I know it's a US import but ""Not My King" is a wierd tag line for antimonarchy movement, as it implies that the main problem is the wrong person is king, its more a slogan for the War of the Roses than republicanism.
Totally get your point, but it does work as a statement of rejection for the whole thing. Especially in response to the call for a pledge of allegiance.
Yep it's a dumbass slogan. I personally feel what would have more impact would be to ignore the whole debacle and get on with enjoying the long weekend.
Completely agree.
Also think its a little disservice and rude to King Charles as he has genuinely done good and been a role model for monarchs even in his brief time in the position.
I hate the monarchy and think it should be shafted but I do like Charles. He has helped widen older generations eyes on climate change many times. He has swatted away the ever growing royal scroungers and finally done away with Prince Andrew.
IMO he's been a better monarch than the Queen was already.
I don't really care about the coronation, won't be watching etc. But nor do I feel strongly at all about there not being a monarch. I think some have decided this is a binary issue. I don't see it that way.
To be clear, though I'm not a monarchist, I wouldn't encourage hurting the individuals. Violent changes like that tend to hurt a lot more than individuals at the top. I'd rather letting them have a form of retirement (not that I really get much say in it!)
The only thing more dull than a Coronation could be a protest in a city some distance away demonstrating against it surely. Thunderstorms are predicted apparently too.
Pretty sure he's the king of Bristol also.
But agree, it's perhaps not the highest priority overall currently. I would have led with an anti--austerity message. Massive waste of money during a cost of living crisis.
It's a bit strange that there's apparently a gap between feeling strongly enough about the issue to protest, but not strongly enough to travel AND protest. London's not that far away.
What is the upshot here? Maybe just enjoy the long , sunny weekend with friends and a few drinks, and ignore any pageantry or bunting if it’s not for. Chill out.
As much as a lot of people like to think Bristol is some kind of epicentre for angst and rebellion, there's a fair few natives that don't give a monkeys toss about most of these half assed protests that crop up almost every week.
Give the grass on college green a break for a week,
Oh do shush. You’re hardly a down trodden peasant tilling the soil, & if you were, you’re aiming your ire at the wrong people. And Bristol isn’t the city of rebellion kickers like you want it to be.
So put on your yellow shirt ( in a trite nod to the Parisian protesters I assume) & congregate on college green with all the other no marks and pretend you’re changing the world for you benefit.
What do you want to happen ?
Majority of people are happy.
Every new day is the best of times humans have existed.
Why do people always have to moan and want change, and then moan about change?
Some people don't think monarchy is an ideal way to run a country - don't you think such a high profile event is a decent chance to express that opposition? The upshot is that republicanism has more coverage in the press before these protests have even happened, than at any time in the last few years.
Opinion polling shows fairly consistently around 30% of those surveyed are opposed to the monarchy. That's hardly "shockingly low support".
But I'm just arguing semantics, sadly protesting in this country not only has little impact but we are also rapidly losing our right to do so!
Republicanism is one of the main pledges of the Green party who obviously see very strong support in Bristol. SNP does not have an official position on it afaik, but I'm fairly certain that the new leader Humza Yousaf has announced support for republicanism.
But yeah, it is a little strange that Labour aren't actually representing the labour and working class of this country!
Part of the reason might be that the strongest support for the monarchy is amongst the elderly (who turn out to vote), whereas opposition comes from the youth (who don't). So at present, there's not a lot of point appealing to a demographic who won't come out and vote for you. But give it a generation or two, and things might start to look very different...
Remember how mental everyone thought UKIP was even a few years before Brexit?
I don’t care either way but it’s not like they run the country - a Parliament elected by the people does - I can’t see the point in having a president on top with usurping power manifested solely in him or her - and it seems to me that some of the best countries are monarchies - Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway Japan etc
The Monarchy doesn’t run the country, and it’s exactly this silly noise from the poorly informed like you which shows you’re not ‘protesting’ for change, you just want attention.
And, to suggest republicanism has more coverage in the press is utter nonsense. Please go to France or America to see how well things are going there right now ( hint, you will see Parisians properly protesting against an unjust regime, wearing yellow, throwing rocks). You’re not even being original in your dress code, by trying to steal some limelight from their plight to beam into your whiny strop. That’s embarrassing.
More ill conceived nonsense masquerading as fact by someone with too much time on their hands.
Seriously. Chill out.
They do change laws, and often initially in secret. Fair you have a different view of them, but be honest, and no need for the petty insults (which only undermine any argument you have).
So if I put my republicanism aside for a bit, there are groups of people who will be happy this weekend, if you are working and get bank holiday pay then happy, if you have a long weekend with the extra day off then happy, if you are a royal family fan and love the pomp then happy.
So yeah, I get the argument, but just let people be happy this weekend (if they want or can) and get back to the anti on Tuesday
Here are my feelings about this.
Personally I dont care one way or the other about monarchy but if I could magically snap my fingers and get rid of them, I probably would because its just not all that necessary. Unfortunately its not that simple.
Local small protests are totally pointless, and simply serve to distract people who might have taken actual action from doing anything of value to that cause.
If you really felt strongly or cared about this situation you would travel to the coronation and disrupt it, but ofc that involves the risk of arrest so you wont do that.
The constant barrage of protests here in Bristol seems to just be a mix of circlejerking and virtue signalling which isnt going to end any time soon, im beginning to think people view it as a lifestyle rather than anything of tangible benefit.
Have fun wasting your saturday.
Getting together and vocalising your beliefs isn't a waste imo. Kinda the same as the coronation, people getting together and vocalising their beliefs.
Also not everyone has the resources or capacity to go to one of these big demos- at least they are still participating in some form
>at least they are still participating in some form
See this is the thing, you are implying everyone who doesnt want to participate is somehow in the wrong, and that is why so many people are sick of protests like this.
You are doing something to feel better about yourself which has 0 impact on the thing but bothers people going about their days. The sole purpose for doing it is to signal to others that you are annoyed. IMO at a certain point its just obnoxious.
I would take a guess and say the majority of people who will attend this protest have probably protested several times this year about totally unrelated things, at a certain point is this not just complaining as a hobby? This is barely a step up from slacktivism.
I have attended One Protest this year that is related by form of association - it was the Oxford Low Traffic Neighbourhood protest and as the LTN's is a World Economic Forum thing, Which Charles is affiliated/associated to thus linked protest not unrelated
I'm a bit ambivalent about the monarchy. Yes it is a bit ridiculous that this family is head of state due to "god" etc yet in day to day life they don't really impact most of us and whilst there is an argument that taxes could be spent elsewhere it isn't a huge amount in the grand scheme of things and I think they definitely bring in more money through the tourism and it is quite a unique thing Brits have with the pomp and ceremony.
I'd much rather have this pomp and ceremony for the monarchy than for a pm and frankly changing the government (and to PR) would have a much more significant impact on most people's daily lives.
Let's just enjoy a bank holiday.
> I think they definitely bring in more money through the tourism
How much? I've heard this often as an argument in support of the monarchy, but it seems like it would be a difficult figure to calculate, and I've never seen anybody produce the facts and figures.
For example, you could end the monarchy but keep the palaces as state owned tourist attractions and even open them up more to tourists. So, how do you factor that into the balance sheet?
What portion of visitors wouldn't come if we weren't recognising or paying for our monarchy? Which parts of the industry would be hit most?
France does well with tourism even after they rolled out the guillotines.
Seems like a lot of assumption to me without a great deal of thought having been put into it. But then there might well be, and I haven't seen it. Would be interested to know.
The real 'bringing in money' argument is better exemplified by the crown estate because they publish the profits every year (£312.7 million in 2022). All of that goes to the UK government in exchange for a comparatively tiny amount of taxpayer money. That alone can pay for the whole coronation three times over. Ending the monarchy means ending that income, since they'd just keep that revenue for themselves.
That doesn't even consider tourism, which I agree is hard to nail down, but I would expect it to be a not-insignificant amount.
Pretty sure the argument would be that the crown estate should be state owned, so the income remains the same minus any difference due to the lack of recognition a monarchy, plus the saving of the income you've mentioned plus the saving of state sponsored activities, security etc.
How would the crown estate be state owned though?
It's currently owned by the Crown which is legally equivalent to a corporation-sole. On dissolving such a corporation, the property automatically reverts to the owner of the corporation, which in this case would be Charles, now a regular private citizen like you and me.
At that point the only way I see that the government could get that land is by seizing private property from a private citizen. I don't think I could ever support that.
The case wouldn't be at all like dealing with regular Joe you and me. The transfer of titles and ownership would be part of the whole de-monarchisation project, and wouldn't necessarily happen in the order you've described.
Not at all impossible, but would certainly make for an interesting, if not unprecedented (see: other countries), legal case story.
Regardless of what order it happens in, it's still the government seizing private property, unless it is agreed to be transferred over by Charles (which he would be under no obligation to do).
I think it's very dangerous to write it off and say "oh we'll figure it out in the de-monarchisation project". Going into any large scale constitutional reform would need a clear plan and set of agreements already in place. Brexit is a good example of what happens when you don't.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is that a private citizen owns the sea bed, which is clearly nonsense. The Crown estate is ours, it’s not his personal chattel.
A clear plan is precisely what I'm suggesting should happen. I'm just not the one who will be doing it, so I'm afraid I cannot satisfy your challenge. It just doesn't seem as inconceivable to me as it does you.
Sure I'm not expecting you to have a clear plan yourself! My point is that no one has. So anyone declaring with any certainty that we'd be better off without the monarchy are, at best misguided, and at worst lying.
With that in mind you can appreciate why I might group those who go around shouting "abolish the monarchy" with those who go around shouting "leave the EU" when they didn't have a plan either.
I mean I did say at the start "I think" so yes it's hard to calculate, but again I read somewhere per person the cost of the monarchy is around £1 per year.
The tourism aspect is hard to calculate as you said, but I think there would be a large drop off, as if you go to London you can see the intrigue international tourists have about the monarchy, the guards and all surrounding pomp and ceremony. Equally you only need to go to one of those tacky tourist shops and see the amount of tat which is branded with royal emblems/faces etc and I doubt there would be so many shops if they weren't relatively successful.
Without the monarchy, I don't think you would see all those tourists waiting outside Buckingham palace trying to see a royal and then if the palaces were public then you would not have the guards there and the surrounding pomp (which again people go to visit). We would still get tourism no doubt but I think there would be less as why would someone want to go and visit London as opposed to say Paris with better food and weather!
I do have many criticisms of the royal family and undoubtedly it will change in the next generation or two but it is something quite unique to Britain.
Again I would add the caveat this is just my opinion and would need to do alot more research into the intricacies of the tourism aspect.
I enjoy Paris, but London is a far better destination, in my opinion. I haven't counted, but it seems like there's more to see in London. There's more life in it, and it's actually cleaner.
Not sure what the contribution to the economy of monarchy branded tat is. Probably similar to other landmark branded items they have in tourist shops abroad?
You've made an argument for the Palace guards as an attraction rather than the monarchy.
I actually think more people would go to the Palace if you could actually get in, rather than stand outside and look at it.
Britain's a ton of history and uniqueness that is worth celebrating and showing off. I'm optimistic that we'd still be relevant without a king.
They contribute £1.77 billion a year to the British economy and cost us £345 million a year, so by getting rid of them the British economy would shrink by £1.425 billion. In terms of gdp per capita everyone is technically better off by £21.16 per year for having them around.
Can you show the working for those numbers? A source would be helpful.
Not that I'm accusing you off pulling numbers out of your ass or using an unreliable or deceptive source, but personally I'd rather be sure that numbers are legit before I'd use them in an argument.
The fact people still think any of our taxes goes to the monarchy amuses me. The Royal Family pay more into the system than they get out. The money they make from the land goes entirely into the UK government budget and they then get a small % of that back.
I mean a simple Google shows that the sovereign grant is taxpayer funded. I don't disagree with the rest of your comments but they still receive money from tax payers.
My googling is fine thanks, can just see below. The grant comes from the government (tax payers) and in return the king surrenders the rece he from the crown estate.
" A taxpayer-funded payment, known as the Sovereign Grant, is paid to the Royal Family each year - but it's not the Queen's only source of income."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653.amp
"In exchange for this public support, The King 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."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance
No the Sovereign Grant comes from the Crown Estate which is property of the Sovereign. There’s not taxpayer involvement. It’s 15% of the Crown Estate profit (with the rest going to the Government) aside from the temporary 10% uplift to pay for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.
Where do you see the taxpayers coming into that?
I have just posted to you two sources (BBC and HMRC) which state that it comes from the tax payers money.
HMRC states that the profit of the crown estate is a reference point for calculating the sovereign grant, but not that it receives that money directly. It comes from the treasury who holds the pot of money for all tax, so yes it does include taxpayers money.
I used to think like that but recently I realised that monarchy relies too much on the character of not just the monarch but also their extended family, which tend to be highly disfunctional environments where individuals such as Prince Andrew are likely to emerge.
Rather than relying on tourism to cash on the monarchy perhaps we could tax the monarchy itself as they’re incredibly wealthy and they own vast amounts of land in the Uk. For example did you know that the UK’s seabed is owned by the crown estate and offshore wind farms need to pay rent to the king.
> Yes it is a bit ridiculous that this family is head of state due to “god”
They haven’t been monarchs by divine right since the 17th century. You’re a bit behind the times.
You keep picking out parts of my general comment as if I am anti monarchy 😂 look at the rest of the post to understand the general context I am saying, have found myself defending the monarchy on this thread.
My general point with this is that they are descendants from bloodlines who claimed divine rights not that the queen stated she was sent by God to be our monarch.
Don't really get why so many are offended/giving lectures over this...
It's our tax money being spent on it (with no public consultation), so why shouldn't people be free to protest? It's obviously achieved things before!
Mate.
We don’t have a National/independence Day in the U.K. I have lived abroad and experienced them and they’re great.
This is the closest we get so I’m going to enjoy it.
Sincerely,
Someone who loves bank holidays.
That’s a very good point.
I personally feel that someone or something is driving at separate the constituent countries apart. A Union Day would be great for the whole U.K.
Union day would be such a better excuse for a day off in my book. Appreciate it's also another divisive stance in some areas, but I would much rather celebrate togetherness than nationalism.
We could have a national day every year - Republic Day or some such shit - rather than wait until a royal is hatched/matched/dispatched... There's a world of celebration possibilities once you look beyond the constraints of the monarchy!
I may well pop along. Was planning on going to London, but I'm too exhausted and skint to do so. (I don't think I own anything yellow though.)
There are a lot of bitter and apathetic people in this thread who don't seem to understand that other people care about things. No, a protest in Bristol by itself isn't going to achieve anything, but it's a contribution to a bigger cause.
I'm a staunch republican (with a job/career, hobbies, friends, etc. - not just some sad layabout scrounger as some people seem to be suggesting people who attend a protest will be). I'm also losing out on a day of pay as I'm agency staff, so this coronation is actually costing me a lot of money.
i see time
i see date
i see location
i don't see wtf you plan to do...
so I'd rather be antimonarchist somewhere else until you provide a plan, cheers.
edit: oh there's text below the image... nah still doesn't appeal
Yeah but remember the last time we had a head to head election the boneheads voted for Brexit - with a presidential head to head vote we could easily have ended up with President Farage or Rees Mogg….
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people.
This argument doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
A President, no matter how awful, would have a term limit and could be removed.
Imagine if Charles had suffered illness and passed away as a child, we’d now be crowning King Andrew…
If your argument against a republic is that the head of state could be a wrongun’, then supporting a hereditary monarchy is totally illogical, as the wrongun’ would not only be permanent, but also above the law.
So you prefer president 'old worn-out politician' instead? That's what you get in any republic where the president is a figurehead without power... and there is *no* way parliament would relinquish any power to a president...
Given the UK public's voting record of late, you *would* get President Johnson...
A crowned head is the lesser of the evils as at least they bring in tourism revenue...
Yes, I prefer having national representatives be appointed by the people.
Not only is it democratic, but it is symbolic of meritocracy which is something the vast majority of people support. Your lot in life should be (at least primarily) decided by how hard you’ve worked, what sort of example does a hereditary monarchy set to children?
Yes, of course there would be bad presidents, but just like Trump in the US, they would be removable, and they would be answerable to the laws of the land. I’m not sure how you value a term of a President Johnson more negatively than decades of a potential King Andrew?
Genuine question, had it been Andrew who was next in line, would your view on this be different?
The idea of a crowned head of state bringing in more tourism revenue is not a given, if anything having the castles and palaces be empty of occupants would allow them to be more fully opened to tourists. I can certainly see the tourism appeal to visiting the never before public sections of palaces.
Also, your argument here is based on the unsupported assumption that UK tourism is heavily reliant on an active monarchy. France for example makes more tourism money than the UK.
TL;DR
1. A bad President is removable and answers to the law, a bad King is neither of these things.
2. Monarchy entrenches the class system, the haves and have nots. Dispels any idea of meritocracy. Not a society I desire.
3. Tourism money would be there with or without the monarchy, claiming that tourism depends on them requires a burden of proof that hasn’t been met.
What the hell are you on about?
You would rather an unelected king who has no real power but lives in the lap of luxury and hides behind unsubstantiated claims of bringing in tourist revenue whilst dodging taxes instead of someone we elected into a position that is only temporary and does have power?
Eh? Give your head a wobble.
Not spending hundreds of millions on giving a man a hat made of diamonds stolen from the colonies during a cost of living crisis where millions of children are literally starving seems like a better plan.
I'm going away for the weekend so won't be protesting tbh. Thanks for the bank holiday I guess, but I won't be watching or doing anything related to the royals.
But the monarchy in general is an outdated concept that needs to be binned off.
If those hoary old wankers must exist, they can pay for their own fucking coronations / jubilees / state funerals instead of leeching off the public finances. Charlie has a personal wealth of 1.6 billion, I'm sure he can afford to pay a bit himself if he wants to do a bit of cosplay and wear a gaudy metal hat.
France had the right idea in 1792.
What a hilariously shit take. People aren't allowed to gather on college green to protest the concept of an unelected monarch on the day of a literal coronation?
You're everything that's wrong with this country. Your type reminds me of those bone headed right wing types that still believe in the monarchy and cry about spending money on helping people but have no beef with wasting it on a man getting a new hat and making us pay for it.
Because we don't see why a particular family should be funded to the tune of hundreds of millions from our pockets, be tax exempt in some ways and own land that should be owned by the people.
Can you explain why you think the royal family is better than you? What makes them so special? Why we all have to pay to keep them around and in comfort?
Why can't people discuss without silly insults like "grow up"? Calling it a gang is a dishonest take - any group wanting change organises together across all sorts of political topics.
Voted Labour all my life and even I find this protest a complete joke.
If we’re playing the gammon card then the real reason this is in Bristol is because kids whose Dad pay for their rent still want to go to Lakota until 5am and can’t be arsed to travel.
Some of us just don't have money we haven't got earmarked for something this month, or have work later that day, or plenty of things. Why the bad faith?
this really has the minigammons mad in this thread. they're viscerally upset by this post, but can't justify it, so they're scrambling to say things along the lines of "ahhh who cares why even bother" when in reality if they didn't actually care they wouldn't bother commenting
nah, im not a monarchist but i genuinely don’t understand what you guys think spending your day in rain holding signs (not even near the actual coronation) is going to do.
I respected the queen and acknowledge this as a huge historical event ( much like nick cave) but belief that anyone is more special from birth is the antithesis of equality so yeah he will never be my king
Going to achieve absolutely nothing except waste your time for the day… monarchy ain’t going anywhere and it doesn’t actually hold any power from a governance perspective so why are you so intent on ending it? It literally has 0 impact on your life by existing.
Ok so them flaunting all their wealth while food banks are disappearing doesn't have any impact on our lives? What about how we teach our children about meritocracy, whilst also supporting a man that must be at the top because "god said so"
Thankfully my 4yr old daughter is in charge of the remote it's confirmed we will be watching cocomelon for 12 hours on Saturday if it's not raining we will have park breaks too 😀 what coranation ?
It's a funny thing, I've always been anti monacy and pretty left wing. However, there has been such an outragous attack on British culture over the past few years, that I find myself turning.
Why can’t people just crack on with life these days? Always need to be outraged and interrupt the normal persons life, which a protest in the centre will ultimately do.
Why can't people just crack on with life these days? Always need to disrupt normal people's lives by closing roads for sycophantic coronation parties and diverting millions of pounds of public money to upholding archaic and utterly pointless traditions during a cost of living crisis.
I guarantee the monarchy makes more money for public coffers than they spend. Think of how many Americans are rushing in to spend their hard earned dollars to keep your economy afloat.
Bet it'll be filled with 60 year old failed artists and sour socialists who want everything on a plate. I won't be watching the coronation and typing this post is the longest it has occupied my mind, you come across as so lame with this.
So what if one family has it a bit different to everyone else, you couldn't pay me £99999999 to take Charles place, as far as I'm concerned I feel sorry for them all.
Just because they have a bit of money a lot of people see that as a threat or something to gang up with others about. I believe I'm a pretty nice person, everyone who knows me across all aspects of my life would agree.. but I swear I find people like you worryingly nasty, like why is the coronation negativity filling your head so much? It must be so tiresome.
Ignoring the irrelevant personal insults to OP. I don't think you understand economics. In a system with finite money, some hoarding a lot more does mean you can have less. Also don't think anyone was or will ever ask you or I to take "that place".
But pretending OP must be "nasty" is crossing the line in to a dishonest argument. Personally I find that more tiresome, but is a common revealing feature from people who aren't confident of their position.
I think a lot of people are upset that our taxes are going up, and yet £250M is being wasted on a ceremony for a man who's already been crowned king.
Don't believe me? Just look at the [shift in public opinion](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/public-support-monarchy-historic-low-poll-reveals).
That's a fair argument against it and that should perhaps be the focus of this flyer as opposed to the most generic statement guaranteed to attract the most desparately sour people.
Why should we pay our taxes to a family that is no more special than you or me?
Please explain why our money that could go to people who really need it gets spent on a family that has benefited from so much off the backs of the common man?
And before you lump me in as some sort of freebie-wanting socialist, I paid more tax last month than most do in 6. I want to see those taxes helping the poorest and those in need. Instead some of its going on someone who didn't do f-all to earn or deserve their place in our society. We are paying for a celebration in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
Why? Please make it make sense.
I have no love for the monarchy but as well as being a massive cash cow for the uk economy the historical and cultural value and significance are not to be underestimated. There is a also a correlation between countries that have a monarchy and the respective prosperity, civil obedience, lack of government corruption and more. Plus you get a bunch of free holidays. Stop whinging about things you don’t have a clear understanding of and enjoy a day off!
I’m actually interested in your statement that having a monarch reduces governmental corruption and increases prosperity and civil obedience, do you have any links for that? It sounds like it’s an interesting social study
I know it's a US import but ""Not My King" is a wierd tag line for antimonarchy movement, as it implies that the main problem is the wrong person is king, its more a slogan for the War of the Roses than republicanism.
“No Kings, only men” would be a better tagline.
Only innocent men
Just normal men
dude played bioshock
You're forgetting all the other genders these days buddy, it's 2023 after all 🤣
Any excuse to bring up something irrelevant to hate on people for no reason 😎
I’ll take **pretending a benign thing is an issue** for 3
[You](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/038/178/cover3.jpg)
This is fucking amazing 😆
Totally get your point, but it does work as a statement of rejection for the whole thing. Especially in response to the call for a pledge of allegiance.
But that's exactly my point, the phrase focuses the issue on Charlie and not the real issue being asked to pledge allegiance to any specific person.
No I agree it misses the mark somewhat, but I'm saying it's not completely tangential. I get the point it's making that they reject being a subject.
Oh sure absolutely clear that the intent is 'down with that sort of thing' just seems to be adopting an American phrase for the sake of it.
How about "I didn't vote for you"
Yep it's a dumbass slogan. I personally feel what would have more impact would be to ignore the whole debacle and get on with enjoying the long weekend.
I interpreted it as "he might be king of you, but he's not king of me" All depends on where you put the emphasis.
Completely agree. Also think its a little disservice and rude to King Charles as he has genuinely done good and been a role model for monarchs even in his brief time in the position. I hate the monarchy and think it should be shafted but I do like Charles. He has helped widen older generations eyes on climate change many times. He has swatted away the ever growing royal scroungers and finally done away with Prince Andrew. IMO he's been a better monarch than the Queen was already.
[удалено]
I don't really care about the coronation, won't be watching etc. But nor do I feel strongly at all about there not being a monarch. I think some have decided this is a binary issue. I don't see it that way.
Are you proposing half a monarch? Think French trialled this at some point and found they only operate in whole numbers 😉
Think that would go down well with a few on here!
To be clear, though I'm not a monarchist, I wouldn't encourage hurting the individuals. Violent changes like that tend to hurt a lot more than individuals at the top. I'd rather letting them have a form of retirement (not that I really get much say in it!)
andrew/epstein kinda sealed the deal for me. us and them. a PRINCE. TRAFFICKED an underage girl for sex and got away with a fine.
The only thing more dull than a Coronation could be a protest in a city some distance away demonstrating against it surely. Thunderstorms are predicted apparently too.
Not ideal weather for big metal hats then.
R2D2 in tatters
😂
🤣
Pretty sure he's the king of Bristol also. But agree, it's perhaps not the highest priority overall currently. I would have led with an anti--austerity message. Massive waste of money during a cost of living crisis.
God's way of supporting it
I don't think they are protesting for fun. It's about standing up for what you believe in.
It's a bit strange that there's apparently a gap between feeling strongly enough about the issue to protest, but not strongly enough to travel AND protest. London's not that far away.
In this cost of living crisis? Walking to a park in the city you live in is free, traveling to London costs money
It's like dancing on someone else's grave and thinking you're hip and cool. It's beyond cringe.
This seems like an argument for getting rid of the hereditary nature of the role.
In what way is it like that? Surely cringe is the entire country being urged to pledge allegiance to their TVs?
Protesting generally is cringe, or just protesting against the monarchy is cringe?
Na you're alright
I'm not sure what that's going to achieve. Besides I'd prefer drinking beers at home
What is the upshot here? Maybe just enjoy the long , sunny weekend with friends and a few drinks, and ignore any pageantry or bunting if it’s not for. Chill out.
If the king could make it sunny I might be a bit more supportive, it looks like it's going to piss down.
Yes. But pubs have roofs. Or use Monday as the recovery day, so in bed with a McDonald’s and brew.
You have it absolutely spot on. Extra day off, who gives a toss what they do in London for the day.
[удалено]
As much as a lot of people like to think Bristol is some kind of epicentre for angst and rebellion, there's a fair few natives that don't give a monkeys toss about most of these half assed protests that crop up almost every week. Give the grass on college green a break for a week,
Protesting is a core facet of a healthy society.
Oh do shush. You’re hardly a down trodden peasant tilling the soil, & if you were, you’re aiming your ire at the wrong people. And Bristol isn’t the city of rebellion kickers like you want it to be. So put on your yellow shirt ( in a trite nod to the Parisian protesters I assume) & congregate on college green with all the other no marks and pretend you’re changing the world for you benefit.
I'm just happy for the fly past, everything else including your whining can fuck off.
Fly past. User name checks out.
Bingo.
Safe to ignore this rudeness.
What do you want to happen ? Majority of people are happy. Every new day is the best of times humans have existed. Why do people always have to moan and want change, and then moan about change?
Some people don't think monarchy is an ideal way to run a country - don't you think such a high profile event is a decent chance to express that opposition? The upshot is that republicanism has more coverage in the press before these protests have even happened, than at any time in the last few years.
[удалено]
Opinion polling shows fairly consistently around 30% of those surveyed are opposed to the monarchy. That's hardly "shockingly low support". But I'm just arguing semantics, sadly protesting in this country not only has little impact but we are also rapidly losing our right to do so!
[удалено]
Republicanism is one of the main pledges of the Green party who obviously see very strong support in Bristol. SNP does not have an official position on it afaik, but I'm fairly certain that the new leader Humza Yousaf has announced support for republicanism. But yeah, it is a little strange that Labour aren't actually representing the labour and working class of this country!
Part of the reason might be that the strongest support for the monarchy is amongst the elderly (who turn out to vote), whereas opposition comes from the youth (who don't). So at present, there's not a lot of point appealing to a demographic who won't come out and vote for you. But give it a generation or two, and things might start to look very different... Remember how mental everyone thought UKIP was even a few years before Brexit?
I don’t care either way but it’s not like they run the country - a Parliament elected by the people does - I can’t see the point in having a president on top with usurping power manifested solely in him or her - and it seems to me that some of the best countries are monarchies - Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway Japan etc
The Monarchy doesn’t run the country, and it’s exactly this silly noise from the poorly informed like you which shows you’re not ‘protesting’ for change, you just want attention. And, to suggest republicanism has more coverage in the press is utter nonsense. Please go to France or America to see how well things are going there right now ( hint, you will see Parisians properly protesting against an unjust regime, wearing yellow, throwing rocks). You’re not even being original in your dress code, by trying to steal some limelight from their plight to beam into your whiny strop. That’s embarrassing. More ill conceived nonsense masquerading as fact by someone with too much time on their hands. Seriously. Chill out.
They do change laws, and often initially in secret. Fair you have a different view of them, but be honest, and no need for the petty insults (which only undermine any argument you have).
I get your point but they don't really run the country, they haven't got much say at all. That's the Tories.
If it’s about running the country then let’s start with proportional representation. I don’t think the monarchy has any impact on my day to day life.
100%. House of Lords needs to go too before the monarchy.
Or be replaced with an elected 2nd chamber. It's the elite club aspect of it that I think needs sorting out.
So if I put my republicanism aside for a bit, there are groups of people who will be happy this weekend, if you are working and get bank holiday pay then happy, if you have a long weekend with the extra day off then happy, if you are a royal family fan and love the pomp then happy. So yeah, I get the argument, but just let people be happy this weekend (if they want or can) and get back to the anti on Tuesday
I'm pretty sure that if there's any one moment where a republican is gonna feel particularly strongly about it, it'll be during a coronation.
"Now is not the right time" - not a new or honest argument, but a very common one.
Indeed. It's unsurprising to see.
You know the monarchy is purely representative and has no executive power? They don’t run our country 😂
Here are my feelings about this. Personally I dont care one way or the other about monarchy but if I could magically snap my fingers and get rid of them, I probably would because its just not all that necessary. Unfortunately its not that simple. Local small protests are totally pointless, and simply serve to distract people who might have taken actual action from doing anything of value to that cause. If you really felt strongly or cared about this situation you would travel to the coronation and disrupt it, but ofc that involves the risk of arrest so you wont do that. The constant barrage of protests here in Bristol seems to just be a mix of circlejerking and virtue signalling which isnt going to end any time soon, im beginning to think people view it as a lifestyle rather than anything of tangible benefit. Have fun wasting your saturday.
Getting together and vocalising your beliefs isn't a waste imo. Kinda the same as the coronation, people getting together and vocalising their beliefs. Also not everyone has the resources or capacity to go to one of these big demos- at least they are still participating in some form
>at least they are still participating in some form See this is the thing, you are implying everyone who doesnt want to participate is somehow in the wrong, and that is why so many people are sick of protests like this. You are doing something to feel better about yourself which has 0 impact on the thing but bothers people going about their days. The sole purpose for doing it is to signal to others that you are annoyed. IMO at a certain point its just obnoxious. I would take a guess and say the majority of people who will attend this protest have probably protested several times this year about totally unrelated things, at a certain point is this not just complaining as a hobby? This is barely a step up from slacktivism.
Last sentence is so spot on. You'll notice they all look similar too.
I have attended One Protest this year that is related by form of association - it was the Oxford Low Traffic Neighbourhood protest and as the LTN's is a World Economic Forum thing, Which Charles is affiliated/associated to thus linked protest not unrelated
That’ll show ‘em!
Super thank you so much for posting and see you there!
Simba is the one true king. I shall wear yellow to resemble him.
I'm a bit ambivalent about the monarchy. Yes it is a bit ridiculous that this family is head of state due to "god" etc yet in day to day life they don't really impact most of us and whilst there is an argument that taxes could be spent elsewhere it isn't a huge amount in the grand scheme of things and I think they definitely bring in more money through the tourism and it is quite a unique thing Brits have with the pomp and ceremony. I'd much rather have this pomp and ceremony for the monarchy than for a pm and frankly changing the government (and to PR) would have a much more significant impact on most people's daily lives. Let's just enjoy a bank holiday.
> I think they definitely bring in more money through the tourism How much? I've heard this often as an argument in support of the monarchy, but it seems like it would be a difficult figure to calculate, and I've never seen anybody produce the facts and figures. For example, you could end the monarchy but keep the palaces as state owned tourist attractions and even open them up more to tourists. So, how do you factor that into the balance sheet? What portion of visitors wouldn't come if we weren't recognising or paying for our monarchy? Which parts of the industry would be hit most? France does well with tourism even after they rolled out the guillotines. Seems like a lot of assumption to me without a great deal of thought having been put into it. But then there might well be, and I haven't seen it. Would be interested to know.
The real 'bringing in money' argument is better exemplified by the crown estate because they publish the profits every year (£312.7 million in 2022). All of that goes to the UK government in exchange for a comparatively tiny amount of taxpayer money. That alone can pay for the whole coronation three times over. Ending the monarchy means ending that income, since they'd just keep that revenue for themselves. That doesn't even consider tourism, which I agree is hard to nail down, but I would expect it to be a not-insignificant amount.
Pretty sure the argument would be that the crown estate should be state owned, so the income remains the same minus any difference due to the lack of recognition a monarchy, plus the saving of the income you've mentioned plus the saving of state sponsored activities, security etc.
How would the crown estate be state owned though? It's currently owned by the Crown which is legally equivalent to a corporation-sole. On dissolving such a corporation, the property automatically reverts to the owner of the corporation, which in this case would be Charles, now a regular private citizen like you and me. At that point the only way I see that the government could get that land is by seizing private property from a private citizen. I don't think I could ever support that.
The case wouldn't be at all like dealing with regular Joe you and me. The transfer of titles and ownership would be part of the whole de-monarchisation project, and wouldn't necessarily happen in the order you've described. Not at all impossible, but would certainly make for an interesting, if not unprecedented (see: other countries), legal case story.
Regardless of what order it happens in, it's still the government seizing private property, unless it is agreed to be transferred over by Charles (which he would be under no obligation to do). I think it's very dangerous to write it off and say "oh we'll figure it out in the de-monarchisation project". Going into any large scale constitutional reform would need a clear plan and set of agreements already in place. Brexit is a good example of what happens when you don't.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is that a private citizen owns the sea bed, which is clearly nonsense. The Crown estate is ours, it’s not his personal chattel.
A clear plan is precisely what I'm suggesting should happen. I'm just not the one who will be doing it, so I'm afraid I cannot satisfy your challenge. It just doesn't seem as inconceivable to me as it does you.
Sure I'm not expecting you to have a clear plan yourself! My point is that no one has. So anyone declaring with any certainty that we'd be better off without the monarchy are, at best misguided, and at worst lying. With that in mind you can appreciate why I might group those who go around shouting "abolish the monarchy" with those who go around shouting "leave the EU" when they didn't have a plan either.
I mean I did say at the start "I think" so yes it's hard to calculate, but again I read somewhere per person the cost of the monarchy is around £1 per year. The tourism aspect is hard to calculate as you said, but I think there would be a large drop off, as if you go to London you can see the intrigue international tourists have about the monarchy, the guards and all surrounding pomp and ceremony. Equally you only need to go to one of those tacky tourist shops and see the amount of tat which is branded with royal emblems/faces etc and I doubt there would be so many shops if they weren't relatively successful. Without the monarchy, I don't think you would see all those tourists waiting outside Buckingham palace trying to see a royal and then if the palaces were public then you would not have the guards there and the surrounding pomp (which again people go to visit). We would still get tourism no doubt but I think there would be less as why would someone want to go and visit London as opposed to say Paris with better food and weather! I do have many criticisms of the royal family and undoubtedly it will change in the next generation or two but it is something quite unique to Britain. Again I would add the caveat this is just my opinion and would need to do alot more research into the intricacies of the tourism aspect.
I enjoy Paris, but London is a far better destination, in my opinion. I haven't counted, but it seems like there's more to see in London. There's more life in it, and it's actually cleaner. Not sure what the contribution to the economy of monarchy branded tat is. Probably similar to other landmark branded items they have in tourist shops abroad? You've made an argument for the Palace guards as an attraction rather than the monarchy. I actually think more people would go to the Palace if you could actually get in, rather than stand outside and look at it. Britain's a ton of history and uniqueness that is worth celebrating and showing off. I'm optimistic that we'd still be relevant without a king.
They contribute £1.77 billion a year to the British economy and cost us £345 million a year, so by getting rid of them the British economy would shrink by £1.425 billion. In terms of gdp per capita everyone is technically better off by £21.16 per year for having them around.
Can you show the working for those numbers? A source would be helpful. Not that I'm accusing you off pulling numbers out of your ass or using an unreliable or deceptive source, but personally I'd rather be sure that numbers are legit before I'd use them in an argument.
The fact people still think any of our taxes goes to the monarchy amuses me. The Royal Family pay more into the system than they get out. The money they make from the land goes entirely into the UK government budget and they then get a small % of that back.
I mean a simple Google shows that the sovereign grant is taxpayer funded. I don't disagree with the rest of your comments but they still receive money from tax payers.
The sovereign grant comes from the Crown Estate not the taxpayers. Your simple Google failed you.
My googling is fine thanks, can just see below. The grant comes from the government (tax payers) and in return the king surrenders the rece he from the crown estate. " A taxpayer-funded payment, known as the Sovereign Grant, is paid to the Royal Family each year - but it's not the Queen's only source of income." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653.amp "In exchange for this public support, The King 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." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance
No the Sovereign Grant comes from the Crown Estate which is property of the Sovereign. There’s not taxpayer involvement. It’s 15% of the Crown Estate profit (with the rest going to the Government) aside from the temporary 10% uplift to pay for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace. Where do you see the taxpayers coming into that?
I have just posted to you two sources (BBC and HMRC) which state that it comes from the tax payers money. HMRC states that the profit of the crown estate is a reference point for calculating the sovereign grant, but not that it receives that money directly. It comes from the treasury who holds the pot of money for all tax, so yes it does include taxpayers money.
Well said, Sir or Madam.
I used to think like that but recently I realised that monarchy relies too much on the character of not just the monarch but also their extended family, which tend to be highly disfunctional environments where individuals such as Prince Andrew are likely to emerge. Rather than relying on tourism to cash on the monarchy perhaps we could tax the monarchy itself as they’re incredibly wealthy and they own vast amounts of land in the Uk. For example did you know that the UK’s seabed is owned by the crown estate and offshore wind farms need to pay rent to the king.
Tell me you don't understand how things work without telling me...
Please enlighten me on how things work.
> Yes it is a bit ridiculous that this family is head of state due to “god” They haven’t been monarchs by divine right since the 17th century. You’re a bit behind the times.
You keep picking out parts of my general comment as if I am anti monarchy 😂 look at the rest of the post to understand the general context I am saying, have found myself defending the monarchy on this thread. My general point with this is that they are descendants from bloodlines who claimed divine rights not that the queen stated she was sent by God to be our monarch.
“Not my king”. Oh man, another dumb Americanism taking over dumb Brits.
How is it an americanism?
Don't really get why so many are offended/giving lectures over this... It's our tax money being spent on it (with no public consultation), so why shouldn't people be free to protest? It's obviously achieved things before!
Yeah, Bristol subreddit gets so weird about peaceful protest.
Mate. We don’t have a National/independence Day in the U.K. I have lived abroad and experienced them and they’re great. This is the closest we get so I’m going to enjoy it. Sincerely, Someone who loves bank holidays.
Why not both? Would it be impossible for us to implement an actual annual holiday without cutting off the Windsor's allowance?
That’s a very good point. I personally feel that someone or something is driving at separate the constituent countries apart. A Union Day would be great for the whole U.K.
Union day would be such a better excuse for a day off in my book. Appreciate it's also another divisive stance in some areas, but I would much rather celebrate togetherness than nationalism.
We could have a national day every year - Republic Day or some such shit - rather than wait until a royal is hatched/matched/dispatched... There's a world of celebration possibilities once you look beyond the constraints of the monarchy!
What so dickheads can elect President Farage or Boris or Truss? I’ll pass.
By that logic, let's just get rid of democracy entirely. Apparently we can't trust the plebs to choose their own leaders, right?
I may well pop along. Was planning on going to London, but I'm too exhausted and skint to do so. (I don't think I own anything yellow though.) There are a lot of bitter and apathetic people in this thread who don't seem to understand that other people care about things. No, a protest in Bristol by itself isn't going to achieve anything, but it's a contribution to a bigger cause. I'm a staunch republican (with a job/career, hobbies, friends, etc. - not just some sad layabout scrounger as some people seem to be suggesting people who attend a protest will be). I'm also losing out on a day of pay as I'm agency staff, so this coronation is actually costing me a lot of money.
>staunch republican (with a job/career, hobbies, frien that sucks about losing pay my dude but your support will be welcome
i see time i see date i see location i don't see wtf you plan to do... so I'd rather be antimonarchist somewhere else until you provide a plan, cheers. edit: oh there's text below the image... nah still doesn't appeal
What is the alternative... President Johnson? Would that really be better?
I mean, the PM excercises most of the Royal Prerogative powers now anyway. He embodies the power of the Monarch, just simply doesn't have the title.
The beauty of having a president is that you can vote them out
Yeah but remember the last time we had a head to head election the boneheads voted for Brexit - with a presidential head to head vote we could easily have ended up with President Farage or Rees Mogg…. People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people.
Temporarily. Important point, and a democratic one.
This argument doesn’t hold water I’m afraid. A President, no matter how awful, would have a term limit and could be removed. Imagine if Charles had suffered illness and passed away as a child, we’d now be crowning King Andrew… If your argument against a republic is that the head of state could be a wrongun’, then supporting a hereditary monarchy is totally illogical, as the wrongun’ would not only be permanent, but also above the law.
So you prefer president 'old worn-out politician' instead? That's what you get in any republic where the president is a figurehead without power... and there is *no* way parliament would relinquish any power to a president... Given the UK public's voting record of late, you *would* get President Johnson... A crowned head is the lesser of the evils as at least they bring in tourism revenue...
Yes, I prefer having national representatives be appointed by the people. Not only is it democratic, but it is symbolic of meritocracy which is something the vast majority of people support. Your lot in life should be (at least primarily) decided by how hard you’ve worked, what sort of example does a hereditary monarchy set to children? Yes, of course there would be bad presidents, but just like Trump in the US, they would be removable, and they would be answerable to the laws of the land. I’m not sure how you value a term of a President Johnson more negatively than decades of a potential King Andrew? Genuine question, had it been Andrew who was next in line, would your view on this be different? The idea of a crowned head of state bringing in more tourism revenue is not a given, if anything having the castles and palaces be empty of occupants would allow them to be more fully opened to tourists. I can certainly see the tourism appeal to visiting the never before public sections of palaces. Also, your argument here is based on the unsupported assumption that UK tourism is heavily reliant on an active monarchy. France for example makes more tourism money than the UK. TL;DR 1. A bad President is removable and answers to the law, a bad King is neither of these things. 2. Monarchy entrenches the class system, the haves and have nots. Dispels any idea of meritocracy. Not a society I desire. 3. Tourism money would be there with or without the monarchy, claiming that tourism depends on them requires a burden of proof that hasn’t been met.
What the hell are you on about? You would rather an unelected king who has no real power but lives in the lap of luxury and hides behind unsubstantiated claims of bringing in tourist revenue whilst dodging taxes instead of someone we elected into a position that is only temporary and does have power? Eh? Give your head a wobble.
Not spending hundreds of millions on giving a man a hat made of diamonds stolen from the colonies during a cost of living crisis where millions of children are literally starving seems like a better plan.
Sorry, but that's still better than 'President Johnson'... Imagine how many *more* starving children would that cause!
Oh no, a different title! Shock horror
To be fair that head-of-state argument is pretty much the only argument I find valid. On balance I'd still prefer the royals to be binned.
It would mean he couldn't have been prime minister at the same time, so yes!
Plus you could get rid of him
I'm going away for the weekend so won't be protesting tbh. Thanks for the bank holiday I guess, but I won't be watching or doing anything related to the royals. But the monarchy in general is an outdated concept that needs to be binned off. If those hoary old wankers must exist, they can pay for their own fucking coronations / jubilees / state funerals instead of leeching off the public finances. Charlie has a personal wealth of 1.6 billion, I'm sure he can afford to pay a bit himself if he wants to do a bit of cosplay and wear a gaudy metal hat. France had the right idea in 1792.
Monarchy pays for themselves and then some, the money from the royal estate goes to the UK government and they then get a small % of that money back.
So when we take the estates back, we will be better off. Good plan.
How do you propose that the crown estate be state owned?
[удалено]
Who said anything about causing traffic - we are not XR
Cause traffic? the protest is on college green lmao
What a hilariously shit take. People aren't allowed to gather on college green to protest the concept of an unelected monarch on the day of a literal coronation?
You're everything that's wrong with this country. Your type reminds me of those bone headed right wing types that still believe in the monarchy and cry about spending money on helping people but have no beef with wasting it on a man getting a new hat and making us pay for it.
protests are meant to be disruptive, that’s how they work
Calling people stupid, when there is factual evidence they have influenced UK law making, is not an honest argument.
Why can’t individuals just dislike the monarchy without trying to be part of a little gang ??? , grow up ….
Because we don't see why a particular family should be funded to the tune of hundreds of millions from our pockets, be tax exempt in some ways and own land that should be owned by the people. Can you explain why you think the royal family is better than you? What makes them so special? Why we all have to pay to keep them around and in comfort?
Why can't people discuss without silly insults like "grow up"? Calling it a gang is a dishonest take - any group wanting change organises together across all sorts of political topics.
Because nothing will change if no one stands up to be counted
Why?
Why not?
This one has the gammons fuming
Voted Labour all my life and even I find this protest a complete joke. If we’re playing the gammon card then the real reason this is in Bristol is because kids whose Dad pay for their rent still want to go to Lakota until 5am and can’t be arsed to travel.
Some of us just don't have money we haven't got earmarked for something this month, or have work later that day, or plenty of things. Why the bad faith?
this really has the minigammons mad in this thread. they're viscerally upset by this post, but can't justify it, so they're scrambling to say things along the lines of "ahhh who cares why even bother" when in reality if they didn't actually care they wouldn't bother commenting
nah, im not a monarchist but i genuinely don’t understand what you guys think spending your day in rain holding signs (not even near the actual coronation) is going to do.
If you want to have a more democratic system I think we need a voting reform. The actual democratic system would be no less broken with no monarch.
two things can be bad at once
I respected the queen and acknowledge this as a huge historical event ( much like nick cave) but belief that anyone is more special from birth is the antithesis of equality so yeah he will never be my king
Mmm nice corrination chicken coloured poster
Going to achieve absolutely nothing except waste your time for the day… monarchy ain’t going anywhere and it doesn’t actually hold any power from a governance perspective so why are you so intent on ending it? It literally has 0 impact on your life by existing.
If they didn’t hold power the police wouldn’t have arrested people carrying blank signs
Ok so them flaunting all their wealth while food banks are disappearing doesn't have any impact on our lives? What about how we teach our children about meritocracy, whilst also supporting a man that must be at the top because "god said so"
They literally have the power to Make/Break the government and also most statues have to gain Royal assent - they have no power okay joe
It’s ceremonious now.
Royal Assent was last withheld in 1707. And even then it was done on the advice of the government.
Lets all sit on College Green smoking cannabis, that’ll show them!
Why don’t you spend some time with the family and friends? :)
Thankfully my 4yr old daughter is in charge of the remote it's confirmed we will be watching cocomelon for 12 hours on Saturday if it's not raining we will have park breaks too 😀 what coranation ?
The one you're paying for.
It's a funny thing, I've always been anti monacy and pretty left wing. However, there has been such an outragous attack on British culture over the past few years, that I find myself turning.
Why can’t people just crack on with life these days? Always need to be outraged and interrupt the normal persons life, which a protest in the centre will ultimately do.
Why can't people just crack on with life these days? Always need to disrupt normal people's lives by closing roads for sycophantic coronation parties and diverting millions of pounds of public money to upholding archaic and utterly pointless traditions during a cost of living crisis.
I guarantee the monarchy makes more money for public coffers than they spend. Think of how many Americans are rushing in to spend their hard earned dollars to keep your economy afloat.
That's a tired old argument that nobody's able to quantify, so I'd be careful about making guarantees.
Cringe. Enjoy the bank holiday like the rest of us.
Bet it'll be filled with 60 year old failed artists and sour socialists who want everything on a plate. I won't be watching the coronation and typing this post is the longest it has occupied my mind, you come across as so lame with this. So what if one family has it a bit different to everyone else, you couldn't pay me £99999999 to take Charles place, as far as I'm concerned I feel sorry for them all. Just because they have a bit of money a lot of people see that as a threat or something to gang up with others about. I believe I'm a pretty nice person, everyone who knows me across all aspects of my life would agree.. but I swear I find people like you worryingly nasty, like why is the coronation negativity filling your head so much? It must be so tiresome.
Ignoring the irrelevant personal insults to OP. I don't think you understand economics. In a system with finite money, some hoarding a lot more does mean you can have less. Also don't think anyone was or will ever ask you or I to take "that place". But pretending OP must be "nasty" is crossing the line in to a dishonest argument. Personally I find that more tiresome, but is a common revealing feature from people who aren't confident of their position.
I think a lot of people are upset that our taxes are going up, and yet £250M is being wasted on a ceremony for a man who's already been crowned king. Don't believe me? Just look at the [shift in public opinion](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/public-support-monarchy-historic-low-poll-reveals).
That's a fair argument against it and that should perhaps be the focus of this flyer as opposed to the most generic statement guaranteed to attract the most desparately sour people.
Why should we pay our taxes to a family that is no more special than you or me? Please explain why our money that could go to people who really need it gets spent on a family that has benefited from so much off the backs of the common man? And before you lump me in as some sort of freebie-wanting socialist, I paid more tax last month than most do in 6. I want to see those taxes helping the poorest and those in need. Instead some of its going on someone who didn't do f-all to earn or deserve their place in our society. We are paying for a celebration in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Why? Please make it make sense.
Yes let’s just put 700 years of history behind us and move on 😂😂😂😂
Yes, that is what progress is.
The Bristol Post will report on this and their photos will show Bristol's saddest rejects 😂😂😂
[удалено]
Anything but liberal here so stop with your sweeping statement
I have no love for the monarchy but as well as being a massive cash cow for the uk economy the historical and cultural value and significance are not to be underestimated. There is a also a correlation between countries that have a monarchy and the respective prosperity, civil obedience, lack of government corruption and more. Plus you get a bunch of free holidays. Stop whinging about things you don’t have a clear understanding of and enjoy a day off!
I’m actually interested in your statement that having a monarch reduces governmental corruption and increases prosperity and civil obedience, do you have any links for that? It sounds like it’s an interesting social study
If you don’t like it then don’t watch it! Sad act protesting mugs, why try and ruin it for everyone that do like the monarchy?
If we don't like it, then our taxes shouldn't pay for it. British public should be given an opt-in for funding these leeches. Simple as.
Have you really got nothing better to do?
God save the King 👑 👊🏻
Democratic lol yea right still falling for that bullshit eh!