republicans, over here!

[arghpleasestop]

OK, it's been 24 hours now.

Can I say it yet?

Long live the king - any king! - you must be joking. How on earth can it be the 21st century and there is still a hereditary monarchy of 'special people with the right blood' who wear crowns, live in palaces and play a formal role in politics?

I can see from other threads that others feel upset and are following it all closely. This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

I don't think the royal family will be going anywhere for a long time. I think most people are indifferent and don't much know or care either way. It's hard to get change when most people don't care about the issue and the media is generally in favour of it.

Support has been dropping roughly 10% per decade.
Now at 62% who favour monarchy( that was when the queen was alive)
After this blanket media 'support' ( depends how you define media - have you looked at Reddit or Twitter ??) Charles will cause more falling away of support .

Indifference is more likely to lead to less support too.
Support also is concentrated in the 50+ group .

Is the other 38% those who oppose the monarchy? Or does it include the don't-minds?

By media I mean the press. The RF are easy filler with the occasional scandal so they are very much in support of them.

I'm one of the don't-minds. I don't really understand the republican position tbh but I am reading the 'and what do you do?' book recommended further up the thread to see if that does anything.

I'm properly pissed off at the BBC btw. They have a duty of editorial balance to the point of regularly putting up anti-climate change nutters against actual scientists in debate, yet not a sniff of republican discourse is allowed through the filter. Disgraceful.

Nope, King Charles III has had no less than 73 years of training for the role he has just accepted as head of state. I can't see anything like that happening elsewhere! Not a chance. Some random rocks up and gets seven weeks at best.

And yet seemingly still not equipped to move a bit of stationery for himself and reduced to gesturing rudely for someone else to do it for him.
On the other hand, this is a man who does not even squeeze his own toothpaste out, so perhaps that was the reason for his apparent difficulty with straightforward tasks.
This is what 73 years of royal "training" has achieved.

I didn't see any problem with the recording, assuming it is the one of King Charles? He didn't swear, it has already been checked by a lip reader

Blimey, we've reached the stage of being pleased if he got through his work day without swearing.
What a depressingly low bar.

Republicans seem to be motivated by hate and bitterness, it is very off putting.

Most republicans actually seem to be motivated by sense of social equality.

Absolutely this. We need an elected HoS, an elected Upper House, so it can't be packed with pals and supporters of any one party and a written constitution, so it's clearly laid out what governments can and can't do.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the fact that the monarch can exempt themselves, their families and their interests from the laws which the rest of us are required to abide by.

Queen's consent: background

It would take a hell of a lot of research to find out exactly when it has been used and what for, but here's one example:

Environmental exemption

One would hope that, given his support for measures to mitigate climate change, the king would roll back on that one.

I also have a recollection that the late Queen using this to ensure that details of her various holdings and investments wouldn't be made public, but a cursory google has failed to throw anything up.

I wonder why they don't want us to know? Could they have investments in arms companies, companies that have dodgy safety or employment practices, that are heavy polluters, that have close links with foreign goverments that have bad human rights etc?

I agree with this. Change requires effort and if it isn't actively a problem for people (as opposed to eg an ethical concern) they won't want it.
To be fair, if it gets slimmed down and I still don't have to interact with them that will be an improvement.
I genuinely cannot understand the cowtowing and treating someone as superior to you due to their birth and inherited wealth, I actually find it sickening. My granny was an amazing lady but no one got to see that beyond her community because she wasn't royal.

@absolutelyanythingwilldo
If you are anything like everyone else who has read that book , you'll never feel the same way about the royals again

www.waterstones.com/book/and-what-do-you-do/norman-baker/9781785904912

It's factual. Doesn't need to be anything else. The facts speak for themselves .

MPs aren't even allowed to mention the Monarch in Parliament - unless there is a special reason.

When Starmer mentioned the dignity of the Queen at the funeral compared to Johnson's antics, there was uproar and he was asked to withdraw the comment.

Rules on mentioning the Monarch

erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4869/use-of-queens-name-to-influence-debate/

And you can't disrespect the Monarch

erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4872/disloyal-or-disrespectful-reference-to-queen/

Treasonable or seditious language or a disrespectful use of Her Majesty's name are not permitted. Members have not only been called to order for such offences, but have been reprimanded, committed to the custody of the Serjeant or, in the distant past, even sent to the Tower.

Very much with you, OP

I can respect (or not) various RF members as individuals, and I certainly respect others' differing views on the monarchy, but for me the whole thing's unacceptable on principle

Yes, but they at least would have been democratically elected, as in, people would at least have some say.

@cakeorwine
I'd forgotten about Parliament not being allowed to debate issues re monarchy .

Handy that .

Why would we have to bankroll an ex-president's random cousins, like we do with Beatrice and Eugenie etc?

I just feel having a RFis outof step with our current values of equity , democracy ànď meritocracy

I am very glad to see this thread!

It hasn't felt right to engage in robust debate but there hasn't half been some maudlin guff posted . Couple that with wall to wall sycophantic TV coverage and all I can say is TF for Ozark

I think there will be some serious re-evaluating done once the dust settles. New king has already shown us he's the same petulant individual he always was by seething at the lackeys.

How can you have a meritocracy when you have to bow/curtsey to someone because they were born into a certain family. I've loads of ideas for how we could have someone else as head of state

I remember how mother Theresa's death was barely acknowledged because of the Diana hysteria

How is this well said? What are you talking about??

Do you have any knowledge of Chinese or Russian history, at all? Do you have any idea what life was like in Russia, for the average Russian, under the Tsarist monarchy? it was really, really shit. Over 95% of the population were very poor farmer peasants with no rights, no, land - they owned nothing because everything was owned by tsar and rest of the aristocracy. The peasants were completely subservient to them. Most of money they did earn they had give to the aristocratic masters. Their quality of life was shit.That’s why the revolution happened!

Get your facts straight before you start bashing republicans.

I do not yearn to be any way like Ireland! Or any of these countries without a glittering royal family. Just staid men in suits that have power played their way to the top.

So "power playing their way to the top" is wrong. And yet over the centuries, royalty have "power-played" their way to the top by political scheming and in some cases, actually killing their opponents. That's the ultimate power-play. Why is okay for royalty but not for everyone else?

Ireland has was the first country in the world to have two succesive women presidents. Both were barristers and had varied and successful careers in addition to their political life and presidency.

Indeed, Cathy

Such a shame he couldn't have just politely asked for the pen set to be moved, or even gently moved it himself, but I guess when you're used to commanding things with a pettish flick of the hand it's a hard habit to break

It's a little thing in itself but says so much

Ahhhhhh. My people. I honestly thought I was the only republican here! Cannot understand why anyone wants to prop a monarchy up- especially one that has changed laws to solely benefit itself and has protected sex offenders. Nah. Thanks but no thanks.

the Queen only became Queen because of her Uncle abdicating

Her nazi-loving uncle had no children.

She'd have become queen at some point regardless.

All depends if he had had children.

History could have been very different.

Why on earth would you rather have an over privileged tax dodging family of elitists reigning over you than have a democratically elected president as they have in Ireland. It's baffling how anyone can think so.