting a public funeral procession for a public figure down closed-off public roads makes that more defensible, from my Australian perspective. Otherwise you have a bizarre situation where you can hold a 100-mile-long walking-speed parade for whatever cause you support, provided you can find a suitable dead person and convince the police to block off the roads, and all your opponents have to shut their mouths and put up with it.
Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much, much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol stations, even motorways...
It's only by convention that Parliament doesn't chop the King's head off. I would imagine that convention will last approximately the same amount of time.
> In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes.
They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
> They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
In terms of legal sense, since you asked about that specifically - all films shown in the UK(in theatres or released on home media, or for streaming/download) have to be approved by the British Film Commission. If something is approved for release, anyone would have an extremely hard time getting the author arrested for the content - they can still be sued for a number of different reasons, but making a nazi salute in a film with nazis would be allowed for artistic purposes.
A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
> Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me
Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games).
But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
The mindset is alien to me. The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. It doesn't even seem like it's ever in question just stated like a fact that the wealthy and powerful should have more rights. Perhaps that's the British psyche of meek subservience to the ruling class.
The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
>>The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes.
I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact.
>>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist"
I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
>>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so
You mean....the police?
I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.
You really think that I believe a common person should be arrested for something, yet the same thing should be allowed for a corporation? Where have I justified that?????
Oh I think they do. They won't admit it when you put it like that of course, many probably don't even admit it to themselves because they simultaneously see themselves also as resistance fighters raging against powerful established interests, on behalf of the oppressed.
> I don't find this funny at all,
I wasn't talking about the content of the joke. I think nazi jokes can be pretty hilarious though, especially the ones where they do mock salutes. Perhaps you just have to appreciate a bit of good old British humor to feel that way, though.
> glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
> You mean....the police?
The police, the prosecutors, the judges, the legislators. Sure.
> I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies.
At least when it comes to the UK, I don't think so. The British are known for doing comedies of the war and nazis almost from the start. They have had a very long tradition of joking about nazis including mocking their salutes, as well as giving their rich and ruling class a double standard about it.
>>I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
I think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
>> it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
One is mocking nazis in art and media - there you are absolutely correct, there is a history there and it is generally allowed.
What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context. Go to a party in the UK and start marching with your hand raised up straight, if anyone complains say "it's a joke bro" - see how fast you get kicked out. My bet is very very very fast.
That's my entire feeling about this - that a random short YT clip of nazi salutes is the equivalent of that "it's a joke bro" mentality. It's not allowed not because we love oppression, it's not allowed because it trivializes something that has left such deep scars on our societies.
> think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
No, I don't agree with anything you said in that paragraph. As I said, the mindset is alien to me. My attitude is not one of subservience to the government and I don't look to the ruling class as my savior, protector, my better, wiser, or even inherently good.
And taste is entirely on the tongue of the beholder.
> I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
I don't think so. You said "making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies", which is wrong as I provided evidence for. nazi salutes as a joke is in fact acceptable even in Germany -- at least when it is the rich and powerful doing it. If you are revising your position now, don't paint it like we were just arguing past one another.
> What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context.
What you are also pointing out is that you believe it's okay for rich and powerful people and corporations to make said jokes and anoint themselves "deciders" about who may make jokes and who should be punished for making jokes.
Teaching a pug to do nazi salutes is a joke. Really. Handwringing about the raw horrors of the war or the threat of the reich rising again if this is allowed just isn't credible. It's the same fearmongering and denouncements and threats that the powerful have always used to silence the people and justify their oppression.
The nazis did not rise because Germans were permitted to make tasteless jokes. They rose because Germans were able to be convinced that their fellow citizens posed a grave threat to them, and that they needed the government to protect them and save their society by oppressing this menace.
Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be ashamed of your childish behaviour.
Even if you think that should be a crime, why should that apply to the funeral of a representative or government official? People should be able to show their distaste of such a public figure however they want, even if it makes you feel weird about it.
And yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that someone was "screeching profanities." There were people who were holding signs and there were people that expressed their opinions without profanity during the ascension ceremonies. In fact the only screeching of any referenced in the article was Twitter post with a video where people are screeching "God Save the King."
I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen in peace.
I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-limits to protest.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
> Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
It has the same amount as the thing this article is about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
The article definitely has to do with the content of the speech:
> Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew.
This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself.
In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
I think we're reaching some insane point in this discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known people in the world, where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is called an extravaganza.
Considering they've failed to take Ukraine I'm not Russia gets to keep it's "Superpower" status anymore. Even if they eventually managed it in the following weeks/months/years, that's still just pathetic. I'm not saying I wanted Russia to invade or beat Ukraine, I think the war was beyond stupid and unnecessary but it sure has made Russia look weak and dumb. Not the kind of thing that "projects power on a global scale."
It's not "someone you don't like". It's a queen. A public figure. Her funeral is a symbol, a public moment, of course dissent should be allowed at this exact moment. They're sending a public message, why is it forbidden to send a dissenting voice? This is propaganda without the right to retort with counter-propaganda.
This happens less so now that large numbers of bikers show up each time they try and stand directly in front of them, holding large flags to block their signs.
Yes. Absolutely. Assuming it's being held in public and, especially, if it's a state figure.
Even more so if the public is the one paying for the funeral in the first place. You're definitely allowed to be rude at a funeral you're footing the bill for.
She also had a "fuck imperialism" sign, and was outside of the cathedral in which QEII's body was lying. Cultures that are more fragile wrt speech norms may object to that.
A better example is the man calling out "who elected him" to the proclamation of Charles III, at a ceremony that had as little as possible to do with funerary rites while still dealing with her son's ascension.
> They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Is this China or Russia? This sounds insane to me. Meanwhile, the UK ruling class is free to gut the NHS and bleed the population dry and none of them give a shit. The British sense of "decorum" is pure bullshit.
The queen was a public figure whose lavish livelihood were paid for by British tax-payers. So it seems to me that British people should have the right to celebrate her death in any way they please. Curtailing people's freedom of speech by misusing public order laws (the queen's funeral is not comparable to any normal funeral) is curtailing freedom of speech.
This is actually an incredibly false point. The royal family (if treated like anonymous land-owners) would cause a sudden and drastic drop in fundraising within the UK. Assuming their property wasn't seized having them retain their current station is actually a net positive to the British tax-payers - they lose far more potential income each year in free land leases and charitable donations (known collectively as the Crown Estate) to the state then they receive in benefits (known as the Sovereign Grant). This arrangement is financially detrimental to the royal family in terms of absolute value.
You are completely wrong on the basic facts of this. The Crown Estate belongs to the state, not the royal family. The Sovereign Grant is an arrangement to pay the monarch is paid 25% of the revenue, which would otherwise flow to government coffers like the rest of the revenue. Were the UK to become a republic, the state would simply stop paying this to the monarch, and thus gain revenue.
I mean… why would the royal family be allowed to “keep” anything in an abolished monarchy? Obviously you should just seize roughly all the property. It’s a product of the State, not the royal family working hard
Maybe? That's a really complicated question honestly - how much of their personal property actually is hereditary wealth and how much is a benefit of their station. I can tell you the answer is neither 0% nor 100% - the royal family (if dethroned) shouldn't be thrown out as paupers and it shouldn't be granted personal control of spaces that enjoy public use. Where precisely that line should be drawn is complicated but if that line leaves them with any significant portion of their current titular wealth the UK will end up losing money. The Crown Estate might be worth around 15.6 Billion, so a few hundred million every year is far less then the family would receive if they liquidated the lands at value and just invested it into an index fund. The actual income of the estate is significantly higher - with a lot of those assets under reporting their actual yield in terms of tourism and public benefits.
I think it's a really complicated question.
Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
It's a complicated question with regards to some of their property. It's not at all complicated with the Crown Estates. That is clearly public property. Otherwise Edward VIII would have kept it when he abdicated.
> in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall.
If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any dissent as rude, no?
Edit: there's an even better example, of a man who was nowhere near any funerary rites, calling out "who elected him" at the proclamation of Charles' ascension.
>They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
>They are being arrested for being rude about it.
We're truly scratching the bottom of the barrel of pro-censorship arguments here. This is parody-grade stuff. "I am for freedom of speech an all, but this person held a rude sign during a massively public political event. Arrest them and drag them through courts!"
Coming from the country that has held Julian Assange in a dungeon for the crime of journalism for years at the behest of the United States, this comes as no surprise. And people wonder why, when UK and other "Western" leaders point at Russia and China and cry about "authoritarianism", people with brains and morality are disgusted with their hypocrisy.
Being rude is grounds for being banned from HackerNews, not for being arrested and thrown in jail.
You can not say you support free speech but also support the arrest of someone for a "abolish the monarchy, fuck imperialism" sign, or for saying "who elected him".
> If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
>If you are going to attend a funeral […] and hour abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t have robust protections for free speech. In the US, you certainly will not be arrested for this. We have Supreme Court precedent preventing it.
I mean yes? Elect MPs, vote for parties that support the republic movement for a starter. It doesn't really help when all the mainstream parties in the Westminster are royalists.
I would guess Parliamentarians are likely to have read up a bit and discovered why Parliament is sovereign. The English literally tried not having a monarch, they executed Charles I for treason. This concretely answers any residual question, the Parliament can execute the King, so Parliament is sovereign. Turns out the alternative wasn't better. "Lord Protector" Cromwell (ie a dictator) wasn't an improvement over a King. After Cromwell died, the restored Parliament invited Charles II to become King.
People want a figurehead. If you elect the figurehead they have political power (because of democratic legitimacy) and that's bad. Monarchy is better for this purpose.
Last I checked that was a few hundred years ago and there are plenty of parliamentary goverments in complete control and perfectly semi-functional like most modern nations. I'm not sure how Cromwell can be brought up as legitimate example in 2022 when royalty has no real power to speak of.
The USA is the one where they give their elected figurehead pardon powers - like a King in the old times - and the previous one used them to insulate friends who very obviously did crimes. Then in fact he promises to do the same again only more so if given the chance, but his political allies protect him from prosecution anyway. Wow. I mean, I guess Cromwell was worse, but it's not exactly an enviable choice.
The US governance model is unsound, it's been around for only a relatively brief period and it's crumbling. France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
It is hard to say if the US form of government is really less stable than any other democracy -- since the US has been around, many countries have undergone wild changes to the structure of their governments. The US system has changed as well, it is an ever-evolving process.
Not sure the US is crumbling, there are some alarming elements but then we've always had our fair share of dummies over here. Somehow we've stumbled our way into a pretty powerful position, but of course as the UK can attest, global power can evaporate quite quickly. Hypothetically, if we undergo a Rome style transition from representative government to empire, does that count as stable?
> France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
France deposed its last two kings and its last emperor without executing them so I think we can safely assume than no actually no one wants a king there.
That would be a wrong assumption. After the Second Empire fell, a return to the Bourbon monarchy was considered the way forward. The problem was that the idiot next in line was too inflexible with regards to flag designs, so the Third Republic was set up with a largely ceremonial president with an extremely long term (7 years), with the hope that when that term is up, the idiot would have died, and the next in line would be the liberal Phillipe d'Orléans, compte de Paris. But by the time the term was up, the composition of parliament and the general attitude had changed, so the shaky, unstable, supposedly temporary Third Republic survived.
Henri, compte de Chambord (the inflexible idiot, proud descendant of a line of either inflexible or too flexible idiots), is thus considered as the French Washington - without him the Republic wouldn't have been possible.
> That would be a wrong assumption. After the Second Empire fell, a return to the Bourbon monarchy was considered the way forward. The problem was that the idiot next in line was too inflexible with regards to flag designs, so the Third Republic was set up with a largely ceremonial president with an extremely long term (7 years)
No, that’s only Tiers and the other idiots of the French right who had already dishonoured France during the the semaine sanglante and was only elected by the part of France which wasn’t occupied by Prussia. The left was republican but the commune had temporary weakened it. There was no way a return to monarchy would have hold. The population wasn’t really in favour of it which is why the third kept going.
Their disagreement amongst the right went much further than the flag anyway. No one agreed about who should rule and under which constitution.
No nor can you dissolve the cia, close down US prisons operating in Cuba or get the truth about ufos. Nor can you vote for whoever you want to run the country you are given two choices.
> Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’
In fairness, we didn't vote for the Prime Minister either.
Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
I think UK democracy has a much bigger democratic problem than whether there is a symbolic monarch.
Unlike the monarch, the Prime Minister we didn't vote for is a political activist with serious power and a nasty agenda - including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
In fairness to the Queen, as far as I know she never asked that we reduce the people's rights and freedoms, and in fairness to the new King, one of the things he is known for is being a climate and environment activist, which was viewed as kooky a couple of decades ago but looks prescient and relevant to the times now.
> Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
There's no obligation to protest everything you disagree with, why would you suggest there is? Furthermore, how do you know they _didnt_ protest the PM? The PM may not have been voted for, but a crucial difference is, unlike the monarchy, the position of PM is not handed down by hereditary lineage.
> including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
Don't you think perhaps these two events are related? You chastise someone for protesting, whilst bemoaning the right for protest being eroded. A strange contradiction.
i see quite a few confusing or ill spirited comments so I suppose most of this thread is from a distinctly United States American perspective. Its worth kindly pointing out the UK has its own law and order, much of which applies to your character and conduct in the public sphere.
Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA provided they are performed on public property. a prime example is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of their service.
Worth noting that currently, most UK arrests over "offense-giving" (which are increasingly common) are done on behalf of precisely those grievance-based identity groups which anti-monarchists support.
Ah, well the monarchy and corresponding empire to have a history of inflicting massive suffering on various ethnic groups, so I guess there's probably some correlation between republican sentiment and identity (I mean look Irish Twitter). But I think it is not a very compelling reason to write off these sentiments, as the original comment seems to have...
They are being arrested typically for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Often they're being arrested for their own safety, you only have to look at the example of the chip shop owner in Muir of Ord, who posted a video online and now her chippy has a smashed window.
Do you leave the person with the offensive sign there? I can easily see some "have a go hero" deciding to tear the sign to bits and causing a fight to happen.
Arrested for ones own protection makes no sense. That would not be protection then it would be an escape plan. If someone is putting you into handcuffs to protect you they are lying. Any victim of abuse knows the signs of gaslighting.
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
Doesn't take a political science degree to see what's wrong with this law. When cops get to decide what is a justifiably loud protest and what isn't you no longer have the right to protest. Protests are meant to disrupt, if you can't be loud about it then it no longer has its intended effect.
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
Also impressive the one lady was simply holding a sign. That doesn't sound very noisy to me...
They are meant to convince your fellow citizens of your position.
Being a disruptive $#@t, not only defeats that purpose, it actually causes more people to vote against you.
Moreover, emotionally driven teenagers (or stunted "adults") use these protests as a pubescent venting mechanism to smash business and mistreat adults they encounter, like some narcissistic violent therapy session.
I've been a bit disconcerted at the level of unmitigated adulation that's been showered on the late queen by the media. I have nothing bad to say about Elizabeth II but I too do my job every day -- without a staff of hundreds to prepare my breakfast -- and I don't think I will be sanctified the day I keel over. It's all so serious and deeply conservative you'd think we are back in the 1950. In the 1970s Monty Python were allowed to laugh at anything on national television, I suspect that would not be possible today.
I like and admire the Queen, but I also wonder about this. How much of our admiration is the result of the British media giving the Queen essentially 100% positive coverage at all times for 70 years straight?
(Unlike politicians, who will be gone in 4 years or so anyway, media outlets are terrified of upsetting the royal family, who are permanent).
it is weird. Even bloomberg seems to have a newfound religious worship of the british monarchy
I understand that it is popular among the general public because fairytales and costumes and stuff , but i have to shake my head at how some reporters talk seriously about "peaceful transition of power", when there is no power
If this institution lacked power, would it be featured 24/7 internationally, whether we like or not? So maybe there is in fact some unspoken power involved here, even though we're told "it is ceremonial". Sometimes makes you wonder, did the British Empire really die or is it like the un-Dead Soviet Union waiting in the wings to make a comeback?
yes it is dead. this elaborate show is useful to some businesses but irrelevant to the rest of the world. Whatever 'power' comes with celebrity, it's impossible no to have a 'peaceful transition of power' when one of the parties has kicked the bucket.
> it's impossible no to have a 'peaceful transition of power' when one of the parties has kicked the bucket.
I don't think [this is] how power works, specially in a monarchy. Peaceful transition means the power base that has given fealty to Mr. X is now accepting Mr. Y. That is the 'transition'.
That's funny. No. They can put their support behind another contender than Mr. Y (and English history has it's share of examples of crisis of succession, btw). In that case different factions that actually hold power get to duke it out to see whose candidate gets to be the new monarch/overlord/cesar/president. That is typically not peaceful, certainly not at the political level (think Tower of London) and may even involve actual guns and civil wars.
As an American I find it a little weird that Biden ordered flags at half staff until the queen's funeral is over -- 11 days in total I think. I mean she is the queen, and she has been the queen since before most of us, and some of our parents, were born, but she isn't /our/ queen.
I guess it's not that unusual though to lower the flag for a few days on the death of a foreign leader. Apparently we went 3 days for Shinzo Abe. Nothing for Gorbachev, though. (Maybe it would have been worth it just to annoy Putin.) Not sure when the last time was we went 11 days or more for a non-US figure.
She's still a kind of English speaking world figurehead even if there was a spot of bother with that independence kerfuffle over in the American colonies.
I'm not so sure about your last statement: what's considered "acceptable" is always changing so you might be right, but I think there's always been people out there trying to block things so I'm not convinced this is new behaviour.
> In 1979, Monty Python's Life of Brian was considered so controversial it was given an X certificate and banned from some British cinemas.
Why in the world are you disconcerted? There is nothing surprising about the adulation at all, it's been this way for literally decades. Were all these people who are "shook" and "jarred" in a coma?
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”
And no, I don’t mean it as a joke
If Britain wants to survive the next 100 years, they need to make some brave decisions. Dissolve monarchy and the class system, get back into EU, and hope Scotland will not declare independence.
Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
(edit: Actually I looked it up and apparently it has flown at half staff for foreign leaders a few times in the past. My bad, knee jerk reaction.)
> Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
Because one half of the Special Relationship had their head of state die? If the Canadian PM were assassinated, would you be up in arms over a half-mast due to the War of 1812?
It's always funny to see how many Americans truly believe in this founding myth.
The American revolution was supported by around 30% of the colonists by the time it started. And that was only after the media-owning elites spent years churning out non-stop pieces trying to promote the perspective. Of course the taxes primarily affected those wealthy elites and they knew a revolution would significantly benefit them
Do you know who John Hancock was? It's often said that this author of the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was of little to know historical relevance. However I think he's extremely relevant. He represented what the real engine behind the revolution: Rich people that owed a lot of debts to the Brits. In fact if you look through the list you'd find that a huge number of the signers owed debt that they would be freed of, come such a revolution. Alexander Hamilton is now so celebrated precisely because he was one of the very few exceptions to this
No one with any self-respect can tolerate being ruled by a hereditary monarchy whose justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
Do you have a citation for these claims about the debts? I've seen a lot of different disparaging claims about figures in American history, but I've got to admit this one is new to me, and I can find no citations through Google.
This is a great time for the British to have a little revolution with very modest aims like this. Both the government and the opposition are indistinguishable warmongering austerians who hate working people, British energy bills are tripling due to elite adventurism, posturing, and US ass-kissing, and the ex-colonies are openly proposing separating from the Commonwealth. What's more, the Queen alternated between a benign pleasantness and a prickly terseness that kept her internal states pretty mysterious and a bit charming, but now they know for a fact that their new King is a useless moron.
Getting rid of their magical fairy kingdom trappings (again) might give the population an impetus to flex some popular sovereignty over their own country. Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
> Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
Ironically, in the last decade the Lords have a much better track record that the Commons. They applied real scruitiny to the opressive protest bill, the Brexit bill and the bill to deal with unsafe building we discovered in the wake of corporate manslaughter, which was a result of rampant fraud in the construction industry. As a result the lords were threatened with dissolution
This is a country in which people who share memes mocking the trans flag are arrested. At least they're being consistent.
Although obviously I'd prefer neither being arrested in the first place.
America has free speech. Anyone can insult the President of the United States. Soviet Union has free speech, too. Anyone can insult the President of the United States!
The problem with the monarchy in the UK is not so much them themselves, but that they are the cornerstone of the remnants of the feudal system. We never had a cataclysmic revolution like the French, though the English Civil War was close. We've also been uninvaded for nearly a thousand years (unlike the French). So we have a fair amount of cruft built up.
No-one should be surprised by this. For years now in the UK, people have been being arrested, fined and even jailed for offences like this (including under one particularly egregious and vague law against “gross offence”).
Up until now, it had been people with, admittedly, rather unpleasant views. Perhaps that is why it had been ignored. But we’re now seeing why ignoring it is dangerous.
The issue is the "Mourning period" is being used as cover to crown a new monarch with no opposition. People are being told "not now", and how disrespectful they are.
This is by design.
Meanwhile it's somehow not disrespectful to replace the Queen within hours.
Your "meanwhile..." doesn't make sense, why is it disrespectful, technically it's the kingdom's/the monarchy's rules, and this family is the monarchy. And the replacement happened not within hours, but Charles became king at the instant Elizabeth died, that's why the sentence is "The Queen is dead, long live the King!".
Something that 0.0001% of the population is doing (protesting)
The ONLY story that makes it on the various news sites (it's eye catching)
Everyone gets a skewed reality that no one likes this new King and has been against the monarchy this entire time.
We had another study a few days ago about how one way to convince people to change their mind is to convince them that everyone else already has. The media is controlling people more than anyone realizes.
How much power does the British monarch still have? I'm from America so I didn't learn much in school about British history post-1776, but my understanding is that they never had an event like the French Revolution or American Revolution that suddenly ended their monarchy, just a long series of minor reductions in the royal family's power going back to the Magna Carta.
From my own (admittedly uneducated on this topic) perspective, British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance but they still have lords, kings, dukes, and other titles of nobility that seem incompatible with that.
Does the King still have the ability to order people around and pass his own laws?
> British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance
A Canadian perspective... Did you know that king has to approve all of Canada's laws? So when Canadians elect their government, and that people-elected govt passes a law, that's not good enough to become law. It has to get Royal Assent from the current king/queen. Canadians even pledge allegiance to the 'King and his heirs' - and that includes Andrew the Pedophile - its part of the citizenship oath. Many Canadian will fight tooth and nail to keep this system intact.
Australia got smart and changed the citizenship oath some time ago. As a result, you no longer have to pledge to a pedophile!!
TECHNICALLY, the monarchy has total veto power. Realistically though there'd probably be a revolution if they really used that in anyway that isn't in line with the purely ceremonial expectations for the role. They also have special laws made just for them like not having to pay any inheritance taxes to ensure the monarchy stays rich
But that's just domestically. The real pragmatic power is actually in foreign affairs and is way overlooked. A single visit of a British monarch to a regime would basically grant instant validity of their status. Imagine if King Charles III visited the Taliban. Obviously that specific situation is extremely unlikely, but I'd argue that Queen Elizabeth has played a really seminal role in keep some pretty fucked up regimes in power
Functionally zero. In theory, the monarch has power, but it is never exerted, because they know that if it was exerted a) it would be ignored, and b) they’d immediately be overthrown.
They act as a head of state in the same way that e.g: Germany has a President.
Noble ranks like Duke and Baron are also completely irrelevant to governance.
Lords _are_ relevant, on the other hand. They form the House of Lords, which plays a role as (simplifying) a check on the power of the House of Commons.
Practically, the UK Monarch (or Japanese emperor) has no discretionary political power at all. Republican Parliamentary systems usually leave some discretionary power to the head of state in either emergencies or for the purpose choosing a party to attempt to form a government.
Hereditary Lords (i.e. the noble aristocracy in the UK) have almost no political power. The ninety or so still in the House of Lords are elected by fellow members of the House of Lords. The remainder (600+) of the peers are appointed by the party in power in the commons.
Lèse-majesté is the crime of "offending majesty." It's been an awfully long time since it's been a real law in Europe but I guess anti-royals are pissing the state of enough that they've decided to revive it.
Just wanted to remind people that the funeral of the Queen isn’t until next Monday. These people are getting arrested for shouting at royal proclamations and ceremonies of remembrance. The Police here seem to have a zero tolerance to any form of protest, and that is indeed concerning. For those who object to public sycophancy and pomp whilst ordinary people here have to use food banks to survive (me included this last month) I’d advise waiting until after the funeral to say something. Despite all the public displays of wealth and royal theatre the UK is in deep trouble and is very unstable. When that has happened in the past the authorities here overreact out of fear.
Living in central London we have several protests per week pretty much all of which are tolerated by the police unless they go violent or piss off the general public too much. This recent stuff kind of goes in the pissing off the public category.
"The jury acquitted Martin of inciting a riot and reached no verdict on whether she threatened officers' lives. Her legal team was "elated" when jurors found her guilty only of breaching the peace, punishable by no more than a $500 fine and 30 days in jail, investigator Tony Kennedy recalled.
State law defines breachers of the peace as any disturbers, "dangerous and disorderly persons" or people who utter "menaces or threatening speeches." But prosecutors presented the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, which carries up to 10 years imprisonment. "
Americans are constantly learning that unfortunately you have to fight for your rights. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth have been eroded to various degrees in direct violation to the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still rights.
No. It just means that the prevalent drivel in this discussion about how much better it is in the US vs UK concerning ‘what are you allowed to say so the government isn’t mad’ is moot. I’d wager that those arrested in the UK won’t even see a judge but will be released right after, unlike in the ‘free’ US where what you say to a cop will be fully persecuted and lead to actual jail time of several years, for saying words to a government representative.
When some people were posting “fuck the queen” comments on the original “regina mortua est” HN megathread I thought that was pretty poor form. But I don’t have an issue with protestors. It’s a form of public accountability, which should generally be encouraged. It is quite unpalatable mind you, but then so are monarchies.
The monarchy has only fared well if it changes with the times, which it has, gradually giving more power to parliament over the centuries. We have gone from a system of divine right to a harmless institution that provides an apolitical centre. In a practical sense, the institution today is unrecognizable from the institution 1,000 years ago. And there is no reason to think it will not continue to change, gradually, as social change requires.[1]
For better or worse, the monarch is the legitimate sovereign. There is a chain going back almost 1,000 years.[2] Are we, now living, the ones who get to break that? If we are, then we should have a good reason to do so.
A future change where the monarchy effectively ceases to exist is entirely plausible. But any change like that should only happen by agreement. And there is no pressing need for it that I can see.
[1] Take, for example, the Crown Estate. Lands that the sovereign controlled but which were effectively given to the state. A huge transfer of economic power, done bloodlessly and within the laws of the nation.
[2] Yes, there was a civil war. But there was also a restoration.
> For better or worse, the monarch is the legitimate sovereign.
Legitimacy is not a currency; it derives directly from consent. If the “we, now living” no longer consent to a monarch, then the monarch has no legitimacy.
I mean I think it's clear Harry and Meghan saw the writing on the wall a number of years years ago and decided to go and establish a backup income, separate from Royal ties, in California.
Signing lucrative Netflix contracts, selling "Sussex" branded trinkets, going on Oprah, and bringing out autobiographies (no doubt containing scandal) has no doubt already made them a 7 figure sum.
How can anyone tolerate being a "subject" instead of a citizen? How can you obsequiously sing "God save the Queen\King" as your national anthem? It is just shameful.
I've never been called a british subject to my knowledge. Googling has "Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’".."Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects."
The god save the queen stuff is kind of traditional and doesn't mean much. "God save the queen
/ The fascist regime..." (Sex Pistols) is also kind of traditional and quite popular. No one forces you to sing either but the Pistols did much better in the charts.
A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries.
At least we get a figurehead who is generally popular vs say electing a Trump/Clinton and having half the population hate them until they get ejected for someone the other half hates.
W did it first. So, no, citing W doing it first is not "slanted".
Instead, claiming that Obama and Trump also violating their public trust makes my observation "slanted" is actively dishonest: I said that W did it first, and W did it first. Period.
The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression.
> The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough people there and there is "reasonable cause" that they may become violent, despite you speaking peacefully.
This NPR article is false and clearly doesn't understand the laws of the UK.
> doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression
Can you help me understand that distinction? With a pretty limited understanding of UK law, my assumption would be that freedom of speech would cover any words but maybe not the specific way they're presented, while freedom of expression would cover even if those words were expressed in less polite way.
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Yeah, it's a common misunderstanding by Americans (and even British people due to American media influence) that the UK has freedom of speech. Instead it is this _really_ washed out vague protection. NPR clearly have zero idea of this either.
Add on top of this the new hate crime laws that disallow 'hate speech' (which includes critique) of 'protected classes', and you don't really have the right to complain. The police also record "non-crime hate incidents" on your permanent record (zero due process, zero ability to remove it), and the police will quite literally come to visit you and "correct your thinking" (yes, they actually say this).
Personally, I really want to see freedom of speech implemented. This of course directly conflicts with the traditions we know and love, so it's unclear where we go from here. It seems as though freedom of speech is coming whether it matches our culture or not, and many British people already behave as though they already have it.
Disrupting a funeral is one thing. Disrupting a funeral the public is forced to pay millions of pounds for, while other members of said public can't afford food and electricity, is a completely different matter.
I don't think that it is. The rich and powerful are still real people with real grief. I'm not opposed to people protesting parliment or whatever, but let the mourners mourn in peace.
Is it your view that just because the state pays for something the public has every right to do whatever they want with it?
This seems obviously false. Try walking into the petagon some time proclaiming "the public paid for this military base and therefor i have every right to participate in it." And see how far that gets you.
If this were some kind of private function I'd agree with you. But a large, public funeral for a monarch is inherently a political event. It's part of the process of moving from one monarch to the next, which is exactly what the protestors object to, and is literally politics. It is absolutely fair game to protest.
Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment... is the number of potentially offended people greater and so it's a worse crime or is it more of a public event where the public should be entitled to express themselves?
While this isn't at all objective, my feelings on it all started to change when the BBC begun sneaking in pure praise for Charles/monarchy without any balance, having softened us up with the same thing but with the Queen for a few days, knowing no-one would disagree with that. It now feels political.
> Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to pick a side first.
I have no involvement, don't know the facts, haven't followed the discussion. From this thread, I gathered that people are being obnoxious and so they whipped out an ancient law to round them up for. Is selective enforcement good? Probably not. Is it good to stop people from being obnoxious at any funeral? Generally yes. Is the situation GP was posing comparable (random funeral vs. the queen's funeral)? No. Is royalty good? I don't know, I've heard pros (stable face of a country, for foreign relations, without the same person always being in power) and cons (costs).
I'd rather argue about merit and facts than "sides" you're on
...but probably that doesn't fit in a comment anyone is going to read and upvote, so alas.
Sometimes I toy with the idea of having difficult discussions (best example might be nuclear fission energy) in the form of a wiki, where the contents embody the current best known facts, with conclusions logically following from facts. When you change a fact, it cascades and the "thus"es are marked as needing an update. If you don't care for the whole discussion, you can just read the conclusion and find a "because" that you think is wrong somewhere and argue about that. But then, who'd find that enjoyable?
I'll bet vanishingly few of the people with their hackles up over this spoke out in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church when it was in the news for their funeral protests.
Westboro was heckling at funerals for (and attended by) private citizens. The monarchs are public figures. I could imagine some hypothetical reasonable person seeing a difference based on this.
In order to get towards that goal, Charles III should up the ante and use his reserve powers to dissolve parliament. Would make for a good show to see what the reaction would be.
I was mostly indifferent about the role of the royals until listening to this interview of Jordan Peterson [1]. It's an excellent argument for 4 branches of government. Specifically, where monarchs play a symbolic role within government, diverting celebrity worship out of the executive branch.
I'm from Ohio and surprised of this news. I didn't like Charles but I was not expecting this. If the monarchy system was removed, would there be anything to replace it that had a veto power?
For all its faults, I love the US. I can go downtown with a sign that says "Not my president", and I may get some cheers, may get some boos. What I won't get is arrested.
This is true no matter who is president.
Now, if I were saying this about President Harris, say, when she came to visit Biden's body while it was lying in state, that would be deplorable taste. It would be worse if my sign criticized Biden while his family came to pay their respects. That's pretty extreme levels of being a tasteless jerk. It's not grounds for arrest, though... in the US.
Maybe what this says is that you're not paying attention, maybe it says you belong to a group who US police are less likely to target for arrest. Or maybe you'd just end up dead in a ditch instead of arrested, which doesn't seem better than getting arrested.
Bad taste isn't grounds for arrest in the UK either. In the unlikely event any of these people end up actually in court, they'll be charged with something else, in most cases it seems like public order offences. The same sort of charge you'd get if the cops arrest you drunk outside a bar yelling abuse at people and they decide you won't just sober up and go home with a caution.
Here's what the ACLU were able to have released from the White House (in the Bush era) about what the Secret Service do to prepare before a presidential visit:
"As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site"
It doesn't say they get arrested, but of course if you're not free to go about your business, then does it really matter whether you were "arrested" or not ?
When later answering questions on a security clearance SF-86 application or other background check “have you been arrested in the last seven years?” would be one way in which it could matter.
> For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
> 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges,
convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
> - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
- In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges,
convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
- In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
- Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
You can do that in the UK too, just not during a funeral procession.
The US has laws against protesting at the funerals of Armed Service members. If you really want to rage against something, why not the thing from your own society, instead of the thing from some other society?
> You can do that in the UK too, just not during a funeral procession.
Can you though? I seem to remember someone getting arrested for tweeting some joke about a UK war hero because the joke was in poor taste or something.
Citation? I've never heard this before. I'm aware of the westboro baptist protesting at funerals of gay people or other "sinners" they don't like; they're wholly awful people. I didn't realize it was illegal to protest at a servicemember's funeral, though. Does this come out of the Vietnam war?
I wouldn't be so sure. The US has the concept of "Free speech zone" exactly for this situation. Designate a zone away from the event where all the protestors have to go and arrest those that don't. Seems even more draconian than what the UK is doing right now.
You must have missed the summer of love that we had two years ago, when crowds of protesters were regularly beaten and gassed, and often arrested (Charges would, of course, get dropped, because it's not actually illegal to protest.)
But you are correct, it's possible to protest the British monarchy as much as you want in the US, with next to consequences. :)
Pretending that a country which regularly arrests people for saying mean things on twitter is somehow more civilized than the US is both brain dead and extremely dangerous.
The UK is a medieval hell hole whose sole redeeming feature is that it's contained by the Atlantic ocean.
Least we forget a main part of the protest are against a pedophile who probably ordered the murder of Epstein.
An american reporter visits a communist country and asks a person on the street about freedom. He says "America is so free I can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the president, no one would care about it. How is the situation here?" The person replies: "Well I can can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the US president here too, no one would care about it!"
> For all its faults, I love the US. I can go downtown with a sign that says "Not my president", and I may get some cheers, may get some boos. What I won't get is arrested.
The situation is not that cut and clear.
I had a joke hat that looked like a MAGA hat (red with white text). I never wore it out of the house because at the time I took public transit everywhere and I didn't want to wind up wearing somebody's coffee or be assaulted (sure it probably would have taken awhile but still, not worth the risk). Were that to happen I can just about guarantee the crime would be pursued by the police about as vigorously as a petty theft report. The government probably would have left me alone but how much is that worth when other people will do their dirty work for them?
When a govt allows itself to be professionally lobbied, and those lobbiest are well know by political science profs to have "more say in policy decisions than the voters", do you think such a govt can ever be truly democratic?
At what point "democracy: becomes a facade, an empty ritual?
(And sadly, more an more a justification to go at war)
But you can be arrested for crossing the street in the wrong place, and you can be shot by the police for any reason, including because they feel like it.
To be fair the British cops sometimes shoot black people for dubious reasons too. It's taken a bit more seriously here (there will automatically be an investigation if anybody dies after police contact not only the extremes of "a cop shot them" or "he apparently committed suicide while in police custody" but even something like "Police called for a welfare check, decided everything was fine, but an hour later her boyfriend strangled her to death") - but it does happen which isn't great, and it is more notable since the vast majority of British cops don't have guns, so this means they specifically brought in armed police.
I tried to post "fewer times in 20 years here than in one hour in the US", but apparently I was posting too fast, because apparently HN doesn't like people to have conversations.
Trolling for violent reaction was one of the reasons the Westboro Baptist Church would post up outside of funerals. So far as I know it rarely worked, if ever.
"As protesters took to the streets in Indiana on July 6 to decry an alleged hate crime at Lake Monroe, a red Toyota Corolla sped toward them, dragging two protesters along, on the hood and on the side of the car. Both suffered non-life-threatening injuries. A few days later, a 66-year-old white woman was arrested and charged in the incident."
It was a point of pride for many right wingers to threaten to crash their cars into non-violent protestors.
By far my favorite example is the UC Davis pepper spray event. Where sitting sedintary protestors were pepper sprayed by campus police (the school then engaged a PR firm to attempt to wipe evidence from the internet...)
"The three dozen student demonstrators, meanwhile, were collectively awarded US$1 million by UC Davis in a settlement from a federal lawsuit, with each pepper-sprayed student receiving $30,000 individually."
Personally I've found it borderline sickening.
If there was a curtain that could have slipped, we all knew what would be behind it: a bunch of cherry-nosed coffin-dodgers with old-school-tie chums ensconced in the machinery of state, parliament, the military, whatever.
Sure. Fine. Yadda yadda, blah blah. The "deep state" dancing hand-in-hand with the old school elites. Yuck. Disgusting but hardly a clear and present danger.
But to see this machinery spring rustily, creakily into action has been truly eye-opening. Hitherto unknown people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. And this has been broadcast 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. Elected representatives from all political parties have fallen into line.
It is not okay to ritualistically march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country, under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
And yet, that's what has happened. And it keeps happening.
It's bizarre in the extreme, and we really should not be okay with this.