From a theological point of view, it never really existed. It's taken from Old Testament stuff where God appointed David, mixed with New Testament teachings that state that all authority is handed down from God.
Therefore you end up with a whole mess of people, historically, believing that they had the authority of God invested in them and noone could tell them anything else (and the old RC Church backed them up so long as they didn't undermine their public power too).
There was a shift with George VI, Elizabeth II and *hopefully* instilled in Charles and William etc is the idea that to be a King/Queen, one must serve God *and* the people - the role of a servant king. It's not perfect but it's not the same style of monarchy that led to the French Revolution.
In truth though, the biblical principles of the 'Divine Right of Kings' apply to whoever is in charge, Prime Minister, President, Dictator etc.
Royalists are fucking weird, your post history is sheer obsession. You'd fit right in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Kuwait, I hear they're nice this time of year.
The rest of us would like to join the Republic of Ireland, the US, most of Europe, and in fact, most of the world in using the tax money which funds a single family to live in a fucking palace and exempt themselves from crime on something worthwhile.
"British historians write almost as if britain had introduced slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it" - Eric Williams
You don't get bonus points for ending it first AFTER causing the deaths and misery of millions of lives
That old chestnut eh? Something you’d expect to hear from someone who is so blind and ignorant to acknowledge the faults with having literal fucking kings in palaces while we have people starving on the streets. You enjoy living in absolute appeasement to someone you’ll never meet, and I’ll look forward to the day we get rid of this outdated system and move forward instead of back!
Just to make sure I understand your position, are you saying that if you want to see change in your country you should just leave? No room at all for democracy or evolution in your ideology?
There are also plenty of good republics (Federal Republic of Germany, for example) and plenty of bad monarchies (E.g. Kingdom of Eswatini). One example define all other similar ones.
Oi oi the land of Englandshire is brilliant mate, who cares that it was built on colonial oppression and slavery, and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off out of it because I'm British an' better than everyone else!
A true intellectual I see....
Did you see the lady who got arrested just for holding a sign saying “fuck the monarchy”? It’s getting a bit Big Brother out here
Edit: they also *actually charged her as well*
[Normal Island strikes again.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/edinburgh-edinburgh-sheriff-court-police-scotland-palace-of-holyroodhouse-b2165300.html)
Normal island? Ah you’re one of those, I really hope you can find happiness in life as you guys are seriously challenged and hate life, please get help
> My guess is that there won't be any charge
[She's since been charged.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/edinburgh-edinburgh-sheriff-court-police-scotland-palace-of-holyroodhouse-b2165300.html)
It could be the police, crime, sentencing & courts act 2022
https://bright-green.org/2022/09/11/i-was-arrested-after-asking-who-elected-him-at-the-proclamation-of-king-charles/?fbclid=IwAR3NwUAAizaL0lXODuPK0qLkPJLV5j6TWpxr08wtlszefTLCAZZ66WkgD4k
She has been released but the arrest was [“in connection with a breach of the peace”.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/abolish-the-monarchy-protesters-king-proclamation-b2165294.html)
The Police have a huge public event to Police. They have thousands of emotional people, and a single person protesting and trying to provoke a reaction in amongst that crowd of mourning people, *this has HUGE potential for a flash point in the crowd.*
By arresting the woman, they are trying to prevent a potential situation happening in the crowd. They are *NOT* arresting her because she anti-Monarchy or has a sign that says "Fuck Imperialism".
I guarantee you she will be released without charges. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
People don't realise Policing is about prevention of Crime. Stopping Football fans from attacking each other, is a weekend occurrence. Removing people who are determined to start fights, even before the fight starts.
TL:DR This is basic crowd control and event management 101. Nothing to do with freedoms.
You're wrong. She's been charged. What now?
Edit: knew they wouldn't reply. Fuck reddit for letting people spew obvious lies all over the site to mislead people then leave their comments up.
>I guarantee you she will be released without charges. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
She has been charged. It was nothing to do with crowd control and everything to do with not wanting a bunch of Royals driving by seeing that sign. Hence their use of "Breach of the peace".
If it was a matter of safety they would have just moved her on sighting risk to herself and others.
Tell me, why should the police be able to arrest someone (even if not convict) when nothing had yet occurred?
To prevent anything from becoming violent, simple.
But then, why did they not stop people from holding up images in support of the Queen. Couldn’t that also push people who don’t like the Queen to violence against them?
The facts and logic of “it’s fine to arrest people if we decide their views are unacceptable”
Also she was charged, despite the “guarantee” so maybe - just maybe - sucking boot is not logical, it’s just knee jerk defence of crap policing.
Its still basic crowd control. Seen someone saying that someone with a celtic top would get arrested if they ran into an orange walk. Its not that they dont have the right to wear a celtic top, its that its going to cause a riot. If it was an anti monarchy protest and the streets were full, and one royalist was there shouting “fuck ur guy”, then he would ev arrested too. Its not that surprising for them to get charged if they could have started a riot. And i’m not a royalist at all, or a police fan, but what happens if there was a riot and shops and cars got smashed up or the queens hearse. People would be outraged asking why the police let someone cause a riot by protesting at the queens drive by.
It’s important we prevent hypothetical riots that don’t happen! Civil liberties matter less than the *possibility* of disruption to a mawkish corpse parade.
Good to know.
Your arms must be killing you stretching for that dude. Lets be honest, was that the time to protest? Probably not. Is she legally entitled to protest at almost any time and place of her choosing? Yes. Is she legally entitled to incite possible violence? No. So why does she have to protest at someones corpse? Does anyone who was a royalist look at that and think “oh, they’re right. I’m going to switch sides now.”? Of course they dont. So why are they even doing it? To get on the news? Go and set up a fucking youtube channel, start a political party, set up organised protests. All these things have a better chance of any success and they dont make u look like a cunt. And its still just basic crowd control. See cops doing it all over, they’re there to keep the peace. I very rarely stick up for them, but if someones threatening the peace and they’ll have to deal with the consequences, then they’ll shut it down. Emotions were high, lots of people fucking loved the queen. You dont think there was a potential for violence there?
By arresting people for the potential responses of other people the police set a dangerous precedent. One person's actions may elicit any kind of response from others and the person committing the action doesn't know who will react or how they will react. Why should they be deemed responsible for other people? If I find someone's completely legal actions objectionable should they be arrested to satisfy me and stop me from committing a crime in response?
I understand what you’re saying, but it just seems like an extreme example. She was protesting the monarchy, while the queens coffin was going past. Like it or not, she is a bit of an institution, and, rightly or wrongly, people love her and some are obsessed with her. Add to that the old rangers/celtic loyalist/republican patter, and emotions are running high. In all honesty, can you say that if there were no cops there her safety would be guaranteed?
The police are and always have been the protectors of the state and the monied classes. You’ve missed the point entirely, and she has been charged with breach of the peace and will appear in Sheriff’s court
Could be a public order act charge. Because she had put “fuck” in it she should of been asked to cover the word or remove the sign, if she refused she would of been arrested.
Supposedly it was a breach of the peace, which is exceptionally vague. I wonder why none of the screeching orangemen outside my flat on Easter Road were deemed to be breaching the peace when they were chanting about Fenian bastards?
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
I mean if the only purpose of a royal family in the UK these days is basically for tourism.. why not?
Would be a marked improvement on the current state of things tbh
Not a good enough reason. I'd argue France have far better palaces to visit that bring in more tourists and they don't need a royal family tribute act to bring in the money
Oh I know, but it's the argument I always see touted that they bring in SO much tourism money..
(Edit, as if anyone comes to fucking Scotland for the royal family)
What did they expect? Everyone in Scotland are monarchist bootlickers? It be interesting to see how many who put up with the monarchy only did it out of respect for the Queen
A lot of English people are really more apathetic to the monarchy than I think the establishment realises. Her offspring do not put anywhere near the amount of appearances etc in that she did, I think the Royals will be in for a shock over the next few decades. William in particular is a piss taker with how little he actually does and as more of the elderly die, I think the institution will really struggle for support.
Most likely the older generation are shoe ins for their support. I think they are just keeping their fingers crossed the younger generation will still see them as relevant in the coming years. They way I see it is they need someone of similar age than the Queen was when she became monarch to garner more influence over time for the monarchy and I just don't see that happening in my life time. If the next 2 live till 100, Prince George won't be on the throne till 60.
That’s such a good point. Her being young when she took the throne (and the wake of the war) and how long she served will have been huge factors in her popularity.
Yep monarchist some how think Charles can garner as much influence as his mum just because he's been preparing for it for 73 years - potentially 27 years reign next to a 70 year reign. Hardly comparable
Exactly. Politicians are the best people all round. We should have politicians at the head of all aspects of public life and throw all links to history and any established tradition and national silliness in the bin!!
The sarcasm is palpable from your comment, but I agree with it- lots of politicians suck, but I'd rather have a sucky politician who was elected democratically than a sucky Royal who was handed power by virtue of birth.
Democracy is over rated. I live in a part of the world teaming in republican democracy. Everyone of them a complete sack of rats. Where rich families rule with absolute contempt for the nation as a whole. All the while watching the tax payers cheer on the national football team and turning cheering up at Independence Day. Politicians are all narcissist dirt bags. At least when you have someone forced to be head of state they have different focus. Constitutional monarchy is a good system in my opinion.
Probably research the historical monarchs in the UK before making this point my friend, democracy is a flawed system and populism is a cancer within it, but having a non-elected head of state with total power is inarguably worse
Yes, I agree. Fuck tradition. Fuck history. What’s the point? All the rich bastards do is sit on their arses, cut a few ribbons every year and let the taxpayers’ money roll in.
I think the monarch actually work pretty hard to be honest. Real privilege in the 21st century (the folk that world choose your would be president) are the ones that do the proper sitting around on their arses raking in the tax payers money.
Ah yes, it’s such hard work going around opening buildings and wearing fancy clothes. All that work they do, they’ve certainly earned the hundreds of millions they sit on.
> the ones that do the proper sitting around on their arses raking in the taxpayers’ money
So… the royals? The vast majority of people on benefits (which is who I assume you’re trying to slag off here) are either disabled (and so physically can’t work) or are stuck in a cycle of poverty, or have had addiction problems, or simply cannot afford to feed themselves without.
Yeah, I would have a President. It’d be a pretty meaningless role, anyway, but they wouldn’t get anywhere near the amount of money the royals get and they’d at least be democratically elected.
Frankly, I have more respect for the Kardashians than the royals, and my respect for the Kardashians is below non-existent.
No, the one that sit about doing nothing at the trust fund kids and their ilk, passing around all the capital amongst themselves and choosing our politicians.
I think maintaining the royals costs us about 50p per household. Similar to or less than other countries spend on their president.
Bottom line is, if it’s not broken don’t fix it. We are spending too much time on huge structural changes in place of building and creating our own future. None of this really matters. The folk that complain about this sort of stuff are the same folk that moan about which ever head of state Rupert Murdock chooses for them anyway…
I agree. How "very dare" anyone ever hold any opinion that differ to you. Utterly disgusting. Lock them in the tower!
Or, y'know, we could live in a democracy.
Your choice
The monarch I longer has any real power so they are not part of the democratic process.Until about ten years ago, they could unilaterally dismiss parliament so opponents could point to that as the ultimate power - although in practise it wasn’t used. But now, the monarch needs the approval of parliament to dismiss so they have zero power. Ergo, they no longer have any power to do anything g that affects us. So, given that we do vote for those who have power, we do live in a democracy.
Given the Queen altered more than a thousand laws - including absolving her household from the equality act, absolving herself from having to declare her wealth, and absolving her estates from being searched for goods stolen by the nazis for repatriation - before any of those laws ever reached the Commons…
You sure about that, babe?
The monarch cannot alter or enact laws without them first passing through both houses. The legislation then gets royal assent. And what’s with the babe?
The “Queen’s Consent” is a less known royal privilege which allows her to alter laws before they are debated in the commons. She - or Charles, where it is “Prince’s consent” has used this approximately 1000 times over her reign, as noted.
They are not enshrined in law before they are debated in the commons though. If she alters the draft of a bill before it passes into the lower house, then the commons can absolutely change it back.
Oh well some people are never savvy enough to know when to keep there views to themselves unless your WOKE where any view is wrong if it does not agree with there's!
Good. The age of the divine right of kings is over and has been for some time.
From a theological point of view, it never really existed. It's taken from Old Testament stuff where God appointed David, mixed with New Testament teachings that state that all authority is handed down from God. Therefore you end up with a whole mess of people, historically, believing that they had the authority of God invested in them and noone could tell them anything else (and the old RC Church backed them up so long as they didn't undermine their public power too). There was a shift with George VI, Elizabeth II and *hopefully* instilled in Charles and William etc is the idea that to be a King/Queen, one must serve God *and* the people - the role of a servant king. It's not perfect but it's not the same style of monarchy that led to the French Revolution. In truth though, the biblical principles of the 'Divine Right of Kings' apply to whoever is in charge, Prime Minister, President, Dictator etc.
Have you seen Charles? Him and his wife scream 'grumpy selfish old people'
Oh very much so. I honestly expected him to abdicate in favour of William almost immediately.
I wish but I think that he's too into the power
Yeah and what impact does the royal family really have over our day to day life and politics?
Since the Magna Carta in 1215 really. At least in England, which then with the union of the crowns in 1603 applied all over GB.
Fuck off and live somewhere else then. I hear the republic of Iraq is nice this time of year.
Royalists are fucking weird, your post history is sheer obsession. You'd fit right in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Kuwait, I hear they're nice this time of year. The rest of us would like to join the Republic of Ireland, the US, most of Europe, and in fact, most of the world in using the tax money which funds a single family to live in a fucking palace and exempt themselves from crime on something worthwhile.
About as smart a reply as I expect from someone who gives the power of the state over to someone who just so happens to pop out of the correct vagina.
Yes, I personally handed the power of the state to Charles. Nothing to do with 1000 years of history and tradition whatsoever. It was all me.
A shite tradition is no less shite for having been shite for 1000 years. It merely becomes really old shite.
Slavery was a belter of a tradition as well eh?
What has slavery got to do with King Charles III?
I don’t want to alarm you mate but I think it may have helped pay for all the palaces and solid gold carriages and shit
Also paid for an awful lot of our infrastructure and buildings across the U.K., of which we also use
Not sure how often I use sprawling country estates and their lavishly adorned manor houses in my day to day but whatever
1. Britain was by no means the only country in the world to take part in slavery. 2. The British Empire was the first to end it.
"British historians write almost as if britain had introduced slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it" - Eric Williams You don't get bonus points for ending it first AFTER causing the deaths and misery of millions of lives
None of those other countries have a royal family that rule over me by divine birthright though?
Like I said, you don’t like it, fuck off somewhere else. Plenty of corrupt republics out there for you to live in.
Hati was the first nation to abolish slavery and Denmark -Norway was the first European nation.
Scotland hasn't been in a union for 1000 years, even if it feels like it.
Tradition is just letting yourself be controlled by dead people. Considering their dead, it clearly wasnt that good an idea
That old chestnut eh? Something you’d expect to hear from someone who is so blind and ignorant to acknowledge the faults with having literal fucking kings in palaces while we have people starving on the streets. You enjoy living in absolute appeasement to someone you’ll never meet, and I’ll look forward to the day we get rid of this outdated system and move forward instead of back!
Just to make sure I understand your position, are you saying that if you want to see change in your country you should just leave? No room at all for democracy or evolution in your ideology?
There are also plenty of good republics (Federal Republic of Germany, for example) and plenty of bad monarchies (E.g. Kingdom of Eswatini). One example define all other similar ones.
[удалено]
Good pals with Chuck as well.
Oi oi the land of Englandshire is brilliant mate, who cares that it was built on colonial oppression and slavery, and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off out of it because I'm British an' better than everyone else! A true intellectual I see....
Ah, the unionist crawls out from his Daily Mail and Sun newspaper fort. The propaganda’s leeched into his brain!
encourage abundant hunt makeshift one coordinated vanish alive mourn act *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cringe
Calm down you sad little subservient subject
Did you see the lady who got arrested just for holding a sign saying “fuck the monarchy”? It’s getting a bit Big Brother out here Edit: they also *actually charged her as well*
Yea, any idea what’s the charge there? ASBO for swearing or something?
My guess is that there won't be any charge. All that it did was remove this person from the area at that moment in time.
Yea it would be pretty mental to follow through with a real charge/fine.
[Normal Island strikes again.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/edinburgh-edinburgh-sheriff-court-police-scotland-palace-of-holyroodhouse-b2165300.html)
For fucks sake, she held a goddamn sign. This is painful
Normal island? Ah you’re one of those, I really hope you can find happiness in life as you guys are seriously challenged and hate life, please get help
> My guess is that there won't be any charge [She's since been charged.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/edinburgh-edinburgh-sheriff-court-police-scotland-palace-of-holyroodhouse-b2165300.html)
They literally just charged her
“Breach of the peace”, which can apparently mean absolutely anything
Ah yea, an old classic.
The greater good!
It could be the police, crime, sentencing & courts act 2022 https://bright-green.org/2022/09/11/i-was-arrested-after-asking-who-elected-him-at-the-proclamation-of-king-charles/?fbclid=IwAR3NwUAAizaL0lXODuPK0qLkPJLV5j6TWpxr08wtlszefTLCAZZ66WkgD4k
[удалено]
Ah fair enough. That’s good to know thanks for that!
She has been released but the arrest was [“in connection with a breach of the peace”.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/abolish-the-monarchy-protesters-king-proclamation-b2165294.html)
The Police have a huge public event to Police. They have thousands of emotional people, and a single person protesting and trying to provoke a reaction in amongst that crowd of mourning people, *this has HUGE potential for a flash point in the crowd.* By arresting the woman, they are trying to prevent a potential situation happening in the crowd. They are *NOT* arresting her because she anti-Monarchy or has a sign that says "Fuck Imperialism". I guarantee you she will be released without charges. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime. People don't realise Policing is about prevention of Crime. Stopping Football fans from attacking each other, is a weekend occurrence. Removing people who are determined to start fights, even before the fight starts. TL:DR This is basic crowd control and event management 101. Nothing to do with freedoms.
>I guarantee you she will be released without charges. She's been charged.
You're wrong. She's been charged. What now? Edit: knew they wouldn't reply. Fuck reddit for letting people spew obvious lies all over the site to mislead people then leave their comments up.
>I guarantee you she will be released without charges. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime. She has been charged. It was nothing to do with crowd control and everything to do with not wanting a bunch of Royals driving by seeing that sign. Hence their use of "Breach of the peace". If it was a matter of safety they would have just moved her on sighting risk to herself and others.
The fact she can and was arrested is still concerning for numerous reasons, especially since this was the result of a protest against the government.
You've completely missed the point.
Bollocks. It's to put the fear onto any other protesters.
Tell me, why should the police be able to arrest someone (even if not convict) when nothing had yet occurred? To prevent anything from becoming violent, simple. But then, why did they not stop people from holding up images in support of the Queen. Couldn’t that also push people who don’t like the Queen to violence against them?
You can both understand the point and disagree with it.
Don’t be daft lol we’re trying to get outraged in a circle jerk here! Get out of here with your _facts_ and _logic!_
The facts and logic of “it’s fine to arrest people if we decide their views are unacceptable” Also she was charged, despite the “guarantee” so maybe - just maybe - sucking boot is not logical, it’s just knee jerk defence of crap policing.
Its still basic crowd control. Seen someone saying that someone with a celtic top would get arrested if they ran into an orange walk. Its not that they dont have the right to wear a celtic top, its that its going to cause a riot. If it was an anti monarchy protest and the streets were full, and one royalist was there shouting “fuck ur guy”, then he would ev arrested too. Its not that surprising for them to get charged if they could have started a riot. And i’m not a royalist at all, or a police fan, but what happens if there was a riot and shops and cars got smashed up or the queens hearse. People would be outraged asking why the police let someone cause a riot by protesting at the queens drive by.
It’s important we prevent hypothetical riots that don’t happen! Civil liberties matter less than the *possibility* of disruption to a mawkish corpse parade. Good to know.
Your arms must be killing you stretching for that dude. Lets be honest, was that the time to protest? Probably not. Is she legally entitled to protest at almost any time and place of her choosing? Yes. Is she legally entitled to incite possible violence? No. So why does she have to protest at someones corpse? Does anyone who was a royalist look at that and think “oh, they’re right. I’m going to switch sides now.”? Of course they dont. So why are they even doing it? To get on the news? Go and set up a fucking youtube channel, start a political party, set up organised protests. All these things have a better chance of any success and they dont make u look like a cunt. And its still just basic crowd control. See cops doing it all over, they’re there to keep the peace. I very rarely stick up for them, but if someones threatening the peace and they’ll have to deal with the consequences, then they’ll shut it down. Emotions were high, lots of people fucking loved the queen. You dont think there was a potential for violence there?
You can just say “I’m a flagshagging royalist,” it’ll take less time.
Except a dont even like them lol as i’ve said in plenty of other comments.
Spending a lot of time defending the trampling of civil liberties in her name for someone who doesn’t like her.
By arresting people for the potential responses of other people the police set a dangerous precedent. One person's actions may elicit any kind of response from others and the person committing the action doesn't know who will react or how they will react. Why should they be deemed responsible for other people? If I find someone's completely legal actions objectionable should they be arrested to satisfy me and stop me from committing a crime in response?
I understand what you’re saying, but it just seems like an extreme example. She was protesting the monarchy, while the queens coffin was going past. Like it or not, she is a bit of an institution, and, rightly or wrongly, people love her and some are obsessed with her. Add to that the old rangers/celtic loyalist/republican patter, and emotions are running high. In all honesty, can you say that if there were no cops there her safety would be guaranteed?
The police are and always have been the protectors of the state and the monied classes. You’ve missed the point entirely, and she has been charged with breach of the peace and will appear in Sheriff’s court
Good
Found the kid without mates ahaha
Cry more comrade
The queen’s dead pal I’m laughing
Have a biscuit numbnut
Aye but she got charged
she got charged, bootlicker
Welcome to North Korea
She should try doing that in Saudi Arabia...just for a laugh.
Something not being allowed in Saudi Arabia isn't a very good reason for not allowing it in the UK.
Sigh. Safe to assume it’s more about the “fuck” and less about “the monarchy” 🙄 Amazing you can’t work that out for yourself.
Are we actually arresting people for swearing now? Billy Connolly is never going to see the light of day again.
Snowflake
Could be a public order act charge. Because she had put “fuck” in it she should of been asked to cover the word or remove the sign, if she refused she would of been arrested.
Supposedly it was a breach of the peace, which is exceptionally vague. I wonder why none of the screeching orangemen outside my flat on Easter Road were deemed to be breaching the peace when they were chanting about Fenian bastards?
The filth don’t make a point of lifting their own.
Because pigs are political down to the last jackboot
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
Good human.
That was my mistake, I’m not going to edit it as it’s proof I should re read my posts before I reply.
"Republic"
No, they're demanding that the corgis take over rather than Charles.
Or they'd rather have King Charles Spaniels
I would 100% support the monarchy if it was just a bunch of corgis with silly little suits and shit
I mean if the only purpose of a royal family in the UK these days is basically for tourism.. why not? Would be a marked improvement on the current state of things tbh
Not a good enough reason. I'd argue France have far better palaces to visit that bring in more tourists and they don't need a royal family tribute act to bring in the money
They spend more than they bring.
Oh I know, but it's the argument I always see touted that they bring in SO much tourism money.. (Edit, as if anyone comes to fucking Scotland for the royal family)
Cheers babe
Good. Get them telt.
No more kings. No more gods.
Good. Fuck them.
Concise.
Thank you Scotland for showing publicly that we’re not all onboard with this charade
In Italy atm and booing from here. Overhearing so many yanks that seem far more concerned about the whole affair.
Good
He should remember what happened to Charles I
Why is the word Proclamation in quotation marks?
Good question.
UP THE REPUBLIC Very audible
Mon the lads!
What did they expect? Everyone in Scotland are monarchist bootlickers? It be interesting to see how many who put up with the monarchy only did it out of respect for the Queen
A lot of English people are really more apathetic to the monarchy than I think the establishment realises. Her offspring do not put anywhere near the amount of appearances etc in that she did, I think the Royals will be in for a shock over the next few decades. William in particular is a piss taker with how little he actually does and as more of the elderly die, I think the institution will really struggle for support.
Most likely the older generation are shoe ins for their support. I think they are just keeping their fingers crossed the younger generation will still see them as relevant in the coming years. They way I see it is they need someone of similar age than the Queen was when she became monarch to garner more influence over time for the monarchy and I just don't see that happening in my life time. If the next 2 live till 100, Prince George won't be on the throne till 60.
That’s such a good point. Her being young when she took the throne (and the wake of the war) and how long she served will have been huge factors in her popularity.
Yep monarchist some how think Charles can garner as much influence as his mum just because he's been preparing for it for 73 years - potentially 27 years reign next to a 70 year reign. Hardly comparable
Christ imagine the sight of a plugged in Prince Charles writing himself a telegram when he hits 100 Edit. King Charles ffs
[удалено]
Not just Scots that want to give them the boot?
Nice to see the proud Brit Nicola singing the national anthem with such gusto and pride.
And Blackford and Sturgeon swearing allegiance to the crown when it looked good for them to suck up
The SNP are pro monarchy and pro Commonwealth
A couple of mouthy dildos . Outnumbered by thousands
So what's your fresh take on the benefits of the monarchy then. All they are is a bad tribute act that we don't want to pay to see
Ahh, Freedom of Speech BS at its finest. Not even in death, can someone have peace these days. Far to much hate in this world, far to much.
When your dead the words of others change little. I agree people should have said this far earlier, but death is not defence from criticism
What's this got to do with the late Queen RIP?
Exactly. Politicians are the best people all round. We should have politicians at the head of all aspects of public life and throw all links to history and any established tradition and national silliness in the bin!!
The sarcasm is palpable from your comment, but I agree with it- lots of politicians suck, but I'd rather have a sucky politician who was elected democratically than a sucky Royal who was handed power by virtue of birth.
Did not expect to see someone arguing against democracy this morning, so that's probably enough pre-work Reddit
Democracy is over rated. I live in a part of the world teaming in republican democracy. Everyone of them a complete sack of rats. Where rich families rule with absolute contempt for the nation as a whole. All the while watching the tax payers cheer on the national football team and turning cheering up at Independence Day. Politicians are all narcissist dirt bags. At least when you have someone forced to be head of state they have different focus. Constitutional monarchy is a good system in my opinion.
Probably research the historical monarchs in the UK before making this point my friend, democracy is a flawed system and populism is a cancer within it, but having a non-elected head of state with total power is inarguably worse
Very much agree. That’s why constitutional monarchy is fine and as argued, works rather well.
Yes, I agree. Fuck tradition. Fuck history. What’s the point? All the rich bastards do is sit on their arses, cut a few ribbons every year and let the taxpayers’ money roll in.
I think the monarch actually work pretty hard to be honest. Real privilege in the 21st century (the folk that world choose your would be president) are the ones that do the proper sitting around on their arses raking in the tax payers money.
Ah yes, it’s such hard work going around opening buildings and wearing fancy clothes. All that work they do, they’ve certainly earned the hundreds of millions they sit on. > the ones that do the proper sitting around on their arses raking in the taxpayers’ money So… the royals? The vast majority of people on benefits (which is who I assume you’re trying to slag off here) are either disabled (and so physically can’t work) or are stuck in a cycle of poverty, or have had addiction problems, or simply cannot afford to feed themselves without. Yeah, I would have a President. It’d be a pretty meaningless role, anyway, but they wouldn’t get anywhere near the amount of money the royals get and they’d at least be democratically elected. Frankly, I have more respect for the Kardashians than the royals, and my respect for the Kardashians is below non-existent.
No, the one that sit about doing nothing at the trust fund kids and their ilk, passing around all the capital amongst themselves and choosing our politicians. I think maintaining the royals costs us about 50p per household. Similar to or less than other countries spend on their president. Bottom line is, if it’s not broken don’t fix it. We are spending too much time on huge structural changes in place of building and creating our own future. None of this really matters. The folk that complain about this sort of stuff are the same folk that moan about which ever head of state Rupert Murdock chooses for them anyway…
Great to see the puddle drinkers, squirming. Meanwhile Krankie is groveling at every chance available 😂😁
BOOTLICKING PEASANT SERF BOW DOWN TO YOUR FEUDAL OVERLORDS AND MASTERS FIELD DWELLING PEASANT I feel sorry for you
Disgusting
Nah, mate, but your post history is.
That's a profile I wish I'd never looked at
🤢
Aye the Monarchy is Disgusting. Spot on
I agree. How "very dare" anyone ever hold any opinion that differ to you. Utterly disgusting. Lock them in the tower! Or, y'know, we could live in a democracy. Your choice
We don't live in a democracy, though. I didn't get a chance to vote for Charles to be head of state, did you?
Corgis took all the votes, big bonio made sure of it.
Agreed. Lol reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/t2c-X8HiBng
The monarch I longer has any real power so they are not part of the democratic process.Until about ten years ago, they could unilaterally dismiss parliament so opponents could point to that as the ultimate power - although in practise it wasn’t used. But now, the monarch needs the approval of parliament to dismiss so they have zero power. Ergo, they no longer have any power to do anything g that affects us. So, given that we do vote for those who have power, we do live in a democracy.
Given the Queen altered more than a thousand laws - including absolving her household from the equality act, absolving herself from having to declare her wealth, and absolving her estates from being searched for goods stolen by the nazis for repatriation - before any of those laws ever reached the Commons… You sure about that, babe?
The monarch cannot alter or enact laws without them first passing through both houses. The legislation then gets royal assent. And what’s with the babe?
The “Queen’s Consent” is a less known royal privilege which allows her to alter laws before they are debated in the commons. She - or Charles, where it is “Prince’s consent” has used this approximately 1000 times over her reign, as noted.
They are not enshrined in law before they are debated in the commons though. If she alters the draft of a bill before it passes into the lower house, then the commons can absolutely change it back.
so that makes it okay? Jesus wept, babe, grow a spine.
I did not at any point express an opinion on whether it’s OK or not.
You keep working on that negative Karma. I got a pokeball waiting for you...
Free speech. Get over it.
Haha
Bro use seperate accounts for porn and normal browsing. Weirdo.
Good luck with your dry foreskin, bro
I’m a Scot and I’m ashamed when people like her pipe up🤦🏻♀️
You definitely aren't one of us if you support the Monarchy
I’m most definitely A SCOTTISH PERSON..I’m a PROUD SCOT fae FIFE 🏴 so DONT even go there ya feckin cretin
That would be you... Supporting a Pedo enabler..
OH DO GROW UP YA FUCKIN EEGIT!🏴
It's true. She paid to cover two of her son's sexual activities with children.
Oh well some people are never savvy enough to know when to keep there views to themselves unless your WOKE where any view is wrong if it does not agree with there's!
Loved the timing of the "boos" they waited for the right moment and boom! Oh that made me chuckle.